Global Research

The New York Times’ fake news provocation alleging that Russia solicited the Taliban to kill American soldiers in Afghanistan aims to disrupt the country’s fragile peace process, reverse the minimal but nevertheless observable progress that was recently made towards reaching a “New Detente” between the US and Russia, and create complications in the Russian-Indian Strategic Partnership in the diplomatically tense aftermath of early June’s Galwan Incident.

Since Iranians ended a generation of US installed fascist tyranny in 1979, both militant wings of its war party waged state terror on the Islamic Republic and its people.

Its main strategy has been and continues to be weaponized sanctions.

Aiming to make Iran’s economy scream and its people suffer, they’re political instruments of mass destruction, a flagrant UN Charter breach — war by other means.

In 1996, the Vienna-based International Progress Organization called sanctions “an illegitimate form of collective punishment of the weakest and poorest members of society, the infants, the children, the chronically ill, and the elderly.”

Imposed to get targeted nations to bend to its will, US sanctions war on North Korea for around 70 years, on Cuba for over 60 years, Iran for over 40 years, Venezuela for over 20 years, and other countries failed to accomplish their objectives by turning their populations against their ruling authorities.

Yet they continue to be used as a weapon of war by other means against sovereign independent nations unwilling to bend to US interests.

The Trump regime escalated sanctions war on Iran well beyond where his predecessors went.

Last week, militantly hostile to Iran Pompeo said the following:

The Trump regime is “clear about our expectations (and) goals (sic).”

“We (demand that) the Islamic Republic of Iran behave like a normal nation (sic).”

“We’re happy to engage in conversations with them when the time is right (sic)…”

“(C)onditions that suggest somehow we give a bunch of money to the Iranians so they can foment terror around the world is simply ludicrous (sic).”

“It’s just not how (the Trump regime) behaves (sic).”

Fact: Intentions of both right wings of the US one-party state are crystal clear — seeking dominance over planet earth, its resources and populations by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives, war by hot and other means its favored strategies.

Fact: Even-handed US engagement with other nations was long ago abandoned. Demanding subservience to its interests replaced it.

Fact: Far and away, the US is the world’s leading proliferator of state terror, falsely blaming other nations for the highest of high crimes committed against them.

Fact: Iran is the region’s leading proponent of peace, stability, and mutual cooperation with other countries — notions the US rejects.

After countless unlawful rounds of unilaterally imposed sanctions on Iran, the US continues piling on more.

The latest ones target legitimate Iranian maritime operations engaged in international trade — beginning with five Iranian vessels that legally transported fuel and additives (alkylate) to Venezuela.

According to Trump’s Treasury Department, over 100 Iranian vessels and transport companies are being (unlawfully) sanctioned.

The Wall Street Journal reported that “(t)he Trump (regime intends) new sanctions against dozens of (Iranian) tankers while pressuring companies associated with those vessels” — aiming to “choke off oil and fuel trade between Iran and Venezuela.”

In mid-June, Press TV reported that “Iran plans monthly gasoline shipments to Venezuela,” its legal right under international law, adding:

“(A)n order was issued to Iran’s armed forces to identify and track several US merchant vessels in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman” as retaliatory targets if the Pentagon interdicts Iranian ships headed to Venezuela or anywhere else, Tehran’s legal right.

According to Iranian IRGC General Ali Jafarabadi, the nation’s Noor satellite launched in May is tracking movements of the country’s vessels in international waters.

Earlier in June, Bloomberg News reported that Trump regime “sanctions would be imposed (on Iranian vessels and its economy) through the Treasury Department…to avoid a US military confrontation,” adding:

“By showing that they were able to trade to mutual benefit,” Iran and Venezuela “not only successfully circumvented US sanctions, they also scored public relations points in the process.”

Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador said he’ll he’ll sell fuel to Venezuela if the Maduro government requests it.

Days earlier, Trump regime envoy for regime change in Iran Brian Hook said the White House “deflagged almost 150 Iranian tankers,” more pressure to “continue.”

The same holds for US policy toward Venezuela, the hemisphere’s leading social democracy Republicans and Dems want eliminated.

Last week, the Trump regime imposed illegal sanctions on “eight entities connected with Iran’s metal industry and designated an entity that transferred a material to Iran that is critical to Tehran’s metal plants,” the State Department reported.

Trump’s Treasury Department reported that US sanctions were imposed on “four steel, aluminum, and iron companies operating within Iran’s metals sector, including one subsidiary of Mobarakeh Steel Company – Iran’s largest steel manufacturer.”

In July 2018, Iran petitioned the International Criminal Court (ICJ) for relief from unilaterally imposed US sanctions, stressing that they violate international law and the 1955 US-Iran Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights.

Though the ICJ didn’t go far enough, it largely ruled for Iran against the US, saying in part:

The bilateral 1955 treaty “prohibits the United States from imposing restrictions or prohibitions on the import of any Iranian product or on the export of any product to Iran, unless the import or export of the like product from or to all third countries is similarly restricted or prohibited.”

Notably the ICJ’s ruling applies to Iranian imports “of goods required for humanitarian needs, such as (i) medicines and medical devices; and (ii) foodstuffs and agricultural commodities; as well as goods and services required for the safety of civil aviation, such as (iii) spare parts, equipment and associated services…”

Though the ICJ’s ruling is binding, the Trump regime ignored it.

Time and again, the US breaches international and its own constitutional law, operating by its own rules exclusively.

Iran is legally entitled to engage in international trade and other economic relations with other nations freely.

Obstructing it by the US is a breach of the UN Charter and other international law.

So is walking away from the JCPOA. Its unanimous adoption by Security Council member states made it binding international and US constitutional law.

US war on Iran by other means is all about wanting the nation transformed into a vassal state, along with gaining control over its vast hydrocarbon resources and eliminating Israel’s main regional rival.

What hasn’t worked since 1979 is unlikely to succeed ahead.

Iranian Foreign Minister Zarif explained why, saying:

“(T)he US government is growing more isolated day by day due to its wrong and extremist policies and as a result of its own excessive demands on other countries.”

Over time, its hostile agenda makes enemies and alienates allies.

It’s declining geopolitically while other nations are rising. Policies under Trump advanced things much further in this direction.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

---

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

For two months, most gas stations in Caracas were closed. The few that were running, under military supervision, had car queues stretching for over a mile. And that taking into account that fuel was only to be sold to priority sectors amid the coronavirus pandemic, such as healthcare and food.

At the same time, there was a growing number of complaints against mostly military officers for illegally smuggling gasoline from stations and shamelessly reselling it for 1, 2, 3 or even 4 dollars per liter. There were also those who sold their posts in the queue. This scenario would have been much, much worse if it had not taken place during a strict quarantine.

This situation, which has been a reality for months or even years outside the capital, was reminiscent of the times when food or medicines were scarce. Waiting in long queues to buy what little arrived, when it arrived, people started to clamor “we want the stuff to be available, even if it’s expensive, we don’t care.” And true enough, products reappeared. They were expensive, but they reappeared, to the point that many could no longer afford them.

In the case of gasoline, everyone, one way or another, agrees on what causes the shortages. First of all, the drop in oil production, since without producing oil you cannot refine it. Secondly, the lack of investment and resulting decay of national refineries. The third factor, closely related to the previous one, are unilateral US sanctions, since the country relies on importing repair parts, now prohibited by the blockade. These factors are compounded by other imbalances. For example, the cost of fuel, which was, without exaggeration, given away for free. After the (August 2018) monetary reconversion, which knocked out five zeroes from the currency, gas prices were never adjusted.

“The cheapest gasoline in the world,” sooner or later, would turn out to be very costly. You could see it coming.

A similar story had taken place in the case of those food and personal hygiene staples which went scarce – their regulated prices had become frozen in time. But this time there is a significant difference: before, our wages allowed us to say “yes, may the products come back, even if expensive.” Nowadays, prices force us to say: “yes, we need to charge for gasoline, but we need a salary raise in order to be able to afford it.”

These past few years, we Venezuelans have had to endure seeing our reality analyzed through absurd comparisons or tolerate hearing that “we want everything for free.” One one hand, we find those who say Venezuela is worse off than Haiti because our minimum wage is US $4, and on the other those who say we are better off than Norway because public services are free. Both readings of the situation are really, really basic.

Although, truth be told, many no longer know what to think. Some who used to defend the nationalization of basic industries now, confronted with blackouts and water shortages, are tempted into thinking “maybe if a businessman controls it, he can invest, and we’ll be better off.” In this way, worse than the decay we are living, it seems like it is being wiped from our memories that states can be efficient, that workers’ control can work, to be replaced with the idea that the people cannot manage their own destiny.

Amidst all this, the political sectors offer very little. The government scored a wonderful political victory when it received the fuel tankers from Iran in defiance of threats from Washington. But, should “oil-rich Venezuela” really celebrate the arrival of fuel from the other side of the world without wondering what has happened beyond sanctions? The country has a large scale refining industry almost paralyzed, and no one offers a clear explanation.

Meanwhile, the opposition does nothing more than criticize the measures undertaken by Maduro, but without offering any solutions. For example, there are refining products that are not produced in Venezuela but which were imported from CITGO, PDVSA’s US subsidiary. This company was seized by the Trump administration and handed to opposition leader Juan Guaido. And despite having created a “parallel government,” Guaido will not move a finger to solve the problems affecting the people. Quite the contrary, CITGO is about to be auctioned off by a US court.

Finally, and for now, the gasoline is here. We are allowed 120 liters at a subsidized 5000 BsS ($0.025) a liter, and after that, each liter is sold at the “international price” of $0.50. A thousand gas stations run by the state selling the subsidized version and 200 in private hands selling the $0.50 one, though nobody really knows who these private actors are nor what role they play in the distribution chain. Do they import gasoline themselves? Do they buy it from the state and resell it?

At first, the queues went on. But after having gas stations open 24/7, we can say that some “normality” has returned, and the issue has disappeared from corporate news agencies which are only interested in rubbing salt in Venezuelan wounds. However, what comes next? How long will supplies last? What do we do then? What are the chances of restarting our production? No leader gives us clear glimpses of anything.

Neither do we know for sure what economic repercussions this new gasoline model is going to have. And, beyond that, only time will tell how these developments will affect our conceptions of what the oft-mentioned “socialism” should or should not be. Because the idea of the Bolivarian Revolution was precisely democratizing access to food, education, housing, gasoline, even the cars that depend on it. Somewhere along the way this became impossible, and the government tried to palliate it with food boxes or subsidized quotas for this or that, but is that the same thing? Is surrendering (or returning) sectors to “the market” while keeping a small portion for people the only solution in the face of constant US sanctions and attacks? Do we need to change part of the project to avoid hunger and an invasion? All of this becomes even more confusing when it is not clear what is a step forward or a step backward. When are we going to discuss this?

*

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.

Jessica Dos Santos is a Venezuelan university professor, journalist and writer whose work has appeared in outlets such as RT, Épale CCS magazine and Investig’Action. She is the author of the book “Caracas en Alpargatas” (2018) and a university professor. She’s won the Aníbal Nazoa Journalism Prize in 2014 and received honorable mentions in the Simón Bolívar National Journalism prize in 2016 and 2018.

Featured image is from Venezuelanalysis.com

The real question is not whether the status of Kosovo and Metohija should be negotiated; the actual questions to be asked are: On which basis? About what? Whom with?

The sole legitimate basis is that Kosovo and Metohija is an integral part of Serbia currently placed under UN mandate, pending a Security Council decision ending it. In other words, this is mandate cannot be terminated either by the EU, or NATO, the USA, Germany, or France and, should this idea ever occurred to anyone, Serbia cannot end it, either.

International law (the UN Charter, the OSCE Final Act) and the Constitution of Serbia are the only starting points carrying any prospect of successful negotiating, and not any trade law.

Since UNSC Resolution 1244 is a fundamental, global compromise, and since it has not been fully implemented, the basic logic begs that the subject of negotiation be the full application and concretisation of this legally and generally binding comprehensive document without any recourse to its evasion, selection, negation, or revision.

The single guarantor of a possible agreement on future status can only be the UN Security Council.

The Brussels Agreement is Baroness Ashton’s unconstitutional dictate and could hardly be construed as anything else. While it stopped short of changing the status of Kosovo and Metohija, it did substantially alter the reality in the north of this Province, where it effected the removal of the constitutional and legal order of the Republic of Serbia and, by virtue of a signature on behalf of Serbia, the establishment of an unlawful separatist and terrorist order.

Regardless of a culprit, any previous errors made to the detriment of Serbia and the Serbian people ought to be remedied by not making fresh ones and by not justifying oneself by wrongdoings of predecessors.

Reciprocity is not a proper term for the relation of Serbia as an entirety vis-à-vis Kosovo and Metohija as her part.

The struggle for the upholding of the constitutional order, and for the observance of international law and resolutions adopted by the UN Security Council cannot be put on equal terms with ambition to legitimise separatism, terrorism, and aggression.

It was a huge mistake to accept the terms for the meeting in Washington DC and yet another one-sided concession.

Serbia is fighting for her sovereignty and territorial integrity which therefore also include the interests of Serbs in Kosovo and Metohija as a people, and not as merely members of a national minority.

Unprincipled positions championed by Ms Merkel and Presidents Macron and Trump are but an exhibition of the policy of force and their narrow-minded geopolitics, and cannot be taken as an obligation for Serbia, the UN Security Council and the global community.

It is only the principled approach to the resolving of status of Kosovo and Metohija which is capable of contributing to peace in the Balkans and in Europe. Otherwise, arbitrariness and trampling on rights and UN Security Council Resolution 1244 are steps closer in the direction of general confrontation and new clashes.

The leaders of aggressor countries, exponents of policy of domination and conflict and outgoing leaders cannot be the guarantors of Serbian interests. This role is exclusively reserved for the United Nations Security Council.

*

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.

Živadin Jovanović is President of the Belgrade Forum for a World of Equals. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research  

On reading the enduring horrific daily news coming out of Palestine/Israel relating to the ongoing Jewish-state Nakba, I invariably feel a strong desire to discuss what is often the elephant in the room. It’s an issue constantly on the minds of Israelis and Palestinians alike, while at the same time being difficult to discuss frankly and directly in polite society.

The issue is Jewish supremacy as it manifests itself in the Zionist settler-colonial state of Israel and beyond. (See my blog post, What is Jewish supremacy and how is it different from White supremacy?). I say “beyond”, because there is a strong existing connection to Israel by ‘ordinary’ Jews outside of Israel/Palestine, whose Jewish communities, in Europe and America, feed Israel. Even at a mature age they go there, either to visit or to stay (which is a support and confirmation for the state), but more often to serve in the military which is the most militant of brainwashing in Jewish supremacy.

Most activists skirt the issue of Jewish supremacy and some deny it outright in a way they would not dream of doing with White supremacy. The only safe place to discuss the issue of Jewish supremacy, it sometimes appears, is within the confines of Mondoweiss.

But even there, we are more likely to read forceful critiques debunking the Zionist idea of a ‘Jewish nation’ as sold to the world by the world Zionist movement. A necessary exercise. Nevertheless, I often wonder, what about the concomitant fact of the religious Jewish character of the state as expressed in its Basic Law? What about the self-professed Jewish identity of millions of Jews, in Israel and outside Israel — not to mention Palestinian perceptions of them — as Jews first, and Zionist second?

It therefore seems at times that, in order to liberate Palestine from the Zionist settler-colonial regime, Palestinians must first undertake the impossible task of convincing the world that those who espouse the Zionist settler-colonial regime are less Jewish than Zionist, which of course strips them of their self-identified Jewish identity and is unacceptable to them.

More and more Jews worldwide today are saying “not in our name”, in reference to Israel’s crimes against the Palestinian people. However, they too, don’t have the power to rename Israeli Jews as something else. This brings to mind Israel’s chief rabbi’s statement that “some Jews are more Jewish than others.”

When we talk about Israel, we can discuss apartheid, demographics, settler-colonialism, but we are often silenced when the issue is Jewish supremacy and the Jewish nature of the state — issues that are central to Israeli society as well as to the current and future dynamics of Palestinian-Israeli relations.

If the goal of all the analysis about Israel is to find realistic solutions for an impossible status quo, we ought not to dismiss this very real and troubling issue. It doesn’t make sense to do so.

In a 2015 article published online and titled ‘Palestine‒Israel: Decolonization Now, Peace Later’, Alaa Tartir (researcher at the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva, Switzerland and a policy advisor at Al-Shabaka) lists a number of basic but fundamental obstacles to any future lasting peace in Israel/Palestine. Among them is the following characterization of Israeli society:

Another dominant observation that I noticed in my small, random and unrepresentative sample is the sense of superiority [among Israeli Jews]. liberal, leftist, fundamentalists, secular, religious and progressive voices, from different generations living in different cities, shared the feature of superiority, which is problematic at the very personal and human level, before it extends to politics. Statements like ‘we are God’s chosen nation’, ‘we don’t care about international law’, ‘we help those poor Palestinians to end the occupation’, ‘we offer Palestinians jobs and they work for us’, ‘Gaza is irrelevant’, ‘I have Palestinian friends but would never trust them’ characterized the discussions. Therefore, unless ‘ordinary’ Israelis perceive themselves as ordinary people and not superior to other nations it is impossible to imagine how a one-state or two-state solution could work.

Tartir goes on to say,

Just as the Palestinian people and leadership need to engage in a serious process of reforming their strategies, so do the Israelis. The Israelis need to reconcile internally a number of issues mainly related to the apartheid structures, Jewish supremacy, the Jewish nature of the state, the demographic phobia and the return of the Palestinian refugees from exile.

When we are forced to ignore the perceptions of Israelis and their set of values and beliefs (which are the root manifestation of the Zionist Jewish state in Palestine), when we are unable to confront them candidly, we Palestinians will never be able to achieve justice and equality.

Lena, a former Israeli, writes:

Many Jews, even if not overtly Zionist, share this basic belief that in order to prevent another extermination, they must become DOMINANT and exercise superiority, because “this is how the world works, either you dominate or be exterminated”. Although nobody ever has persecuted or offended these young Jews, they share the view of Goyim as a bunch of people who inherently want to erase Jews from this planet. I honestly do not know how to combat a basic belief that the world is based on domination, that whoever does not dominate will be subjugated or killed, that Jews must forever fight against an inherent existential threat, therefore not letting them dominate is the same as wanting them all dead.

Lena describes the mindset of any group of people who have been conditioned to see the world through us vs. them.

“Confronting the occupier, colonizer or oppressor is the main lesson from the history of liberation movements across the world,” writes Tartir. We must confront Israelis on the issue of Jewish supremacy, as on all others.

*

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.

Rima Najjar is a Palestinian whose father’s side of the family comes from the forcibly depopulated village of Lifta on the western outskirts of Jerusalem and whose mother’s side of the family is from Ijzim, south of Haifa. She is an activist, researcher and retired professor of English literature, Al-Quds University, occupied West Bank. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

John Bolton’s new memoir “The Room Where It Happened,” which came out two days ago in spite of White House attempts to block it, is the standard kiss and tell that senior American politicians and officials tend to write to make money for their retirement. There should be no question but that Bolton has done his best to cast the president in as bad a light as possible, which is easily done considering that communicating by twitter and through insults leaves a lot of room for second guessing about motive and intentions.

As required by law, Bolton’s book was reviewed for classified information starting in December, and when the process was finished it was started all over again, making clear that the tit for tat over the contents was essentially political and unrelated to national security. Having failed to stop the publication, the Trump Justice Department will now move to take away Bolton’s earnings from the book, a tactic that originated back in the 1970s with CIA whistleblower Frank Snepp’s “Decent Interval.” Critics of the security review process have noted that when a book says nice things about the government it is rarely interfered with no matter what classified information it might reveal, while a work that is unfriendly can expect to be hammered and delayed by the state secrets bureaucracy.

Why Donald Trump hired leading neoconservative John Bolton in the first place remains somewhat of a mystery, but the most plausible theory is that the number one GOP donor Sheldon Adelson demanded it. Adelson regards Bolton as something of a protégé and was particularly taken by Bolton’s enthusiasm for attacking Iran, something that the Las Vegas casino magnate and the Israeli government of Benjamin Netanyahu both passionately desired.

After months of an apparently difficult tenure as National Security Advisor, John Bolton was finally fired from the White House on September 10, 2019, but the post mortem on why it took so long to remove him continued for some time afterwards, with the punditry and media trying to understand exactly what happened and why. Perhaps the most complete explanation for what occurred came from President Donald Trump himself shortly after the fact. He said, in some impromptu comments, that his national security advisor had “…made some very big mistakes when he talked about the Libyan model for Kim Jong Un. That was not a good statement to make. You just take a look at what happened with Gadhafi. That was not a good statement to make. And it set us back.”

Incredible as it may seem, Trump had a point in that Bolton was clearly suggesting that North Korea get rid of its nuclear weapons in exchange for economic benefits, but it was the wrong example to pick as Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi gave up his weapons and was then ousted and brutally killed in a rebel uprising that was supported by Washington. The Bolton analogy, which may have been deliberate attempt to sabotage any rapprochement, made impossible any agreement between Kim and Trump as Kim received the message loud and clear that he might suffer the same fate.

Subsequently, Bolton might have been behind media leaks that scuttled Trump’s plan to meet with Taliban representatives and that also, acting on behalf of Israel, undercut a presidential suggestion that he might meet with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani. Trump summed up his disagreements with Bolton by saying that the National Security Advisor “wasn’t getting along” with other administration officials, adding that “Frankly he wanted to do things — not necessarily tougher than me. John’s known as a tough guy. He’s so tough he got us into Iraq. That’s tough. But he’s somebody that I actually had a very good relationship with, but he wasn’t getting along with people in the administration who I consider very important. And you know John wasn’t in line with what we were doing. And actually in some cases he thought it was too tough, what we were doing. Mr. Tough Guy.”

Trump’s final comment on Bolton was that “I’m sure he’ll do whatever he can do to spin it his way,” a throw-away line that pretty much predicted the writing of the book. Bolton has many supporters among hardliners in the GOP and the media as well as among democracy promoting progressive Trump haters and it will be interesting to see what damage can be inflicted on the president’s reelection campaign.

Pre-publication reviews have focused on the takeaways from the book. The most damaging claim appears to be that Donald Trump asked the Chinese government to buy more agricultural products from the U.S. to help American farmers, which the president described as a key constituency for his reelection. Bolton claims that Trump specifically asked Chinese President Xi Jinping to buy American soybeans and other farm commodities and, as a possible quid pro quo, Trump intervened to reduce some financial penalties imposed on the Chinese telecommunications company ZTE for evading sanctions on Iran and North Korea.

Also concerning China, Bolton asserts that the president encouraged Xi to continue building concentration camps for the Muslim Uighurs, a religious and ethnic minority largely concentrated in the country’s Xinjiang region. The context of the alleged comment is not clear, nor is it easy to imagine how the subject even came up, so the claim might be regarded as exaggerated or even apocryphal. Bolton was not even present when the alleged conversation took place and only learned of it second hand.

Other claims made by Bolton include that Trump didn’t know that Britain was a nuclear power and that Finland is not part of Russia. The book also describes in some detail how Trump spent most of his time in White House intelligence briefings presenting his own views instead of listening to what analysts from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) offices had to say.

That Donald Trump was a poor student and is an intellectual lightweight has been noted by many observers. Combining that with his essential lack of curiosity about the world and its peoples means that he does not know much about foreigners and the places they live in. But it is both condescending and somewhat of a cheap trick by Bolton to pillory him for his ignorance.

The media’s vision of the most damaging charge, that Trump colluded with the Chinese, is, quite frankly ridiculous. Buying American agricultural products is in the interest of both farmers and the U.S. economy. Reducing penalties on a major Chinese company as a sweetener and to mitigate bilateral tensions is called diplomacy. Of course, anything a president does with a foreign country will potentially have an impact when reelection time rolls along, but it would be difficult to suggest that Trump did anything wrong.

The Bolton book has also been critiqued by some, including the New York Times, as the exposure of “a president who sees his office as an instrument to advance his own personal and political interests over those of the nation.” Bolton writes how “Throughout my West Wing tenure, Trump wanted to do what he wanted to do, based on what he knew and what he saw as his own best personal interests… I am hard-pressed to identify any significant Trump decision during my tenure that wasn’t driven by re-election calculations.”

Trump is, to be sure, a man who has subordinated the dignity of the office he holds to personal ambition, but he differs more in the pervasiveness of his actions than in the substance. Many other presidents have made many of the same calculations as Trump though they have been more restrained and careful about expressing them.

Finally, a number of editors who have read review copies of the book have observed how badly written and organized it is. If anyone is looking for a real indictment of Donald Trump and all his works, they will not find it in the Bolton book. Apart from the new information it provides, which seems little enough, it would appear to be a waste of $20 to possibly enrich an author who has been promoting and saying “more please” to America’s wars for the past 20 years.

*

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 M. Giraldi, Ph.D., is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a 501(c)3 tax deductible educational foundation (Federal ID Number #52-1739023) that seeks a more interests-based U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East. Website is https://councilforthenationalinterest.org,address is P.O. Box 2157, Purcellville VA 20134 and its email is [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Amazon

Despite what appears to be a terminal decline of US influence over the Middle East, Washington has no intentions of gracefully abandoning its aspirations of regional hegemony.

Air strikes carried out against Syria by Washington’s Israeli proxies, a mysterious explosion near Tehran, and the current Iraqi Prime Minister’s decision to round up leaders of Iranian-backed militias who helped defeat the self-proclaimed “Islamic State” (ISIS) unfolded in quick succession in an apparent coordinated campaign aimed at Iran and its allies.

The Washington DC-based Al Monitor in an article titled, “Suspected Israeli airstrikes hit various locations in Syria,” would claim:

Suspected Israeli airstrikes hit Syrian military and Iran-backed militia sites Tuesday night and early Wednesday morning. There are differing reports on the casualties.

This morning’s aerial assault targeted Syrian military sites outside the central city of Hama.

Days later, under orders by Iraq’s new prime minister – Mustafa Al-Kadhimi – Iraqi security forces raided the headquarters of an Iranian-backed militia detaining several leaders.

Reuters in its article, “Iraqi forces raid Iran-backed militia base, detain commanders: government sources,” would claim:

Iraqi security forces raided a headquarters belonging to a powerful Iran-backed militia in southern Baghdad late on Thursday, seized rockets and detained three commanders of the group, two Iraqi government officials said.

The officials said the militia group targeted was the Iran-backed Kataib Hezbollah, which U.S. officials have accused of firing rockets at bases hosting U.S. troops and other facilities in Iraq.

Iraq has been under significant pressure from the US to roll back growing ties with Iran and still hosts thousands of US troops illegally occupying its territory as well as a myriad of militant groups the US and its regional allies back either openly or covertly including Al Qaeda and ISIS itself.

More recently, a massive explosion took place just southeast of Iran’s capital, Tehran. While Iranian officials claim it was an accident at a civilian gas storage facility, pro-war elements across the West have insisted it was the result of an attack on a military complex located in the region.

Should it turn out to be an attack – US proxies – either Israel or US-backed terrorists operating inside Iran are most likely responsible representing a strategy laid out by US policymakers as early as 2009 in their own papers – particularly and explicitly in the Brookings Institution’s 2009 paper, “Which Path to Persia? Options for a New American Strategy Toward Iran” (PDF) under chapters including, “Allowing or Encouraging an Israeli Military Strike,” and “Inspiring an Insurgency: Supporting Iranian Minority And Opposition Groups.”

The timing of the explosion, following two highly provocative moves made against Iran and its allies in the region suggest the US is attempting to escalate tensions with Iran to save its fading influence in the Middle East.

New Iraqi Prime Minister’s Checkered Past 

Prime Minister Mustafa Al-Kadhimi took office in May 2020.

While he has warned about deepening relations with Iran he has concurrently stated the importance of US backing – despite the US having illegally invaded, destroyed, and since occupied Iraq starting in 2003.

His past – including his exile in London and his US National Endowment for Democracy (NED) linked Iraq Memory Foundation as well as his regular contributions to the above mentioned Washington DC-based Al Monitor call into serious question his ability to protect Iraq’s sovereignty as well as Iraq’s best interests.

On the Iraq Memory Foundation’s own website under “About,” it admits its genesis as a spin-off of a US NED funded Harvard-based front called the Iraq Research and Documentation Project (IRDP). The website claims (emphasis added):

The Memory Foundation is an outgrowth of the Iraq Research and Documentation Project (IRDP), founded by Kanan Makiya at the Center of Middle East Studies at Harvard University in 1992. In 1993, the IRDP developed a plan to create an archive that would organize and preserve the documents already in its possession for more long-term scholarly purposes. Utilizing a 1993 grant from the Bradley Foundation, followed by a 1994 bridging grant from the National Endowment for Democracy, the IRDP began its work processing the small collection of documents in Makiya’s personal possession and transcribing interviews conducted with Iraqi refugees. The IRDP continued to receive and process small datasets over the next ten years.

Regarding Al-Kadhimi himself, the website notes that he previously worked as:

the director of programming for Radio Free Europe’s Iraq service from 1999 to 2003. He also participated in launching the Iraqi Media Network as the Director of Planning and Programming immediately after the fall of Saddam Hussein regime in 2003. Since leaving Al-Iraqiya he has worked with the Iraq Memory Foundation, researching, directing and producing numerous filmed oral history testimonies with survivors of the Saddam Hussein regime.

Radio Free Europe – according to its own website – “is funded by a grant from the U.S. Congress through the United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM).”

In an age where simply holding views similar to that of nations like Russia earn among the Western media labels like “Russian agent,” Iraq’s current prime minister was literally on the payroll of the US government. The website also notes that he produced documentaries for British state programming including the BBC.

All of Al-Kadhimi’s efforts fed directly into US war propaganda used to justify Washington’s military aggression against Iraq for decades.

Al-Kadhimi also was a regular contributor to Al Monitor – which despite attempting to appear as a Middle Eastern news source – is actually based in Washington DC and headed by American corporate-funded think tank staff and lobbyists.

Al Monitor’s president and chief content officer – Andrew Parasiliti – for example has an extensive background in US corporate-funded foundations and lobbying groups which regular receive money from big-oil, defense contractors, and other multi-billion dollar multinational interests to engineer and promote wars and interventions abroad.

The Al Monitor’s biography for Parasiliti states:

He previously served as director of RAND’s Center for Global Risk and Security and international marketing manager of RAND’s National Security Research Division; editor of Al-Monitor; executive director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies-US and corresponding director, IISS-Middle East; a principal at the BGR Group; foreign policy advisor to US Senator Chuck Hagel; director of the Middle East Initiative at Harvard University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government; and director of programs at the Middle East Institute.

Al Monitor clearly serves as yet another vehicle for promoting US intervention and influence abroad.

And it was in Al Monitor that now Iraqi PM Al-Kadhimi wrote articles like his 2015 piece, “US-Iraqi relations need a reset,” in which he presented a skewed version of history from 2003 onward – ignoring the false pretense used by the US to invade Iraq in the first place and the utter destruction and division sown throughout the country ever since.

He also mischaracterizes the appearance of ISIS in 2014 – failing to link America’s supposed withdrawal from Iraq and the serendipitous appearance of the terrorist organization and the opportunity it provided the US to reoccupy Iraq on terms more favorable to Washington. Nothing about ISIS’ US and Saudi funding and arming was mentioned.

He concluded the piece claiming:

US-Iraqi relations since 2003 demonstrate that when ties between the two countries become weak or marginal, it paves the way for external actors to enter and jeopardize common US-Iraqi regional interests. Thus, Washington and Baghdad need to reassess their relationship to develop an effective strategy to help restore the balance of power in the region and ensure their mutual interests.   

When Iraq’s current PM Al-Kadhimi talks about “restoring the balance of power in the region” he is referring to the balance of power the US created and whose benefits only the US and its closest proxies enjoy, all at the cost of everyone else. Al-Kadhimi also made reference in his Al Monitor op-ed to the US propaganda vehicle “the axis of evil” – years after even the US abandoned it as a viable excuse to remain militarily engaged in the region.

While it is difficult to say what sort of leader Al-Kadhimi will ultimately be, his checkered past and his unpromising start signal a period of heightened conflict and instability within Iraq as this previously eager US proxy attempts to steer Iraq in a direction its people and its national economic and political ties do not and cannot go.

US Middle East War is Unwinnable, but Far from Over 

The US and its allies provide Iraq with no genuine political or economic ties or development – and are using the nation as a base for sowing conflict throughout the region – conflict that will ultimately negatively impact Iraq’s own political and economic stability.

It is an unsustainable strategy since the vast majority of Iraqis – whether they are pro-Iranian or not – would chose political and economic stability over being an expendable pawn in Washington’s overseas aggression.

The entire region is attempting – somewhat successfully – to move out from under the shadow of US hegemony and its corrosive effects. While in recent years the US has suffered multiple failures and is incrementally being uprooted from the region – it remains a dangerous hegemon with formidable military, political, and economic weapons arrayed against the Middle East.

Washington’s desperation is highlighted by its increasing need to resort to increasingly less effective violence as the deterrence of its once global might fades and nations begin testing and rolling back the edges of its crumbling hegemony.

It will take time and patience to weather the parting blows of the “American Empire” and its presence in the Middle East – a parting that will take many more years to come and one in which acts of desperation could still lead to catastrophic, open regional war.

Despite the past of characters like Iraqi PM Al-Kadhimi – there is always the possibility that events on the ground will sway policies to continue away from American meddling and aggression and toward peace and stability – something Al-Kadhimi and everyone else in Iraq will benefit from far more than maintaining unawarded loyalty to Washington.

It will be a matter of nations like Iran and its allies keeping doors and avenues open for characters like Al-Kadhimi to escape through – tempting them in the right direction and away from the fate of other “successful” US regime change projects in places like Libya and Ukraine.

*

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.

Tony Cartalucci is a Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

One of France’s leading daily papers, Le Monde, just published an article on how “a group of toxicologists with tenuous expertise and veiled conflicts of interest are working to derail the implementation of European regulations” on endocrine disruptors – synthetic chemicals that are toxic at very low doses.

Chief among the phony experts that the paper suggests are polluting the scientific record is a Monsanto consultant who led the company’s efforts to defend glyphosate via science publications. And Helmut Greim is not the only one of the group currently defending endocrine disruptors to have featured heavily in the debates over the safety of glyphosate and GMOs.

The largest-circulation daily in The Netherlands, De Telegraaf, has also recently highlighted another group of dubious “experts” involved in targeting researchers who point to the potential health hazards of industry products. And curiously enough, this group of commentators also have a history of dismissing the dangers of glyphosate.

Polluting the scientific record

In the Le Monde piece, helpfully republished in English by Environmental Health News, Stéphane Horel and Stéphane Foucart describe how a group of nineteen “experts” simultaneously published an identical opinion piece in six different scientific journals dismissing the dangers of endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) and opposing their regulation. This carefully orchestrated publication was timed to coincide with some important decision making that is underway in Brussels on how to develop regulation of these chemicals.

Tufts University biologist Ana Soto, a pioneering expert in the field, dismisses these authors as “self-proclaimed experts with no expertise”. And Linda Birnbaum, a toxicologist who formerly headed the US’s National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) told Le Monde, “Frankly, I find it inexcusable that the same commentary can be published in [6] different journals.” She believes that each of the minor toxicology journals in question is edited by one or other of the authors of the commentary.

Thomas Backhaus, Professor for Ecotoxicology and Environmental Sciences at the University of Gothenburg in Sweden, has been equally outspoken, tweeting, “The same (politically charged) opinion piece on endocrine disrupting chemicals … published simultaneously in six (!) journals? That’s embarrassing. For the authors, the journal’s editors and the publisher [Elsevier]”. Backhaus calls it “blatant self-plagiarism” that not only pollutes the scientific record but violates “even the most basic ethics of scientific publishing”.

To Backhaus, it “seems as if the authors/editors assume that ‘whoever whines the loudest will win the argument.’ Where are we? In Kindergarten? Recently graduated from Trump University?”

But Backhaus almost certainly underestimates how effective such noisy onslaughts can be. According to Le Monde, this is not the first time that these “experts” have made this kind of carefully timed intervention: “In 2013, a similar initiative by the core group of the same toxicologists contributed to derailing an ongoing EU legislative process and delayed the elaboration of the EDC regulation for several years.”

Hidden conflicts of interest

Such tactics have become increasingly familiar since they were first deployed by scientists working in league with Big Tobacco. And a key ingredient in their success is keeping industry ties concealed.

Thus, even though the 19 toxicologists all avow that they have no conflicts of interest, the Le Monde authors’ investigations led them to conclude, “In total, at least 15 of these 19 scientists have had ties with the chemical, pesticide, fossil fuel or tobacco industries over the course of their careers.”

A good example is the “corresponding author” for the multi-published opinion piece, Helmut Greim. This long-retired professor of toxicology declares no conflicts of interest, despite having been a consultant for the Japanese chemical firm Sumitomo and part of a panel for the US industry lobby group, the American Chemistry Council, as recently as 2019. Greim has also been a member of the scientific committee of Ecetoc, the European scientific think tank of the chemical industry, for nearly 20 years.

Ghostwriting scandal

But regular readers of GMWatch will know Greim best as a member of the expert panels convened and funded by Monsanto to defend the safety of glyphosate against the verdict of the World Health Organization’s cancer agency IARC that this chemical is a probable human carcinogen. Greim had also prior to that been directly employed as a consultant by Monsanto and in the words of the company, “as part of that consulting relationship, published peer-reviewed data regarding glyphosate” in a paper co-authored with a Monsanto employee.

A year later in 2016, as part of the pushback against the IARC verdict, Greim authored two papers defending glyphosate’s safety that were among a set of five published in the scientific journal Critical Reviews in Toxicology. These, it later emerged, had been so heavily influenced by Monsanto that the journal publisher Taylor & Francis decided to retract three of them, including one co-authored by Greim, because the authors had falsely declared Monsanto had had no involvement in the papers.

That wasn’t the end of the story, however. As Dr Nathan Donley of The Center for Biological Diversity explains,

“The publisher reversed that decision when the editor of Critical Reviews in Toxicology threw a temper tantrum over email.” Donley calls this ghostwriting scandal “One of the most depraved episodes in scientific publishing I have witnessed.”

Long before he took to defending glyphosate, Greim did the same for dioxin and PCBs, substances now accepted as highly toxic. In the case of PCBs, Prof Erich Schöndorf, a former public prosecutor, said of Greim:

“He was a phony expert. He didn’t deserve to be recognised as an ‘expert’ or ‘subject specialist’. He clearly stood on the manufacturer’s side and had nothing to do with impartial scientific methodology.”

Multiple consultancies, no conflicts of interest

Someone else caught up in the Monsanto ghostwriting scandal was the retired pathologist Sir Colin Berry, who was a co-author with Greim of one of the papers Taylor & Francis wanted retracted. He is also one of the co-authors with Greim of the commentary claiming that further study and regulation of the impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals is not warranted. Despite declaring no conflicts of interest, Berry has been a consultant for BASF, Bayer, DuPont and Monsanto, according to Le Monde, as well as chairing Syngenta’s “ethics committee” – a paid position.

Berry, as we have previously reported, was also involved in the attacks on Prof Gilles-Eric Séralini’s long-term study showing adverse effects of a GM maize and the glyphosate-based Roundup herbicide on rats. He has also served on the advisory board of Sense About Science, which has been accused of using science to tip the scales towards industry.

More dubious experts

There are certain parallels with the group of dubious “experts” highlighted by the investigative journalists Jannes van Roermund and Paul Thacker in their recent De Telegraaf article. These include David Robert Grimes, who, like Berry, “has ties with Sense About Science”. Needless to say, Grimes has declared that there is “no reputable evidence that glyphosate causes cancer” and that “it is extremely irresponsible to state otherwise”, despite IARC – the world’s foremost experts on the issue – classifying glyphosate as probably carcinogenic to humans.

Grimes is among a group of science bloggers that the Dutch article suggests engage in attacks aimed at shaming industry-critical scientists, most recently over 5G. This group includes Alex Berezow, a director of the American Council of Science and Health (ACSH), which is known to have been funded by Monsanto – with one Monsanto executive declaring, “You WILL NOT GET A BETTER VALUE FOR YOUR DOLLAR than ACSH”, and asking the group to help defend glyphosate against IARC.

Dismiss and defame

Also on van Roermund and Thacker’s list are Hank Campbell, a former president of ACSH, and David Zaruk, a former chemical industry lobbyist who blogs as “The Risk-Monger”. Both are extremely controversial figures. Campbell, for instance, has been accused of publishing Nazi eugenic blog posts via his Science 2.0 nonprofit. Zaruk, who, along with Campbell, is one of the officers of Science 2.0, gained his own notoriety for his vicious attacks on the leading US cancer expert Prof Christopher Portier, who was consulted by IARC during its decision making on glyphosate. These attacks deployed a string of epithets that included “demon”, “rat”, “slimeball”, “mercenary”, and even “little shit”.

Van Roermund and Thacker quote Professor Ton Hol, chairman of the Committee on Scientific Integrity of the Universities of Utrecht and Tilburg, as saying that the way such science bloggers attack and ridicule critical scientists, despite themselves lacking real expertise, “is very worrying. This gives the audience the message: you should not take all critical voices seriously. Nonsense, it has nothing to do with science, but people believe it.”

Professor Hol says it is important that scientists and investigative journalists respond to these attempts to muddy the waters and drown out concerns: “This has to be exposed.”

It’s encouraging that this is increasingly happening, despite it often engendering a new round of vilification and abuse from those fighting for the right of corporations to keep selling their products without critical scrutiny.

*

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 is from GMWatch

ISIS announced a new series of attacks against the Syrian Army in the Homs-Deir Ezzor desert. According to the terrorist group’s news agency Amaq, ISIS cells ambushed an army unit near the town of al-Sukhna killing 2 soldiers, injuring a third one and capturing a vehicle. This attack became the second successful ISIS raid in the desert area in less than a week. The previous one took place south of al-Mayadin and resulted in the killing of 8 Syrian troops.

On June 25 and June 26, the Syrian Air Force and the Russian Aerospace Forces conducted intense airstrikes on the detected ISIS hideouts south of the Palmyra-Deir Ezzor highway. According to pro-government sources, at least one weapon depot and 2 vehicles were eliminated. The precise number of ISIS casualties remains unclear.

The pro-Turkish coalition of militant groups, the National Front for Liberation, repelled an imaginary attack of Russian special forces in southern Idlib. According to militants, they killed 2 Russian personnel and 2 Syrian soldiers in intense fighting in the village of Benin on June 25. The only problem with this version is that neither the Syrian Army nor Russian forces conducted offensive operations in the area, according to local sources.

Clashes between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and militants from the Fa Ithbatu coalition continue in the countryside of Idlib. The sides briefly reached a tactical ceasefire on June 25 and even removed checkpoints between Idlib city mostly controlled by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and the town of Jisr al-Shughur, which is the Fa Ithbatu rear base.

Nonetheless, as of June 26 the fighting once again resumed after Hayat Tahrir al-Sham attacked positions of Horas al-Din and Ansar al-Din near the villages of Yacubiyeh and al-Janoudiyah. Intense fighting was also ongoing near Arab Said. Local sources claim that both sides are now using battle tanks.

According to supporters of Fa Ithbatu, the al-Qaeda-linked coalition captured 2 battle tanks belonging to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and damaged another one. Hayat Tahrir al-Sham says it’s ready to accept a ceasefire only if Horas al-Din, Ansar al-Din and other members of Fa Ithbatu remove checkpoints that they have established near Idlib city over the past few days.

Control over the movement of goods and people in the Idlib countryside is one of the pillars of the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham influence and allows it to collect various fees and fines there. So, the group sees any presence of other forces on key roads in Greater idlib as a threat to its interests. Currently, the main opposition to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham is located in Jisr al-Shughur.

The main point of contradiction between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda-linked groups is that Fa Ithbatu wants itsown share of the revenue, which can be collected by exploiting the militant-held part of Greater Idlib. This sets the conditions for further confrontation until a new balance of power within the militant-held area is found.

According to Labor Department figures, over 47 million US workers filed for unemployment benefits.

The true number is likely much higher as countless numbers of unemployed US workers haven’t been able to file so far — many more to come as layoffs continue.

For 14 straight weeks, over a million Americans filed jobless claims, reflecting an unprecedented US economic crisis for working class people and their families, affecting the vast majority of the population.

Around one-third of filers have yet to receive benefits, according to Bloomberg News.

Over 100,000 small, medium-sized, and large companies filed for bankruptcy, most closing down permanently.

Chicago’s Water Tower Place is one of the city’s preemptive downtown shopping malls.

Reopened in mid-June, I entered the mall to run an errand on Thursday.

It was a virtual ghost town. Most shops remain closed. Anchor store Macy’s was nearly empty from what I saw inside.

Most stores along Chicago’s upscale Magnificent Mile remain boarded up, hotels either still closed or with minimal occupancies.

Few taxis are in sight. In normal times, they’re queued at hotels, waiting for customers, or visible in large numbers on main streets.

Dismal conditions for working Americans are most concerning. Millions of jobs are permanently lost.

Josh Bivins is director of research at the Economic Policy Institute (EPI).

On June 26, he addressed the issue of soon to expire unemployment benefits for millions of US workers, ones who’ve gotten them, explaining the following:

“New personal income data show just how steep the coming fiscal cliff will be” if federal unemployment insurance (IU) benefits aren’t renewed — $600 weekly to beneficiaries.

Bivins: “UI benefits have kept the cutback in spending in closed sectors from leading more catastrophically to cutbacks in spending in other sectors,” what’s coming if not renewed.

UI benefits are a key source of “support for aggregate demand.” Each dollar spent boosts the economy “by as much as $2.”

The overall economic impact of UI is “relatively small” because the amount per recipient is “relatively stingy…or because eligibility criteria were stringent and only a small share of all unemployed workers received benefits.”

Federal UI of $600 weekly added to state benefits have had a significant economic impact.

The last payment is coming the week ending July 25. If not renewed, millions of recipients will be unable to pay essential to life and welfare expenses.

Cutting it off will result in a “fiscal cliff,” a “catastrophe” for dependent households at a time of mass unemployment not about to end any time soon, Bivins explained.

He urged extending benefits, “allow(ing) the amount…to phase down modestly over time as the unemployment rate falls and the economy begins” to stabilize and grow.

Trump and GOP leadership oppose the idea, wanting further benefits going to corporate favorites alone — on top of trillions of dollars already handed them.

They prioritize benefitting the nation’s privileged class, dismissive of public health and welfare.

According to economist Jason Furman in congressional testimony, maintaining federal UI payments of $600 weekly at least through Q III will boost GDP by 2.8%.

Bivins: “(L)etting this extra $600 in UI benefits expire at the end of July would by itself cause more job loss than was seen in either of the recessions of the early 1990s or early 2000s” — along with greater human deprivation.

He urges continued federal UI “over the next year…to (boost) aggregate demand, as new job openings are all but guaranteed to be fewer than jobless potential workers over that time, so any incentive effect in keeping workers from searching actively for work will not be the binding constraint on the economy’s growth.”

It’s unclear if UI benefits will be extended. Republicans consider them a disincentive to work, an unacceptable notion at a time of unprecedented unemployment.

Trump’s Labor Secretary Eugene Scalia defied reality, claiming: “Our economy has turned the corner against the coronavirus (sic).”

Polar opposite it true. Adding “(t)he best thing for workers is work, not unemployment” is true when jobs are available — not during the Greatest Depression in US history, today’s dismal state of the nation.

Real US unemployment is around 34%, not the phony 13.4% BLS figure — according to economist John Williams, based the pre-1990 calculation model.

Q II GDP is expected to show the economy in collapse, contracting around 50% for the period.

The state of working America is dire, the prospect for near-term recovery virtually nonexistent.

Year 2020 and perhaps what follows will be remembered as the greatest ever transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to corporate favorites and high-net-worth households.

What’s going on was planned, not accidental. It’s also all about letting dominant US corporate giants consolidate to greater size and market power.

America is an increasingly totalitarian plutocracy and autocracy, a fantasy democracy, never the real thing.

Hostile to governance of, by, and for everyone equitably, privileged interests alone are served, most others exploited so they benefit.

It’s the American way!

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Read part 1 here.

Let’s now move to the autopsy that the U.S. military conducted on the President John F. Kennedy’s body on the evening of the assassination, November 22, 1963.

Texas law required the autopsy to be conducted in Texas. Dr. Earl Rose, the Dallas Medical Examiner, insisted on conducting the autopsy immediately upon Kennedy’s death. An armed team of Secret Service agents, brandishing their guns, refused to permit that to happen and forced their way out of Parkland Hospital. Operating on orders, their objective was to get the president’s body to the airport, where Vice President Lyndon Johnson was waiting for it. His objective: to put the autopsy in the hands of the U.S. military.

In the 1970s, the U.S. House of Representatives opened up a new investigation into Kennedy’s assassination. During and after those hearings, a group of Navy enlisted men came forward with a remarkable story. They stated that they had secretly carried Kennedy’s body into the morgue at Bethesda Naval Medical Center in Maryland about an hour-and-a-half before the body was officially brought into the morgue.

They also stated that they had all been sworn to secrecy immediately after the autopsy and had been threatened with severe punishment, including criminal prosecution, if they ever revealed to anyone the classified secrets about the autopsy that they had acquired.

The Boyajian Report

In the 1990s, the Assassination Records Review Board, which was formed to enforce the JFK Records Act, uncovered an official document that had been kept secret for more than 30 years. It became known as the Boyajian Report. It had been created by Marine Sergeant Roger Boyajian immediately after the autopsy. Boyajian gave a copy of the report to the ARRB. Boyajian and his report confirmed that his team carried the president’s body into the morgue in a cheap military-style shipping casket at 6:35 p.m., about 1 and 1/2 hours before 8 p.m., the time that the body was officially brought into the morgue in the expensive, ornate casket into which it had been placed in Dallas.

On the night of the autopsy, one of the autopsy physicians, Admiral James Humes, telephoned U.S. Army Colonel Pierre Finck asking him to come to the morgue and assist with the autopsy. That phone call was made at 8 p.m. During the conversation, Humes told Finck that they already had some x-rays made of the president’s head. Yet, how could they have x-rays of the president’s head, given that the president’s body was being officially brought into the morgue at 8 p.m.? Humes’s testimony inadvertently confirmed the accuracy of the Boyajian Report and the statements of the enlisted men who had secretly carried the president’s body into the morgue an hour-and-a-half before the official 8 p.m. time that the body was brought into the morgue.

The magic bullet

During the autopsy, Finck began to “dissect” the president’s neck wound, a wound that later became embroiled in what became known as the “magic bullet” controversy. As Finck began the procedure, he was ordered by some unknown figure to cease and desist and to leave the wound alone. Finck complied with the order. The order showed that the three autopsy physicians were not in charge of the autopsy and that there was a higher force within the deep state that was orchestrating and directing the overall operation.

The brain examinations

It’s worth mentioning the brain examinations that took place as part of the autopsy. In an autopsy, there is only one brain examination. In the Kennedy autopsy, there were two, the second of which involved a brain that could not possibly have belonged to the president. Rather than detail the circumstances surrounding that unusual occurrence, I’ll simply link to the following two articles that the mainstream press published about it for those who might be interested in that aspect of the autopsy:

Newly Released JFK Documents Raise Questions About Medical Evidence by Deb Riechmann in the November 9, 1998, issue of the Washington Post.

Archive Photos Not of JFK’s Brain, Concludes Aides to Review Board by George Lardner Jr. in the November 10, 1998, issue of the Washington Post.

It is also worth noting that when Congress enacted the JFK Records Act mandating that federal agencies had to release their long-secret records relating to the assassination, the law that brought the ARRB into existence to enforce the law expressly prohibited the ARRB from investigating any aspect of the assassination. It was a provision that the ARRB board strictly enforced on the ARRB staff, which thereby prevented the staff from investigating the two separate brain examinations once they were discovered or, for that matter, anything else.

Continued secrecy

It’s is also worth noting that there are still thousands of assassination-related records that the National Archives is keeping secret, owing to a request by the CIA to President Trump early in his administration to continue keeping them secret, a request that Trump granted. The CIA’s reason for the continued secrecy? The CIA told Trump that the disclosure of the 56-year-old records to the American people would endanger “national security.”

Fraudulent autopsy photos

The ARRB also took the sworn testimony of a woman named Saundra Spencer, a U.S. Navy petty officer who served in the Navy’s photography lab in Washington, D.C. She worked closely with the White House on both classified and non-classified photographs. The ARRB summoned her to testify, and she gave a remarkable story. She testified that on the weekend of the assassination, she was asked to develop, on a top-secret basis, the official autopsy photographs in the Kennedy autopsy. When the ARRB showed her the autopsy photographs in the official record, she closely examined them and then testified directly and unequivocally that they were not the photographs she developed on the weekend of the assassination.

Fear

Given all these facts and circumstances, a question naturally arises: How can anyone with a critical mind blindly accept the official narrative surrounding the Kennedy assassination? Doing so only goes to show how a deep fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist” can influence people’s behavior.

For those who wish to delve into the Kennedy regime-change operation more deeply, I recommend starting with the following books and videos:

Books:

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters by James W. Douglass

The Kennedy Autopsy by Jacob Hornberger

The Kennedy Autopsy 2 by Jacob Hornberger

JFK’s War with the National- Security Establishment: Why Kennedy Was Assassinated by Douglas Horne

Regime Change: The JFK Assassination by Jacob Hornberger

CIA & JFK: The Secret Assassination Files by Jefferson Morley

The CIA, Terrorism, and the Cold War: The Evil of the National Security State by Jacob Hornberger

Inside the Assassination Records Review Board: The U.S. Government’s Final Attempt to Reconcile the Conflicting Medical Evidence in the Assassination of JFK, Volumes 1-5 by Douglas P. Horne

Videos:

Altered History: Exposing Deceit and Deception in the JFK Assassination Medical Evidence by Douglas Horne

The JFK Assassination by Jacob Hornberger

The National Security State and JFK, with Oliver Stone and others.

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. Send him email.

Featured image is from OffGuardian

An important article by journalist Ben Norton appeared on the online outlet The Grayzone describing the content of a leaked document that consists “of an executive summary of ‘Project BOA,’ outlining what it calls a ‘plan of action’ – a blueprint of concrete steps the opposition alliance will take to unseat AMLO.” AMLO is Mexican President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, and BOA stands for Bloque Opositor Amplio (Broad Opposition Bloc). The document was presented by AMLO himself at a press conference in early June and the source of the leak remains unknown. Some of the alleged members of this “alliance” have denied the existence of such document. However, its content is quite credible within the geopolitical context of the region.

Who is Andrés Manuel López Obrador?

Popularly know as AMLO by the initials of his name, he became president of Mexico in December 2018 after Mexican voters gave him a strong mandate on July 1, 2018 to change the course of Mexico’s domestic policies. López Obrador and his left of center National Regeneration Movement party (Movimiento de Regeneración Nacional – MORENA) dominated Mexico’s presidential and legislative elections.

López Obrador won 53.2% of the presidential vote, more than 30 percentage points ahead of his nearest rival, and won in 31 of 32 Mexican states. The MORENA party won solid majorities in the Senate and the Chamber of Deputies which convened on September 1, 2018.

AMLO followed as president to conservative Enrique Peñas Nieto who had seen economic downturn and a huge organised crime rate increase mostly related to drug trafficking that the AMLO administration inherited. In fact, he was elected on his platform to combat crime, corruption and related poverty, but more emphatically he promised to fight against neoliberalism.

He called his plan the Fourth Transformation following Mexico’s independence of 1810, the reform of 1861 and the Mexican revolution of 1910. One of the pillars of his government has been respecting the will of the people through popular referendums on major decisions. This he has done regularly. However, conservative critics like the Cato Institute have issued negative reports on AMLO criticising his approach as “populism”, his proposals as “toxic”, and his mandate as leading to a “perfect dictatorship.”

Nevertheless, Lopez Obrador still commands an approval rate of 65% in the eyes of Mexicans. Why would such a popular president trigger such a strong rejection by some groups? Maybe looking at the alleged groups involved might give a hint.

Is a Deep State plot at play to overthrow AMLO?

The leaked report gives a detailed list of the composition of the “opposition alliance”. Aside from most rightwing parties and former presidents Felipe Calderon and Vicente Fox, the opposition bloc “also says it has support from the governors of 14 states in Mexico, along with opposition lawmakers in both the Senate and Chamber of Deputies, judges from the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary (TEPJF), and officials from the National Electoral Institute (INE).”

If we accept that as a fact, then to call the BOA an “Opposition Alliance” as if it were the formation of a political coalition set to democratically challenge the elected president, is really a misleading term. The secrecy of this alliance is not reassuring either.

If we in fact recognise this as an organised entity that operates surreptitiously outside the formal State to exert influence and political changes, and that, tellingly, lists “specific media outlets, along with individual journalists and social media influencers”, the BOA is closer to what we know as a Deep State. Even more so when it claims to include lobbyists in Washington (White House and Capitol Hill) and financial investors on Wall Street. Only missing from the list is any reference to a military participation.

Is this proof that someone is planning a Hybrid War on Mexico?

The leaked document is clearly presented as a “plan of action” to oust Lopez Obrador. This would be done in two stages: first seemingly, through a democratic process by winning the 2021 legislative elections, and second through a parliamentary coup that would “impeach President López Obrador by 2022”, two years before the end of his term.

The BOA does not suggest the legal basis for an impeachment of AMLO. But that may not be a concern at this early stage because the “action plan” describes a strategy that may easily create one. The strategy would make heavy use of “major news publications and journalists from both domestic and foreign media outlets on their team” to insistently blame AMLO for “unemployment, poverty, insecurity, and corruption” in Mexico.

The BOA document even states unambiguously in its plan that it would use “groups of social media networks, influencers, and analysts to insist on the destruction of the economy, of the democratic institutions, and the political authoritarianism of the government of the 4T” (using an acronym for the Fourth Transformation process). They go on saying, “Repeat this narrative in the US and European media.”

In other words the BOA action plan intends to organise a full scale Information war in order to demonise President Lopez Obrador regardless of the reality and the truth. Let’s remember that an infowar is the initial stage of a Hybrid War.

Is the US behind a possible Hybrid War on Mexico?

At this early stage it is not totally obvious. The BOA action plan would involve an appeal to Washington for support. It would do so by reminding the Trump administration about the danger to the U.S. of the high mass migration of Mexicans toward the United States. This intends to play in the hands of one of the issues that Trump has referred to constantly in relation to Mexico and led him to build a wall at the border to contain immigrants.

So far, some relevant points are, 1) AMLO’s statement that “he would sell gasoline to Venezuela for ‘humanitarian’ reasons if asked to, despite U.S. sanctions on the South American country and its state-run oil firm, PDVSA”; 2) Mexico and Venezuela successfully had an oil-for-food exchange against U.S. sanctions on Venezuela; and 3) a swift U.S. reaction slapping sanctions on a Mexican company and another company involved in the exchange. This was followed by a report from Reuters that in an apparent unexplained compliance move Mexico froze bank accounts of entities and individuals sanctioned by the U.S.

The sequence of events may suggest a repetition of Washington’s trend chasing any government that attempts to break its economic and financial siege on Venezuela, even if this involves more extraterritorial coercive measures to destabilise the economy, an infowar to demonise a leader, or a full scale Hybrid War.

It is in this ongoing scenario that AMLO will travel to Washington for a meeting with Trump in July that has been highly criticised in Mexico. At the time of writing, the news that the Mexican finance minister who has been in close contact with AMLO was tested positive for the coronavirus may have an impact on the meeting in Washington. If indeed the meeting takes place, it will be interesting to see how it will play out vis-à-vis the BOA action plan.

*

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.

Nino Pagliccia is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

This article was originally published on Asia Times.

So what’s goin’ on in Iran? How did the Islamic Republic really respond to Covid-19? How is it coping with Washington’s relentless “maximum pressure”?

These questions were the subject of a long phone call I placed to Prof. Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran – one of Iran’s premier, globally recognized analysts.

As Marandi explains,

“Iran after the revolution was all about social justice. It set up a very elaborate health care network, similar to Cuba’s, but with more funding. A large hospital network. When the coronavirus hit, the US was even preventing Iran to get test kits. Yet the system – not the private sector – managed. There was no full shutdown. Everything was under control. The numbers – even contested by the West – they do hold. Iran is now producing everything it needs, tests, face masks. None of the hospitals are full.”

Expanding Marandi’s observations, Tehran-based journalist Alireza Hashemi notes, “Iran’s wide primary healthcare system, comprising public clinics, health houses and health centers is available in thousands of cities and villages”, and that enabled the government to “easily offer basic services”.

As Hashemi details,

“the Health Ministry established a Covid-19 call center and also distributed protective equipment supplied by relief providers. Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei ordered the armed forces to help – with the government deploying 300,000 soldiers and volunteers to disinfect streets and public places, distribute sanitizers and masks and conduct tests.”

It was the Iranian military that established production lines for producing face masks and other equipment. According to Hashemi,

“some NGOs partnered with Tehran’s chamber of commerce to create a campaign called Nafas (“breath”) to supply medical goods and provide clinical services. Iran’s Farabourse, an over-the-counter stock market in Tehran, established a crowd funding campaign to purchase medical devices and products to help health workers. Hundreds of volunteer groups – called “jihadi” – started producing personal protective equipment that had been in short supply in seminaries, mosques and hussainiyas and even natural fruit juices for health workers.”

This sense of social solidarity is extremely powerful in Shi’ite culture. Hashemi notes that “the government loosened health-related restrictions over a month ago and we have been experiencing a small slice of normality in recent weeks.” Yet the fight is not over. As in the West, there are fears of a covid-19 second wave.

Marandi stresses the economy, predictably, was hurt:

“But because of the sanctions, most of the hurt had already happened. The economy is now running without oil revenue. In Tehran, you don’t even notice it. It’s nothing compared to Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Turkey or the UAE. Workers from Pakistan and India are leaving the Persian Gulf in droves. Dubai is dead. So, in comparison, Iran did better in dealing with the virus. Moreover, harvests last year and this year have been positive. We are more self-reliant.”

Hashemi adds a very important factor:

“The Covid-19 crisis was so massive that people themselves have pitched in with effort, revealing new levels of solidarity. Individuals, civil society groups and others have set up a range of initiatives seeking to help the government and health workers on the front line of countering the pandemic.”

What a relentless Western disinformation campaign always ignores is how Iran after the revolution is used to extremely critical situations, starting with the eight-year-long Iran-Iraq war in the 1980s. Marandi and Hashemi are adamant: for older Iranians, the current economic crisis pales in comparison with what they had to put up with throughout the 1980s.

Made in Iran soars

Marandi’s analysis ties up the economic data. In early June, Mohammad Bagher Nobakht – responsible for planning Iran’s state budgets – told the Majlis (Parliament) that the new normal was “to sideline oil in the economy and run the country’s programs without oil.”

Nobakht stuck to the numbers. Iran had earned just $8.9 billion from the sale of oil and related products in 2019-20, down from a peak of $119 billion less than a decade ago.

The whole Iranian economy is in transition. What’s particularly interesting is the boom in manufacturing – with companies focusing way beyond Iran’s large domestic market towards exports. They are turning the massive devaluation of the rial to their advantage.

In 2019-20, Iran’s non-oil exports reached $41.3 billion. That exceeded oil exports for the first time in Iran’s post-revolutionary history. And roughly half of these non-oil exports were manufactured goods. Team Trump’s “maximum pressure” via sanctions may have led to total non-oil exports going down – but only by 7%. The total remains near historic highs.

According to Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) data published by the Iran Chamber of Commerce, private sector manufacturers were seriously back in business already in the first month following the relaxation of the partial lockdown.

The fact is Iranian consumer goods and industrial products – everything from cookies to stainless steel – are exported by small and medium enterprises to the wider Middle East and also to Central Asia, China and Russia. The myth of Iranian “isolation” is, well, a myth.

Some new manufacturing clusters bode well for the future. Take titanium – essential for myriad applications in military, aerospace, marine industries and industrial processes. The Qara-Aghaj mine in Urmia, the provincial capital of West Azarbaijan, which is part of Iran’s mineral belt, including the country’s largest gold reserves, has tremendous potential.

Iran features in the Top 15 of mineral-rich countries. In January, after getting the technology for deep-level mining, Tehran launched a pilot project for extraction of rare earth minerals.

Still, Washington pressure remains as relentless as the Terminator.

In January, the White House issued yet another executive order targeting the “construction, mining, manufacturing, or textiles sectors of the Iranian economy.” So Team Trump is targeting exactly the booming private sector – which means, in practice, countless Iranian blue-collar workers and their families. This has nothing to do with forcing the Rouhani administration to say, “I can’t breathe”.

The Venezuelan front

Apart from a few scuffles between the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps (IRGC) and the Health Ministry about China’s response to Covid-19, the Iran-China “comprehensive strategic partnership” (CSP) remains on track.

The next big test is actually in September. That’s when Team Trump wants to extend the UN arms embargo on Iran. Add to it the threat to trigger the snapback mechanism inbuilt in UNSC resolution 2231 – if other Security Council members refuse to support Washington and let the embargo expire for good in October.

China’s mission at the UN has stressed the obvious. The Trump administration unilaterally abandoned the JCPOA. Then it reimposed unilateral sanctions. Thus it has no right to extend the arms embargo or go for the snapback mechanism against Iran.

China, Russia and Iran are the three key nodes of Eurasia integration. Politically and diplomatically, their key decisions tend to be taken in concert. So it’s no wonder that was reiterated last week in Moscow at the meeting of Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Javad Zarif – who get along famously.

Lavrov said,

“We will be doing everything so that no one can destroy these agreements. Washington has no right to punish Iran.”

Zarif for his part described the whole juncture as “very dangerous”.

Additional conversations with Iranian analysts reveal how they interpret the regional geopolitical chessboard, calibrating the importance of the axis of resistance (Tehran, Baghdad, Damascus, Hezbollah) in comparison with two other fronts: the US and its “stooges” (the House of Saud, UAE, Egypt), the master – Israel – and also Turkey and Qatar, which, like Iran, but unlike the “stooges”, favor political Islam (but of the Sunni variety, that is, the Moslem Brotherhood).

One of these analysts, pen name Blake Archer Williams, significantly remarks,

“the main reason Russia holds back from helping Iran (mutual trade is almost at zero) is that it fears Iran. If Trump does not have a Reagan moment and does not prevail on Iran, and the US is in any event driven out of the Middle East by the continuing process of Iran’s weapons parity and its ability to project power in its own pond, then all of the oil of the Middle East, from the UAE, Qatar, Kuwait and Bahrain, to Iraq, of course, and not least to the oilfields in Saudi Arabia’s Qatif region (where all the oil is and is 100% Shi’ite), will come under the umbrella of the axis of resistance.”

Still, Russia-China continue to back Iran on all fronts, for instance rebuking the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) for giving in to US “bullying” – as the IAEA’s board last week passed a resolution submitted by France, Britain and Germany criticizing Iran for the first time since 2012.

Another key foreign policy front is Venezuela. Tehran’s soft power, in quite a spectacular manner keenly observed all across the Global South, de facto ridiculed Washington’s sanctions/blockade in its own Monroe Doctrine “backyard”, when five Iranian tankers loaded with gasoline successfully crossed the Atlantic and were received by a Venezuelan military escort of jets, helicopters, and naval patrols.

That was in fact a test run. The Oil Ministry in Tehran is already planning a round two of deliveries to Caracas, sending two or three cargos full of gasoline a month. That will also help Iran to offload its huge domestically produced fuel.

The historic initial shipment was characterized by both sides as part of a scientific and industrial cooperation, side by side with a “solidarity action”.

And then, this past week, I finally confirmed it. The order came directly from Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. In his own words: “The blockade must be broken”. The rest is – Global South – history in the making.

*

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.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The “loss” of China in 1949 was perhaps the biggest blow to strike American hegemony in the post-World War II era, and it is felt increasingly to this day. During the past 70 years, Washington’s strategy towards China has been to destabilise and fracture one of the world’s oldest and largest nations. US governments have spent hundreds of billions of dollars in an attempt to re-establish their authority over China. These imperialist policies have clearly failed to attain their objectives.

Nevertheless US efforts to undermine Chinese power have been steadily growing over the past 30 years, in part spurred on by the Soviet Union’s demise in 1991, partially also due to China’s increasing clout.

The well informed Brazilian historian, Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, wrote that,

“The CIA’s operations sought to do the same to China, as they had done to the Soviet Union during the war in Afghanistan: Fight their enemy via proxies, i.e., through third parties such as terrorist organisations and countries like Turkey, a puppet state that nourishes pan-Turkish and pan-Islamic ideas”. (1)

US plans to destroy communism in China include attempts to break the country apart from its largest provinces, like Tibet and Xinjiang, both within China’s internationally recognised borders. Xinjiang, an ethnically diverse territory of north-western China, is well over twice the size of France. Xinjiang is sparsely populated, much of it consists of desert terrain, it is criss-crossed by towering, snow-filled peaks and lies far from any coastline. Xinjiang is rich in raw materials; 25% of China’s known oil and gas reserves are located there, while the area holds 38% of the nation’s coal deposits. (2)

Xinjiang is of vital strategic and economic importance to China. It stands as the Chinese government’s bridgehead into Central Asia, through which the old Silk Road passed along centuries before, connecting China to as far away as the Mediterranean. Beijing has driving ambitions to link Kashgar, in western Xinjiang, 1,200 miles southwards to the Pakistani port city of Gwadar. Lying on Pakistan’s southern coastline, Gwadar is of major significance by itself and is a central component of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) – an infrastructural project instigated by China in 2013, and which is undergoing gradual implementation.

The CPEC is a key part of the landmark Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), designed and led by Beijing; the first phase of the CPEC’s construction has at last been completed in Pakistan (3). It is hoped that this program will spur industrial development across Pakistan, something which the US government has not undertaken there, relying instead on its traditional gunboat diplomacy of military aid.

Gwadar will be part of China’s “string of pearls” bases being built elsewhere in the Indian Ocean, primarily for commercial purposes (4). Beijing wishes to project its strength deep into the lucrative Persian Gulf for the first time in modern history. This would undercut US power, which has weakened appreciably from its high point in the mid-1940s, when Washington owned about half of the world’s wealth.

Nearby Iran, for years China’s largest trading partner, wants to establish a connection between Gwadar and its own port at Chabahar, in southern Iran, close to Gwadar. Pakistan and Iran share a lengthy frontier and, historically, these neighbours have a collaborative understanding.

China’s strengthening relationship with Pakistan and Iran is likely to be a significant occurrence in international affairs – and it is causing some alarm in Washington. Pakistan, a nuclear power like China, is already a member of the Beijing-run alliances, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), while in 2015 Iran joined the AIIB. The construction of pipelines linking Gwadar to both China and Iran, would greatly reduce the time and distance that raw materials have to travel; especially for the Chinese, whose oil shipments traverse the high seas over many thousands of miles, taking between two to three months to arrive.

Moniz Bandeira, professor emeritus of history at the University of Brasilia, observed how,

“A pipeline from Xinjiang to Gwadar would reduce this distance to 1,600 miles. These initiatives point to the formation of a geopolitical axis, a valuable card for China to play in the Great Game in Central Asia and the Middle East, associating itself economically with Pakistan and Iran, a country which China offered 60 million euros to rebuild the port of Chabahar, 43 miles from Gwadar”. (5)

The Middle East and Central Asia are the most valuable and strategically important regions on earth, containing most of the world’s oil or gas reserves. Central Asia, a sprawling, remote landmass bordering China and Russia, holds an abundance of sought after natural resources like copper and iron ore. If Beijing can increase its influence in the Central Asia/Middle East domains – by continuing to pursue infrastructural investments – there is no doubt this will place China in a particularly strong global position, and lead to further US decline.

America is using its financial muscle in a so far unsuccessful effort to shift Pakistan away from China. US-friendly lobby groups in Islamabad are attempting to undermine the CPEC, by labelling it as a Chinese “debt trap”; but the majority of Pakistan’s people favour warm relations with Beijing. After all, China is a country they have a border with to the north-east. Moreover, Washington’s drone warfare campaign in Pakistan has been far from popular, to put it mildly. Another of Beijing’s goals, in linking Gwadar to China, would allow the Chinese government to import oil shipments from the Arabian sea – therefore avoiding altogether the Strait of Malacca, off Malaysia’s coast, which is patrolled by warships of the US Navy.

Moniz Bandeira writes that,

“Beijing’s plan to link the port of Gwadar to Xinjiang, advancing on the Arabian Sea and thus overcoming the strategic dependence on the Strait of Malacca, was probably the fact that led the NGOs – led by the National Endowment for Democracy, the CIA, the Turkish MIT, the Mossad and MI6 – to promote instability in the region, inciting separatist threats and revolts like those in Urumqi [northern Xinjiang] (2009), so as to contain China’s expansion towards the Arabian Sea and the oil resources that fueled the industrial powers of the West”.

Pious Western concern for human rights in Xinjiang acts as a smokescreen, in order to obscure the major geopolitical stakes pertaining to Xinjiang and surrounding areas. Similar disquiet is not expressed about the incomparably worse human rights violations committed by Washington post-1945, and her allies, like Saudi Arabia and Israel. Regarding Central Asia, this region’s largest, wealthiest and most important country is Kazakhstan. It shares a broad frontier with Xinjiang to the east. Kazakhstan contains considerable quantities of oil, gas and uranium. It was surely no coincidence that in September 2013 China’s new president, Xi Jinping, announced whilst visiting Kazakhstan that a “new Silk Road” was about to be laid through Central Asia.

Early this century, Beijing started assembling the Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline, which has reached 1,400 miles in length. It provides China with around 20 million tons of oil each year, flowing across the border into Xinjiang, rendering US interference impossible. The erection of this pipeline has helped to copperfasten ties between China and Kazakhstan, who are close allies.

In addition there is the Central Asia-China gas pipeline, a brainchild of Beijing’s. Construction began in August 2007, and it now runs across hundreds of miles of remote, pristine land, from Turkmenistan through to Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan and on to Xinjiang. The Central Asia-China gas pipeline is Beijing’s largest source of gas imports, and these projects have enabled China to spread its influence throughout Central Asia. The Central Asian countries, with the exception of Turkmenistan, are members of the SCO and the AIIB, which are headquartered in Beijing.

Long before the September 2001 9/11 atrocities against America, the CIA and Pentagon were supporting terrorist operations by extremist Islamic networks with links to Osama bin Laden, in Central Asia, the Caucasus and the Balkans (6). The US was for example using Turkish, Pakistani and Saudi operatives to promote instability in Central Asia, which had been part of the USSR for over half a century until its collapse, with the Americans thereafter moving in. The CIA was involved in drug trafficking (mainly heroin), illegal arms sales and money laundering in Central Asia, Turkey and the Balkans.

By the end of the Cold War, Washington was stepping up its backing for secessionist groups in Xinjiang. The US has for decades recognised the critical nature of Xinjiang, due to its position within China’s frontiers and proximity to energy rich Central Asia. Control over raw materials, like oil and gas, has been a leading tenet of US foreign policy since the early days of World War II.

As the Soviet Union was disappearing, the CIA in 1990 began sponsoring terrorist groups with separatist plans for Xinjiang; like the East Turkestan Islamic Movement (ETIM), an organisation led by extreme Uyghur fundamentalists with past ties to Al Qaeda and the Taliban (7). Between 1990 and 2001 the ETIM, later known as the Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP), committed more than 200 acts of terrorism in China; such as murderous assaults on market places and public transportation vehicles like buses, along with targeting Chinese government officials for assassination. These terrorist attacks left scores of people dead, while the assailants received funding from the CIA. (8)

Although China has internal demographic issues, one decisive advantage it holds over the West is that it has largely avoided the neoliberal onslaught. There are almost 400 billionaires in China, but the government retains much of its control over big business. Unlike in North America and Europe, the majority of corporations in China are state-owned, including the 12 largest which consist mainly of banks and oil companies. (9)

The continued unrest in Hong Kong, a diminutive area in south-eastern China, can be traced to the British takeover of that territory in the early 1840s. Hong Kong was transformed into a British military outpost, and colonised for more than 150 years. For most of that period, London directly ruled Hong Kong by dispatching governors and expatriate civil servants. These policies had a westernising influence on Hong Kong’s inhabitants, an imprint which lasts until today. Hong Kong, which is densely populated and has ample wealth, is culturally and economically different from mainland China on many levels.

US governments have sought to exploit this friction. Since 2014 the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) has funnelled at least $30 million into Hong Kong so as “to identify new avenues for democracy and political reform” (10). Many hundreds of “pro-democracy protesters” in Hong Kong have been photographed waving American flags and donning other US paraphernalia. (11)

The NED was established in 1983 under the Reagan administration, and receives most of its funding from the US Congress. It has a notorious legacy of meddling in nations across different continents. In March 2018 Stephen Kinzer, an experienced American journalist, described the NED as “the National Endowment for Attacking Democracy”. The long-time NED president, Carl Gershman, said two years ago that China is “the most serious threat our country faces today” and “We have to not give up on the possibility for democratic change in China and keep finding ways to support them” (12). As a consequence, much of the NED’s focus is centred on China, and sitting in the NED boardroom are interventionist neo-conservatives like Elliott Abrams and Victoria Nuland.

For over a decade the NED has funded exile Xinjiang groups, such as the Uyghur American Association (UAA) headquartered in Washington, and the World Uyghur Congress (WUC) based in Munich. They call for Xinjiang’s complete breakaway from China, to be replaced by an independent state called East Turkestan. This is understandably looked upon by Beijing with grave misgivings. The World Uyghur Congress chief advisor, Xinjiang-born Erkin Alptekin, has past affiliation with the CIA. From 1971 until 1995, Alptekin worked for the US government-run broadcaster, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

Returning to Hong Kong, one of its most recognisable figures is Joshua Wong, a 23-year-old student leader and politician. Wong’s separatist aims have enjoyed widespread support from Western politicians and the mainstream press. It can be noted that Wong has increasingly been playing into Beijing’s hands, by publicly aligning himself with the American government; adding fuel to the fire that Wong has become a proxy tool for the US in its bitter rivalry with China.

Last September, Wong travelled the 8,000 mile distance from Hong Kong to New York and Washington, to seek US political backing. He met and had discussions with war-mongering politicians like Marco Rubio, Florida’s Republican senator who strongly endorsed the US-led attack on Libya in 2011. The Hong Kong political party Demosisto, of which Wong is Secretary-General, is said to have a close relationship with the NED. (13)

These ill-advised moves have inevitably damaged Wong’s reputation, while undermining his claims for Hong Kong independence. Wong, in a co-authored article published last month with the Washington Post, claims that China “has revealed its true colours as a rogue state” with its policies towards Hong Kong (14). Wong again urged “the U.S. government to execute the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act” and he called on Washington to “impose sanctions on China”.

Beijing’s actions in Hong Kong have been repressive in recent years, but it remains a mostly free and open society. Hong Kong native Sonny Shiu-Hing Lo, a 57-year-old political scientist and professor, wrote recently that Hong Kong’s elections are for the large part “quite competitive and run according to democratic procedures. There are also important non-party democratic elements in Hong Kong”. Professor Sonny Lo, who emigrated to Canada as a youngster before returning to work at Hong Kong University, could hardly be described as pro-Beijing. Yet he writes that a “strong civil society” still exists in Hong Kong “representing a wide variety of political views” which “are active and influential”. (15)

Professor Sonny Lo notes how the work force in Hong Kong is “particularly well organised” and represented by two rival trade unions. He reveals that “Hong Kong has also maintained its long tradition of a lively, independent press” and that “many newspapers and other media sources… often voice strong criticisms of both the HKSAR [Hong Kong government] and the PRC [People’s Republic of China]”. Despite the press reprovals of China, neither the Chinese-backed Hong Kong administration, nor indeed Beijing, have moved to censure or close down these outlets in Hong Kong.

Focusing on the international scene, facing out to sea China is almost surrounded by US allies and a range of advanced military forces; while there is no Chinese armed presence within sight of US shorelines. Over the past decade, Washington has shifted much of its military might to east Asia in a bid to hem China in and negate its development.

Part of American policy in east Asia, is to keep out of Beijing’s hands the island of Taiwan, an affluent territory less than 150 miles from China’s south-eastern shoreline. The importance of Taiwan to China has similarities to that of Cuba to the United States. Taiwan is a pawn in the US encirclement strategy of China. Again this month a heavily-armed US destroyer sailed provocatively through the Taiwan Strait, mere miles from China’s coast (16). Since 2009, the Obama and Trump administrations have sold around $25 billion worth of military equipment to the US-supported Taiwanese government, from fighter aircraft and tanks to missiles.

Some of this high-tech US weaponry is capable of carrying nuclear warheads, though there is no evidence to suggest there are weapons of mass destruction on the island. Dozens of US nuclear bombs were stationed secretly in Taiwan from 1957 until 1975, including nuclear-armed Matador missiles installed there by the Pentagon from January 1958. China did not develop nuclear weapons until 1964. Under president Trump, the rate of military aid furnished to Taiwan has risen substantially.

*

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 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War: Geopolitics and the Strategic Dimensions of the USA, (Springer 1st ed., 23 June 2017), p. 68

2 William A. Joseph, Politics in China: An Introduction, Second Edition (Oxford University Press; 2 edition, 11 April 2014), p. 430

3 Dr. Zafar Jaspal, “CPEC: The real danger is US’s policies”, Global Village Space, 20 May 2020

4 Noam Chomsky, Who Rules The World? (Metropolitan Books, Penguin Books Ltd, Hamish Hamilton, 5 May 2016), p. 245

5 Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 73

6 Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 67

7 Moniz Bandeira, The Second Cold War, p. 68

8 Thierry Meyssan, “The CIA is using Turkey to pressure China”, Voltaire Network, 19 February 2019

9 Scott Cendrowski, “China’s global 500 companies are bigger than ever – and mostly state-owned”, Fortune Magazine, 22 July 2015

10 Mary Beaudoin, “The Nature of the Hong Kong Protests”, Consortium News, 26 November 2019

11 Ella Torres, Guy Davies and Karson Yiu, “Why exuberant Hong Kong protesters are waving American flags”, ABC News, 28 November 2019

12 Edward Hunt, “NED Pursues Regime Change By Playing The Long Game”, Counterpunch, 6 July 2018

13 Mnar Muhawesh, “The NED strikes again: How Neocon Money is Funding The Hong Kong Protests”, Mintpress News, 9 September 2019

14 Joshua Wong, Glacier Kwong, “This is the final nail in the coffin for Hong Kong’s autonomy”, Washington Post, 24 May 2020

15 William A. Joseph, Politics in China: An Introduction, Third Edition (Oxford University Press; 3 edition, 6 June 2019), p. 534

16 Al Jazeera, “US warship sails through Taiwan Strait on Tiananmen anniversary”, 5 June 2020

Unacceptable Trump regime actions toward China keeps widening the rift between both countries.

Crossing one red line after another risks crossing one of no return.

US hostility toward China is all about its growing prominence on the world stage — a threat to US preeminence that’s been declining for years because of its imperial arrogance, endless wars on invented enemies, and unwillingness to change.

Unacceptably hostile US policies toward Beijing could rupture relations altogether, risking direct confrontation between two nuclear powers able to strike each other’s heartland if conflict erupts.

On Thursday, the US Senate unanimously passed the hostile to China Hong Kong Autonomy Act.

With House adoption virtually certain, likely by unanimous voice vote or passage as part of the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act, the measure will become US law ahead whether or not Trump approves.

In violation of the UN Charter and other international law, his regime unacceptably interferes in China’s internal affairs.

The latest way is by mandating sanctions over how it governs its Hong Kong sovereign territory — one of countless examples of US imperial arrogance.

On the same day, Pompeo announced unacceptable visa restrictions on Chinese officials, saying the following:

Beijing “stepped up efforts to undermine Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy by” its new national security law (sic), heading for adoption in the coming days — its legitimate right, Pompeo failed to explain, adding:

China’s ruling authorities “undermined (their) commitments to…Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy (sic).”

Fact: Hong Kong is sovereign Chinese territory, governed according to its laws.

Fact: The city is granted a degree of local autonomy, similar to what the US Constitution grants the 50 states that are very much subject to federal law at the same time.

Pompeo “announce(d) visa restrictions on current and former (Chinese) officials” and their family members — ones he unacceptably accused of “undermining Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy…or undermining human rights and fundamental freedoms in Hong Kong (sic).”

The US repeatedly and consistently goes all out to undermine the sovereign independence of all nations unwilling to bow to its will.

It’s far and away the most grievous abuser of human rights at home and abroad over a longer duration than any other nation in world history.

It demands all world community nations do what it says, not what it does, or face its wrath.

The United States of Endless Wars on Humanity by hot and other means is the greatest threat to its survival.

On Thursday, a statement by China’s embassy in Washington stressed that Hong Kong is sovereign Chinese territory, subject to the nation’s laws that permit no foreign interference in its internal affairs. Nor does international law, adding:

“Legislating on national security is the power and obligation of the central government, and also an international practice.”

Noting the embassy’s statement, Xinhua said “the legal basis for the Chinese government to govern Hong Kong is China’s Constitution and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, not the Sino-British Joint Declaration.”

China’s US embassy stressed that “(n)o one has any legal grounds or right to make irresponsible comments on Hong Kong affairs, citing the Sino-British Joint Declaration,” adding:

“We urge the US side to immediately correct its mistakes, withdraw the decisions and stop interfering in China’s domestic affairs.”

“The Chinese side will continue to take strong measures to uphold national sovereignty, security and development interests.”

According to China Institute of International Studies’ research fellow Cui Lei, bilateral relations with the US are largely at an impasse.

International affairs expert Wei Zongyou said the latest US anti-China actions reflect worsening ties.

Beijing will respond in its own way at an appropriate time.

According to the Wall Street Journal, when Pompeo met with China Central Foreign Affairs Commission Office director Yang Jiechi in Hawaii on June 17, the Chinese diplomat “insist(ed) that Washington desist from meddling in matters related to Taiwan…as well as (its) leadership’s view that its plans to impose national-security legislation on Hong Kong are ‘purely China’s internal affairs,’ ” adding:

Yang expressed “strong dissatisfaction” over US interference in China’s internal affairs.

Based on Pompeo’s consistent misinformation, disinformation, Big Lies, and militant hostility toward Beijing, its media called him “wicked…deranged,” and a “public enemy of mankind.”

What one analyst called the need to “turn down the temperature” in bilateral relations is no simple task given Washington’s rage to undermine China economically, industrially, and technologically, wanting the country weakened and isolated.

It’s a prescription for an uneasy relationship at best, a confrontational one at worst.

Unacceptable US actions risk unraveling the bilateral trade deal Trump very much wants remaining intact.

Presumptive Dem presidential nominee Biden will likely be as hardline toward Beijing as Trump — based on hostile to China remarks made in recent months, along with the Obama regime’s Asia pivot policy.

It was and remains US reasserting its presence in what it calls the Indo-Pacific, advancing its military footprint in a part of the world not its own.

It’s how Washington operates worldwide, asserting its military might, notably to contain China, Russia and Iran — Cold War politics in new form, risking nuclear war if things are pushed too far.

More immediately, the bilateral trade deal is at risk of unraveling.

After Yang and Pompeo met in Hawaii, Vice Premier Liu He said if the Trump regime doesn’t “ease off” on its unacceptable actions toward China, the deal that took many months to agree on could be undermined.

It’s already greatly weakened by deteriorated economic conditions and dismal bilateral relations.

According to geopolitical analyst Mei Xinyu, the US “can’t keep asking (China) to buy (its) stuff (while) beating up on us. That’s not how it works.”

Earlier this week, Trump regime Office of Trade and Manufacturing Policy director Peter Navarro told Fox News that the trade deal with China is “over,” adding:

The “turning point” was when the White House (falsely) blamed Beijing for spreading COVID-19 outbreaks.

Navarro unacceptably accused China of “sen(ding) hundreds of thousands of people to (the US) to spread that virus.”

He also defied reality by comparing Beijing’s actions to US/Japanese relations weeks before its forces attacked Pearl Harbor.

He then walked back on claiming the White House terminated the trade deal with China, claiming his remark to that effect was taken “wildly out of context,” adding:

“I was simply speaking to the lack of trust we now have” with its government.

Time and again, the US blames others for its own hostile actions, especially with regard to its endless wars by hot and/or other means, along with demands for all nations to bend to its will.

China seeks cooperative relations with the US and other countries.

Both right wings of the US one-party state seek dominance over other nations by whatever it takes to achieve its aims.

It’s a prescription for endless wars, instability, and deteriorating bilateral relations globally.

It comes at a time of protracted US Depression conditions more devastating to ordinary Americans than any previous time in the nation’s history.

It’s also at a time when the White House, Congress, and Wall Street controlled Fed are aiding privileged interests at the expense of public health and welfare.

When unemployment benefits expire in a few weeks at a time when layoffs are increasing, will food insecurity, hunger, and homelessness continue rising to greater levels never imagined in the world’s richest country?

The nation I grew up in long ago no longer exists.

Never beautiful, it was replaced by endless wars on humanity and unprecedented economic Depression conditions — things worsening, not improving.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Syria News

You  know, nations commit sins just as individuals do. Sometimes there is a marriage between individuals and nations that sin as one. This is the case of my dear country, the place of my birth and actually the only country I ever lived in. Being a baby boomer that is a lot of decades to sample the sins of empire… and there are many!

No need for me to go any further back than a bit over one hundred years ago, when those who ran this empire propagandized us into WW1. This was a European war between competing imperialist countries, for what? The right to hold onto the colonial empires they all ran? So, our sinners here at home pushed our sea of working stiffs into believing that the Hun was evil and the Brits, French and Russians et all were victims of that Austria- Hungary, German and Ottoman aggression. Does anyone remember that Edward Bernays, future ‘Father of advertising’, honed his skills during WW1 by being part of our country’s Committee of Public Information? Does anyone realize that Nazi propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels used Bernays’ ideas as the guide for his directives?

During WW2 the Soviet Union lost over 25 million of its people, with about half of those killed (13+ million) being military personnel. We lost 295,000, the Brits 452,000, the French 250,000, China 3.5 million, Germany and Japan together at 4.9 million. So, who took the brunt of the horror? Yet, not even a year after WW2 ended, the sin of my country was the creation of the Cold War against the USSR. If Henry Wallace had not been stopped, by his own party ( Democrats), from succeeding FDR, the whole ‘ball of wax’ may never have transpired. Instead, thanks to those same evil ones who ran this empire then, and still do, what Eisenhower warned us of in his 1961 Farewell Address, the Military Industrial Complex, grew as a bitter fruit. Needed funds for a secure safety net for our citizens was diverted into the rabbit hole of increased militarization. Baby boomers should well remember fallout shelters and ‘Duck and Cover’ air raid drills in elementary and secondary schools. The necessary Fear Card was continually played throughout the 50s and 60s.

As Mick Jagger stated so eloquently in the Rolling Stones’ hit song Sympathy for the Devil: “I shouted out who killed the Kennedys when after all it was you and me!” Another sin of empire was committed each time great American leaders like JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X  were murdered during the 1960s. The US participation in the (so called) Vietnam War, which was in reality a civil war between the Vietnamese people, was predicated  on the phony Gulf of Tonkin incident which produced the resolution of the same name. This ‘Sin of Empire’ was responsible for over 50,000 US military deaths and perhaps millions of dead Vietnamese. It divided our nation just as divisively as we are now. Politically, by the 1970s this Two Party/One Party system saw the Republicans moving further to the right, and the Democrats following their lead into the center/right. Bottom line: Any sort of progressive movement was DOA (Dead On Arrival)… as the two Bernie Sanders campaigns of 2016 and 2020 can attest. This in itself becomes one of the most heinous ‘Sins of Empire’ during that time frame. Only to be surpassed by 9/11 and its Bastard Child AKA The Iraq War. Anyone who still believes that Saddam Hussein had WMDs ready to use against us, there is a bridge in Brooklyn I have for sale. Thus, to paraphrase FDR, March 19th, 2003 should be remembered as the 2nd ‘Day of Infamy’, when we illegally and immorally bombed the **** out of Iraq before we invaded and occupied it. Yet, today’s Amerika has idiots like Ellen DeGeneres treating war criminal W Bush like some sweet old pal. How soon they do forget. Sad.

The most recent sin against the citizens of Amerika is this Trump presidency. It is as if all the Neo Fascists have come out of the woodwork, and are now running things. It is not just the sin of white cops killing unarmed blacks. That is but the tip of the iceberg. It is this mindset, this ‘White Supremacist’ way of seeing things that is so dangerous. Factor that with how this administration totally mishandled (on purpose?) the pandemic. If adults were in charge we would have seen a gung ho approach to the virus in December and January. Imagine if a real responsible government had begun to manufacture hundreds of millions of good quality facemasks (Isn’t that what having a military our size is for?),  along with ventilators and hand sanitizers to send to our hospitals and caregivers. Imagine if, instead of once more bailing out big banks and large corporations, Uncle Sam sent the trillions of dollars to small business AND to we citizen by way of a Universal Basic Income (anywhere from $1000 to $ 2000 a month, tax free). This economy would be stimulated to the Nth degree. Instead, we had asshole right wing governors opening up their states to allow more of the virus into our bodies.

As the late and great activist leader, Walt DeYoung put it so eloquently “Nuff Said”!

*

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].

Media and governments globally are blanketing the world with the phrase “Covid Cases”. Enter any three digit number plus “Covid Cases” into Google, and you’ll get an idea of the magnitude of the brainwash.

Why is the phrase meaningless apart from its sinister weaponization? It is meaningless for several reasons:

First, Covid-19 does not satisfy Koch’s postulates.(1)

Like most human endeavours, the Koch postulates were the product of collaboration. First, Jakob Henle developed the underlying concepts, and then Robert Koch and Friedrich Loeffler spent decades refining them until they were published in 1890. The resulting three postulates are:

1. The pathogen occurs in every case of the disease in question and under circumstances that can account for the pathological changes and clinical course of the disease.

2. The causative microorganism occurs in no other disease as a fortuitous and nonpathogenic parasite.

3. After being fully isolated from the body and grown in tissue culture (or cloned), it can induce the disease anew.

Second, the tests are necessarily inaccurate.

Third, even if the tests were accurate, Covid-19 does not merit testing because it is a Low Infection Fatality Rated virus. (2)

The phrase serves Covid Operation propaganda exclusively. It makes the notion of spending a fortune on testing worthwhile. It escalates the fear, and it distracts from the real virus which consists of New World Order subservient state Reactions to the Covid false flag (3): the emergency protocols, the guidelines, the lockdowns that governments have imposed globally.

State reactions to Covid-19 are killing people unnecessarily globally. Hospitals were emptied and Long Term Care facilities became “pandemic growth areas” (4), economies were and are being destroyed. People still avoid attending hospitals for fear of contracting the plague, thus leading to more excess deaths.

Poverty kills, and when economies are destroyed, especially in less affluent countries, healthcare becomes even more inaccessible. The total excess death toll from the operation may never be known.

The operation is about enriching the oligarch classes to the detriment of us all. The billionaire class is doing quite well thanks to Covid (5). It is also about social engineering as people habituate to anti-social distancing and become more habituated to digital healthcare, digital education, and the monetization of everything.

Covid is a conduit to the Fourth Industrial Revolution (6) and nobody asked us for informed consent. They didn’t ask about dangerous vaccines, increased surveillance and contract tracing, 5G, disemployment, poverty, increased militarization, growing fascism, authoritarianism and the the continued and intentional fracturing of societies. Of course they didn’t ask, because an informed answer would be No.

*

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.

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017. Visit the author’s website at https://www.marktaliano.net where this article was originally published.

(1) Amory Devereux and Rosemary Frei, “Scientists Have Utterly Failed to Prove that the Coronavirus Fulfills Koch’s Postulates.” Off Guardian, 9 June, 2020.
( https://off-guardian.org/2020/06/09/scientists-have-utterly-failed-to-prove-that-the-coronavirus-fulfills-kochs-postulates/ ) Accessed 27 June, 2020.

(2) “Facts about Covid-19.” Swiss Policy Research, June, 2020,
(https://swprs.org/a-swiss-doctor-on-covid-19/), Accessed 27 June, 2020.

(3) Mark Taliano, “Coronavirus False Flag” Global Research, 22 April, 2020.
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/coronavirus-false-flag/5710403 ) Accessed, 27 June, 2020.

(4) Dr. Jasmine Gilani and Silvia Valdman, “Letter by Dr. Jasmine Gilani and Silvia Valdman, LL.B. Regarding Patient Access at Welland, ON Hospital.” www.marktaliano.net,
(https://www.marktaliano.net/letter-by-dr-jasmine-gilani-and-silvia-valdman-ll-b-regarding-patient-access-at-welland-on-hospital/ ) Accessed 27 June, 2020.

(5) Maryam Shah, “U.S. billionaires richer by $434 billion since coronavirus pandemic began: report” Global News, 21 May, 2020.
(https://globalnews.ca/news/6970252/billionaires-richer-coronavirus-pandemic/ ) Accessed, 27 June, 2020.

(6) Cory Morningstar, “5G/ Moratorium’s, The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Blockchain”
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tPvz-EIZI-4 ) Accessed, 27 June, 2020.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

---

Order Mark Taliano’s Book “Voices from Syria” directly from 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. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

With Canada suffering two consecutive defeats in its effort to gain a United Nations Security Council seat, the time has come to fundamentally reassess our foreign policy.

Ten years ago, the Conservative government’s failure was largely explained as a rebuke of its support for the U.S. government and for mining and oil companies, as well as its anti-Palestinian policies.

The Liberal government promised change, but the world seems unconvinced.

Pro-Washington, pro-corporate policies will guarantee our irrelevance in a world struggling with economic inequality and looming environmental catastrophe. The defeat at the UN last week highlights the importance of formally reviewing Canadian foreign policy, called for by numerous prominent voices in recent days. Such a review has not taken place for 15 years.

But this undertaking can’t simply be a government affair. Nor can it be confined to the echo chamber of corporate and Department of National Defence aligned and financed think tank fellows and academics who currently dominate the discussion.

If we want to truly understand Canada’s Security Council defeat, a formal review needs to consider the positions of internationally-minded grassroots groups.

The review would benefit from considering the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War’s campaign against Canadian sanctions policy, for instance, which harms and kills citizens in 20 countries. Or Solidarity Québec-Haïti’s opposition to Canada’s support for a repressive Haitian president. Rights Action’s criticism of Canadian mining in Central America ought to be heard, as should Independent Jewish Voices’ position on Canadian charities in Israel. This would go a long way towards democratizing our foreign policy.

While groups like these have few resources, they represent the views of hundreds of thousands of Canadians. More importantly, they reflect the perspective of millions of people around the world. As the UN defeat demonstrates, politicians from the Global South may appear unequivocally supportive of Canada in public, but when their diplomats vote in private the result suggests otherwise.

As part of the push for a foreign policy review, the Canadian Foreign Policy Institute is releasing an open letter today addressed to the prime minister calling for a “fundamental reassessment of Canadian foreign policy.” It is signed by dozens of politicians, artists and academics, from MPs Leah Gazan and Paul Manly to former MPs Roméo Saganash, Libby Davies and Svend Robinson. Other signatories include Canadian luminaries like David Suzuki, Stephen Lewis and Naomi Klein, Vancouver Coun. Jean Swanson, as well as Richard Parry of Arcade Fire and Black Lives Matter-Toronto founder Sandy Hudson.

The letter puts forward 10 questions to consider as part of a foreign policy reset:

• Should we have a foreign policy driven by Washington or an independent foreign policy?
• Should Canada continue to offer financial and diplomatic support to arms exporters or refocus on demilitarization?
• Should Canadian foreign policy continue to be enmeshed with mining interests abroad?
• Why has Canada isolated itself from world opinion on Palestinian rights rather than standing for universal human rights?
• How can we ensure Canada abides by all international treaties protecting Indigenous rights?
• How can we ensure Canada radically reduces its greenhouse gas emissions?
• Does Canada’s sanctions policy respect international law?
• Why is Canada involved in efforts to overthrow Venezuela’s UN-recognized government, a clear violation of the principle of non-intervention in other country’s internal affairs?
• Should Canada continue to be part of NATO or instead pursue non-military paths to peace in the world?
• How can we ensure Canada’s foreign policy has a focus on peace, human rights and overcoming global inequities?

After last week’s UN vote, Vancouver activist Nino Pagliccia wrote “The international community has not given a vote of confidence to Canada’s foreign policy by denying it a seat to the UNSC. That’s all that the international community can do. It is now up to Canadians to demand changes to the Canadian government.”

Let’s use this moment to usher in a new era in which our government’s policies abroad reflect the desire of most Canadians to truly be a force for peace and human rights in the world.

*

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.

A previous report by South Front documented the heavy human, social and material costs of the drug wars in Mexico, which have devastated the country since the mid-2000s. In this report some of the major factors in the rapidly shifting environment of the main cartels over the last ten years, and their frequent formations, disintegrations and reconfigurations, are reviewed.

The markets for drugs: key aspects

Cocaine from Colombia supplies most of the U.S. market, and most of that supply now passes through Mexico, with Mexican drug traffickers the primary wholesalers of cocaine to the United States. According to official estimates, coca cultivation and cocaine production in Colombia have risen or remained constant over the last couple of years, with the U.S. government estimating that Colombia produced a record 921 metric tons of pure cocaine in 2017. For 2018, the U.S. government reported that Colombia’s coca cultivation dropped slightly to 208,000 hectares and its potential cocaine production declined to an estimated 887 metric tons.

In its 2018 National Drug Threat Assessment (NDTA), the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) states that Mexican trafficking organizations also dominate heroin and fentanyl exports from the country. Mexico’s heroin traffickers, who traditionally provided black or brown heroin to U.S. cities west of the Mississippi, began in 2012 and 2013 to innovate and changed their opium processing methods to produce white heroin, a purer and more potent product, which they trafficked mainly to the U.S. East Coast and Midwest. DEA seizure data determined in 2017 that 91% of heroin consumed in the United States was sourced to Mexico, and the agency maintains that no other crime groups have a comparable reach to distribute within the United States.

According to the US Office of National Drug Control Policy, Mexico cultivated an estimated 32,000 hectares (ha) of opium poppy in 2016, 44,100 ha in 2017, and 41,800 ha in 2018. The US government estimated that Mexico’s potential production of heroin rose to 106 metric tons in 2018 from 26 metric tons in 2013, suggesting Mexican-sourced heroin is likely to remain dominant in the U.S. market.

Illicit imports of fentanyl from Mexico involve Chinese fentanyl or fentanyl precursors mostly sourced from China. In addition, these traffickers adulterate fentanyl imported from China and smuggle it into the United States.

In 2017, Mexico seized 421 metric tons of marijuana and eradicated more than 4,230 hectares of marijuana, according to the State Department. However, it is likely that there will be a significant decline in US demand for Mexican marijuana as more marijuana is grown legally in several states in the United States and Canada, which have either legalized cannabis or made it legal for medical purposes, thus decreasing its value as part of Mexican trafficking organizations’ profit portfolio.

Mexican-produced methamphetamine has overtaken US sources of the drug and expanded into non-traditional methamphetamine markets inside the United States. According to the State Department, in 2017 Mexico seized 11.3 metric tons of methamphetamine, and as of August 2018, Mexican authorities had seized 130 metric tons of methamphetamine, including the seizure of some 50 metric tons of the drug in Sinaloa. The purity and potency of methamphetamine has driven up overdose deaths in the United States, according to the 2018 NDTA. Most Mexican trafficking organizations include a portion of the methamphetamine business in their trafficking operations and collectively control the wholesale methamphetamine distribution system inside the United States.

In stark contrast to the vicious life and death battle between the drug cartels, other illegal armed groups and organized crime networks, and the law enforcement officers who must risk their lives for an apparently futile cause, producing armed clashes on a daily basis which have claimed many thousands of lives and inflicted enormous carnage and suffering on the people of Mexico, is the serene and generous treatment of the white collar criminals who have benefitted most from the proceeds of the illicit trade in drugs, mostly from the US and Europe.

Major banks, such as HSBC and Wells Fargo, have repeatedly been caught laundering many billions of dollars from the drug cartels in Mexico and getting nothing more than a token slap on the wrist from the financial regulators in the form of a fine.

The entire US financial system is kept afloat by drug money according to some experts (examined in detail by Michael Ruppert and Catherine Austin Fitts, among many others).

Core features of the cartels’ evolution and structures

When President Calderón began his term as president in 2006 there were four major cartels: the Tijuana/Arellano Felix organization (AFO), the Sinaloa Cartel, the Juárez/Vicente Carillo Fuentes Organization (CFO), and the Gulf Cartel. Over the following years there were numerous disputes within and between the cartels and a large number of smaller groups were created, many by former members of the large cartels, others forming as smaller and more localised criminal networks grew and consolidated their activities and organization.

The territorial and functional boundaries of the groups, as well as their leadership and membership, are not always clear cut. Moreover, they are constantly changing in accordance with changes in the relations between key figures in each organization as well as relations between groups, which can also change rapidly depending on the area and activity involved. Hence, some analysts suggest that there could be as many as 20 major organizations if emerging factions and largely autonomous localised groups are included. In an analysis that is useful for penetrating the confusing proliferation of groups and activities, and appears to accurately identify some of the constant factors amidst the violence, misinformation and mayhem:

The Stratfor Global Intelligence group contends that the rival crime networks are best understood in regional groupings and that at least three geographic identities emerged by 2015, which essentially endure. Those umbrella groups are Tamaulipas State, Sinaloa State, and Tierra Caliente regional group. This framework also shows several states and regions of Mexico where the activities of these three regional groups mix, as in the eastern state of Veracruz, which is a mix of elements from the Tierra Caliente and the Tamaulipas umbrella groups. LINK

Geographic zones of influence of the main cartels in Mexico.By the end of Calderon’s term the US Drug Enforcement Administration identified seven major criminal organizations: Sinaloa, Los Zetas, Tijuana/AFO, Juárez/CFO, Beltrán Leyva, Gulf, and La Familia Michoacana. Of these groups, the Sinaloa and Gulf cartels in particular remain powerful despite the arrest of some of their leaders and losing some of their influence to other groups. The Cartel Jalisco-Nueva Generacion (CJNG) rose to prominence after 2010, particularly between 2013 and 2015, and is currently deemed by many analysts to be the most dangerous and largest Mexican cartel. CJNG has thrived since the demise of the Knights Templar, which was successfully targeted and largely dismantled by the Mexican authorities following the capture in February 2015 of its leader, Servando “La Tuta” Gomez, a former schoolteacher

In the Pacific Southwest, La Familia Michoacana—originally based in the state of Michoacán and influential in surrounding states—split apart in 2015. Its power steadily declined as a successor group, the Knights Templar, grew in prominence in the region known as the tierra caliente of Michoácan, Guerrero, and in parts of the neighbouring states Colima and Jalisco. As noted above, the Knights Templar group has since declined and has in turn been replaced by other groups in most of its former territories.

La Familia Michoacana and the Knights Templar began as a vigilante groups, claiming to protect the residents of Michoacán from other criminal groups. The Knights Templar was known for the trafficking and manufacture of methamphetamine, but the organization was also involved in the shipment of cocaine and marijuana towards the north. Both groups also preached a version of evangelical Christianity and claimed to be committed to social justice, while others attributed them as being responsible for much of the insecurity in Michoacán and surrounding states.

Up until 2008, the Beltrán Leyva Organization (BLO) was part of the Sinaloa federation and controlled access to the US border in Mexico’s Sonora state. The Beltrán Leyva brothers developed close ties with Sinaloa head Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán and his family, along with other Sinaloa-based top leadership. Following the arrest of the group’s leader (Alfredo Beltrán Levya) in 2008 the BLO broke off the alliance with the Sinaloa Cartel. Over the following years it lost much of its leadership in a series of operations by Mexico’s security forces and the group fragmented into a number of smaller groups in 2010.

Several splinter organizations have arisen from the remnants of the BLO since 2010, including the Guerreros Unidos and Los Rojos. Los Rojos operates in Guerrero and is reported to be heavily involved in kidnapping and extortion for revenue as well as trafficking cocaine. The Guerreros Unidos is reported to traffic cocaine as far north as Chicago in the United States and is thought to operate primarily in the central and Pacific states of Guerrero, México, and Morelos. According to Mexican authorities, the Guerreros Unidos were responsible for the execution of 43 Mexican teacher trainees, who were handed over to them by local authorities in Iguala, Guerrero in 2014.

According to the DEA, as of 2018 the BLO comprised a group of factions that work under the umbrella of the BLO name and traffic marijuana, cocaine, heroin, and methamphetamine, with specific subgroups relying on alliances with the CJNG, the Juárez Cartel and elements of Los Zetas to move drugs across the border, while maintaining distribution links in the US cities of Phoenix, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Atlanta. Inside Mexico, the groups are thought to remain influential in the states of Morelos, Guerrero, Nayarit, and Sinaloa.

The Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas

The Gulf Cartel, based in north-eastern Mexico, had a long history of dominance in terms of power and profits, with the height of its power in the early 2000s. However, the Gulf Cartel lost a considerable part of its power and in particular its military capability when its ‘enforcers’ —Los Zetas, who were organized from highly trained former Mexican military personnel (including airborne special forces members) —split to form a separate group and turned against their former employers, engaging in an extremely violent competition for territory and markets. The military training, discipline and weaponry of Los Zetas, combined with their absolute ruthlessness and brutality, brought the cartel violence in Mexico to a new level of destruction, lethality and terror that also had a much more devastating impact on communities where they had a significant presence. According to a report by the US Congressional Research Service:

Image on the right: Logo of the Gulf Cartel

“Most reports indicate that the Zetas were created by a group of 30 lieutenants and sub-lieutenants who deserted from the Mexican military’s Special Mobile Force Group (Grupos Aeromóviles de Fuerzas Especiales, GAFES) to join the Gulf Cartel in the late 1990s.” LINK

Originally based in the border city of Matamoros, Tamaulipas, the Gulf Cartel expanded and eventually controlled operations in other Mexican states along the Gulf of Mexico, becoming a transnational smuggling operation with agents in Central and South America. In the 1980s, its leader, Juan García Abrego, developed ties with Colombia’s Cali Cartel as well as with key personnel within the Mexican federal police. García Abrego was captured in 1996 near Monterrey, Mexico. Nonetheless, the group continued to grow and it was the main competitor challenging the Sinaloa Cartel for trafficking routes in the early 2000s before the violent separation of Los Zetas in 2010 which significantly affected its operations.

Los Zetas established a significant presence in several Mexican states along the Gulf, and extended their reach to Ciudad Juárez (Chihuahua) and several Pacific states, also operating in Central and South America. Unlike many other groups, Los Zetas never attempted to win the support of local populations in the territories where they operated, and they are widely reported to have killed many civilians. They are linked to several particularly gruesome massacres, including the 2011 firebombing of a casino in Monterrey that killed 53 people and the 2011 torture and mass execution of 193 migrants who were traveling through northern Mexico by bus. Los Zetas are reputed to kill those who cannot pay extortion fees or who refuse to work for them, often targeting migrants.

Image below: Logo of the Los Zetas Cartel

Los Zetas lost a succession of their most important leaders in joint police/ military operations during 2012-2013, and in 2015 Mexican authorities claimed that more than 30 of the group’s leaders had been arrested or killed. Nonetheless, at least two factions are still in existence, the ‘Old School Zetas’ (Escuela Vieja, or EV) and the Cartel del Noreste (CDN). It is thought that other local gangs have appropriated the Los Zetas ‘brand’ on occasion in an effort to take advantage of their fierce reputation.

In 2014 Mexican federal police targeted a dozen Gulf and Zeta bosses they believed responsible for the wave of violence in Tamaulipas in 2014, and analysts subsequently reported that the structures of both the Gulf Cartel and Los Zetas were decimated by federal operations as well as by disputes between competing factions. Both groups now operate largely as autonomous fragmented cells that often take on new names to disguise their identity and the full scope of their activities.

From 2014 through 2016, violence continued in the state of Tamaulipas with regular reports of kidnappings, daytime shootings, and burned-down bars and restaurants in towns and cities such as the port city of Tampico. It appears that the remnants of both groups have expanded into other criminal operations, such as fuel theft, kidnapping, human smuggling and widespread extortion. In 2018 the DEA maintained that the Gulf Cartel continued to operate with its main focus on the cocaine and marijuana trade, but also expanding into heroin and methamphetamine, smuggling the majority of its drug shipments into South Texas through the border region between the Rio Grande Valley and South Padre Island.

The Sinaloa Cartel

The Sinaloa Cartel also has a long history, with its traditional base of support in western Mexico. The cartel also has a reputation for brutality and fought a long campaign to establish control over transport and distribution routes through the border states of Chihuahua and Baja California and maintain its status as the dominant cartel in the country.

For many years the group was widely regarded as the most powerful drug trafficking syndicate in the Western Hemisphere; at its peak, the Sinaloa leadership successfully corrupted public officials from the local to the national level both inside Mexico and abroad, and was estimated to have operations in some 50 countries. As one of Mexico’s most prominent and visible (if elusive) criminal organizations, each of its major leaders was designated a ‘kingpin’ by US authorities in the early 2000s. At the top of the hierarchy was Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán, listed in 2001, Ismael Zambada Garcia (“El Mayo”), listed in 2002, and Juan Jose “El Azul” Esparragoza Moreno, listed in 2003.

According to official estimates, the Sinaloa Cartel controlled between 40%-60% of Mexico’s drug trade by 2012 and had annual earnings calculated to be around $3 billion, and for many years it was identified by the DEA as being the primary trafficker of drugs to the United States. In 2008, a federation dominated by the Sinaloa Cartel (which included the Beltrán Leyva organization and the Juárez Cartel) disintegrated, leading to a battle among the former partners that sparked one of the most violent periods in recent Mexican history.

The Sinaloa Cartel has adopted a more decentralized structure of loosely linked semi-autonomous organizations, which has made it more susceptible to conflict when factions break away under mid-level commanders. However, the decentralized structure has also enabled it to adapt quickly in the highly competitive and unstable environment and withstand the loss of key personnel following its targeting by Mexican and US authorities.

This was demonstrated in the aftermath of the arrest of the Sinaloa Cartel’s founder Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzmán in 2014, who was extradited to the United States on 19 January 2017. The federal operation to capture and detain Guzmán, allegedly with support from US intelligence, was viewed as a major victory for the government of Peña Nieto. Nonetheless, the arrest did not signify any improvement in either the security situation in the country or in the continued dominance of the major cartels over the illegal economy and territorial and social control in many parts of the country.

Following the arrest of El Chapo and the death of one of his most trusted deputies (“El Azul” Esparragoza Moreno) in 2014, the head of the Sinaloa Cartel was widely assumed to be Guzmán’s partner, Ismael Zambada Garcia, alias “El Mayo”. It is generally thought that he continues in that leadership role, together with at least one of El Chapo’s sons. In accordance with its more decentralized structure, Sinaloa operatives control certain territories through a network of regional bosses who conduct business and violence through alliances with each other and local gangs specializing in specific localities and activities.

Although El Chapo’s detention didn’t result in the demise of the Sinaloa Cartel or reduce violence and corruption, it does however appear to have encouraged violent competition from the Cartel Jalisco-New Generation (CJNG), which was formed when its leaders split from the Sinaloa Cartel in 2010. During 2016 and 2017 CJNG expanded quickly by displacing or liquidating its competitors in many areas.

There was a major scandal in October last year when Ovidio Guzmán López, one of El Chapo’s sons, was briefly detained in the town of Culiacán. Upon his arrest, his associates – widely reported as belonging to the Sinaloa Cartel – effectively took the entire town hostage and threatened to unleash a massacre. Faced with the prospect of an extremely bloody showdown, an emergency meeting of the security cabinet of the national government (headed by the Secretaries of National Defence, the Marines, Public Security and Citizen Protection, and the recently created National Guard) decided to release the captive and the armed bandits melted away, leaving the town with thirteen dead and many more wounded. LINK

The town of Culiacan after it was held siege by the CJNG for several hours.

The incident demonstrated beyond a doubt that, although the cartel may have declined in power relative to its peak, it still remains a very formidable force.

Last week the Mexican President provided more details explaining the reasons for the decision to release Ovidio Guzman:

“The members of the national security cabinet met and closely followed the ongoing developments and made decisions that I completely support because the situation became very difficult. Many citizens, many people, many human beings were at risk and it was decided to protect people’s lives and I agreed because it is not about (creating) massacres.”

He explained that the operation was carried out by the Mexican Army, based on an arrest warrant for a suspected criminal, but “there was a very violent reaction…”

The arrest triggered an immediate general mobilization of crime groups throughout the city of Culiacán and they even took control of the toll booths on the main roads and openly deployed their forces in other municipalities in the state, such as El Fuerte.

Lopez Obrador reaffirmed that his decision was made to protect citizens because “you cannot put out the fire with fire” and reiterated that his government is pursuing a different strategy than that of the previous governments.

“We do not want more dead, we do not want war, it is difficult to understand for some but the strategy that was being applied previously turned the country into a massive cemetery,” he said of the governments of Felipe Calderón (2006-2012) and Enrique Peña Nieto (2012- 2018), which produced more than 250,000 deaths and 40,000 missing (‘forced disappearances’) from the so-called war on drug trafficking.

“It is not easy (fighting crime). It is a process, it is not easy because the problem of violence has become entrenched throughout the country and we have to face two mafias, white collar crime and illegal armed groups, that is what we face.”

The incident in Culiacán has demonstrated the enormous control that the Sinaloa Cartel and its cells still have over the region, which had been relatively calm in the preceding period. LINK

The Cartel Jalisco-Nueva Generacion (CJNG)

As described in a previous report, the CJNG is now widely considered to be the most powerful cartel in Mexico. Also known as the Zeta Killers, the CJNG appeared in 2011 with a roadside display of the bodies of 35 alleged members of Los Zetas. The group is based in Jalisco state with operations in central Mexico, including the states of Colima, Michoacán, Mexico State, Guerrero, and Guanajuato, where it has grown to be a dominant force.

The CJNG reportedly served as an enforcement group for the Sinaloa Cartel until mid-2013, and subsequently entered into fierce competition with its former patrons for territory and markets.

The group appears to have been able to maintain a high level of cohesion amidst the widespread fragmentation, dispersal and mutation of its rivals, and its undisputed leader is Ruben Oseguera Cervantes, alias ‘El Mencho’.

‘El Mencho’, undisputed leasder of the CJNG

In 2015 and 2016 it was described by Mexican and US authorities respectively as one of the world’s most prolific and violent drug trafficking organizations, with operations throughout half of Mexico’s territory, along the East Pacific coast from Chile to Canada, as well as possessing significant networks and operations in Europe and Asia.

According to a 2019 report by the US Congressional Research Service:

CJNG’s efforts to dominate key ports on both the Pacific and Gulf Coasts have allowed it to consolidate important components of the global narcotics supply chain. In particular, CJNG asserts control over the ports of Veracruz, Mazanillo, and Lázaro Cardenas, which has given the group access to precursor chemicals that flow into Mexico from China and other parts of Latin America. As a result, CJNG has been able to pursue an aggressive growth strategy, underwritten by U.S. demand for Mexican methamphetamine, heroin, and fentanyl. LINK

The CJNG recently claimed that there is at least one ‘State Cartel’ operating in Mexico. Although the allegations were extremely vague in many respects, there is no doubt that senior figures in the State have collaborated with one or more cartels, and that this is a common occurrence (as has occurred in Colombia). Indeed, up to 20 former provincial governors are being investigated for varying degrees of cooperation with illegal armed groups; it is certain that a much larger large number of mayors have also been involved in such schemes in some way, given the enormous power of the cartels in many localities – as noted in the previous report by South Front, the 2018 elections in Mexico were the bloodiest on record, with approximately 37 mayors, former mayors or candidates for mayor being assassinated.

The Mexican cartel “Jalisco New Generation” (CJNG) recently released two short videos with denunciations of the San Luis Potosi government. In the videos, they refer to the State’s government as the ‘Ministerial Cartel’, and further claim that the head of the Federal State police, Jose Guadalupe Castillo Celestino, is the head of the State ‘cartel’.

The CJNG also asserted that several recent killings in San Luis Potosi were not a result of its activities. To find the guilty party, according to the video statements, authorities had to investigate Castillo Celestino, who struck deals with the cartels of the Northeast, the Gulf and Los Alemanes, ‘selling’ the criminal organizations the right to operate in specific areas and also arranging for the purchase of real estate with drug money.

The Jalisco cartel also added that it should not be thought that the state governor was not aware of the transactions. The local governments in most of the areas affected are also often either incapable of countering cartel activities, or are on their payroll.

Although the chief of the Federal Police and at least one provincial governor were specifically mentioned in the two videos released by the CJNG, it remains unclear whether the CJNG is alleging that some State officials are collaborating with other cartels, or whether they have established a specific illegal armed group (or groups) throughout the   country to take advantage of the breakdown in social order, violence and corruption to take over lucrative illegal markets and, perhaps, terrorize and displace rural and Indigenous communities so that political and economic partners can take over their territories and resources.

Again, any or all of these developments would have precedents and parallels in Colombia, where the Colombian police and US law enforcement and intelligence agencies (primarily the DEA, also probably the CIA) cooperated with the rivals and enemies of the Medellin Cartel, and Pablo Escobar in particular, resulting in the liquidation of the criminal group. However, as with the arrest of El Chapo, the killing of Escobar did absolutely nothing to improve the situation in the country, as the void was rapidly filled by other illegal armed groups. The Colombian military, and to a lesser extent police, have on repeated occasions collaborated with one paramilitary or other illegal armed group in order to take out another group.

Many aspects of these strategies and interactions between Colombian and US State security forces, military contractors and paramilitary groups are examined in the online book, In Search of Colombia: Social and political fragments and perspectives from the past to the present.

Community Self-Defence Organizations

One of the initiatives that has emerged from some of the communities most affected by the violence and predation of the illegal armed groups in rural and remote areas in Michoacán is the creation of community-based self-defence groups. Local business owners, who had grown weary of widespread extortion and violent crime that was ignored by corrupt local and state police, provided seed funding to establish the community-based militias in Michoacán, but authorities were concerned that some of the self-defence groups had extended their search for resources and weapons to competing crime syndicates and might develop more enduring relations with them.

While the concept is not by any means a panacea, and can cause even more problems for local communities as has been proven in the case of Colombia where they usually served as armed militias and death squads for local political and economic elites and landlords to terrorize and forcibly displace rural and remote communities in collaboration with military and police forces, if carefully implemented on a case-by-case basis under the control and with the full participation of the relevant communities it can at least provide the communities with an opportunity to be able to defend themselves until reinforcements can arrive.

In early 2014, the Mexican government began to implement a policy of incorporating members of the self-defence groups into legal law enforcement, giving them the option to disarm or register themselves and their weapons as part of the “Rural Police Force,” despite concerns about competing cartels corrupting these forces or the potential for the groups to morph into predatory paramilitary forces, as occurred in Colombia. The federal police and the Rural Police Force had a brief successful period of cooperation, however this ended with the arrests of the two self-defence force leaders (as well as dozens of members) in spring 2014. The arrests caused tension between the self-defence movement and federal police, and contributed to a renewal of high rates of violence in the area.

The concept has thus far not been incorporated into the new security strategies elaborated by President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, who has created a specialized National Guard in an attempt to eradicate the corrupt elements of the police and military and severe the links that have been developed between many of their personnel and the illegal armed groups, however it is not clear that reorganizing the security forces alone will be able to achieve this as they must inevitably be made of the same basic elements in a new uniform.  The concept also appears not to be favoured by the leadership of the conventional security forces.

In some areas however the communities themselves have persisted with the initiative after having found themselves confronted by and at the mercy of apparent, and at times obvious, collaboration between illegal armed groups, police (whether federal or municipal) and military personnel (as well as politicians, landlords and corporate developers in more than a few cases). It could be argued that it is the height of cynicism and hypocrisy to deny communities the opportunity to defend themselves with security forces drawn from and selected and overseen by those same communities if they should choose to do so, particularly given the failure of the public security forces to protect them and hunt down and capture the illegal armed groups in their territories. In contrast, moreover, the economically well-off are usually very well attended by the security forces if they request assistance, and generally face very few obstacles to hire as many private security guards as they wish.

Even during the ‘lockdown’ measures implemented since the outbreak of the Coronavirus, in many cases the illegal armed groups have been able to move around freely to undertake their predatory activities and terrorize local communities in rural and remote areas.

*

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.

Global Research Supports South Front in its endeavors. Their articles and videos are featured on a daily basis on Global Research.

We call upon our readers to make a donation to South Front, a project of independent analysts committed to Truth in Media, Cli9ck the links below to donate. 

If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

Today, June 26,  is The International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking:  “an expression of  determination to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse” (UN General Assembly).

The following article by Tom Burghardt first published by Global Research in 2012, focusses on the issue of narcotics and fraudulent money laundering

***

In another shameful decision by the US Department of Justice, earlier this month federal prosecutors reached a deferred prosecution agreement (DPA) with UK banking giant HSBC, Europe’s largest bank.

Shameful perhaps, but entirely predictable. After all, in an era characterized by economic collapse owing to gross criminality by leading financial actors, policy decisions and the legal environment framing those decisions have been shaped by oligarchs who quite literally have “captured” the state.

Founded in 1865 by flush-with-cash opium merchants after the British Crown seized Hong Kong from China in the aftermath of the First Opium War, HSBC has been a permanent fixture on the radar of US law enforcement and regulatory agencies for more than a decade.

Not that anything so trifling as terrorist financing or global narcotrafficking mattered much to the Obama administration.

As I previously reported, (here, here, here and here), when the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations issued their mammoth 335-page report, “U.S. Vulnerabilities to Money Laundering, Drugs, and Terrorist Financing: HSBC Case History,” we learned that amongst the “services” offered by HSBC subsidiaries and correspondent banks were sweet deals, to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars, with financial entities with ties to international terrorism and the grisly drug trade.

Charged with multiple violations of the Bank Secrecy Act for their role in laundering blood money for Mexican and Colombian drug cartels, as a sideline HSBC’s Canary Wharf masters conducted a highly profitable business with the alleged financiers of the 9/11 attacks who washed funds through Saudi Arabia’s Al Rajhi Bank.

While the media breathlessly reported that the DPA will levy fines totaling some $1.92 billion (£1.2bn) which includes $655 million (£408m) in civil penalties, the largest penalty of its kind ever levied against a bank, under terms of the agreement not a single senior officer will be criminally charged. In fact, those fines will be paid by shareholders which include municipal investors, pension funds and the public at large.

With some 7,200 offices in more than 80 countries and 2011 profits topping $22 billion (£13.6bn), Senate investigators found that HSBC’s web of 1,200 correspondent banks provided drug traffickers, other organized crime groups and terrorists with “U.S. dollar services, including services to move funds, exchange currencies, cash monetary instruments, and carry out other financial transactions. Correspondent banking can become a major conduit for illicit money flows unless U.S. laws to prevent money laundering are followed.” They weren’t and as a result the bank’s balance sheets were inflated with illicit proceeds from terrorists and drug gangsters.

Revelations of widespread institutional criminality are hardly a recent phenomenon. More than a decade ago journalist Stephen Bender published a Z Magazine piece which found that “99.9 percent of the laundered criminal money that is presented for deposit in the United States gets comfortably into secure accounts.”

According to Bender: “The key institution in the enabling of money laundering is the ‘private bank,’ a subdivision of every major US financial institution. Private banks exclusively seek out a wealthy clientele, the threshold often being an annual income in excess of $1 million. With the prerogatives of wealth comes a certain regulatory deference.”

Such “regulatory deference” in the era of “too big to fail” and its corollary, “too big to prosecute,” is a signal characteristic as noted above, of state capture by criminal financial elites.

Indeed, HSBC’s private banking arm, HSBC Private Bank is the principal private banking business of the HSBC Group. A holding company wholly owned by HSBC Bank Plc, its subsidiaries include HSBC Private Bank (Suisse) SA, HSBC Private Bank (UK) Limited, HSBC Private Bank (CI) Limited, HSBC Private Bank (Luxembourg) SA, HSBC Private Bank (Monaco) SA and HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) Limited. All of these entities featured prominently in money laundering and tax evasion schemes uncovered by the Senate Permanent Subcommittee in their report. Combined client assets have been estimated by regulators to top $352 billion (£217.68).

According to Senate investigators, HSBC Financial Services (Cayman) was the principle conduit through which drug money laundered through HSBC Mexico (HBMX) flowed. “This branch,” Senate staff averred, “is a shell operation with no physical presence in the Caymans, and is managed by HBMX personnel in Mexico City who allow Cayman accounts to be opened by any HBMX branch across Mexico.”

“Total assets in the Cayman accounts peaked at $2.1 billion in 2008. Internal documents show that the Cayman accounts had operated for years with deficient AML [anti-money laundering] and KYC [know your client] controls and information. An estimated 15% of the accounts had no KYC information at all, which meant that HBMX had no idea who was behind them, while other accounts were, in the words of one HBMX compliance officer, misused by ‘organized crime’.”

In fact, the “normal” business model employed by HSBC and other entities bailed out by Western governments fully conform to the “control fraud” model first described by financial crime expert William K. Black.

According to Black, a control fraud occurs when a CEO and other senior managers remove checks and balances that prevent criminal behaviors, thus subverting regulatory requirements that prevent things like money laundering, shortfalls due to bad investments or the sale of toxic financial instruments.

In The Best Way to Rob a Bank Is to Own One, Black informed us: “A control fraud is a company run by a criminal who uses it as a weapon and shield to defraud others and makes it difficult to detect and punish the fraud.”

“Control frauds,” Black reported, “are financial superpredators that cause vastly larger losses than blue-collar thieves. They cause catastrophic business failures. Control frauds can occur in waves that imperil the general economy. The savings and loan (S&L) debacle was one such wave.”

Indeed, “control frauds” like HSBC “create a ‘fraud friendly’ corporate culture by hiring yes-men. They combine excessive pay, ego strokes (e.g., calling the employees ‘geniuses’) and terror to get employees who will not cross the CEO.” In such a “criminogenic” environment, the CEO (paging Lord Green!) “optimizes the firm as a fraud vehicle and can optimize the regulatory environment.”

In their press release, the Department of Justice announced that HSBC Group “have agreed to forfeit $1.256 billion and enter into a deferred prosecution agreement with the Justice Department for HSBC’s violations of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) and the Trading with the Enemy Act (TWEA).”

“According to court documents,” the DOJ’s Office of Public Affairs informed us, “HSBC Bank USA violated the BSA by failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and to conduct appropriate due diligence on its foreign correspondent account holders.”

The DOJ goes on to state, “A four-count felony criminal information was filed today in federal court in the Eastern District of New York charging HSBC with willfully failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering (AML) program, willfully failing to conduct due diligence on its foreign correspondent affiliates, violating IEEPA and violating TWEA.”

However, “HSBC has waived federal indictment, agreed to the filing of the information, and has accepted responsibility for its criminal conduct and that of its employees.”

In other words, because they accepted “responsibility” for acts that would land the average citizen in the slammer for decades, those guilty of “palling around with terrorists” or smoothing the way as billionaire drug traffickers hid their loot in the so-called “legitimate economy,” got a free pass. In fact, under terms of the agreement DOJ’s “deferred prosecution” will be “deferred” alright, like forever!

Why might that be the case?

The New York Times informed us that state and federal officials, eager beavers when it comes to protecting the integrity of a system lacking all integrity, “decided against indicting HSBC in a money-laundering case over concerns that criminal charges could jeopardize one of the world’s largest banks and ultimately destabilize the global financial system.”

Keep in mind this is a “system” which former United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime director Antonio Maria Costa told The Observer thrives on illicit money flows. In 2009, Costa told the London broadsheet that “in many instances, the money from drugs was the only liquid investment capital. In the second half of 2008, liquidity was the banking system’s main problem and hence liquid capital became an important factor.” Costa said that “a majority of the $352bn (£216bn) of drugs profits was absorbed into the economic system as a result.”

Glossing over these facts, Times’ stenographers Ben Protess and Jessica Silver-Greenberg, cautioned that “four years after the failure of Lehman Brothers nearly toppled the financial system,” federal regulators “are still wary that a single institution could undermine the recovery of the industry and the economy.”

“Given the extent of the evidence against HSBC, some prosecutors saw the charge as a healthy compromise between a settlement and a harsher money-laundering indictment. While the charge would most likely tarnish the bank’s reputation, some officials argued that it would not set off a series of devastating consequences.”

Devastating to whom one might ask? The 100,000 Mexicans brutally murdered by drug gangsters, corrupt police and Mexican Army soldiers whose scorched-earth campaign kills off the competition on behalf of Mexico’s largest narcotics organization, the Sinaloa Cartel run by fugitive billionaire drug lord Chapo Guzmán?

“A money-laundering indictment, or a guilty plea over such charges,” the Times averred, “would essentially be a death sentence for the bank. Such actions could cut off the bank from certain investors like pension funds and ultimately cost it its charter to operate in the United States, officials said.”

Many of the same lame excuses for prosecutorial inaction were also prominent features in the British press.

The Daily Telegraph reported that the “largest banks have become too big to prosecute because of the impact criminal charges would have on confidence in them, Britain’s most senior bank regulator has admitted.”

“In a variant of the ‘too big to fail’ problem, Andrew Bailey, chief executive designate of the Prudential Regulation Authority, said bringing a legal action against a major financial institution raised ‘very difficult questions’.”

“‘Because of the confidence issue with banks, a major criminal indictment, which we haven’t seen and I’m not saying we are going to see… this is not an ordinary criminal indictment’,” Bailey told the Telegraph.

Echoing Bailey, Assistant Attorney General Lanny Breuer said the decision not to prosecute HSBC was made because “in this day and age we have to evaluate that innocent people will face very big consequences if you make a decision.”

This from an administration that continues to prosecute–and jail–low-level drug offenders at record rates!

“Breuer’s argument is facially absurd,” according to William K. Black. In a piece published by New Economic Perspectives, Black argues:

Prosecuting HSBC’s fraudulent controlling managers would not harm anyone innocent other than their families–and virtually all prosecutions hurt some family members. Breuer claims that virtually all of HSBC’s senior officers have been removed, so his argument is doubly absurd. Mostly, however, Breuer ignores all of the innocents harmed by the control frauds. SDIs [systemically dangerous institutions] that are control frauds are weapons of mass economic destruction that drive global crises and are the greatest enemy of ‘free’ markets. They are also the greatest threat to democracy, for they create crony capitalism. We are all innocent victims of these control frauds–and the Obama and Cameron governments are allowing them to commit their frauds with impunity from criminal prosecutions. The controlling officers get wealthy without fear of prosecution. The SDIs controlled by fraudulent officers have to purchase an indulgence, but the price of the indulgence is capped by the ‘too big to prosecute’ doctrine at a level that will not cause it any real distress. Breuer’s and Bailey’s embrace of too big to prosecute should have led to their immediate dismissals. Obama and Cameron should either fire them or announce that they stand with the criminal enterprises and their fraudulent controlling officers against their citizens.

As Rowan Bosworth-Davies, a former financial crimes specialist with London’s Metropolitan Police observed on his web site, “When you get a bank which admits, like HSBC has just done, that it is nothing more than a low-life money launderer for Mexican drug kingpins, and when it serves powerful vested interests to get round internationally-ratified sanctions against rogue nations, what possible benefit is achieved by trying to pretend that they cannot be prosecuted and charged with criminal offences?”

“Oh, excuse me,” Bosworth-Davies wrote, “it might impact the confidence they enjoy? Whose confidence, their Mexican drug traffickers, their international sanctions breakers, their global tax evaders, or the ordinary, law-abiding clients who are entitled to assume that their bank will obey the laws imposed on them and will provide a safe place of deposit?”

“Confidence,” the former Met detective averred, “what bloody confidence can anyone have when they know their bank is an admitted criminal? When their money is deposited with a bank that breaks the criminal law at every possible opportunity, which cheats them at every turn, sells them fraudulent products, launders drug money, evades international sanctions, moves foreign oligarchs’ tax evasion, safeguards the deposit accounts of Third World dictators and their families, then what is that confidence worth?”

Instead, as with the 2010 deal with Wachovia Bank, federal prosecutors cobbled together a DPA that levied a “fine” of $160 million (£99.2m) on laundered drug profits that topped $378 billion (£234.5bn).

Although top Justice Department officials charged that HSBC laundered upwards of $881 million (£546.5m) on behalf of the Sinaloa and Colombia’s Norte del Valle drug cartels, federal prosecutors investigating the bank told Reuters in September that this was merely the “tip of the iceberg.”

In fact, as Senate investigators discovered during their probe, the bank failed to monitor more than $670 billion (£415.6bn) in wire transfers from HSBC Mexico (HBMX) between 2006 and 2009, and failed to adequately monitor over $9.4 billion (£5.83bn) in purchases of physical U.S. dollars from HBMX during the same period.

Assistant Attorney General Lanny A. Breuer, said in prepared remarks announcing the DPA that “traffickers didn’t have to try very hard” when it came to laundering drug cash. “They would sometimes deposit hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, in a single day, into a single account,” Breuer said, “using boxes designed to fit the precise dimensions of the teller windows in HSBC Mexico’s branches.”

While Breuer’s dramatic account of the money laundering process may have offered a gullible financial press corps a breathless moment or two, a closer look at Breuer’s CV offer hints as to why he chose not to criminally charge the bank.

A corporatist insider, after representing President Bill Clinton during ginned-up impeachment hearings, Breuer became a partner in the white shoe Washington, DC law firm Covington & Burling. From his perch, he represented Moody’s Investor Service in the wake of Enron’s ignominious collapse and Dick Cheney’s old firm Halliburton/KBR during Bush regime scandals. Talk about “safe hands”!

Appointed as the head of the Justice Department’s Criminal Division by Obama in 2009, Breuer presided over the prosecution/persecution of NSA whistleblower Thomas A. Drake on charges that he violated the Espionage Act of 1917 for disclosing massive contractor fraud at NSA to The Baltimore Sun.

More recently, along with 14 other officials Breuer was recommended for potential “disciplinary action” by the Justice Department’s Office of the Inspector General over the Fast and Furious gun-walking scandal which put some 2,000 firearms into the hands of cartel killers in Mexico.

“A Justice official said Breuer has been ‘admonished'” by U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, “but will not be disciplined,” The Washington Post reported.

Breuer had the temerity to claim that deferred prosecution agreements “have the same punitive, deterrent, and rehabilitative effect as a guilty plea.”

“When a company enters into a deferred prosecution agreement with the government, or an non prosecution agreement for that matter,” Breuer asserted, “it almost always must acknowledge wrongdoing, agree to cooperate with the government’s investigation, pay a fine, agree to improve its compliance program, and agree to face prosecution if it fails to satisfy the terms of the agreement.”

As is evident from this brief synopsis, when it came to holding HSBC to account, the fix was already in even before a single signature was affixed to the DPA.

Without batting an eyelash, Breuer informed us that HSBC has “committed” to undertake “enhanced AML and other compliance obligations and structural changes within its entire global operations to prevent a repeat of the conduct that led to this prosecution.”

“HSBC has replaced almost all of its senior management, ‘clawed back’ deferred compensation bonuses given to its most senior AML and compliance officers, and has agreed to partially defer bonus compensation for its most senior executives–its group general managers and group managing directors–during the period of the five-year DPA.”

Yes, you read that correctly. Despite charges that would land the average citizen in a federal gulag for decades, senior managers have “agreed” to “partially defer bonus compensation” for the length of the DPA!

As Rolling Stone financial journalist Matt Taibbi commented:

“Wow. So the executives who spent a decade laundering billions of dollars will have to partially defer their bonuses during the five-year deferred prosecution agreement? Are you fucking kidding me? That’s the punishment? The government’s negotiators couldn’t hold firm on forcing HSBC officials to completely wait to receive their ill-gotten bonuses? They had to settle on making them ‘partially’ wait? Every honest prosecutor in America has to be puking his guts out at such bargaining tactics. What was the Justice Department’s opening offer–asking executives to restrict their Caribbean vacation time to nine weeks a year?”

“So you might ask,” Taibbi writes,

“what’s the appropriate penalty for a bank in HSBC’s position? Exactly how much money should one extract from a firm that has been shamelessly profiting from business with criminals for years and years? Remember, we’re talking about a company that has admitted to a smorgasbord of serious banking crimes. If you’re the prosecutor, you’ve got this bank by the balls. So how much money should you take?”

“How about all of it? How about every last dollar the bank has made since it started its illegal activity? How about you dive into every bank account of every single executive involved in this mess and take every last bonus dollar they’ve ever earned? Then take their houses, their cars, the paintings they bought at Sotheby’s auctions, the clothes in their closets, the loose change in the jars on their kitchen counters, every last freaking thing. Take it all and don’t think twice. And then throw them in jail.”

But there’s the rub and the proverbial fly in the ointment. The government can’t and won’t take such measures. Far from being impartial arbiters sworn to defend us from financial predators, speculators, drug lords, terrorists, warmongers and out-of-control corporate vultures hiding trillions of taxable dollars offshore, officials of this criminalized state are hand picked servants of a thoroughly debauched ruling class.

Writing for the World Socialist Web Site, Barry Grey observed: HSBC “was allowed to pay a token fine–less than 10 percent of its profits for 2011 and a fraction of the money it made laundering the drug bosses’ blood money. Meanwhile, small-time drug dealers and users, often among the most impoverished and oppressed sections of the population, are routinely arrested and locked up for years in the American prison gulag.”

“The financial parasites who keep the global drug trade churning and make the lion’s share of money from the social devastation it wreaks are above the law,” Grey noted.

“Here, in a nutshell,” Grey wrote, “is the modern-day aristocratic principle that prevails behind the threadbare trappings of ‘democracy.’ The financial robber barons of today are a law unto themselves. They can steal, plunder, even murder at will, without fear of being called to account. They devote a portion of their fabulous wealth to bribing politicians, regulators, judges and police–from the heights of power in Washington down to the local police precinct–to make sure their wealth is protected and they remain immune from criminal prosecution.”

Regarding America’s fraudulent “War on Drugs,” researcher Oliver Villar, who with Drew Cottle coauthored the essential book, Cocaine, Death Squads, and the War on Terror: US Imperialism and Class Struggle in Colombia, told Asia Times Online, it is a “war” that the state and leading banks and financial institutions in the capitalist West have no interest whatsoever in “winning.”

When queried why he argued that the “war on drugs is no failure at all, but a success,” Villar noted: “I come to that conclusion because what do we know so far about the war on drugs? Well, the US has spent about US$1 trillion throughout the globe. Can we simply say it has failed? Has it failed the drug money-laundering banks? No. Has it failed the key Western financial centers? No. Has it failed the narco-bourgeoisie in Colombia–or in Afghanistan, where we can see similar patterns emerging? No. Is it a success in maintaining that political economy? Absolutely.”

Equally important, what does the impunity shamelessly enjoyed by such loathsome parasites say about us?

Have we become so indifferent to officially sanctioned crime and corruption, the myriad petty tyrannies and tyrants, from the boardroom to the security checkpoint to the job, not to mention murderous state policies that have transformed so-called “advanced” democracies into hated and loathed pariah states, who we really are?

As the late author J. G. Ballard pointed out in his masterful novel Kingdom Come, “Consumer fascism provides its own ideology, no one needs to sit down and dictate Mein Kampf. Evil and psychopathy have been reconfigured into lifestyle statements.”

Paranoid fantasy? Wake up and smell the corporatized police state.

Tom Burghardt is a researcher and activist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In addition to publishing in Covert Action Quarterly and Global Research, he is a Contributing Editor with Cyrano’s Journal Today. His articles can be read on Dissident Voice, Pacific Free Press, Uncommon Thought Journal, and the whistleblowing website WikiLeaks. He is the editor of Police State America: U.S. Military “Civil Disturbance” Planning, distributed by AK Press and has contributed to the new book from Global Research, The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century.

By resolution 42/112 of 7 December 1987, the UN General Assembly decided to observe 26 June as the International Day against Drug Abuse and Illicit Trafficking as an expression of its determination to strengthen action and cooperation to achieve the goal of an international society free of drug abuse. The UN General Assembly is committed to developing awareness regarding the Illicit trafficking of narcotics.

Excerpted from Cruel Harvest: US Intervention in the Afghan Drug Trade (Pluto Press, 2013), by Julien Mercille.

As Obama proclaims that the US adventure in Afghanistan will draw to a close over the next couple years, we may look at the balance sheet with respect to one of the occupation’s alleged justifications: the fight against Afghan heroin. The outcome has been a total failure. In fact, whereas Afghanistan is sometimes referred to as the “graveyard of empires” because throughout history, big powers have attempted, unsuccessfully, to invade and control it, the country can already be labeled as the “garden of empire” because the US/NATO occupation has resulted in a drastic increase in drug production.

Opium production in Afghanistan skyrocketed from 185 tons to 8,200 tons between 2001 and 2007 (today it is down to 3,700 tons). Most commentary glosses over Washington’s large share of responsibility for this dramatic expansion while magnifying the Taliban’s role, which available data indicates is relatively minor. Also, identifying drugs as a main cause behind the growth of the insurgency absolves the United States and NATO of their own role in fomenting it: the very presence of foreign troops in the country as well as their destructive attacks on civilians are significant factors behind increases in popular support for, or tolerance of, the Taliban. In fact, as a recent UNODC report notes, reducing drug production would have only a “minimal impact on the insurgency’s strategic threat,” because the Taliban receive “significant funding from private donors all over the world,” a contribution that “dwarfs” drug money.

A UNODC report entitled Addiction, Crime and Insurgency: The Transnational Threat of Afghan Opium provides a good example of the conventional view of the Taliban’s role in drug trafficking. It claims that they draw some $125 million annually from narcotics, resulting in the “perfect storm” of drugs and terrorism heading toward Central Asia and endangering its energy resources. UNODC maintains that when they were in power in the second half of the 1990s, the Taliban earned about $75–100 million per year from drugs, but since 2005 this figure has risen to $125 million. Although this is presented as a significant increase, the Taliban play a lesser role in the opium economy than the report would have us believe as they capture only a small share of its total value. Moreover, drug money is likely a secondary source of funding for them: UNODC itself estimates that only 10 percent to 15 percent of Taliban funding is drawn from drugs and 85 percent comes from “non-opium sources” such as private donations.

The total revenue generated by opiates within Afghanistan is about $3 billion per year. According to UNODC data, the Taliban get only about 5 percent of this sum. Farmers selling their opium harvest to traffickers get 20 percent. And the remaining 75 percent? Al-Qaeda? No: the report specifies that it “does not appear to have a direct role in the Afghan opiates trade,” although it may participate in “low-level drugs and/or arms smuggling” along the Pakistani border. Instead, the remaining 75 percent is captured by traffickers, government officials, the police, and local and regional power brokers – in short, many of the groups now supported or tolerated by the United States and NATO are important actors in the drug trade.

Therefore, claims that “Taliban insurgents are earning astonishingly large profits off the opium trade” are misleading. Nevertheless, UNODC insists on the Taliban-drugs connection but pays less attention to individuals and groups supported or tolerated by Washington. The agency seems to be acting as an enabler of coalition policies in Afghanistan: when asked what percentage of total drug income in Afghanistan is captured by government officials, the UNODC official who supervised the above report quickly replied: “We don’t do that, I don’t know.”

Mainstream commentary blames the size of the narcotics industry and much of what goes wrong in Afghanistan partly on corruption. But to focus on bad apples in the Afghan government and police misses the systemic responsibility of the United States and NATO for the dramatic expansion of opiates production since 2001 and for their support of numerous corrupt individuals in power. The United States attacked Afghanistan in association with Northern Alliance warlords and drug lords and showered them with weapons, millions of dollars, and diplomatic support.

The empowerment and enrichment of those individuals enabled them to tax and protect opium traffickers, leading to the quick resumption of narcotics production after the hiatus of the 2000–2001 Taliban ban, as many observers have documented. Ahmed Rashid has written that the whole Afghan Interior Ministry “became a major protector of drug traffickers, and Karzai refused to clean it out. As warlord militias were demobilized and disarmed by the UN, commanders found new positions in the Interior Ministry and continued to provide protection to drug traffickers.” The United States was not interested in cleaning Afghanistan of drug traffickers either. Thus, to blame “corruption” and “criminals” for the current state of affairs is to ignore the direct and predictable effects of US policies, which have followed a historical pattern of toleration and protection of strongmen involved in narcotics.

In 2004, Afghan forces found an enormous cache of heroin in a truck near Kandahar, but both Wali Karzai, the president’s brother, and an aide to President Karzai called the commander of the group that had made the discovery to tell him to release the drugs and the truck. Two years later, American and Afghan counternarcotics forces seized more than 110 pounds of heroin near Kabul, which US investigators said were linked to Wali Karzai. But Wali Karzai was only the tip of the iceberg, as a former CIA officer asserted that virtually “every significant Afghan figure has had brushes with the drug trade.” In private, American officials acknowledge ties with drug-linked Afghan figures. A Wikileaks cable recounting US officials’ meetings with Wali Karzai in September 2009 and February 2010 stated that while “we must deal with AWK [Ahmed Wali Karzai] as the head of the Provincial Council, he is widely understood to be corrupt and a narcotics trafficker.” But in public, the ties are denied. As Senator John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said: “We should not condemn Ahmed Wali Karzai or damage our critical relations with his brother, President Karzai, on the basis of newspaper articles or rumors.”

Of the annual $65 billion global market for opiates, only 5 to 10 percent ($3 to $5 billion) is estimated to be laundered by informal banking systems, while two-thirds ($40 to $45 billion) is available for laundering through the formal banking system. A recent UNODC report estimated that about $220 billion of drug money is laundered annually through the financial system. However, only about 0.2 percent of all laundered criminal money is seized and frozen, as governments have other priorities than regulating the banking industry, which benefits from this extra liquidity.

US COUNTERNARCOTICS POLICY

Until about 2005, American policy in Afghanistan was, by and large, not concerned with drugs. General Tommy Franks, who led the initial attack, declared in 2002 that US troops would stay clear of drug interdiction and that resolving narcotics problems was up to Afghans and civilians. When Donald Rumsfeld was asked in 2003 what the United States was doing about narcotics in Helmand, he replied: “You ask what we’re going to do and the answer is, I don’t really know.” A US military spokesman at Bagram base, Sergeant Major Harrison Sarles, stated: “We’re not a drug task force. That’s not part of our mission.” Moreover, the DEA had only two agents in Afghanistan in 2003 and didn’t open an office in the country until 2004.

Several reasons explain the early opposition to counternarcotics on the part of the White House and the military. First, Afghanistan was attacked to show that Washington should not be challenged, and destroying poppy crops and heroin labs contributes nothing in this respect. Therefore, there is no reason why any effort should have been directed toward that task. In late 2005, Lt. Gen. Karl Eikenberry, then commander of US forces in Afghanistan, made it clear that “drugs are bad, but his orders were that drugs were not a priority of the U.S. military in Afghanistan.” Furthermore, Washington’s most important target at that time was Iraq, whose oil resources and strategic location in the Persian Gulf region ensured that it would take priority.

Second, many of the United States’ local Afghan allies were involved in trafficking, from which they drew money and power. Destroying drug labs and poppy fields would have been, in effect, a direct blow to American operations and proxy fighters on the ground. As Western diplomats conceded at the time, “without money from drugs, our friendly warlords can’t pay their militias. It’s as simple as that.” According to James Risen, this explains why the Pentagon and the White House refused to bomb the 25 or so drug facilities that the CIA had identified on its maps in 2001. Similarly, in 2005, the Pentagon denied all but 3 of 26 DEA requests for airlifts. Barnett Rubin summarized the US attitude well when he wrote in 2004 that when “he visits Afghanistan, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld meets military commanders whom Afghans know as the godfathers of drug trafficking. The message has been clear: Help fight the Taliban and no one will interfere with your trafficking.” As a result, US military officials closed their eyes to the trade. An Army Green Beret said he was “specifically ordered to ignore heroin and opium when he and his unit discovered them on patrol.” A US Senate report mentioned that “congressional committees received reports that U.S. forces were refusing to disrupt drug sales and shipments and rebuffing requests from the Drug Enforcement Administration for reinforcements to go after major drug kingpins.”

Third, the Department of Defense thought that eradicating crops would upset farmers and hurt attempts at winning Afghan hearts and minds. Indeed, since 2001, the Taliban have sought to capitalize on resentment caused by eradication schemes. For example, in Helmand “they appear to have offered protection to the farmers targeted by eradication” and in Kandahar “they were even reported to have offered financial assistance to farmers whose fields were being eradicated, in exchange for support in fighting against the government.” Thus, it is far from certain that eliminating drugs would weaken the insurgency. In fact, the opposite is more likely, as it would only add to the opposition already generated by NATO operations in the country, as noted by a well-informed analyst: “As the conflict progressed, victims of abuses by both Afghan and foreign troops and of the side-effects of US reliance on air power began to represent another important source of recruits for the Taliban.”

From 2004, counternarcotics started slowly moving up the US agenda. In 2005, Washington developed its first counternarcotics strategy for Afghanistan, composed of five pillars: elimination/eradication, interdiction, justice reform, public information, and alternative livelihoods (although the pillars were not weighted equally: alternative development was relatively neglected, while eradication/elimination was the priority). The Afghan government incorporated this strategy into its own 2006 National Drug Control Strategy, which was later updated and integrated into its National Development Strategy in 2008. Around 2005, counternarcotics operations were still relatively isolated from the broader counterinsurgency strategy. Nevertheless, the Pentagon started to consider the possibility of getting involved in counterdrug missions and issued new guidelines authorizing the military to “move antidrug agents by helicopters and cargo planes and assist in planning missions and uncovering targets,” among other things. A number of counternarcotics units were set up, such as Task Force 333 (a covert squad of special agents) and the Central Poppy Eradication Force, an Afghan team trained by the American private contractor Dyncorp at a cost of $50 million and supervised by the United States through the Afghan Ministry of the Interior, where Washington’s main contact was Lieutenant General Mohammad Daoud. It didn’t seem to be a problem that Daoud was “an ex-warlord from the north who was reputed to have major connections with the drug trade.”

Since 2007, the United States has intensified its counternarcotics efforts and sought to integrate them more closely with the counterinsurgency campaign. In particular, in late 2008, the Pentagon changed its rules of engagement to permit US troops to target traffickers allied with insurgents and terrorists, and soldiers were allowed to accompany and protect counternarcotics operations run by Americans and Afghans. This shift was also adopted by NATO, whose members were allowed to participate in interdiction missions.

Since 2009, the Obama administration’s strategy has deemphasized eradication by ending support for the Afghan central eradication force while focusing on interdiction and the destruction of heroin labs, based on the reasoning that this “would more precisely target the drug-insurgency nexus.” A focus on rural development has also been announced because, as Richard Holbrooke declared, eradication is a “waste of money,” it alienates farmers, and it “might destroy some acreage, but it didn’t reduce the amount of money the Taliban got by one dollar. It just helped the Taliban.” The number of permanent DEA agents in Afghanistan has increased from 13 to over 80 in 2011 and the Pentagon has established a Combined Joint Interagency Task Force-Nexus in Kandahar to provide coordination support and intelligence for DEA interdiction missions and ISAF counterinsurgency operations that target insurgents with links to the drug trade.

Overall, an interesting question is to explain the emergence, intensification and militarization of US counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. Although such a discussion remains somewhat speculative, what follows discusses possible reasons that may account for the evolution of the anti-drug strategy over time. Some have pointed to the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld as secretary of defense in 2006. Rumsfeld had always been strongly opposed to military involvement in drug control and thus his departure is thought to have contributed to a “sea change” in the Department of Defense’s attitude, which then became more engaged in counternarcotics. However, the significance of staff changes should be downplayed when explaining the broad outlines of policy. It is not as if Rumsfeld had prevented single-handedly an army of drug warriors in the US government from carrying out counternarcotics operations in Afghanistan. As seen above, there were clear strategic reasons for the lack of military involvement in counternarcotics in the years immediately after 2001.

Congressional pressures have also been identified as a reason. This political pressure, the argument goes, eventually led the Pentagon and CIA to accept publicly that the insurgency was funded by drugs and to approve the 2005 counternarcotics strategy. Indeed, in 2004–05, a host of critical pieces in the media urged more action in light of the large 2004 opium harvest. For example, Henry Hyde, Illinois Republican, stated that there was “a clear need at this stage for military action against the opium storage dumps and heroin laboratories” and that if the military did not get involved, the United States would need to send “troops from places like Turkey to take on this challenge.” The Democrats also pitched in, as when John Kerry criticized Bush for failing to eliminate narcotics in Afghanistan.

Such explanations might be correct in terms of immediate causes, in that congressional pressures and debates contributed to putting the issue on policymakers’ agenda and generating media coverage. However, they beg the question of why the narcotics issue became a more prominent debate within government circles in the first place? Some have pointed to the explosion of poppy cultivation in Afghanistan and the political pressures it has generated in the United States to do something about the problem. For example, Ahmed Rashid noted how the greater emphasis on drugs in US policy from 2005 onwards was prompted in part by the fact that it had become too obvious that Afghan poppy cultivation was getting out of control. The United States could less easily afford to be seen as doing nothing, for public relations purposes. The 2004 massive opium harvest embarrassed Washington and London enough for them to begin addressing narcotics more seriously: farmland under poppy cultivation had just increased by 64 percent and for the first time poppies were cultivated in all 34 of Afghanistan’s provinces. Similarly, opium production rose to 6,100 tons in 2006 and to 8,200 tons in 2007, the highest amount ever recorded, and Afghanistan now accounted for 93 percent of global heroin production. The skyrocketing of drug production in 2006 and 2007, publicized in UNODC reports, could not be ignored indefinitely.

There is probably some truth to this interpretation. Even if drug control is not a US objective, the discourse that has been created around the issue has acquired a force of its own. Therefore, when poppy cultivation spread in Afghanistan to a point that it became difficult to ignore, Washington was forced to make some gesture seemingly addressing the problem, otherwise, its image as a government allegedly concerned with drug harms could have been tarnished.

Finally, another possible reason is that from 2004–05, it became useful politically to talk about a war on drugs to make the resurgent Taliban look evil by associating them with narcotics. Indeed, the intensification of counternarcotics rhetoric and operations “took place against the backdrop of an upsurge in armed opposition” to the US-backed Afghan government. That is to say, whereas in the years immediately after 2001, the drug trade was largely controlled by US allies (warlords), from the time the Taliban reemerged as a significant force partly financed by drugs, narcotics became an issue that could be used to cast a negative light on them. Indeed, it is interesting that since 2004, the intensification of drug war rhetoric has grown in parallel with the rise of the insurgency.

In sum, while from 2001 to 2005, drugs were simply not part of the US agenda in Afghanistan, since 2005, there has been more talk about drug control, and more counter-narcotics operations have taken place. However, this does not mean that the United States is moving closer to conducting a real war on drugs. It is not the intensification of militaristic counterdrug missions per se that makes a drug war real, but the implementation of strategies known to reduce drug problems. On that count, Washington has failed. Further, the United States has continued to support allies involved in trafficking, and Obama stated explicitly that his drug war is instrumental in fighting the insurgency and not about eliminating drugs per se. Indeed, in 2009, his administration presented its new approach to narcotics and elaborated a target list of 50 “major drug traffickers who help finance the insurgency” to be killed or captured by the military. Therefore, if traffickers help the Taliban, they will be attacked – but if they support government forces, they apparently will be left alone. This suggests that the drug war is used to target enemies.

Julien Mercille is lecturer at University College Dublin, Ireland.

Both right wings of the US one-party state are pushing things toward rupturing relations with China, risking direct confrontation.

The so-called Hong Kong Autonomy Act (HKAA) is the latest shoe to drop.

Unanimously approved by the Senate on Thursday, it’s virtually certain to be adopted by House members and become US law.

China’s new national security law, that’s all about protecting its sovereign territory (including Hong Kong) from hostile and/or intrusive actions by foreign powers, is the contrived pretext for the measure.

It’s the latest US action in waging longstanding war on China by other means that could turn hot if pushed too far.

China grants a degree of local autonomy to Hong Kong and Macau that’s similar to what US states are afforded by constitutional law.

China’s new national security law aims to counter hostile US interference in its internal affairs, what’s gone on for decades.

Things notably escalated in recent years, including efforts to undermine China’s economic, industrial, and technological development, along with months of made-in-the-USA disruptive Hong Kong protests that featured violence and vandalism — aiming to weaken the country by attacking its soft underbelly.

Introduced by US neocon Senators Chris Van Hollen and Pat Toomey, the unacceptable HKAA “would impose mandatory sanctions on entities that violate China’s obligations to Hong Kong.”

It “would also impose mandatory secondary sanctions on banks that do business” with sanctioned entities.

A statement by Van Hollen defied reality, saying:

“Today (June 25), the Senate took meaningful action to hold China and its proxies to account for their ongoing efforts to extinguish liberty and democracy in Hong Kong (sic),” adding:

“This legislation sends a strong, bipartisan message that the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong (sic).”

Toomey made similar remarks, defying reality the same way.

Fact: The US is hostile to what democracy is supposed to be all about.

Fact: Prohibited domestically, only its illusion exists.

Fact: Both right wings of the US one-party state go all out to extinguish it wherever it exists.

Model social democracy Venezuela is Exhibit A — under attack by the US from inception, greatly escalated by Trump regime hardliners.

Fact: Longstanding US policy is hostile to ordinary people everywhere — at home and abroad worldwide, wanting them exploited, not served.

The HKAA also requires the US Treasury secretary to be involved in designating individuals to be sanctioned under the measure.

A similar House bill was introduced by Reps. Brad Sherman and Ted Yho.

A reconciled version of the measure may be included in the FY 2021 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) that’s automatically passed overwhelmingly and signed into law annually.

Last November, Congress adopted the so-called Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act of 2019 by voice vote.

At the time, China’s official People’s Daily broadsheet slammed the unacceptable measure, saying it’s all about legislating support for (CIA recruited) hooligans involved in months of violence, vandalism and chaos in Hong Kong.

China’s Global Times called the measure the “Support KH Violence Act,” siding with rioters against the rule of law and rights of all city residents, opposing efforts by Hong Kong authorities to restore order.

The HKAA mandates imposition of sanctions on China by the White House — with latitude to waive them under undefined circumstances.

Trump so far imposed no sanctions on China based on the Hong Kong Human Rights and Democracy Act.

It’s unclear if he’ll use the HKAA for this purpose. Eager to save the bilateral trade agreement, already jeopardized by unacceptable US actions, he may hold off pushing the envelope further against China.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump regime objects to the HKAA’s call for mandatory sanctions on China because “it could hobble (its) ability to conduct diplomacy with (its ruling authorities) and give Congress too much power over foreign relations,” citing unnamed White House and business officials, adding:

“Still, they say, the bill’s fine print provides the White House with some flexibility in how those sanctions are levied, assuaging some (of its) concerns.”

At the same time, a provision in the measure empowers Congress to override the White House by a joint resolution of disapproval against waiving or ending sanctions on China.

It also calls for letting Hong Kong residents emigrate to the US.

In response to the measure, spokeswoman for China’s Washington embassy Fang Hong said “Hong Kong affairs are China’s domestic affairs that allow no external interference,” adding:

“We urge the US side to come to terms with the reality, and immediately stop meddling with Hong Kong affairs and China’s domestic affairs as a whole before it is too late.”

She warned of unspecified “necessary countermeasures” in response to hostile US actions that continue with no end of them in prospect.

A Final Comment

On Thursday, Pompeo called for a US/EU partnership to “challenge…the threat (posed by) China (sic),” adding:

“(T)he (PLA) continue(s) aggression in the South China Sea (sic).”

He falsely blamed Beijing for “deadly border confrontations in India,” called its nuclear program “opaque,” and defied reality by accusing its ruling authorities of “threats against peaceful neighbors (sic).”

He piled on numerous other false accusations, ignoring US wars by hot and other means against virtually all independent nations unwilling to sacrifice their sovereign rights to US interests, along with major human and civil rights abuses domestically.

Washington’s aim to dominate other nations by whatever it takes to achieve its aims is an unparalleled threat to everyone everywhere.

Its war on humanity risks eventual use of thermonukes that if detonated in enough numbers could destroy planet earth and all its life forms.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

“COVID-19 will be a catastrophe for Bangladeshi garment workers.” 

I am speaking with Kalpona Akter, president of the Bangladesh Garment and Industrial Workers Federation (BGIWF). It is March 19. Governments around the world have ordered the temporary closure of retail outlets and other businesses, putting millions of people out of work. The shutdown in the West put immediate pressure on global supply chains, in particular for sectors like clothing.

“The international brands that source from garment factories in Bangladesh have already started cancelling their orders for clothes. Consequently, Bangladeshi workers are in very bad shape presently. They are not only afraid of getting infected by COVID-19, but also fear that thousands of them will be laid off and so have no money to put food on the table for their families,” says Akter.

“These are workers who were poor and vulnerable to begin with before the spread of the virus as they were being denied a living wage that would allow them to buy basic necessities.”

While several countries including Canada have announced aid packages for wage earners who lose their jobs due to the COVID-19 outbreak, the Bangladesh government had, by mid-April, taken no such step. According to Akter, “it is unlikely that it will do so in the future.”

Bangladesh is the second biggest exporter of garments in the world after China, and with 4.1 million workers in the sector it is the country’s leading export earner. Over 75% of these workers are women. According to Akter, the garment sector pays poverty wages and is notorious for the suppression of labour rights and the presence of high levels of gender-based violence. In the past, Bangladeshi garment manufacturers have also been notorious for dangerously unsafe factories.

On April 24, 2013, the Rana Plaza garment factory in the capital city of Dhaka collapsed, killing 1,134 workers and injuring 2,500. It was one of the deadliest industrial accidents the world had ever witnessed. International and domestic public outrage and pressure on international brands from Bangladeshi and other unions, including in Canada, resulted in major improvements in factory safety, but the other significant problems remain unaddressed.

Since 2013, the Canadian labour movement has been working with the Bangladesh Centre for Workers’ Solidarity (BCWS), which is closely linked to the Akter’s federation, to press governments, employers and international brands to work together to improve working conditions for Bangladeshi garment sector workers. The Canadian unions involved include the Canadian Union of Public Employees (CUPE), Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), United Steelworkers (USW), Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation (OSSTF), United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) and the Canadian Labour Congress (CLC).

These unions give the BCWS funding for core operations and for providing training and support for women leaders in factories. Doug Olthuis, executive director of the USW Humanity Fund, explains that through their financial help, support in Bangladesh and support in Canada, “We’ve raised our political voice with the governments of both Bangladesh and Canada to make sure appropriate measures are taken to uphold labour rights, especially the ability to freely join unions.

“That has had some impact on the Canadian government, which knows that there is a constituency in Canada that is watching what Ottawa does,” he continues. “This has been helpful for sure. It is important for Canadian unions to make some noise to motivate the government to act on behalf of Bangladeshi garment workers because otherwise it won’t.”

Transnational solidarity has also amplified concerns raised by workers in Bangladesh with their country’s Ministry of Labour.

“The fact that Canadian unions meet with the ministry means that the Bangladesh government knows that they are being watched and that unions and consumers from around the world are paying attention to what it does,” says Olthuis, who joined representatives from CUPE, PSAC, OSSTF and CLC on a delegation to Dhaka in May 2019.

Canadian unions are planning to launch a campaign for a living wage for Bangladeshi garment workers. This is a major concern for Akter, who explains that the poverty wages garment workers currently get do not even cover their monthly costs. Workers often have to work 16-hour days to try to make ends meet, which means they have no family life at all. The workers have no savings either, which makes it impossible for them to deal with a crisis such as COVID-19.

*

Louise Casselman, the PSAC’s Social Justice Fund Officer, also travelled to Dhaka with the union solidarity delegation in May last year. She points out that the cost of clothing has been dropping while other consumer products tend to get more expensive from year to year.

International brands have all adopted a strategy of “fast fashion,” in which clothing trends change every two months, rather than seasonally, as a means of boosting sales. To convince consumers back to the rack more frequently, prices must be kept low, explains Casselman, which has meant keeping the wages of garment workers low as well.

“This explains why workers in the apparel industry are facing such substandard wages and working conditions and why their attempts to organize to improve their living and working conditions face such resistance,” she tells me.

Unionization and labour rights are not just under threat in Bangladesh, according to Akter, but effectively criminalized.

“When workers try to organize, they are fired. This is very common,” she remarks. “There is no freedom of association in Bangladesh.”

In 2016, when workers raised their voices for a higher minimum wage, they were handed criminal charges. Many workers, including one of Akter’s organizers, were thrown in prison for months.

“During the last two years, over 10,000 workers have been fired for making wage increase demands and three dozen criminal charges have been laid against 7,000 workers. But our workers are brave, and in spite of this repression, they never stop raising their voices and never stop fighting.” However, the state crackdowns in 2016 and 2018 have “pushed back our labour movement at least by a few years” Akter says.

If it is especially hard to change the insidious combination of lack of job security and official repression in Bangladesh, Akter explains it is because, “in many cases, our government is our factory owner.” Some legislators in Bangladesh own garment factories. “In a country like that, where the power dynamic is so critical, it is difficult to fight for your rights.”

Olthuis concurs with Akter that “a lot of the lawmakers in the Bangladeshi parliament are actually garment factory owners,” which he says compromises the Bangladesh government on this issue. “We talk about state capture, and in my opinion the government has been quite captured by the garment sector. It’s room to maneuver is limited.”

*

There is also enormous gender-based violence and sexual harassment in Bangladeshi factories, says Akter.

“Because of the culture it happens, it begins at the top. It is time for us to break that silence and get these manufacturers to have anti-harassment committees in the factories and also to pressure our government to pass a law against such violence and harassment.”

Akter is in agreement with the Canadian unions’ planned international campaign for providing a living wage to Bangladeshi garment workers. “It is very crucial to have Canadian unions pressure Canadian brands to pay garment workers a living wage. This is not just for the Bangladeshi workers, it’s for the whole supply chain, no matter which country they are sourcing from.

“We really need these jobs,” Akter continues. “But we want jobs with dignity. And at this moment the jobs we have are not dignified. Canadian consumers should know that the workers don’t have a living wage and should support their demands for better wages and raise their voices with the Canadian brands in this regard.”

But the chaos created by the COVID-19 virus has also thrown international solidarity into uncharted waters. Casselman observes that this moment “sheds new light on the vulnerability of a supply chain that offers no safeguards or protection for a workforce contracted out to local manufacturers whose own profit margin depends on the super-exploitation of labour.”

Garment workers, like many other manufacturing workers, face plant shutdowns “due to the lack of inputs from China and the contraction of demand,” explains Casselman, noting that isolation measures to contain the virus are shuttering demand across Europe and North America. Solidarity work will have to adjust.

“We already know we will need to increase the role of workers, women, Indigenous peoples and [people of African descent] and their access to social, economic and political rights. COVID-19 could wipe out many of the gains made by the social movements over the last generation, unless we are prepared to fight for a model of development based on a new equitable, green economy, based on fundamental human rights.

“It will not be given to us, so we will have to fight for it, and be prepared to accompany those on the frontlines of social change.”

*

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 Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Asad Ismi covers international affairs for the Monitor.

Featured image: A Bangladeshi worker (photo from ILO Asia-Pacific, Flickr Creative Commons)

Dear Readers,

We regularly receive feedback from you telling us how important the articles we publish are to you, especially in today’s tumultuous and uncertain times. We thank you, and pledge that we will continue to deliver our daily dose of cutting-edge research and analysis, free of charge, for as long as we can.

If you look to Global Research as a resource for information and understanding, to stay current on world events, or to experience honesty and transparency in your news coverage, please consider making a donation or becoming a member. Your donations are essential in enabling us to meet our costs and keep the website up and running. Click below to become a member or to make a donation to Global Research now!

Click to donate:

Make a one-time or a recurring donation

*     *     *

NATO at the Helm of Italian Foreign Policy

By Manlio Dinucci, June 26, 2020

NATO Defense Ministers (Lorenzo Guerini, Pd representing Italy) gathered by videoconference on June17/18, and made a series of “decisions to strengthen the Alliance’s deterrence.” However, nobody in Italy talks about it, neither the media (including social media) nor the political world, where an absolute multipartisan silence reigns over all this. Yet these decisions, basically dictated by Washington and signed by Minister Guerini for Italy, not only trace the guidelines of our military policy, but also our foreign policy.

Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx: ‘Death to Slavery’

By John Wight, June 26, 2020

Lincoln here is referring to the decision of Manchester textile workers — arrived at after a tempestuous meeting at the city’s Free Trade Hall in late 1862 — to continue to support the North’s blockade of the Atlantic ports of the Confederacy and to refuse to touch one bale of cotton picked by slaves in the the South should Lord Palmerston, Britain’s prime minister at the time, accede to the demands of British mill owners and shipping companies that he order the Royal Navy to smash the blockade by force in order to restore the fortunes of a British textile industry that was on its knees due to the lack of the cotton it relied on from these very slave states.

Journalist Julian Assange Charged with New American Indictment

By Dr. Leon Tressell, June 26, 2020

The new indictment incorporates the 18 charges from the first indictment and seeks to ‘broaden the scope of the conspiracy’ and asserts that Assange and Wikileaks tried to recruit hackers for the purpose of stealing secret documents from the US government.

Thirteen of the 49 page indictment are devoted to Assange’s efforts to recruit ‘Anonymous’ hackers. At one conference Assange is alleged to have encouraged hackers to join the CIA and then use their position to steal top secret documents.

Get Ready for ‘Shock and Awe’ Brexit Propaganda Campaign

By True Publica, June 26, 2020

The term ‘shock and awe‘, more often used to describe a military strategy of overwhelming force and closely associated with the disaster that was the Iraq war, is contained in a document setting out the government’s communications plan.

The information campaign is huge and is set to warn the public about the “consequences of not taking action,” before moving to a new phase focusing on avoiding losses as a result of the post-Brexit disruption.

War Crimes: US Destruction of North Korea Must Not be Forgotten

By Brett Wilkins, June 26, 2020

A survey of Koreans in the summer of 1946 found that 77% preferred socialism or communism while only 14% favored capitalism. However, in the South, the US backed the right-wing dictatorship ofSyngman Rhee, a conservative Christian and staunch anti-communist who ruled with an iron fist. In the North, the USSR installed former anti-Japanese guerrilla leader and Red Army officer Kim Il Sung.

In 1948, the division of Korea was looking increasingly permanent. And politics was turning murderous.

War is Good for Business and Organized Crime: Afghanistan’s Multibillion Dollar Opium Trade. Rising Heroin Addiction in the US

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, June 25, 2020

Today a rough estimate based on US retail prices suggests that the global heroin market is above the 500 billion dollars mark. This multibillion dollar hike is the result of a significant increase in the volume of heroin transacted Worldwide coupled with a moderate increase in retail prices.

Based on the most recent (UNODC) data (2017) opium production in Afghanistan is of the order of 9000 metric tons, which after processing and transformation is equivalent to approximately 900,000 kg. of pure heroin.

MSM “Fake News” Against Syria. Describe Al Qaeda as “Rebels”, Elected President as “Dictator”

By Steven Sahiounie, June 26, 2020

They call the Assad government of Syria the “Middle East’s most brutal dictatorship”.  President Assad is an elected president, having won the majority in an open election in 2014 of three candidates, which was observed by an independent international team.  The term brutal may have alluded to accusations of the use of chemical weapons; however, according to James Mattis, while serving as Defense Secretary under President Trump, the US has no evidence that Assad used chemicals.  President Obama drew a red line at chemical use, and when the famous attack occurred in East Ghouta in 2013 the world held their breath waiting for a US military attack, but after Obama was informed by the UK Defense Lab at Portadown that the chemical sample from East Ghouta was not from Syrian government supplies, Obama terminated the attack, refusing to be duped by the terrorists into attacking Syria based on a lie.  The US invasion and destruction of Iraq was based on a lie, which made Obama wary to repeat what George W. Bush had done.

NATO Defense Ministers (Lorenzo Guerini, Pd representing Italy) gathered by videoconference on June17/18, and made a series of “decisions to strengthen the Alliance’s deterrence.” However, nobody in Italy talks about it, neither the media (including social media) nor the political world, where an absolute multipartisan silence reigns over all this. Yet these decisions, basically dictated by Washington and signed by Minister Guerini for Italy, not only trace the guidelines of our military policy, but also our foreign policy.

First of all – announces Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg – “NATO is preparing for a possible second wave of Covid-19,” against which NATO has already mobilized over half a million soldiers in Europe. Stoltenberg does not clarify how NATO can predict a possible second virus pandemic with a new lockdown.

On one point, however, he is clear: this “does not mean that other challenges disappeared.” The major problem – Defense Ministers underlined – comes from Russia’s “destabilizing and dangerous behavior,” in particular from its “irresponsible nuclear rhetoric, aimed at intimidating and threatening NATO allies.”

In this way they overturn reality, erasing the fact that it was NATO that extended its nuclear forces and bases close to Russia, especially the United States after the end of the Cold War. A strategy aimed at creating growing tensions with Russia in Europe has been methodically implemented with Washington’s direction.

Defense Ministers met in the Nuclear Planning Group, chaired by the United States, to decide on new military measures against Russia.

It is unknown what decisions on nuclear matters Minister Guerini signed on behalf of Italy. However, it is clear that by participating in the Group and hosting US nuclear weapons (which can also be used by our Air Force), Italy violates the Non-Proliferation Treaty and rejects the UN Treaty for the prohibition of nuclear weapons.

Stoltenberg merely said, “Today we have decided on further steps to keep NATO nuclear deterrent in Europe safe and efficient.” Among these steps there is certainly the next arrival of the new US B61-12 nuclear bombs also in Italy.

Defense Ministers spoke of another growing “challenge” which is that of China for the first time “at the top of NATO’s agenda.” China is a trading partner of many allies, but at the same time “heavily invests in new missile systems that can reach all NATO countries,” said Stoltenberg. Thus, NATO begins to present China as a military threat.

At the same time, they present Chinese investments in the countries of the Alliance as dangerous. Based on this premise, Defense Ministers updated the guidelines for “national resilience,” aimed at preventing energy, transport and telecommunications, 5G in particular, from ending up under “foreign ownership and control” (read “Chinese Ownership and Control”).

These are the decisions signed by Italy at the Defense Ministers NATO meeting. They bind our country to a strategy of growing hostility, especially towards Russia and China, exposing us to increasingly serious risks and making our arrangements on which the same economic agreements rest unstable.

It is a long-term strategy, as evidenced by the (Born) NATO 2030″ project launch made by Secretary General Stoltenberg on June 8 to “strengthen the Alliance militarily and politically” by including countries like Australia (already invited to the Defense Ministers meeting), New Zealand, Japan and other Asians, in clear anti-Chinese function.

A group of 10 advisors was formed for the Great Global (Born) NATO 2030 project, including Prof. Marta Dassù, former foreign policy adviser in the D’Alema government before and during NATO’s war on Yugoslavia, in which Italy participated in 1999 with its bases and bombers, under US command.

*

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.

Featured image is from http://nousnatobases.org

On page 405 of the folio edition of the writings and speeches of Abraham Lincoln there is a letter dated January 19 1863. It is titled “To the Workingmen of Manchester, England” and begins: “I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the address and resolutions which you have sent me on the eve of the new year.”

Lincoln here is referring to the decision of Manchester textile workers — arrived at after a tempestuous meeting at the city’s Free Trade Hall in late 1862 — to continue to support the North’s blockade of the Atlantic ports of the Confederacy and to refuse to touch one bale of cotton picked by slaves in the the South should Lord Palmerston, Britain’s prime minister at the time, accede to the demands of British mill owners and shipping companies that he order the Royal Navy to smash the blockade by force in order to restore the fortunes of a British textile industry that was on its knees due to the lack of the cotton it relied on from these very slave states.

Britain’s textile industry, centred in Lancashire, was the biggest in the world and prior to the US civil war imported three-quarters of all the cotton produced in the southern states.

A year of blockade, however, and 60 per cent of the industry’s machinery — its spindles and looms — were idle, forcing many of the workers into the arms of destitution and privation.

Yet despite this the workers of Manchester stood firm in solidarity with the Union States’ campaign to smash the Confederacy.

“I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the workingmen at Manchester and in all Europe are called to endure in this crisis,” Lincoln writes.

He goes on to proclaim:

“Under these circumstances, I cannot but regard your decisive utterance upon the question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which had not been surpassed in any age or in any country.”

For perhaps obvious reasons, this astonishing moment in history is not widely taught in British schools. Neither is the fact that Palmerston and his government gave serious consideration to recognising the independence and sovereignty of the US Confederacy when, for much of 1862, the Union was on the back foot.

It had lost a series of battles — among them the Battle of First Bull Run, Manassas and Fredericksburg — and many within the British ruling Establishment urged such recognition as a way of weakening a potential economic and naval rival on the other side of the Atlantic.

It would also have allowed Britain to supply arms to the South and intervene decisively in the civil war.

The solidarity of Manchester textile workers with the Union in the anti-slavery cause was indeed the act of sublime heroism Lincoln hailed. It heralded a special relationship that was worthy of support.

Certainly, Lincoln thought so:

“I hail this interchange of sentiment, therefore, as an augury that, whatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country or my own, the peace and friendship which now exist between the two nations will be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual.”

But Lincoln went further than praising the stance of the Manchester workers in his open letter, a remarkable historical document by any standard. Soon thereafter he ordered relief ships, packed with provisions, to be sent to Liverpool to aid them in their time of hardship.

Two men who were in no doubt of the world-historical importance of the anti-slavery struggle raging across the Atlantic were Friedrich Engels and Karl Marx.

In an 1860 letter to Engels, Marx states that

“In my opinion, the biggest things that are happening in the world today are on the one hand the movement of the slaves in America, started by the death of John Brown and on the other the movement of the serfs in Russia.”

Five years on, in his capacity as head of the International Workingmen’s Association, the First International, Marx addressed a letter to Lincoln in response to his re-election as president.

“Sir, we congratulate the American people upon your reelection by a large majority. If resistance to the Slave Power was the reserved watchword of your first election, the triumphant war cry of your reelection is Death to Slavery.”

Death to Slavery is one message the workers of Manchester would have endorsed.

*

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 is from Morning Star

With only a few days left until 1 July, the date included in the Israeli government coalition agreement to further advance the annexation of occupied Palestinian territory, it has become clear to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and US President Donald Trump’s team that their next colonial mission will be more challenging to execute.

Worldwide campaigns, a firm position by the Arab world, the prospects of an ICC investigation and unprecedented Congress efforts, as well as the significant grassroots efforts in the US, are all elements that were not taken into consideration when the Trump team drafted Israel’s annexation plan.

Even for some of the current US administration’s closest allies, such as the pro-Israeli evangelical camp, Israel’s annexation is not a priority. Evangelical voices against annexation in the US are growing louder.

Likewise, many leading US Jewish voices have strongly opposed annexation, which if it took place could jeopardise their sacred bi-partisan support for the Israel lobby in Washington. A few days ago, over a hundred Democratic members of Congress signed a letter against annexation, while Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden has expressed his own opposition to it.

All regional actors, as well as all Arab countries with strong connections in Washington, have warned against Israel’s plans. They have been clear that annexation undermines their national interests.

The secretary general of the Arab League has played an important role in the diplomatic efforts. The European Union has made it clear that annexation will negatively affect its relations with Israel. So, why would the US and Israel keep moving ahead with it?

‘Now or never’

Trump and his team have dismissed international law and UN resolutions as tools for peacemaking and have instead endorsed some of Israel’s most hardcore views. For the advocates of annexation, this is their historic moment and their short-term goals are clear.

November’s US election is pushing this camp to say: “It’s now or never.” The messianic cohort represented by US Ambassador David Friedman deeply feels that this moment will mark their legacy.

In their calculations, it is also possible that Israel’s leading trading partner, the European Union, is not going to be able to impose sanctions. They count on governments such as Germany’s, which while firmly declaring that annexation is a violation of international law, also called upon the ICC not to conduct an investigation into Israeli crimes.

As Israel continues to reiterate its intentions to annex, no country has yet taken concrete measures such as recalling its ambassador to Israel or summoning Israeli ambassadors to their countries. On top of that, only last Friday, no EU country voted in favour of a resolution in the UN Human Rights Council calling for basic principles of accountability for Israeli violations in Palestine.

Several steps

Our position remains that stopping annexation is doable. Ending Israel’s illegal colonial-settlement occupation is also achievable. We have taken several steps with this in mind, including ending all interim bilateral agreements after years of systematic Israeli violations.

A few days ago, thousands of Palestinians were joined by dozens of diplomats in Jericho to say no to annexation and yes to freedom for Palestine: a powerful image that showed the unanimous rejection of annexation outside the Trump-Netanyahu bubble.

UN resolution 3414 of 1975 requested “all States to desist from supplying Israel with any military or economic aid as long as it continues to occupy Arab territories and deny the inalienable national rights of the Palestinian people.” In 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) advisory opinion on the annexation wall also included a set of responsibilities for the international community.

If this was implemented, Israel would not be talking today about annexation. The calls for annexation are a reminder for the need for accountability, including sanctions.

Our vision of peace was detailed to the UN Security Council and is based on international law and relevant UN resolutions.

This requires bold steps to reaffirm the international support for this formula, including the recognition of the State of Palestine and to stop treating Israel as a state above the law. An international peace conference has been one of our requests.

Neither Trump nor Netanyahu expected major condemnations or challenges to their annexation plans. But this is an understanding that their actions are not only an attack against the rights of the Palestinian people but about the international community as a whole.

As the world has spoken loudly against annexation, we shall continue working in coordination with international parties, from governments and parliaments to civil society, to stop with concrete measures Israel’s attempts at perpetuating apartheid in Palestine.

*

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. Saeb Erekat is the Secretary General of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) and Palestine’s Chief Negotiator.

Featured image is from IMEMC

The school closures, stay home orders, shuttering of businesses, banning of elective surgeries, closure of physical entertainment events, blocked flights, and sudden imposition of a central plan – it all happened suddenly from mid-March in the course of only a few days, and to enormous shock on the part of people who had previously taken their freedom and rights for granted. 

Despite enormous pressure from Washington, eight states did not lock down or used a very light touch: South Dakota, North Dakota, South Carolina, Wyoming, Utah, Arkansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.

After 100 days, we are in a position for some preliminary analysis of the performance of locked down states versus those that did not lock down. AIER has already published the evidence that lockdown states had higher rates of unemployment.

The Sentinel, a nonprofit news source of the Kansas Policy Institute, confirms our research by reporting the following data: locked down states have overall a 13.2% unemployment rate, while open states have a 7.8% unemployment rate.

But perhaps this better economic performance came at the expense of health?

In terms of health, locked down states have nearly four times the death rate from COVID-19.

The results do not prove that staying open necessarily caused the good outcomes, but should certainly lead us to question the notion that “lockdowns are necessary or else we all are going to die.”

To be sure, many mitigating factors may exist. Open states may have had fewer long-term health facilities housing people with low life expectacies; in every state, these account for roughly half of all deaths from COVID-19. In fact, “deaths among a narrow 1.7% group of the population are greater than deaths from the other 98.3%.”

Population density between the states also varies and that could have been an explanatory variable. The open states also lacked governors who mandated that nursing homes accept active COVID-patients. Earlier this month, we published some more detailed research “Unemployment Far Worse in Lockdown States, Data Show” by economist Abigail Devereux who found similar results.

A routine trope in the media is that people who oppose lockdowns are pushing freedom and wealth over safety and health. But as we can see from this clean examination of the results, the open states experienced less economic pain and less pain from the disease itself.

We are seeing desperate attempts by politicians, public health officials, and media commentators somehow to make sense of why the United States pursued the course it did with the closures, stay-home orders, travel bans, and near-universal quarantine, in violation of every principle that America has celebrated in its civic culture.

With the evidence coming in that the lockdowns were neither economically nor medically effective, it is going to be increasingly difficult for lockdown partisans to marshal the evidence to convince the public that isolating people, destroying businesses, and destroying social institutions was worth 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.

Edward Peter Stringham is President of the American Institute for Economic Research, Davis Professor of Economic Organizations and Innovation at Trinity College, and Editor of the Journal of Private Enterprise.

Featured image is from AIER

The governments’ overuse of militaristic, Churchillian and war-time cliches over Brexit and the pandemic is wearing thin and getting tiresome. But as Brexit day approaches, this is the mentality of a government obsessed with public relations. A mass propaganda invasion is to be aimed at every adult to overcome the Remainer enemy.

The tactics to be used will be based on behavioural science to get businesses and the public on side and to prepare for the end of the Brexit transition period.

The term ‘shock and awe‘, more often used to describe a military strategy of overwhelming force and closely associated with the disaster that was the Iraq war, is contained in a document setting out the government’s communications plan.

The information campaign is huge and is set to warn the public about the “consequences of not taking action,” before moving to a new phase focusing on avoiding losses as a result of the post-Brexit disruption.

If ever there was more evidence needed that the government themselves are pushing the country to a no-deal Brexit – this just adds more weight to it.

The plan forms part of a £multi-million advertising deal the government has struck with media agency MullenLowe London, reports politico.eu. This is the same outfit which has also been working on communications around the coronavirus pandemic. One might observe from the sidelines that communications throughout the pandemic has been a catastrophic failure on just about every level. The contract was found on the Tussell government procurement database.

Britain is set to leave the transition period on December 31, even if it fails to strike a trade deal with Brussels. Either way, there is expected to be new administration and checks on cross-border trade next year, as well as action needed by EU nationals in Britain, British nationals on the Continent and other groups in order to avoid disruption.

“The Transition Campaign is the most important government campaign this year,” says a tender document. It says the ‘advertising blitz’ will begin in July and could stretch as far as May 2022.

Be ready to be ‘nudged’ or ‘shoved’ because this is in the plan, which split the publicity campaign across four “bursts.” Between July and August, there will be a drive to “nudge” or “shove” people to take action by warning of the “consequences” of Brexit, before moving to a “shock and awe” approach between September and November.

When we get to December when the realisation of Brexit is a reality, the propaganda campaign moves into the “loss avoidance” stage and in January, the indoctrination programme then moves to the final stage called “new opportunities.” By the end of the first quarter of 2021, most people will then know most of Brexit contained more ‘losses’ than ‘opportunities’ and will probably look to shifting blame onto Boris Johnson and Co as the economy does exactly what the governments’ own economic forecast said – ‘decline for a decade.’

It won’t be of much a surprise to learn that this cunning plan was drawn up with the help of so-called behavioural experts after the “Get Ready for Brexit” campaign, which sought to prepare people and businesses for Brexit throughout last year. That plan was heavily criticized by the National Audit Office so, no doubt we can expect more of the same.

Internal government data from October last year showed 61 per cent of businesses had not even looked for information on how to prepare for a no-deal scenario. The government said the numbers showed “there must still be a large degree of complacency amongst businesses.”

By May this year, business leaders were panic-struck over how to deal with the pandemic and then Brexit when in survival mode. The most recent survey of the general public found that the majority (55%) believe Brexit should be delayed to allow businesses time to adapt given issues caused by the pandemic.

Government research showed businesses are reluctant to take action without certainty, which is understandable given the circumstances. Those businesses working in cross-border trade were also more likely to prepare because of their concerns about the impact of Brexit. The government noted that because of their worries they “will not respond well to overly positive messaging.”

Meanwhile, it should be noted that the report also stated that Brexit voters are “less likely to prepare as they don’t believe in any potential negative consequences of leaving.”

Polling in January this year showed 74 per cent of U.K. adults had done nothing to prepare for leaving the EU and did not plan to. Eight per cent had taken action and 9 per cent intended to do so. This means the campaign needed to convince people that Brexit is going to have a big impact on the country will need to be both large and sustained.

The behavioral science team will use some nongovernment channels to convey messages because “people have a higher level of trust in third parties and peers than they do in government.” In other words, most people do not believe what the government says – trust has fallen to all-time lows after the chaos and confusion caused by government miscommunications and poor handling of the pandemic.

The document stated:

“With nine months to go, now is the time to ensure that clarity and certainty is communicated wherever possible about what will happen at the end of the year. Therefore we need to frontload preparation wherever possible, and ensure that any early misunderstanding is ironed out and appropriate actions are taken.”

The communications drive to prepare businesses and citizens is one of five “strategic goals” of the overall government plan for quitting the EU institutions at the end of this year.

Another goal is to convince the EU that the U.K. is ready to leave the transition period without a deal, while others include minimizing short term disruption and implementing necessary changes.

*

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 is from TP

Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani announced Wednesday that Tehran will negotiate with Washington only within the framework of the nuclear agreement and under the condition that the U.S. side pays compensation to the Middle East country for the damage caused.

“We are ready to negotiate as long as the U.S. complies with the international law, and the provisions of the United Nations’ resolution,” Rouhani said in a televised presentation.

Rouhani also urged the U.S. to fulfill its obligations under the Joint Comprehensive Action Plan (JCPOA), a nuclear agreement signed by the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council plus Germany.

“Our position is simple: the U.S. must apologize and compensate for the damage they caused to Iran,” added.

The JCPOA was signed in 2015 by Iran, USA, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany.

In 2018 the U.S. government announced that it was withdrawing from the agreement, claiming that Tehran had violated its obligations under the document.

Qasem Soleimani: US kills top Iranian general in Baghdad air strike l major escalation in Iran US tension https://t.co/RJ9jUTO5Sy

— Petersymondspolitics (@PSCPolitics) January 3, 2020

 

In May, the US introduced sanctions against two leaders of Iran’s nuclear programme.

Tensions between the two countries increased following the assassination of Islamic’s Republic high commander Qasem Soleimani.

Iran’s strategic objective is to expel the U.S. from the region, at least from Iraq, and this may be closer to reality than it was before Soleimani’s death.

*

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.

The Editorial Board of The Washington Post published an opinion on June 24, “Syria’s brutal dictatorship suffers a severe setback”. It is an opinion; however, they must be held responsible for factually incorrect statements.  

They call the Assad government of Syria the “Middle East’s most brutal dictatorship”.  President Assad is an elected president, having won the majority in an open election in 2014 of three candidates, which was observed by an independent international team.  The term brutal may have alluded to accusations of the use of chemical weapons; however, according to James Mattis, while serving as Defense Secretary under President Trump, the US has no evidence that Assad used chemicals.  President Obama drew a red line at chemical use, and when the famous attack occurred in East Ghouta in 2013 the world held their breath waiting for a US military attack, but after Obama was informed by the UK Defense Lab at Portadown that the chemical sample from East Ghouta was not from Syrian government supplies, Obama terminated the attack, refusing to be duped by the terrorists into attacking Syria based on a lie.  The US invasion and destruction of Iraq was based on a lie, which made Obama wary to repeat what George W. Bush had done.

The editorial refers to Idlib as “the last major rebel stronghold”.  Idlib is under the occupation of Al Qaeda terrorists.  Al Qaeda is not “rebels”,  Al Qaeda is an internationally outlawed terrorist group according to the UN, EU, US, and many other countries.  The UN Charter, which the US signed, states all members must fight Al Qaeda wherever they are found.  The war on terror is a global fight. The Al Qaeda branch in Syria was called Jibhat al-Nusra, which changed its name to Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. Regardless of their name-changing attempt at disguise, they have never been “rebels”, but are fighting to establish an Islamic government in Syria, with Islamic law as the constitution. The establishment of an Islamic State in Syria is against all American values, both politically and culturally.

The editorial continues praising the new sanctions recently enacted “sanctioning of any foreign actors who provide support to the Assad regime, its air force, its oil industry or reconstruction projects”.  This is misleading, as it implies those sanctioned would have been dealing with the Syrian government.  The truth of the sanctions, which the editorial board skillfully left out, is that anyone in Syria who would like to rebuild their home, farm, factory, store, office, private school, private hospital, or any personal or private property is prevented from using any foreign products to do so.  These sanctions are not only against foreign companies selling reconstruction supplies to the Syrian government but are the threat of sanctions against any company outside of Syria who would dare to sell anything to any private person, or private company in Syria.

Dr. Yazji, who owned a private hospital in Syria for decades, which was attacked, occupied, looted, and destroyed by terrorists following Radical Islam in the early years of the conflict, is prevented from buying the medical equipment he needs to restock the hospital.  Specialty machines and supplies from medical firms in the UK, France, and Italy are prevented from entering Syria, even though the Syrian government has no role or benefit from the imported items.  Dr. Yazji, who had dreamed of refurbishing his hospital, re-hiring staff, and serving his community, will remain unemployed because of the US sanctions which the Editorial Board “credits” the US Congress with.

The US media has written countless articles about the dire conditions of the medical sector in Syria after 9 years of war.  However, the US sanctions prevent repairing any hospital, whether it is a Syrian Public Hospital under the Ministry of Health or one of the hundreds of private hospitals. The US Congress and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo are well aware that the sanctions they have enacted against the people of Syria will prevent their health care from improving.

Another glaring untruth stated by the Editorial Board is “The initial round of Caesar Act sanctions announced by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was relatively modest, targeting the Assad clique and Iranian militia leaders”.  The sanctions are not targeting a small group at the top of the Syrian government.  The sanctions are targeting every person who lives in Syria today and includes Syrians living abroad who had been waiting for peace to be restored so that they could go home and rebuild their lives.  Now, those dreams are dashed, as they realize they can never rebuild their home and business and start generating a sustainable income once more.  The US sanctions are designed to keep the Syrian refugees outside because if the refugees start coming home again that means the conflict is over and Syria is recovering.  That is a political message that the US Congress never wants to tell.  The US foreign policy on Syria is clear and easily understood: keep the citizens in a constant state of suffering and deprivation, and keep blaming the Syrian government for their suffering.

A healthy, prosperous Syrian economy must be prevented.  Syrian refugees must be kept far-away from home, and they should be encouraged to not return home.  By keeping the economy in ruins, the US Congress keeps the Syrian war going, even though Trump cut off the CIA funding of terrorists in 2017.

The Editorial Board admits the sanctions are a “squeeze on the average Syrian”, as the sanctions “helped crash the Syrian currency, which has lost two-thirds of its value since the beginning of the year.”  The Syrian Lira (SL) held at 50 SL to $1.00 from 1992 to 2011.  From the effects of the newest US sanctions, the currency rose to 3,800 SL to $1.00 recently.  Imagine a dinner for two which you were used to paying $50.00 for in a US city, and then you go back to the same place and order the same meal and the bill is suddenly $4,000.00.  Imagine the hardship of Syrians trying to feed their families in this economic crisis, and remember that not one loaf of bread from the US has ever arrived in Damascus to feed the poor.  The billions of US AID goes to Idlib and the foreign countries which host Syrian refugee camps.  The law-abiding Syrian citizens who never left home or supported Al Qaeda or ISIS are deprived of aide.

While the media often portrays Syria as a ghost town, with the majority of the population having left during the years of greatest conflict, the truth of the matter is the vast majority of the Syrian population never left.  The experts consistently state that approximately one-third of the population left Syria, but that leaves about two-thirds inside Syria today, and suffering from the US sanctions, which began in 1979 but are now hitting a crescendo.  The US Congress should be concentrating on how to help the UN process for peace, which is outlined in resolution 2254, instead of concentrating on how to make the Syrian people suffer.  But, after all, that is just my opinion.

*

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 Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is an award-winning journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

1838年，中国清朝道光皇帝下令销毁广州港（广州）的鸦片库存，大英帝国以阻碍商品贸易 “自由流通 “为由对中国宣战。

“贩卖 “一词适用于英国。维多利亚女王在位期间（1837-1901年），一直纵容和支持这种行为。1838年，每年有1 400吨鸦片从印度出口到中国。第一次鸦片战争后，这些货物的数量（一直延续到1915年）急剧增加。

所谓第一次鸦片战争(1838-1842)，代表了对中国的侵略行为，随后，1842年签订了《南京条约》，不仅保护了英国对中国的鸦片进口，还赋予英国和其他殖民国家域外权利，导致 “条约港 “的形成。

鸦片贸易的巨额收入就被英国用来资助其殖民征服。今天，这将被称为 “洗毒资”。 鸦片收入的输送也被用来资助北京国际公司在1865年第一次鸦片战争后成立的香港上海银行。

 

**

你可以点击下面的链接阅读整篇文章的英文版，也可以用手机翻译

Several experts suggest that the post-pandemic world will be very different from the world we know. It is speculated that a new order, based on the prevention of the spread of diseases, will be put in place and that, for this purpose, governments and intelligence organizations in all countries will use advanced control and surveillance systems, in order to track infected people and keep them in quarantine, preventing the circulation of infections. Despite possible benefits, such as preventing a new pandemic, this model of organization also has some problems, as it sacrifices several civil liberties in the name of disease prevention, annihilating the right to privacy and the right to come and go.

In several countries, the tests for a post-coronavirus order has already begun. Israel is one of the most advanced nations in this regard, already having complex control and surveillance systems and exporting its technology to other countries, such as India. Now, another country that is gaining notoriety on this issue is Spain, which is advancing more and more in surveillance and hypercontrol projects.

Recently, the Ministry of Economic Affairs and Digital Transformation proposed a pilot project to test a control model on the Spanish island of La Gomera, where a cell phone application will be used to control private health data. The goal is to create a large infection and control simulation to test the model before implanting it in the rest of the country. The Council of Ministers has already approved the project, which will start soon. Although several countries are already testing similar systems, Spain is the first nation to simulate contagions for better data capture. The company responsible for the technology is the Spanish multinational Indra, which Works in military industry, mainly in the field of telecommunications and strategic technology. The contract signed between the company and the Spanish government is valued at more than 330,000 euros.

The application operates via Bluetooth and emits signals to other cell phones with the same technology installed, watching them constantly. When two users physically approach each other, a contagion alert is issued in the event of an approach of less than 2 meters for more than 15 minutes. If one of the users is tested positive for COVID-19, he will receive an alert informing him of the risks and those who approached him will receive tips on how to avoid contagion. While this whole process takes place, user data is constantly captured and analyzed by remote monitoring centers – and here lies the danger of misuse of this technology.

Formally, the application follows rules of respect for privacy to the individual rights of users, who will not be obliged to use it or accept to receive notifications, however there are several unclear points about the project, as informed by the Spanish Data Protection Agency, who complains about the lack of transparency on the part of the Indra company and the government. The Agency published an official note severely criticizing the lack of details in the elaboration of the project, which prevents a more rigorous evaluation by the Agency. In its note, the criticisms were particularly directed to the Spanish Secretariat of State, which said that the Agency participated in the entire process of evaluating and reviewing the project, which the Agency vehemently denies, saying it needs more information and that it prioritizes the protection of data above all issues.

In fact, it is clear that even within the Spanish government there is a disagreement regarding the nature of the project, which reveals the controversy surrounding the issue. Indeed, what the ministers who approved the system and the company that developed it are planning is to move forward on a very dangerous global agenda, which prioritizes the violation of all personal rights in order to prevent a contagion. It is necessary to take into account a series of issues and rigorously evaluate the benefits and costs of the project, taking into account that this type of technology can be used for absolutely any purpose, including espionage and hypervigilance.

The coronavirus seems to have opened a new Overton Window, in which the control of personal information data and total monitoring have entered the sphere of public debate. The so-called “western democracies”, based on liberal values ​​such as the individual freedom, increasingly admit totalitarian speeches in the name of “public health”. It remains to be seen, however, whether it is really only in the name of collective health that Western governments want to violate the rights of their citizens. It is very likely that there are much deeper and more obscure interests behind the disease prevention discourse, and all of this should be taken into account when discussing projects as bold as this one.

*

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.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

On 24 June a US Federal Grad Jury issued a second superseding indictment against Journalist Julian Assange.

The new indictment incorporates the 18 charges from the first indictment and seeks to ‘broaden the scope of the conspiracy’ and asserts that Assange and Wikileaks tried to recruit hackers for the purpose of stealing secret documents from the US government.

Thirteen of the 49 page indictment are devoted to Assange’s efforts to recruit ‘Anonymous’ hackers. At one conference Assange is alleged to have encouraged hackers to join the CIA and then use their position to steal top secret documents.

It also alleges that Assange cajoled, encouraged and assisted Chelsea Manning in ‘stealing’ hundreds of thousands of secret government documents relating to the Iraq and Afghan wars as well as diplomatic cables and Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments.

The icing on the cake of this new indictment are the claims that Assange wilfully revealed the ‘name of Human Sources and Created a Grave and Imminent Risk to Human Life’ through publishing ‘stolen’ secret documents. The tally of secret documents that Wikileaks published includes 75,000 Afghan war reports, 400,000 Iraq war reports, 800 Guantanamo Bay detainee assessments and 250,000 US diplomatic cables.

The new indictment alleges that Wikileaks published documents that revealed the names of various collaborators working with US military and intelligence agencies deliberately putting their lives in danger.

The new indictment also tries to make the help that Wikileaks gave NSA whistle-blower Edward Snowden a criminal offence. Never mind the fact that the FBI relied upon paid informants such as ‘convicted conman, and sex criminal Sigurdur Thordarson’ to make up bogus claims against Assange. According to WikiLeaks Thordarson is one of the star witnesses for new indictment from the US Department of Justice.

The timing of this new indictment is suspicious. Trump is trailing in numerous polls due to his disastrous handling of the Covid-19 pandemic that has left over 120,000 Americans dead and caused trillions of dollars worth of economic damage. Is the new indictment a pathetic attempt to try and steer the news away from the storm of negative press encircling the White House?

The Freedom of the Press Foundation has commented:

“The Trump DOJ’s new Assange indictment has all the same problems as the old one. Source communication and publishing are not crimes. They didn’t add any new charges. They didn’t really change any old ones. And the using the Espionage Act is beyond the pale.’’

Julian Assange’s extradition trial does not resume until 7 September. Further outbreaks of the virus could put a spoke in that judicial frame up by the British government. Yet it appears the entire British political class including the so called opposition Labour Party will do nothing to try and prevent Assange’s extradition. Its new leader Keir Starmer, a former human rights barrister, supports the extradition process.

Pulitzer prize winning journalist Glenn Greenwald, whose reports revealed the global surveillance operations of the US and UK, has noted the connivance of British and American politicians and media of all political colours with Trump’s war on whistle blowers:

“The Trump DOJ’s attempt to imprison Julian Assange for working with his source to publish classified documents that exposed US war crimes is the most severe US threat to press freedom since 2016. It’s sickening to watch so many journalists ignore it, & so many liberals cheer it: ‘’

Kevin Gosztlioa of the Shadow Proof news outlet has written a detailed expose of the new indictment. He conclusion declares:

“While the conspiracy charge includes sensational claims of collaboration with hackers, it is no less of a political charge than the seventeen Espionage Act offences Assange faces for publishing information.

The additional sections in the indictment represent an attempt to give the illegitimate prosecution a greater veneer of criminality. Unfortunately, it does not take much to scrape it off and expose the contempt for press freedom that still lies behind this vindictive prosecution.’’

Ordinary people around the world must step up their efforts to secure the release of journalist Julian Assange. If extradited to the US he would face a show trial that would resemble the worst excesses of Stalin and Hitler’s courtrooms in the 1930s.

The extradition of Julian Assange by the crisis ridden American empire sends a clear warning to anyone who has thoughts about investigating or revealing US war crimes. It represents a threat to investigative journalists and anti war activists who challenge the bloody rule of American capital which will not go down without a fight.

The persecution of Julian Assange reveals a certain desperation on the part of the American ruling class. However, it won’t solve any of the social, economic and political problems facing American capitalism which is in a state of deep crisis.

*

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.

After two days of fighting with militants from the rival militant coalition Fa Ithbatu, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham has launched a large-scale attack in order to put an end to the resistance to its dominance in Greater Idlib.

According to pro-militant sources, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham members supported by battle tanks stormed the town of Arab Said west of Idlib city. This town was recently captured by Fa Ithbatu forces and turned into a foothold for operations against Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. At the same time, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham besieged and stormed the HQ of Horas al-Din, a member group of Fa Ithbatu, in the town of Sarmada.

In their turn, Horas al-Din attacked several Hayat Tahrir al-Sham checkpoints near the western entrance to Idlib city, allegedly seizing them.

Fa Ithbatu accuses Hayat Tahrir al-Sham of conspiring with foreign forces, mainly Turkey, against the so-called Syrian revolution. Earlier in June, Hayat Tahrir al-Sham arrested Ansar al-Din commander, Abu Salah al-Uzbeki, and Liwa al-Muqatlin al-Ansar commander, Abu Malek al-Tali. Both these groups are a part of the recently formed Fa Ithbatu coalition.

Meanwhile, pro-militant sources are spreading rumors about an increase in operations of the Russian special forces in southern Idlib. According to them, a unit of the Russian special forces raided a position of Turkish-backed Suqur al-Sham near the village of Benin killing 4 and injuring 3 members of the group.

This became the first militant claim about the Russian Special Forces in Idlib since the signing of the March 5 de-escalation agreement between Ankara and Moscow. If such an attack really happened, it was likely a response to the recent drone attack by Idlib militants on Russia’s Hmeimim Air Base in Lattakia.

Late on June 24, an unidentified drone struck a militant vehicle moving on the road near the town of Binnish in Greater Idlib. The strike completely destroyed the vehicle and the several persons inside. While the eliminated militants are yet to be identified, local sources claim that the vehicle likely belonged to Ansar al-Tawhid or Horas al-Din. Recently, combat drones of the US-led coalition conducted several strikes on ISIS- and al-Qaeda-linked terrorists that hide in the Turkish-occupied part of Syria.

The Turkish Army and Turkish-backed militants shelled positions of the Syrian Army and the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) near the town of Tell Rifat in northern Aleppo. Pro-Turkish sources claim that several army and YPG fighters were killed. Strikes likely came in response to the recent series of attacks by YPG-affiliated cells on positions of pro-Turkish groups in the region of Afrin.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

The kids squatting on the CHOP or CHAZ declared “autonomous zone” in Seattle have announced they are folding tents and going home. They also threw support behind Joe Biden, demonstrating they have the political understanding of a fence post.

Joe Biden is an establishment stalwart. He will be whatever the DNC and its wealthy controllers want him to be.

Seattle CHOP leaders urge protesters to go home, throw support behind Biden, Democrats https://t.co/T4R8YEKNMU #FoxNews

— Harold J.L. Connett (@HaroldJLConnett) June 25, 2020

When the elite told Bill Clinton to kill Serbians, Joe was onboard. He argued in favor of the Iraq invasion that has thus far killed around 1.5 million people. The LGBT crowd should understand that Joe was an ardent supporter of the Defense of Marriage Act. As for BLM, they should look into Biden’s opposition to desegregation busing. He spoke to a crowd in Delaware opposed to integration. He pushed hard for the passage of the 1994 crime bill. It resulted in mass incarceration and longer prison sentences for Black Americans. It further warped the judicial system.

Paul Street writes:

Biden helped author and worked to pass the racist federal mass incarceration Three Strikes crime bill of 1994. He has boasted of his ability to work with segregationists as a U.S. senator in the 1970s, when he opposed federal desegregation busing orders and worried about sending his children to desegregated schools.

this Biden clip from 1993 is…outright fascist. 10X worse than Clinton's "super predator" line (via @KFILE) https://t.co/k8d0Icq50m https://t.co/77aDBUKznP

— Adam H. Johnson (@adamjohnsonNYC) March 7, 2019

“Much of the modern controversy around the bill surrounds the view that it has led to mass incarceration, especially among people of color,” writes Joseph Lyttleton. “The bill has also led more defendants to take plea deals and accept prison time without a trial to avoid a much more severe punishment if found guilty, even when innocent.”

None of this matters, of course. It’s like this every election — a choice between the “lesser of two evils” — and come November Democrats will overlook Joe’s racial sins because they are focused on getting rid of Trump.

The hypocrisy here is simply astounding. The CHAZ kids and their BLM comrades will vote for Biden and thus the military-industrial complex wars, financial ripoffs by the elite, all-encompassing surveillance, censorship of political opponents, and the neoliberal creed destroying much of the world.

*

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 Medium.

Kurt Nimmo has a blog site, Another Day in the Empire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

When it comes to the touchy, violent matter of Kosovar affairs, history keeps company with the devils of nationalism and vengeance. Serbia remains scornful of the aspirations of the territory, whose legitimacy it does not recognise; Kosovo remains spiteful of Serbia’s continued interest, and attempts, at any given turn, to frustrate their neighbour’s effort at European integration.  Blood tinged memories between the two sides reign with relentless fury.

On the issue of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the dreaded term of genocide, the lion’s share of the blame was initially attributed to Serbian forces.  Slobodan Milošević was seen as flag waving butcher and regional bug bear, a Balkan génocidaire who eventually faced the stiff legal tunes of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia.  He died before judgment could be delivered.

With Serbia cast in the role of permanent villainy, and its enemies validated and sanitised as good patriots, it seemed unlikely that the Kosovo Liberation Army, not disinclined towards perpetrating atrocities, would face the scrutiny of bench and gavel.  They were given good cause to think so; the bombing campaign by NATO forces in 1999 was initiated on the side of Kosovar Albanians ostensibly to halt the genocidal rampages of Serb forces.  It prompted the war studies academic Lawrence Freedman to warn that, “War in the name of morality provides as many reasons for historical shudders as war in the name of self-interest, for at least the latter may be easier to call off when self-interest calls for compromise.”  Sides had been picked, and the KLA was emboldened. 

As late as last year, a key figure in this rocket-charged humanitarian evangelism, former US President Bill Clinton, became a spectacle, paraded around on the occasion of the 20^th anniversary of the bombings on a visit to Pristina.  He was on nationalist show for Kosovo’s grateful President Hashim Thaçi, who had awarded him the Order of Freedom. 

“We thank you for the just decision to stop the Serbian genocide during 1999.  We are very grateful for the support of the US in Kosovo.  The story of Kosovo is a story of joint success.  You are our hero.”

Behind such triumphalism, scrutiny about the conduct of KLA officers has been levelled, notably within European Union circles.  In December 2010, Council of Europe rapporteur Dick Marty brought the issue to light in a report alleging a range of human rights abuses, crimes and atrocities committed by a good number of Kosovo’s current luminaries.  A prominent figure in the report was Thaçi himself, a member of the “Drenica Group” who had “played vital roles as co-conspirators in various categories of criminal activity”. Those in the group “have been investigated repeatedly in the last decade as suspects in war crimes or organised criminal enterprise, including in major cases led by prosecutors under UNMIK [UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo], the ICTY  and EULEX [European Union Rule of Law Mission in Kosovo].”

First-hand accounts suggested that Thaçi, along with Xhavit Haliti, Kadri Veseli, Azem Syla and Fatmir Limaj, had “ordered – and in some cases personally overseen – assassinations, detentions, beatings and interrogations in various parts of Kosovo and, of particular interest to our work, in the context of KLA-led operations in the territory of Albania, between 1998 and 2000.”

A few observations in the dark report stand out like raging sores: members of the Drenica Group and their associates “would have been convicted of serious crimes and would now be serving lengthy prison sentences” but for two critical reasons: the successful elimination, intimidation into silence, of “potential and actual witnesses against them (both enemies and erstwhile allies), using violence, threats, blackmail, and protection rackets” and “faltering will on the part of the international community to effectively prosecute the former leaders of the KLA.”

The report stirred pressure within European circles, leading to the creation of the Special Investigative Task Force (SITF) which presented its findings in 2014.  This propelled the creation of the Hague-based Kosovo Specialist Chambers, a hybrid judicial body established under a 2015 law adopted by the Kosovo Assembly, a product of pressure on the part of Pristina’s allies rather than persuasion, charged with trying alleged crimes committed by KLA members during between 1998 and 2000.  The court’s mandate is set to conclude only when Kosovo is notified by the Council of the European Union that investigations and proceedings have been finalised.

The Specialist Chambers have taken their time.  For over four-and-a-half years, there were no indictments. Processes and protocols were being established, regulations formulated. 

“It was challenging setting up the entire administration of the court, drafting and adopting the rules of procedure and evidence, adopting internal rules and regulations,” explained Specialist Chambers spokesperson Angela Griep.

As this was happening, vain efforts were made to revoke or alter the law establishing the Specialist Chambers, citing discrimination against Kosovo Albanian guerrillas.  Thaçi has certainly been busy behind the scenes, doing his bit of beavering to disrupt any investigation.  Understandably wishing to mine the veritable quarry of US President Donald Trump’s suspicions of international legal bodies, he pressed US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in November 2019 to change the mandate of court, and its location in The Netherlands.  His letter expressed an open concern about the Specialist Chambers and the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office, suggesting that such bodies continued operating in direct conflict with the judicial structures of the territory. 

In his reply of November 29, 2019, Pompeo warned of grave consequences should Thaçi prove uncooperative. 

“The abolishment or undermining the work, structure or locations of the Kosovo Specialist Chambers and Specialist Prosecutor’s Office in any way,” the secretary’s warning letter went, “would seriously infringe Kosovo’s credibility in the world.”

Such behaviour would tarnish Kosovo permanently, questioning its commitment to the rule of law, denying justice to victims and muddy its future. 

On June 24, the Specialist Prosecutor’s Office revealed in a press release that it had filed a ten-count indictment with the Kosovo Specialist Chambers on April 24. 

“The indictment alleges that Hashim Thaçi, Kadri Veseli, and the other charged suspects are criminally responsible for nearly 100 murders.  The crimes alleged in the Indictment involve hundreds of known victims of Kosovo Albanian, Serb, Roma, and other ethnicities and include political opponents.” 

The indictment had been kept under wraps, but it was felt that “repeated efforts” by Thaçi and Veseli to obstruct and undermine the office via “a secret campaign to overturn the law creating the Court” necessitated its disclosure.

Given the alleged exploits of those of the Drenica Circle, the fear now lies in witness protection prior to any proceedings that will take place in the court’s pretrial chamber, which will have to confirm the indictment.  The detractors within Kosovo will not be happy to oblige, and obstacles will be deployed.  Edi Rama, Albania’s Prime Minister, gazing at the whole affair with nationalist tinted glasses, already has his assessment:

“It is a statement that does not only throw mud against Thaçi or Veseli or the Kosovo Liberation Army but [attacks] Kosovo and Albanianism.”

*

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

For all intents and purposes, India seems to have unofficially decided to “decouple” itself from its “fellow” BRICS and SCO “partner” China, but this US-backed development is dangerous since the South Asian state might not be able to survive the domestic socio-economic and regionally destabilizing consequences of such a dramatic move.

For a brief moment in the summer of 1945 there was joy in Korea.

Koreans, who had suffered 35 years of of brutal Japanese colonial occupation prior to Tokyo’s defeat in World War II, celebrated what they believed was their liberation by victorious US and Soviet forces. Full of hope for a future free of foreign rule, they proudly declared their independence.

That hope was soon dashed. It was announced that the victorious allied powers, the US and the USSR, would be occupying the entire Korean Peninsula. The USSR would take the north, the US the south.

Like so many other imperial endeavors, the division of Korea along the 38th Parallel was an exercise in arbitrariness and utter disregard for the wishes of the people it affected. The people of Korea very quickly realized that they were merely trading one occupying empire for another.

A survey of Koreans in the summer of 1946 found that 77% preferred socialism or communism while only 14% favored capitalism. However, in the South, the US backed the right-wing dictatorship of Syngman Rhee, a conservative Christian and staunch anti-communist who ruled with an iron fist. In the North, the USSR installed former anti-Japanese guerrilla leader and Red Army officer Kim Il Sung.

In 1948, the division of Korea was looking increasingly permanent. And politics was turning murderous.

The killing begins

By early 1950 there were more than 100,000 political prisoners in the South. Summary executions of leftists, both real and imagined, claimed tens of thousands of lives as the South’s police-state reign of terror rivaled the outrages of the communist North.

As efforts to negotiate a unified Korean state failed, nascent anti-government insurgencies grew in the South, notably on Jeju Island. They were brutally repressed.

Brief but bloody border skirmishes escalated. Both Rhee and Kim sought unification through invasion.

Seventy years ago today – on June 25, 1950 – Kim went for broke. Northern forces launched an all-out invasion of the South.

Seoul, the South’s capital, fell three days later. America’s supreme commander in the Far East, Tokyo-based General Douglas MacArthur, was soon convinced that American boots on the ground were the key to repulsing Northern aggression. President Harry S Truman agreed, calling the intervention a “police action.”

The US military, strutting with atomic swagger and still puffed up with the pride of World War II victory, expected a short war. Green, flabby GIs, more fit for the pomp and parades of Japanese occupation duty than for the horrors of close combat that awaited them in Korea, imagined they would soon be back to the bars and bordellos of Tokyo.

Reality proved harsh. In the summer of 1950, Northern forces routed both the South’s army and the first American units to land. US and Southern forces retreated southward toward the southeastern port of Pusan (today, Busan) along with hundreds of thousands of civilian refugees.

After a titanic struggle around the “Pusan Perimeter” and a masterly amphibious landing at Inchon, North Korean forces were routed by mid-September 1950. In October, US-led forces counter-invaded North Korea. That prompted a Chinese intervention in the winter months. The carnage escalated.

Hell from above

While US ground troops had a mixed performance, one area in which US forces enjoyed near total supremacy was in the air. Overcoming initial reluctance from MacArthur, General George Stratemeyer ordered US bombers to “destroy every means of communications and every installation, factory, city, and village” in North Korea.

More bombs were dropped on Korea than during the entire World War II Pacific campaign. US carpet bombing of North Korea included napalm, incendiary and fragmentation bombs that killed and maimed by the thousands and left cities, towns, villages and countryside in scorched and shattered ruins.

In the North’s capital Pyongyang, only around 50,000 people out of a prewar population of 500,000 remained in 1953, the year the war fizzled out.

When all the cities, towns and industrial sites were destroyed, US warplanes bombed dams, reservoirs and rice fields, flooding the countryside and destroying the nation’s food supply. Only emergency aid from China, the Soviet Union and other socialist nations averted famine.

Fearing Northern troops could infiltrate Southern lines disguised as civilians, fighter pilots bombed and strafed refugees as they fled south. In one of the the most infamous atrocities of the war,  between 163 and 400 men, women and children were gunned down at No Gun Ri in South Korea over three days in July 1950.

Retreating South Korean and US troops also blew up bridges teeming with refugees, and during their retreat from they North, they burned villages and towns in a “scorched earth” policy to deny the advancing enemy quarters and supplies.

Meanwhile, Rhee’s agents were “clearing” rear areas. Perhaps 100,000 South Korean civilians were murdered by their own armed forces, who targeted leftists. US troops were present at horrific mass slaughters throughout the war.

Most Americans were fed a sanitized version of the conflict, although some of its horrors were celebrated – witness John Ford’s propaganda piece This Is Korea! in which footage of a flamethrower attack is accompanied by actor John Wayne’s voiceover: “Fry ’em out! Burn ’em out! Cook ’em!”

General Curtis “Bombs Away” LeMay – who commanded firebombing raids on Japanese cities that killed more civilians than the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki – served as strategic air commander during the Korean War.

He would later acknowledge that “over a period of three years or so, we killed off 20% of the population” of North Korea. That’s nearly 1.9 million men, women and children. In comparison, the Nazis had murdered 17% of Poland’s pre-World War II population just a few years earlier.

The unfinished war

By the time that North Korean, Chinese and American forces signed a ceasefire agreement on July 27, 1953 – Rhee, furious that the war had ended with the peninsula divided, refused to join – North Korea was utterly ruined. “Everything is destroyed,” said US bomber commander General Emmett O’Donnell. “There is nothing standing worthy of the name.”

US President Donald Trump threatened to “totally destroy” North Korea over its nuclear-missile program before improbably “falling in love” with the country’s leader Kim Jong Un (the grandson of Kim Il Sung).

US presidential threats, coming as they do from the nation that has killed more foreign civilians than any other over the past 75 years, are not to be taken lightly.

For North Koreans of a certain age, total destruction by the United States isn’t an abstract threat. It is a hellish reality that ranks among the most egregious acts of a century that witnessed some of the most appalling barbarity in human history.

*

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.

Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based journalist and author who contributes regularly to Common Dreams and Counterpunch. He is also a member of Collective 20, a new anti-war collective with Noam Chomsky, Medea Benjamin and others.

As a young farmer, Bill Westrate would walk outside most nights with a white sheet and black light to lure swarms of insects to the side of his barn in Cass County. “It would scare most people,” he said. But he didn’t much mind the bugs that would land in his hair and crawl down his shirt.

“It was just an absolute cloud of life.”

Throughout the 1980s and ’90s, Westrate would fill specimen cases with insects on his land, where he farmed corn, soy and Christmas trees. Sometimes, he would try other methods — putting ladders up to collect insects from porch lights,  or using malaise traps, tents made of fine mesh that collect a variety of arthropods.

Then, a couple of years ago — while watching a local television show where someone was using a similar trap — it occurred to him: The insects that once blanketed his land were mostly gone. And he wondered what happened to them.

He began to survey his southwest Michigan farm with a closer eye. He noticed that common insects like leafcutter bees, mud dauber wasps and orb weaver spiders were vanishing. And his holly bushes and wisteria vines no longer bore fruit, suggesting a lack of pollinators.

Of course, Westrate is just one farmer. But he’s also the former president of the Michigan Entomological Society; a “citizen-scientist extraordinaire,” in the words of Jennifer Tank, a biologist at the University of Notre Dame.

And what he saw as he walked his land was in line with insect declines observed across much of the United States and Europe.

A sphinx moth from Bill Westrate’s collection. (Bridge photo by Brian Allnutt)

In one oft-cited study in Germany, for instance, total biomass of flying insects studied in preserves fell as much as 82 percent over 27 years. It wasn’t just a loss in the diversity of insect populations, but in total numbers, imperiling organisms at the base of the food web.

It’s unclear exactly what’s causing the declines. Scientists say they’re likely a result of a host of variables including habitat loss, climate change, pests, disease and new classes of pesticides such as glyphosate (the primary ingredient in the popular weedkiller Roundup) and neonicotinoids.

Together, these factors could help dramatically reorder the landscape in Michigan, affecting insects and in turn “every aspect of ecosystem function,” according to ecologist Nick Haddad of Michigan State University’s W.K. Kellogg Biological Station.

Audrey Sebold, a horticulture specialist at the Michigan Farm Bureau, notes that “most of Michigan’s fruits and many of our vegetables” require pollination from insects. Honeybees and native pollinators like bumblebees are important to fruit crops that thrive in Michigan, including tart cherries and blueberries, and vegetables such as tomatoes and squash.

Beyond the impact on agriculture and wildlife, continued declines in insect populations could lead — eventually — to “a tipping point,” said Haddad, “where we go from a habitable earth to basically uninhabitable.”

That may sound extreme, but scientists such as Francisco Sánchez-Bayo from the University of Sydney point out that with studies showing a rate of insect decline of 2.5 percent per year, “in 10 years you will have a quarter less, in 50 years only half left and in 100 years you will have none.”

Hence, the appearance of cheerful hashtags like #insectarmageddon.

Alas, not all scientists view the future as so bleak, citing both the resilience of a million-plus species of insects and a shortage of comprehensive research around the globe.

“Not going to happen,” Elsa Youngsteadt of North Carolina State University told The Atlantic of insects’ demise. “They’re the most diverse group of organisms on the planet. Some of them will make it.”

Insects are certainly diverse and adaptable, lending credence to the they-will-survive chorus. However, as a study in the journal Science showed, wildflowers have been declining in correlation with their pollinators, raising “the possibility of community-level cascades of decline and extinction.” In other words, it’s more than just bugs we have to worry about losing.

“But that’s in the future,” Haddad said. “We’re not at the extreme yet and we’ve got to head things off now…”

Preventing a worst-case scenario means getting a better picture of what’s driving the decline of insect populations.

A much-noted 2018 report in the New York Times titled, “The Insect Apocalypse Is Here,” was based on studies in Europe, which were geographically limited.

Clearly, more research is needed and likely much of it will come from “citizen scientists” like Bill Westrate, volunteers who can record insect data where they live to paint a detailed picture of what’s happening to insects in Michigan.

Butterflies and bumblebees

Haddad, the MSU ecologist, studies butterflies.

He says they provide an historically important record for documenting insect declines. “If we go back 150 years, the way people knew about the natural world is what they knew about butterflies,” he said.

Butterfly collecting has helped create a wider record of insect numbers and diversity, especially in Europe where several of the most significant studies on insect declines have taken place.

Michigan’s butterfly numbers seem only to go reliably back about seven years. But to our south, Ohio has extensive data across the state, showing losses of two percent a year, and 33 percent over 20 years, results comparable to those from the United Kingdom and northern Europe.

“Butterflies are just indicators for the rest of insects that we don’t have the ability to monitor,” Haddad said. The factors driving down butterfly numbers also could be reducing those of other invertebrates like tiger beetles and stoneflies, and probably don’t stop at the Ohio-Michigan border.

Bumblebees — the large and fuzzy cousins of honeybees — offer a better barometer of insect numbers in Michigan, but here too the news is not good. The decline of domesticated honey bees has received plenty of attention, but bumblebees are important and efficientpollinators for many crops and wild plants.

A study of bumblebees based on specimens from all Michigan counties going back to 1887 found about half of 12 species once common in Michigan were in decline by 50 percent or more. One, the rusty-patched bumblebee, is effectively extinct in the state, while American bumblebees declined 98 percent.

Tearing out fencerows, eliminating weeds 

Westrate, who is now mostly retired, said he’s noticed that farms are getting bigger and growers are tearing out fencerows and woodlots that once served as wildlife corridors to make more room for crops.

He also noted increased reliance on various sprays, genetically modified crops and seed treatments that have become ubiquitous in farming communities.

In the early 1990s, farmers began using glyphosate, an ingredient in  Roundup, to dry out crops so they could be harvested sooner. This allows farmers to clear their fields before the onset of bad weather. The practice started in Scotland but increased dramatically in the U.S. Midwest as GMO “Roundup-ready” crops came online.

These wasps are part of a collection that fills much of Bill Westrate’s dining room. (Bridge photo by Brian Allnutt)

Such crops could withstand being sprayed with Roundup, but surrounding weeds — which provided insects with food and habitat — were eradicated. The chemical has been implicated in the huge loss of monarch butterflies as milkweed plants — where monarchs lay eggs, then feed on them as caterpillars — nearly vanished from fields.

Another class of insecticides called neonicotinoids, or “neonics,” have flooded Michigan farms as a seed treatment since 2000, typically for corn and soybeans. As the name implies, neonicotinoids are chemically similar to nicotine and can work systematically through a plant, even showing up in pollen and nectar.

Neonics have been shown to impact pollinators including bees, songbirds, bats and, though originally thought safe for mammals, deer. By 2011, roughly 80 percent of corn seeds and a third of soybeans were planted with neonic-treated seed.

Farms relying heavily on neonicotinoids and glyphosate cut a wide band across southern Michigan and into the state’s thumb region.

“It’s uncanny the decline [of insects] that happens concurrent with the arrival of those two pesticides,” Haddad said. He adds, however: “I don’t think there is one smoking gun, so it’s not fair to say that, but…there’s good reason for concern.”

Some Michigan growers — including blueberry producers — may suffer pollinator declines while spraying neonicotinoids. Rufus Isaacs, an MSU entomologist specializing in pollinators, said roughly 80 percent of blueberries are pollinated by honeybees, which often are trucked in from out of state. Despite dramatic die-offs, beekeepers can usually regenerate colonies. So far, pollinator declines don’t seem to have affected blueberry production as much as unpredictable weather during flowering.

Sebolt, of the Farm Bureau, said fruit growers have good incentive to spray responsibly, so as not to hurt honeybees or other pollinators. Growers who rent honeybee hives “try as best they can, and they do a pretty good job of not spraying when the honeybees are out,” she said.

Kevin Robson, executive director at the Michigan Blueberry Commission, has been involved in efforts to protect pollinators in the state. He defends the use of neonicotinoids, citing the Environmental Protection Agency’s continued approval of most neonics as evidence of their safety and said they’re an important part of integrated pest management, which requires a range of strategies.

In Europe, some growers have argued that banning neonics could make farmers resort to even more dangerous chemicals.  And, as Robson noted, neonics are “normally cheaper,” for blueberry growers, who are also dealing with labor shortages and a competitive global market for their crop.

“If they’re not able to sell their blueberries for a profit, they’re not going to be in business, anyway,” Robson said.

European bans on neonicotinoids (and glyphosate in Germany and Austria) may help Michigan farmers get a better view of what might happen if these chemicals “are removed from the landscape,” Haddad said.

A way forward

Studies in Germany and the Netherlands also show how citizen scientists can play a crucial role in monitoring insect populations. The data at the core of the New York Times story was collected by a network of volunteer entomologists in the German city of Krefeld, whose entomological society keeps records dating from the 1860s.

Technology can help as well. Isaacs, of MSU, recommends a smartphone app calledBumble Bee Watch, which allows anyone to gather photos or data and submit them to taxonomic experts for a database that tracks bumblebee numbers across the country.

The Michigan Butterfly Network organizes volunteers to conduct field counts of butterflies, similar to the Audubon Society’s “Christmas Bird Count,” one of the oldest and most successful examples of volunteer-led research.

“The best data coming out about why monarchs are declining come from these citizen science efforts,” Haddad said. It’s also a productive way for people who might be concerned about climate change to manage anxiety.

Land conservation programs might be an easier sell in farm country.

In Michigan, the Department of Natural Resources’ Large Grasslands project was created to preserve and restore prairie ecosystems. The project mostly focuses on creating habitat for birds like the Henslow’s sparrow and ring-necked pheasant. But Isaacs said such efforts are also likely to benefit insect species.

Nationally, the USDA’s Conservation Reserve Program is set to see modest increasesin funding that would pay farmers to set aside environmentally sensitive land for wildlife and create corridors for the migration and dispersal of species, while helping farmers with pollination and erosion control.

This aligns with another Haddad project: creating wildlife corridors, which can be connected parkland or land along waterways to help preserve insect habitats and increase breeding populations threatened by urbanization or large farms.

Westrate, meanwhile, said he’s on board with efforts to find more folks like him — amateur entomologists happy to gather data to study insect declines, losses he still can’t seem to wrap his mind around.

He said he recalls back in the 1980s when he first noticed five-lined skinks (slinky lizards) and leopard frogs disappearing from his farm, another dramatic change that’s never been fully explained.

“But who could have imagined the insects?” Westrate said. “Who could have imagined that?”

*

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: Bill Westrate’s home near Cassopolis is surrounded by large farms. (Bridge photo by Brian Allnutt)

The Eastern Partnership is a joint policy initiative created in 2009 which aims to deepen and strengthen relations between the European Union (EU), its Member States and its six eastern neighbors: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova  and Ukraine. Although many of the EU’s eastern neighbors have aspirations to become EU Member States, for Brussels the Partnership is an opportunity to maintain some cohabitation relations with states directly on or near Russia’s borders by giving them the illusive promise of so-called European integration. This promise of European integration is of course to also limit their economic and infrastructural integration with Russia.

Most curious though is the participation of Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in the Caucasus. With the current state of affairs in Ukraine and Turkey, it is unlikely that the EU will be engaging in any further expansions into the former Soviet bloc, especially ones in the Caucasus that border Turkey, and will focus primarily on the Balkans. With the coronavirus pandemic devastating the economies of Europe, the EU is not prepared to subsidize the economies of these particular post-Soviet states, especially as many are rampant with corruption and Brussels is unwilling to give the likes of autocrats, like Azerbaijan’s Ilham Aliyev, the right to vote and veto.

The last wave of EU expansion into former Warsaw Pact countries in 2004 and 2007, specifically into Poland, Romania and Bulgaria, as well as others, led to a serious political and economic crisis in the EU as Brussels found it difficult to integrate the new members culturally and economically. Therefore, the issue of new members joining the EU has been sidelined, with the exception of Albania and North Macedonia in the Balkans.

However, the current impossibility for the post-Soviet states to join the EU at the moment, especially at a time when Russia wants greater influence in the region, means the Eastern Partnership was created to give a false illusion and a perpetual limbo for these countries. The EU has already said that the Eastern Partnership should not be considered a step towards Membership. However, the sublimation of European integration is in fact a surrogate of Membership, thus giving Eastern Partnership members contradictory messages. The Eastern Partnership is a process which allows these countries to be institutionally attached to the EU through free market philosophy guided by European advice, especially since they are allocated European-funded money for various programs to be further integrated into a European economic and social model.

After more than a decade of integration, some of these post-Soviet countries are increasingly proposing to legalize the relationship into the EU. Last week, Moldovan Prime Minister Ion Chicu during the sixth summit of the Eastern Partnership that was teleconferenced due to the coronavirus pandemic, said “Even before the pandemic, the Eastern Partnership got closer to a ‘moment of truth.’ Now, after 10 years of cooperation, [the Eastern Partnership] either reinvents itself and we get ‘a new breath’ or it slowly but surely loses its political relevance. The pandemic accelerated this process.” He then called for the boosting of high-level strategic political dialogue and for more joint projects.

Source: InfoBrics

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelenski backed Chicu and said that the Eastern Partnership should “not limit the ambitions of the partners,” adding that “for some a political dialogue is enough.”

European Commission, Ursula von der Lainen, is not committing to elevating the Eastern Partnership into a Membership path and rather spoke only about investments, as well as about setting so-called common goals. Effectively, the EU will continue to have some influence over these countries even though they have essentially blocked their paths towards full membership.

Not all post-Soviet states adhere to the demands of Europe, particularly Belarus and Azerbaijan. But some remain completely hopeful, such as Ukraine that is desperate to join any project or organization that can be perceived as anti-Russian or against Russian interests.

However, despite this, the majority of Eastern Partnership member countries accept the limitations and continue to participate in the project in its current form. Some to maintain a European face in the hope of joining the EU one day, and other just to simply maintain good relations with Brussels. Therefore, both the EU and Moscow will continue vying for influence in this region. This actually puts these particular countries in an advantageous position to leverage both Brussels and Moscow to their own advantages if they can maintain a balance, something we can argue only Belarus is doing to great effect.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Newspaper executive Peter Wright has slammed big tech for secretively developing and changing algorithms for news distribution without giving the industry any indication whatsoever of what they are doing.

Wright of DMG Media, which is the parent company of The Daily Mail, was testifying before the House of Lords Communications and Digital Committee Tuesday.

He accused companies like Google and Facebook of ‘monopoly behaviour’ as they seek to seize ‘all the power’ in online news and advertising.

Wright claims that the Mail’s online daily traffic from Google searches has been diminished by 50 per cent in just one year after the company changed the algorithm for news content in 2019.

“Google and Facebook in our view are market dominant companies and they behave in the way that market dominant companies do,” Wright stated, noting that it is significantly impacting journalism.

“Google and Facebook both distribute our content via algorithm. Those algorithms are what is known in the digital world as a ‘black box’ – they are secret, you have no idea how they work. But we can see and measure the results,” Wright said.

Wright also implied that the Mail’s pro Brexit stance led to it being targeted by big tech for diminished online distribution.

He noted that last June

“over the space of three days, our search visibility, which is the measure of how often your content is appearing against a basket of search terms, dropped by 50 per cent, and it was particularly marked against some particular terms. One of them for instance was ‘Brexit’.”

Wright noted that after his group protested, normality eventually returned.

“But this is monopoly behaviour. You can’t do this if you’re in a business relationship with someone where there’s any semblance of equality of power,” he urged.

Wright noted that Google and Facebook are not regulated and so they are getting away with a secretive takeover of content.

“As far as the commercial relationship between news publishers and the platforms is concerned, it’s a business relationship between two partners in which one partner has all the power,” Wright declared.

He described Google as “completely dominant” in search and digital marketing, the two main avenues for distributing news content, and Facebook (which also owns instagram) as “dominant in social media”, pointing out that they make “more money out of advertising than our newspapers do.”

Despite the vast power that these companies have in such areas, Wright noted that their terms of service are completely “opaque”.

“Even the contracts that we sign to use their services are often presented to us on a take-it-or-leave-it basis. So what we’re asking for here is for regulation, and the CMA (Competition and Markets Authority) are about to report on a massive piece of work they’ve been doing, to address the complete imbalance in the business relationship,” Wright asserted.

*

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.

The US administration under Barack Obama drafted “Caesar’s Law” in 2016 to subdue Syria but kept it in the drawer. President Donald Trump and his administration dusted it off and are now implementing “Caesar’s Law”. In fact, Trump’s policy is manna to Iran: the US administration is playing straight into the hands of Tehran. Iran is reaping huge benefits, including more robust allies and resistant strongholds as a result of the US’s flawed Middle Eastern policies. Motivated by the threat of the implementation of “Caesar’ Law”, Iran has prepared a series of steps to sell its oil and finance its allies, bypassing depletion of its foreign currency reserves.

Iranian companies found in Syria a paradise for strategic investment and offered the needed alternative to a Syrian economy crippled by sanctions and nine years of war. Iran considers Syria a fertile ground to expand its commerce and business like never before. It has also found a way to support the Syrian currency and to avoid digging into its reserves of foreign currencies, skirting US sanctions in both Syria and Iran, while aiding the rest of its allies.

Iran supplied Syria with precision missiles and other anti-air missiles notwithstanding the hundreds of Israeli air attacks which managed to destroy large quantities of these Iranian advanced missiles but without removing the threat to Israel.

Moreover, following the announcement of the implementation of “Caesar’s Law”, Iran sent a large business delegation to Syria to schedule the supply of first necessities and goods in a time of sanctions. Iran has great expertise in this business and, after living for 40 years under sanctions, is in an excellent position to advise President Assad.

Russia also announced – via its vice Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov – that his country rejects the illegal sanctions on Syria, and that Russia will provide President Assad with whatever his country needs.

Idem in Syria: Iran proved its capability to break the fuel siege on Syria by sending several oil tankers to its ally in the Levant. Iran is ready to be paid in Syrian Lira rather than US currency for its oil. By doing this, Iran can pay its tens of thousands of allied persons spread across Syria with local currency, marginalising the US dollar.

The US and Israel, who worked throughout the years of war in Syria to remove Iran, were in fact the impetus for Iran’s presence (and that of Russia) in the Levant in the first place. The US is now imposing “Caesar’s Law”, which will help Iran cement its presence in the Levant and Mesopotamia. It is planning to build a railway between Tehran and Damascus (and possibly Beirut): this axis will be able to transport hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil and tons of merchandise. The only way for the US to reduce the collateral damage is to finally accept that all of its “maximum pressure” and harshest sanctions on Iran and its allies have little chance of working. In the meantime, it is Iran that is moving ahead with a robust ring of allies, and the US and Israel which are left with Middle Eastern allies who are both inefficient and insignificant.

*
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 is from EJM

Recently we alerted our supporters to an amendment to the UK’s Agriculture Bill, proposed by Julian Sturdy MP chair of the APPG for Science & Technology in Agriculture. If adopted the amendment would effectively deregulate GMOs.

We have been very gratified by your responses. Many of you joined us in writing to George Eustice, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, expressing concern not just for the proposed amendment itself but also for the lack of democratic process in the way it was being introduced. This was the thrust of our letter to the Secretary of State and the emails we received showed many of you expressed the same concerns to the Minister.

There is no doubt that these views have given the government pause because the amendment, was not mooted in the June 10^th debate in the House of Lords as expected.

However we are not out of the woods yet. We still expect the amendment to surface in some form – either from government or as an individual initiative. Last week’s debate was used as an opportunity for many in the Lords to prime the pump by showing their support for genome editing.

Toeing the Tory line

The full text of the debate is here. Reading it clearly shows that, on the day, support for genome editing came exclusively from the Conservative peers, many of whom have interests in agribusinesses.

In his introduction to the debate, Lord Gardiner of Kimble, The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, who is tasked with seeing the Agriculture Bill through to its adoption, spoke of the “need for innovation and technology” to help “ensure sustainability”.

In his closing summary he noted:

“On gene editing, again the Government agree that the EU approach is unscientific. We are committed to adopting a more scientific approach to regulation in the future”. He added that “the Government will not adopt a new approach without proper consultation”.

He did not expand on what constituted “proper consultation” in the government’s view.

Lord Taylor of Holbeach spoke of gene editing as a “game changer” which is an “acceleration of plant breeding” that could lead to “enhanced yields and reducing our use of fertilisers and pesticides and benefit small and medium enterprises”. By small and medium enterprises he means biotech firms not farmers. He affirmed that the “All-Party Parliamentary Group on Science and Technology in Agriculture strongly endorsed these techniques”.

Baroness Browning applauded Lord Taylor adding that

“As an Agriculture Minister, I introduced the first GM product in this country, way back in the 1990s. It all fell apart, as we know, for all sorts of reasons. But with the right controls I believe that there is much to be gained from looking at this science, particularly in respect of plants. We must make sure that we are not left behind because of people’s fear of the word “gene”.

Viscount Ridley said that

“To be sustainable, agriculture needs innovation in precision farming, robotics, drones and other technologies so as to use fewer chemicals more precisely targeted. It needs innovation in genome editing particularly – a precise new breeding technology that enables plant breeders to achieve exactly what they have achieved in the past but much more quickly and precisely”.

Lord Krebs, spoke of “harnessing all the power of science and technology to produce more with less: more food with less impact on the environment, the climate and animal welfare” and asked “What is the Government’s plan for enhancing the necessary science base, including gene editing, and ensuring that this new knowledge will be taken up by farmers?”.

Lord Cameron of Dillington asked for “a clear message in this Bill that we will move forward to allow gene editing in our research programmes. This is a way of speeding up the natural methods of farm breeding to ensure that we can improve the environmental and nutritional outcomes of feeding our ever-expanding human population, both at home and – more particularly, as far as I am concerned – in the developing world”.

The Earl of Lindsay said:

“I believe this Bill is an opportunity for the Government to adopt an amendment that would enable future access to precision-breeding tools such as new gene-editing technologies”.

Baroness Redfern expressed her hope that the Bill will “make improvements and create more robust and resilient domestic agricultural and horticultural sectors, giving scientists, farmers, plant breeders and animal breeders the same access to new gene editing technologies as the rest of the world”.

Challengers speak out

Those who expressed concern about the ‘liberation’ of genome editing technologies in farming and food included Baroness Parminter – a Liberal Democrat – who said:

 “I will oppose any attempt to use the Bill to overturn existing legislation on gene editing, which would be a serious step backwards for animal welfare and public trust in our food. We need to retain the European model of regulation that we are currently signed up to, where no gene editing is allowed outside the lab and mandatory labelling is required, and we should not enable trade deals with countries such as America, where products from genetically modified animals can be marketed”.

Baronesse Ludford – also a Liberal Democrat – acknowledged the deep links between this Agriculture Bill and the Trade Bill and noted:

“The US produces food to standards that many of us regard as very bad practice and which EU law prevents. Even if the response was, ‘We won’t ban them but will require them to be labelled’, that is not an adequate substitute in all cases – and anyway, we know from the experience over GMOs that the US will fight that tooth and nail”.

Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle – AKA Natalie Bennett, former leader of the Green Party – noted that

“Some are arguing that we should downplay nature and sustainability and dial up food production, but that is a false dichotomy that risks doubling down on a food system that is contributing to a perfect storm of a spillover of diseases from wildlife to people, and, like the proponents of genetically modified organisms and crops, it chases after a failed industrialised monoculture”.

What happens next?

The second reading debate in the Lords  was an opportunity for general discussion and for members to raise issues in a broad-brush way. Some used the opportunity to give notice of their intended amendments. The next meeting of the Lords will be more forensic, allowing a detailed consideration of Bill and amendments put forward in the time between the two meetings.

Proposed amendments to the Bill will be put forward until this next meeting likely on July 7. A running update of these is posted on the parliamentary website here.

As we write, some of the proposed amendments appear to change in language to the Bill in a way that makes it more amenable to a more substantive amendment around genome editing.

For instance, Lord Lucas (Conservative) wants to make sure the amendment “allows for the support of possible new livestock species” and “new crop species”. And supports “the advancement of agricultural technology, including robotics and genetics”.

Baroness Jones of Whitchurch (Labour), who is the  Chair of the Enterprise Board at Rothamsted Research, is seeking language that enables “the application of the latest scientific research to food technology” and gives “consideration to various means of achieving different food-related goals”.

The list of amendments will likely grow in the coming weeks and we are watching it closely.

PR before policy

That we have not seen the text of the Sturdy amendment, does not mean it has been abandoned.

Indeed, there is a concerted PR effort behind it. Long before the Lords met, the APPG for Science & Technology in Agriculture began a PR blitz by issuing a press release signalling its intent to propose an amendment. This was quickly picked up by the farming press. The National Farmers Union (NFU) signalled its support by issuing a press release too. The day of the Lords debate Viscount Ridley published a piece in the Times newspaper entitled Genome-edited Crops Help Farmers and the Environment.

Over the weekend, following the Lords debate, the APPG for Science & Technology in Agriculture posted a tweet that featured a news brief and ‘fact file’ which featured a UK sugar beet farmer as a poster boy for the benefits of genome editing.

There were also two articles in the Observer newspaper; one an opinion piece by plant scientist and pro-GM advocate Sir David Baulcombe, the other a news item on the Lords debate quoting both Baulcombe and Lord Gardiner on the benefits of gene editing and acknowledging clear evidence that the government would be sympathetic to deregulating the products of genome editing in the name of sustainability.

One of our supporters who wrote to the Observer letters page with concerns of the lack of balance that the two pieces represented, received the following response:

“The first article is an opinion piece by a plant scientist. It’s not intended to be, and neither does it pretend to be, a news report on the subject. It’s one person giving his own view on the issue. I’m sure that many will disagree with that particular view, but these types or articles are commissioned precisely for writers to be able to express their own views and add to the overall debate.

“The second article is of course a news story, but is a report of the progress of legislation through the Lords. As I understand it from speaking to the writer, no-one spoke out against it at the second reading, which is what being reported on.

“I do understand that there are a variety of views around the whole subject, and I’m not seeking to dismiss them; only to suggest that this was not the right place to air them.”

The Observer clearly made no attempt to understand the dynamics of the issue – or even fact check the pieces it published. Natalie Bennett did, however, publish a thoughtful piece on the Ecologist website on the same day noting that “The public is very clear in its view on genetically modified organisms (GMOs). We don’t want them in our food system.”

While the response from the newspaper is polite, it’s also problematic (and symptomatic). First of all, as detailed above, several Lords did speak out against the proposed amendment during the debate and, secondly, if a national newspaper is not the place to air a diversity of opinion on a subject of national import, where is?

• While we await more developments, if others wish to write to the Secretary of State to encourage him not to table this amendment you can do so at: [email protected]. You might also consider sending a copy to Lord Gardiner of Kimble [email protected] (mark it FAO Lord Gardiner of Kimble in the subject line)
• If you’d like to write to the Observer you can do so at [email protected].
• We’d be happy to receive copies of any letters and/or replies.
• You can check the progress of the Agriculture Bill here.

*

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 is from Beyond GM

Ethiopia, by all standards, is a reputable country in East Africa. It gains popularly from different angles. In terms of politics, Ethiopia has been touted as a country with an excellent model of democracy in Africa. For his efforts in ending the 20-year-long war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, President Abiy Ahmed was awarded with the Nobel prize for peace in 2019.

More crucially, research studies and several reports have documented additional worth of Ethiopia. It bears the flag of Africa, as its capital Addis Ababa represents the center for most of the regional and foreign organizations down the years.

The African Union [AU] is headquartered in Addis Ababa. The primary task of this super continental organization is mobilizing and coordinating available natural and human resources for solving existing and emerging multifaceted problems inside Africa. Some experts argue that the AU has within its mandate and further within the slogan “African problems, African solutions” to showcase the continent’s practical ultimate independence.

Indeed, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed social and economic conditions in many African countries, and disparity between the West, Europe and Asia, all on one side and on the other Africa. In fact, the time also present challenges and opportunities. For many Africa countries and for the African Union, it is an opportunity for harnessing external assistance, not exhausting the opportunities at home. Definitely, it is a bitter joke, but it reflects the reality.

More than half a century since it was declared politically independent from “colonialism” or whatever, Africa has been presented as a region engulfed with abject poverty, even in the past has benefited grossly from development aid and received substantial assistance from various external sources.

Ethiopia, and many African countries, has to rethink carefully about “humanitarian aid” in its bilateral relations [its contemporary diplomacy] with foreign countries. Instead, it should focus more on how diplomacy could support sustainable development efforts, such areas as health, agriculture, industry and other employment generation sectors.

“The world is in a new and dangerous phase,” Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus told a virtual briefing recently from the World Health Organization [WHO] headquarters in Geneva. “The virus is still spreading fast, it is still deadly, and most people are still susceptible.”

Tedros Ghebreyesus, who comes from Ethiopia in East Africa, has urged countries to maintain extreme vigilance, mobilize and direct resources toward the fight against the global pandemic.

In mid-June, Ethiopian Ambassador to the Russian Federation, Alemayehu Tegenu Aargau said in his interview with a local Russian news agency that Moscow had promised to assist Addis Ababa in its fight against the pandemic, and Ethiopia expects promptly deliveries from Russia.

Tegenu Aargau further said that

Ethiopia “still requires some support from friendly countries. The leaders of the two countries [Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed] had a telephone conversation and one of the issues [was] cooperation to combat the pandemic. The Russian side promised to assist Ethiopia in its fight against the pandemic. I believe that we expect material equipment from Russia. We are waiting for it.”

The Ethiopian ambassador further compared Russia to other foreign countries, when he said Ethiopia had received deliveries from China and other friendly powers that enabled it to, significantly boost its testing volumes of the large population.

“Test indicators, ventilators, and other support are welcome,” the diplomat noted.

By his statement, it implies exerting pressure for a promised gift. After all, the Soviets helped Africa in attaining political independence, that was during the cold war days. The Soviet Union, and now Russia has consistently helped many African countries thereafter. Thus, pressurizing for food assistance and COVID packages seemed “undiplomatic and odd” and worse, reminding through the media. Significantly, Ethiopia, among a number of African countries, has had a lot from Russia. It still looks for enormous harvest of external humanitarian aid.

It was a fact that, in separate early April discussions with South African and Ethiopian leaders, President Vladimir Putin pledged Russia’s support in collaborating with Africa fight coronavirus that is currently spreading among the population across the continent. The phone discussions was not limited to “give and take” humanitarian aid, but rather outlining comprehensive innovative efforts at sustaining the hard-won development and economic gains. Beyond that, looking at possible collective plans to prevent such large scale of the pandemic in future.

Data released by the Africa Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [Africa CDC] on June 20, showed the top-five highest recorded coronavirus cases, generally, on the continent. In total, Africa has reported 286,141 confirmed cases of COVID-19 as at June 20. Still far below the figures obtained in the United States, Brazil and Russia, and many countries in Europe.

According to the Africa CDC figures, South Africa, in the first position, has recorded 83,890 cases, followed by Egypt and Nigeria with 50,437 and 18,480 cases respectively. Ghana with 12,929 cases, took the fourth position. Ethiopia, so far, has 3,954 infections among a population of about 115 million.

After all, Russia has already pledged to increase its corporate investment portfolio, and to strengthen existing economic cooperation that includes military technical agreements under a renewed strategic plan in Ethiopia. Russia has also written-off debts owed by Ethiopia. This debt relief allows Ethiopia, [among other African countries] to recover from the economic shock of the pandemic.

On June 11, during the media briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Maria Zakharova, revealed that Russia had received official requests from 29 African states and the African Union [AU] to assist in countering the spread of the COVID-19 coronavirus.

She further explained that, this year, Russia has made an additional annual contribution of $10 million to the UN World Food Program [to be distributed equally between Burundi, Djibouti, Somalia, Sierra Leone and the Central African Republic]. Russia has allocated $10 million to the Food and Agriculture Organization [FAO] fund for fighting a massive locust onslaught in East Africa [to be distributed between Kenya, Uganda and Ethiopia – $3 million each and South Sudan – $1 million].

According to analytical reports and reviews, the pandemic could trigger a lot more socio-economic problems, fuel violence and domestic conflict, while the economies of many African states may sustain heavy damage. It certainly poses new challenges, on one hand.

On the other hand, African leaders and official representatives have to leave behind their “begging bowls” at home, talk and negotiate more on investment cooperation. Humanitarian aid is only a short-term solution, even that said, Africa could look at its domestic resource mobilization as exemplified by many foreign countries in the West and in Europe.

It is worth recognizing the fact that Ethiopia holds the flag of Africa. It is time to deal with long-term solutions rather than look for shortcuts for coronavirus pandemic. After all, Ethiopia has only a small fraction of infected numbers among its population, as compared to Russia that is dealing with more than half a million of coronavirus cases during the months of May and June.

Indeed, Russia declares it fight by mobilizing its own resources. It has a structured plan, and that includes President Vladimir Putin weekly meetings with regional governors and related ministry officials. Under these time-testing conditions, Russia takes the initiative with little external assistance, put in place a long-term roadmap for future.

Ethiopia should rather lead the African diplomatic community in Moscow into evolving elaborate discussions on cooperating on Russia’s vaccine, its health initiatives and learning lessons from how Russia is currently handling its pandemic. The priority now, most probably, has to be directed on Russia-African cooperation in health sector in this era of COVID-19. Russia is at the forefront of producing a vaccine for the virus, this scientific success must, at least and necessarily, awaken heads of Ethiopia and Africa.

Arguably, in a widely circulated letter, various co-signatories in April, including 100 leading academics and writers, have called on African leaders to govern with compassion and see the current global health crisis as a chance for a radical change of direction in the continent. For it is in the most trying moments that new/innovative orientations must be explored and lasting solutions adopted.

Nevertheless, Africa has to make a complete departure from endless request for humanitarian aid. More than ever, it is important for leaders to ponder the necessity to adopt a concerted approach to the economic sectors related to public health system, strengthen fundamental research in all health disciplines and close the pitfalls in its public policy.

The time has come to make progressive changes. Despite the boast of abundant natural resources, Africa remains the world’s poorest and least-developed continent, the result of a variety of causes that may include corrupt governments and policies fraught with dubious methods. Africa is the world’s second largest and second-most populous continent after Asia. With an estimated 1.3 billion people as of 2019, accounts for about 16% of the world’s population.

*

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.

Kester Kenn Klomegah is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

Prologue

One of the graver risks for big-time criminals is that investigators will be able to identify them and their deeds by ‘following the money’. The criminals have to hide the proceeds of their crimes. This is done by depositing their monies into legitimate finance houses and businesses. It often requires some fancy book-keeping tricks and intricate transactions. This is called layering by the afficionados of this dark art. Once it is done, the criminals can draw on the accounts created and mix the ill-gotten gains with legally garnered capital. The term for this is ‘integration’ and it makes the investigators’ tasks much harder. The rotten fruit of crime will have been laundered.

In 2012, HSBC, a global bank, whose origins are connected to Hong Kong and Shanghai and whose headquarters are now in London, admitted that it had participated in funneling what it acknowledged to have been suspect money, including some used to breach sanctions imposed on US enemies. It had helped launder $881-million for Colombian and Mexican drug cartels, including the notorious Sinaloa cartel headed by Chapo Guzman. The US Department of Justice, which obtained HSBC’s admission, reported that the cartel’s operatives deposited hundreds of thousands of dollars daily and that it was made very convenient for them: HSBC branches designed teller windows with the precise dimensions to fit the cartels’ boxes when they were delivered by their employees. Caught with its fists in drug money boxes, a settlement was agreed-to by HSBC. The bank agreed to pay what was then the largest fine ever, $1.9-billion (which was the equivalent of 5 weeks of the bank’s global income), and entered into a Deferred Prosecution Agreement that promised that they would not do any of this again. The bank is currently the 7th largest bank in the world.

Extradition

For some time now, Hong Kong has seen massive street protests as many people want more of a say for themselves in governance and less of a say for Beijing. In the midst of the chaos, Hong Kong’s legislators proposed to ink an extradition agreement to which China would be the other signatory.

Extradition treaties are arrangements whereby a nation state agrees to return to its partner-nation to the treaty people alleged to have committed criminal acts against that other nation’s laws. It is meant to prevent alleged criminals from avoiding the consequences for their misconduct by escaping to another jurisdiction. When a request for extradition by a signatory to a treaty is received, a court there is to determine whether the application should succeed. It is not its task to question whether the person actually committed a crime. It merely has to determine whether it is the kind of crime which could lead to prosecution if the conduct had occurred in its jurisdiction. This gives the process its legitimacy because it gives effect to legal values shared by both parties to the extradition treaty. The court considering the request has no interest in whether the conduct actually amounted to a crime, either in the applicant nation or in its own. It assumes the facts as alleged by the applicant nation and then determines whether that conduct would amount to a violation of its own laws if it occurred in its jurisdiction.

It is, then, a judicial exercise which is purely formal. It does not make any findings about the issues between the applicant for extradition and the person resisting extradition.

Although this was the essential nature of the Hong Kong Bill, it met with fierce resistance: huge marches, physical fights in the legislature. The protests added fuel to the already widely burning fires of dissent and the Hong Kong government withdrew the Bill. In addition to the upheaval and violence in the streets, the government was likely somewhat influenced by the great show of support for the anti-Extradition Bill movement in countries such as the UK, the US and Canada. This anti-extradition stance by these nations seemed to sit uneasily alongside the fact that they had signed on to many similar extradition treaties themselves. But, they bought into the argument made by the Hong Kong dissidents. This was that, even though an extradition request made by China would be vetted by Hong Kong courts steeped in the principles and values of English common law, the proposed treaty would allow China to use extradition requests for crass political purposes, to help it chase down political opponents and agitators. It would lead to attacks on precious freedoms. Even though the proposed treaty ‘looked’ much like any other, it was likely to be used for unacceptable purposes. This sort of thing would never occur in the UK the US or Canada because, unlike China, they respected and lived by the Rule of Law.

The Lore and Lure of the Rule of Law

Canada’s legal system presents itself as embodying society’s shared values and norms. They are embodied in principles and the instrumental rules devised to give these fundamental principles life. This presupposes that the basic principles can be found and defined and that the rules will be appropriately fashioned and applied. The conventional view is that the judiciary is an independent institution and can be trusted to go about the finding of principles and the interpretation and application of rules in a non-partisan, in a non-political, manner.

Courts will treat all private individuals, whatever their social or economic circumstances, as legal equals whose disputes must be settled by the application of known, rational criteria. Rationality, of the legal kind, is to replace political and economic power, that is, irrational power.

The courts abide by generalizing principles and specific rules. The rules have to be spelled out clearly; citizens are to know of the existence of those rules; new rules should not apply retroactively. The principles and rules are to be applied even-handedly, regardless of status and class. The access to this justice system should be equally available to one and all. These are some of the ingredients of what is so often termed the Rule of Law. It is an attractive system because it suggests that everyone is subject to the same laws and requirements, that political or economic power is not allowed to deny anyone their entitlements or rights established in law. The UK, US and Canadian view is that it, or any equivalent, regime does not exist in China. But, while the idea of it certainly exists in our rather self-satisfied Anglo-American settings, its implementation may leave something to be desired.

While our courts are punctilious about following the procedural safeguards which make up the Rule of Law, they have an enormous amount of leeway when determining how substantive principles and rules are to be interpreted and applied. They are in a position to launder otherwise politically troubling, anti-liberal, anti-democratic, policies and decisions. What happens is a mixing of the adherence to procedural formalities which abjure bias and prejudice with the manipulation of substantive laws which incorporate bias and prejudice. The integrated outcome is analogous to the consequence of the criminals’ mixing suspect monies with legally acquired assets. It makes it hard to see whether there was a political wrong in the first place. It is a form of laundering, legalized laundering.¹

The recent proceedings in Canada dealing with the US demand that the Chief Financial officer of Huawei, Meng Wanzhou, be extradited to the US brings some of this into the open. The Supreme Court of British Columbia ruled that Meng’s argument that there was no legal basis for extradition was rejected. Canada’s talking heads and chattering class sighed with relief. The self-proclaimed liberal Toronto Star’s editors welcomed and characterized the virtue of the decision: “Beijing must understand: out courts don’t serve the government… It’s called ‘rule of law,’ a concept foreign to China’s Communist Party and its mouthpieces.” Apart from their evident cold war genre chauvinism, the editors undoubtedly were glad to have any doubts about the Trudeau government’s and Canada’s allegiance to the Rule of Law stilled.

The recent embarrassment caused by the tawdry behaviour of almost every cog in the ruling class’s legal engine room during the SNC-Lavalin scandal which involved the government forcing its own Minister of Justice to resign because she wanted to act independently and deny a flagrantly wrongdoing corporation any kind of soft landing, now could be pushed aside as an uncharacteristic violation of Canada’s basic principles. To them, the Meng ruling signified that, once again, Canada was entitled to be smug, to assert that it was to be envied because of its stout adherence to an unalloyed good, the Rule of Law.

The Ruling in the Meng Case

It all began with a warrant issued by a New York court for Meng Wanzhou’s arrest in August 2018. She was not there. On December 1, 2018, after an extradition request from the US, Meng was arrested by Canadian authorities when she landed in Vancouver. On 28 January 2019, formal charges were laid by the US Department of Justice, accusing Meng’s employer, Huawei, of misrepresentations about its corporate organization which had enabled it to circumvent laws that imposed economic sanctions on Iran. Huawei was also charged with stealing technology and trade secrets from T-Mobile USA. Meng, the Chief Financial Officer of Huawei, was charged with fraud and conspiracy to commit fraud. Huawei pled not guilty to the charges of violating the Iran sanction provisions in a New York court and not guilty to the stealing charges in a Seattle court. After a number of preliminary legal skirmishes, the extradition hearings against Meng began in 2020. Associate Justice Holmes issued her ruling on 27 May, 2020. Law takes its time.

Meng had told HSBC officials who met with her in the back of a Hong Kong restaurant in 2013 that, despite the allegations in a newspaper article, Huawei had not made improper use of a closely associated firm, named Skycom Tech, to supply US materiel to Iran. The reason she had made this statement to HSBC, it was alleged, was that Huawei used HSBC as a banker when transacting business. If Huawei, as alleged, was implicated in violations of the Iran sanction laws, HSBC might well be held to be complicit in such crimes. The US alleged that Meng’s representations to HSBC constituted fraud under its law.

Meng Wanzhou argued that, for a case of fraud to be made out, in both the US and Canada, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove that the fraud materially contributed to a tangible loss. This could not be made out here. For Meng’s deception of HSBC to cause it a tangible loss in the US, it was necessary for US prosecutors to invoke the impact of another law, the Iranian sanction law. Without it there would not be any harm and, therefore, no fraud in the US. As Canada did not have any such sanction provisions in place, Meng’s deception would not have led to any tangible loss in Canada and there would have been no fraud committed in Canada. This argument that the basic requirement for extradition – mirroring laws – had not been met, was rejected by Associate Chief Justice Holmes.

She deployed standard legal reasoning that is, she looked for previous holdings and used the imprecisions she found in them and in the wording of the legislation she was interpreting. Holmes found that previous decisions had held that, in order to determine whether the conduct in the applicant jurisdiction created an offence, it was necessary to assess the essential nature of that conduct. That meant evaluating the foreign conduct in its context, in its legal environment. Meng argued that looking at the legal environment required taking a foreign law, one distinct from the laws being compared, into account, something which should not be done under the Extradition Law.

The presiding judge responded that only some aspects of the legal environment, constituted by that other law, had to be taken into account, not all of it. It was her job to say which aspects could be so used. Holmes admitted that she was going out on a limb because the distinction between looking at some aspects of a foreign law and taking the actual law into consideration is fraught, both as a matter of logic and of established law. She wrote that “the issue is at what level of abstraction… the essence … of the conduct is to be described… there is little authority or precisely what may be included in ‘imported legal environment’.”

Undeterred by the lack of any known criteria (remember the Rule of Law!), she used what she likely calls her common sense and what Meng’s supporters probably think was her unconscious bias. Associate Justice Holmes decided that, in this case, it was appropriate, when looking for the essential nature of the foreign conduct, to look at the effects of that US law, the Iran sanction law. As its effects made Meng’s deceiving conduct fraudulent in the US, and as deception is the core of fraud in Canada, the essential/contextualized nature of Meng’s conduct satisfied the essence of fraud as defined under Canada’s Criminal Code. Lawyers call this sort of finessing good lawyering; in the wider community it is seen as legal chicanery. Holmes ruled that Canada was free to extradite Meng.

Laundered

All that effort to put Wanzhou Meng’s fraud into legal context and not a scintilla of regard for the political, social and economic context of the case!

Everyone, literally everyone, knew what had led the US to charge Huawei and its CFO. It was to obtain bargaining chips in its fight with China. It was to persuade its citizens that it was right for the government to deny them access to cheaper goods and a better 5G system because China would abuse its growing economic influence and enhance its spying potential. It was to make China more pliable when the US demanded better trade terms and more protection for its intellectual property, etc. There was no attempt to hide any of this.

Did the Canadian government understand this? Of course. Did it feel it had to allow the US to use Canada’s supposedly neutral legal machinery to further its political project? Of course. Could the Canadian government have said “no” and simply turned a blind eye when Wanzhou Meng landed in Vancouver? Of course.

Was Associate Justice Holmes, at the very least, in a position to guess all of this? Of course.

The Supreme Court of British Columbia had the timelines of the saga before it. All the events that led to the fraud charges occurred years before the tug-of-war between the US and China turned into a full blown version of a new cold war. Meng’s alleged misrepresentations to HSBC occurred in August 2013, several months after Reuters had published its report on the links between Huawei and Skycom Tech. that supposedly led to Iran being supplied with US materiel.

It took five years for the US to charge Huawei and Meng. It took five years for its righteous indignation about Huawei’s and Meng’s violations to reach fever pitch. It took five years for the US to decide that a deception of one set of private entrepreneurs by other private entrepreneurs ( a garden variety event in an aggressive competitive milieu), a deception which took place in a far away jurisdiction, presented a danger to the integrity of the US justice system. That integrity had not been seen as severely threatened when the masters of the universe deceived millions of people during the subprime mortgage scandals, at least not sufficiently to charge any of the more senior perpetrators. None of this was of any concern to the Supreme Court of British Columbia. The court was only concerned with the narrowest of decontextualized legal issues before it. Its certainty that its only responsibility was to the Rule of Law signified to it that it should not be troubled by the possibility that it might be used as a pawn, by either the US or the Canadian government or both.

Nor was this lack of concern shaken by President Trump’s highly publicized statement to Reuters (the outfit which had written the report which started the ball rolling), made just after Wanzhou Meng was released on bail. Trump said that he would certainly intervene in her case “if I thought it necessary” to help forge a trade deal with China. Undoubtedly some people (especially lawyers) might think it right and proper for a court to ignore a blatant admission by a craven politician that the supposedly independent system of law of both the US and Canada was being used for partisan political purposes. After all, the statement had been made extrajudicially and had not been put before the court. While the judge might have known about the Trump intervention, much as she knew that the US and China were having a political tug-of-war and that Canada had been drawn into it, the wilful blindness demanded by the Rule of Law demanded that she make no reference to any off this knowledge.

This reasoning makes no sense to anyone not held in rapture by the Rule of Law fantasy. Immediately after Trump made his provocative statement, Trudeau realized that the public might draw the inference that Canada was just bowing to its Big Brother ally and permitting it to abuse the Canadian justice system. It evoked the notion that the US and Canada were just one country with two systems. He was forced to respond.

Trudeau issued the following statement: “Regardless of what goes on in other countries, Canada is and will always remain a country of the rule of law.” The message was clear: we, the elected government and its executive have nothing to do with any of this; we rule an independent country; we have an independent legal system and it makes these kinds of decisions. We respect this and abide by the results. When it comes to the extradition of Meng, we, the politicians, like Pontius Pilate, wash our hands off the whole mess. It has nothing to do with us. It is not a political matter.

This is why the editors of the Toronto Star and all other opinion moulders greeted the ruling in the Meng case with such acclaim. By ignoring all the real facts underlying the dispute, the court had given support to the Canadian government’s pretence that the Meng case had not raised questions about its participation in a complex set of political, economic and ideological controversies. Their role had been laundered. If the outcome suited the US in its struggle with China, this was incidental; Canada’s government had not pushed for such an outcome because it believed in the Rule of Law. These cheerleaders pointed out that, if Canada had interfered with the judiciary’s operations, it would certainly have pushed for a different result.

As it was, the judicial ruling could only strain relations between Canada and China, a most undesirable state of affairs as Canada hoped to have China release two Canadians accused of committing serious offences in China; more Canada had no interest in imperilling important trade relations with China, as the judicial ruling might well do. That is, the result may be a political win for Trump, but a loss for Trudeau, two Canadian citizens and, likely, some farmers and manufacturers if China uses its economic clout to punish Canada.

So viewed, the judicial outcome gives the impression that the government had not played any part in the decision-making. It should, therefore, not be held politically responsible for the consequences. The government had acted righteously, it had been true to the Rule of Law. Its conduct had been sanitized, laundered.

Of course this argument is not as strong if the judicial outcome is not seen as inimical to the government. What did Canada actually want? We can only guess. But it is to be remembered that the government did detain Wanzhou Meng; if it had not done so, the worst that would have happened is that the US might have been annoyed. Assuming, as it makes sense to do, that Canadian officials understood full well what the US was up to, the detention suggests, although it does not prove, that the government was not opposed to the obvious political and economic goals of the US. More strongly, it indicated that it was willing to support those goals. After all, it knew the risks it was taking. The headline in the Ottawa Citizen on 15 December, 2018, read: “Abelev: In the Huawei case, Trump has enlisted in a game Canada can’t win.”

Another glimpse of the Canadian government’s thinking is provided by Prime Minister’s request that John McCallum resign from his post as Ambassador to China after he had made public statements which indicated that he thought the case against Meng was trumped up and, therefore, should lead the government to reject the extradition request. This would help Canada in its negotiations with China which, in apparent retaliation, had jailed two Canadian citizens.

Implicit in McCallum’s intervention was a reference to a legal power that Canada has reserved for itself over extradition processes. The Minister for Justice can, at any moment after a request for extradition is received, abort the process. In Trudeau’s angry reaction to McCallum, he made no reference to this, pretending political interference with the judicial system was to be eschewed.² While to some people, then, Trudeau’s publicized disapproval of McCallum’s views (and of similar ones by former Prime Minister Jean Chretien a little later), did dovetail with the claim that the government should not take a position on matters to be determined by a judge, it also suggested that the government would not object too much if the ruling went against Meng, regardless of what it might mean for Huawei, Meng and the prisoners. After all, the justification for the hands-off the justice system proffered by Trudeau should not have been given too much credence.

At that time a full-blown scandal was raging over the SNC-Lavalin affair. Trudeau was brazenly trying to get rid of an independent Minister of Justice precisely because she was thwarting his enactment of a law which was to apply retroactively (remember the Rule of Law!) to save a serial wrongdoing corporation. A curious symmetry weirdly surfaces. The Trudeau government was trying to give its rogue actor, SNC-Lavalin, the kind of gentle treatment the US had given HSBC by giving it access to a deferred prosecution agreement of the kind that the US had given that deviant bank.

There were many polluting particles in the ambient air as the Meng case was processed in the supposedly politically unpolluted atmosphere of law. Undoubtedly, Associate Justice Holmes did her best to blow all these toxic particles out of her mind, as all judges claim to do. But this does not mean that they did not influence her mind-set. We will never know. That is how laundering works: if the dirt which soiled the cloth is rinsed out, all that one is left with is clean cloth. Just what the government needed.

Epilogue

The legal processes have not ended. Meng may appeal the ruling on double criminality handed down by the Supreme Court of British Columbia, arguing the Holmes’ reading of how the essential nature of conduct in a foreign state was to be found was erroneous. Her lawyers do have some plausible arguments to proffer on this issue. Before that will take place, a hearing will be held into Meng’s allegation that, when she was detained in Vancouver, prior to being turned over to the RCMP, the border official obtained Meng’s telephone numbers and passwords and then passed these on to the RCMP. She was detained and questioned for three hours before she was told of her arrest. She claims her constitutional rights were violated and that the RCMP and Canada’s Border Services Agency acted, improperly, as US agents.

This is a claim that procedural safeguards essential to the proper operation of the Rule of Law had been breached. If successful it would make the arrest wrongful and mean that the committal process which led to Holmes’ ruling should be voided. The result of the adjudication on this action by Meng can also be the basis for an appeal. If all of it, the denial of proper process and the Supreme Court of British Columbia’s ruling on double criminality, are settled in favour of Canada, the extradition process can continue, although, as seen, the Minister for Justice can always set the whole thing aside.

There are many other hurdles to clear. The Trump Administration may be replaced, the Trudeau government (in a minority position) may fall before all this is over. It is also difficult to know what steps China will take and how this will influence political minds in Washington and Ottawa. These unknowns highlight how artificial it is to pretend that a request for extradition is a legal, non-political, struggle based on rational aseptic criteria.

To underscore this point, note that, on 4 June, 2020, the US State Department issued a threat. It will reassess its sharing of intelligence with Canada (a member of the so-called Five Eye intelligence network) if Canada chooses to let Huawei market its 5G technology in Canada. This makes it clear that the extradition case was never about a fraudulent misrepresentation to a ‘vulnerable’ foreign bank, but about furthering US efforts to ward-off the danger of an economic and political threat posed by China.

Law and its Rule of Law are convenient tools, no more no less. They should not be granted too much respect. Certainly they should not permit our governments to present themselves as unsullied, as if they have come out of the washing machine, smelling fragrantly.

And, oh yes, after its agreement with the US Department of Justice, HSBC had made much of its new approach and had spent money on better systems to inhibit wrongdoing. On 8 April, 2020, it was reported that HSBC had admitted it had engaged in money laundering in Australia. Maybe it does not require Huawei or Meng to engage in fraud to get HSBC to participate in criminality.

*

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.

Harry Glasbeek is a Professor Emeritus and Senior Scholar, Osgoode Hall Law School, York University. His latest books are Class Privilege: How law shelters shareholders and coddles capitalism (2017) and the follow-up, Capitalism: a crime story (2018) both published by Between the Lines, Toronto.

Notes

1. ‘The legalization of politics’ is the name given by Harry Glasbeek and Michael Mandel, “The Legalization of Politics in Advanced Capitalism: The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms” (1984), Socialist Studies, 2:84, and by Michael Mandel, The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada, rev. ed., Toronto; Thompson Educational, 1994, to a process which removes class and history from political discourse and consciousness.
2. As well, there is a rarely used law on the books, the Foreign Extra Territorial Measures Act, that the Attorney-General can deploy to repulse measures of a foreign state that are likely to significantly affect Canadian interests. This is the legislation used to allow Canada not to comply with the US sanctions on Cuba. Arguably, but not certainly, it could be used to block the extradition of Meng.

Featured image is from The Bullet

UN chief Antonio Guterres has called on ‘Israel’ to cancel plans to annex parts of the West Bank, saying such a decision would be “the most serious violation of international law.”

Guterres said the Israeli annexation plans would be destructive. He expressed his wish for fresh negotiations and a final two-state solution.

Guterres also added that

“this would be a catastrophe for Palestinians, Israelis and the region and the plan threatened efforts to advance regional peace.”

The UN chief’s comments came one day after thousands of Palestinians protested in Jericho against the Israeli annexation, in a march that was attended by dozens of foreign diplomats.

Mladenov, UN Special Coordinator for the Middle East Peace Process, warned that the annexation will send one message that bilateral negotiations cannot achieve a just peace, and “we cannot allow this to happen so diplomacy must be given a chance.”

He added that the annexation “could dramatically alter local dynamics, triggering instability among the occupied Palestinian territories. This conflict has been marked by periods of extreme violence but never before has the risk of escalation been accompanied by a political horizon so distant, an economic situation so fragile and a region so volatile.”

Last week, the PA leadership proposed a plan that seeks to create a “sovereign Palestinian state”, with Jerusalem as its capital.

The Palestinian proposal came as a reply to US President Donald Trump’s controversial plan that gave a green light for the occupation state to annex large swaths of the occupied West Bank, including settlements considered illegal under international law, and the Jordan Valley.

Meanwhile, Palestinian officials have threatened to abolish bilateral agreements with ‘Israel’ if the latter goes ahead with the annexation, which would further undermine the two-state solution.

The European Union does not recognize Israel’s sovereignty over the territories it has occupied since 1967.

*

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.

One of the fascinating phenomena in the JFK assassination is the fear of some Americans to consider the possibility that the assassination was actually a regime-change operation carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment rather than simply a murder carried out by a supposed lone-nut assassin.The mountain of evidence that has surfaced, especially since the 1990s, when the JFK Records Act mandated the release of top-secret assassination-related records within the national-security establishment, has been in the nature of circumstantial evidence, as compared to direct evidence.

Thus, I can understand that someone who places little faith in the power of circumstantial evidence might study and review that evidence and decide to embrace the “lone-nut theory” of the case.

But many of the people who have embraced the lone-nut theory have never spent any time studying the evidence in the case and yet have embraced the lone-nut theory. Why? My hunch is that the reason is that they have a deep fear of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist,” which is the term the CIA many years ago advised its assets in the mainstream press to employ to discredit those who were questioning the official narrative in the case.

Like many others, I have studied the evidence in the case. After doing that, I concluded that the circumstantial evidence pointing toward a regime-change operation has reached critical mass. 

Based on that evidence, for me the Kennedy assassination is not a conspiracy theory but rather the fact of a national-security state regime-change operation, no different in principle than other regime-change operations, including through assassination, carried out by the U.S. national-security establishment, especially through the CIA. 

Interestingly, there are those who have shown no reluctance to study the facts and circumstances surrounding foreign regime-change operations carried out by the CIA and the Pentagon. But when it comes to the Kennedy assassination, they run for the hills, exclaiming that they don’t want to be pulled down the “rabbit hole,” meaning that they don’t want to take any chances of being labeled a “conspiracy theorist.”

For those who have never delved into the Kennedy assassination but have interest in the matter, let me set forth just a few of the reasons that the circumstantial evidence points to a U.S. national-security state regime-change operation. Then, at the end of this article, I’ll point out some books and videos for those who wish to explore the matter more deeply.

I start out with a basic thesis: Lee Harvey was an intelligence agent for the U.S. deep state. Now, that thesis undoubtedly shocks people who have always believed in the lone-nut theory of the assassination. They just cannot imagine that Oswald could have really been working for the U.S. government at the time of the assassination.

Yet, when one examines the evidence in the case objectively, the lone-nut theory doesn’t make any sense. The only thesis that is consistent with the evidence and, well, common sense, is that Oswald was a U.S. intelligence agent.

Ask yourself: How many communist Marines have you ever encountered or even heard of? My hunch is none. Not one single communist Marine. Why would a communist join the Marines? Communists hate the U.S. Marine Corps. In fact, the U.S. Marine Corps hates communists. It kills communists. It tortures them. It invades communist countries. It bombs them. It destroys them.

What are the chances that the Marine Corps would permit an openly avowed communist to serve in its ranks? None! There is no such chance. And yet, here was Oswald, whose Marine friends were calling “Oswaldovitch,” being assigned to the Atsugi naval base in Japan, where the U.S. Air Force was basing its top-secret U-2 spy plane, one that it was using to secretly fly over the Soviet Union. Why would the Navy and the Air Force permit a self-avowed communist even near the U-2? Does that make any sense?

While Oswald was serving in the Marine Corps, he became fluent in the Russian language. How is that possible? How many people have you known who have become fluent in a foreign language all on their own, especially when they have a full-time job? Even if they are able to study a foreign language from books, they have to practice conversing with people in that language to become proficient in speaking it. How did Oswald do that? There is but one reasonable possibility: Language lessons provided by U.S. military-suppled tutors.

After leaving the Marine Corps, Oswald traveled to the Soviet Union, walked into the U.S. embassy, renounced his citizenship, and stated that he intended to give any secrets he learned while serving in the military to the Soviet Union. Later, when he stated his desire to return to the United States, with a wife with family connections to Soviet intelligence, Oswald was given the red-carpet treatment on his return. No grand jury summons. No grand-jury indictment. No FBI interrogation. No congressional summons to testify.

Remember: This was at the height of the Cold War, when the U.S. national-security establishment was telling Americans that there was a worldwide communist conspiracy based in Moscow that was hell-bent on taking over the United States and the rest of the world. The U.S. had gone to war in Korea because of the supposed communist threat. They would do the same in Vietnam. They would target Cuba and Fidel Castro with invasion and assassination. They would pull off regime-change operations on both sides of the Kennedy assassination: Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), Cuba (1960s), Congo (1963), and Chile (1973).

During the 1950s, they were targeting any American who had had any connections to communism. They were subpoenaing people to testify before Congress as to whether they had ever been members of the Communist Party. They were destroying people’s reputations and costing them their jobs. Remember the case of Dalton Trumbo and other Hollywood writers who were criminally prosecuted and incarcerated. Recall the Hollywood blacklist. Recall the Rosenbergs, whom they executed for giving national-security state secrets to the Soviets. Think about Jane Fonda.

Indeed, if you want a modern-day version of how the U.S. national-security state treats suspected traitors and betrayers of its secrets, reflect on Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, and Chelsea Manning. That’s how we expect national-security state officials to behave toward those they consider traitors and betrayers of U.S. secrets.

Not so with Oswald. With him, we have what amounts to two separate parallel universes. One universe involves all the Cold War hoopla against communists. Another one is the one in which Oswald is sauntering across the world stage as one of America’s biggest self-proclaimed communists — a U.S. Marine communist — who isn’t touched by some congressional investigative committee, some federal grand jury, or some FBI agent. How is that possible?

Later, when Oswald ended up in Dallas, his friends were right-wingers, not left-wingers. He even got job at a photographic facility that developed top-secret photographs for the U.S. government. How is that possible? Later, when he ended up in New Orleans, he got hired by a private company that was owned by a fierce anti-communist right-winger. Why would he hire a supposed communist who supposedly had betrayed America by supposedly joining up with America’s avowed communist enemy, the Soviet Union, and to whom he had supposedly given U.S. national-security state secrets, just like Julian and Ethel Rosenberg had?

*

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.

Jacob G. Hornberger is founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. He was born and raised in Laredo, Texas, and received his B.A. in economics from Virginia Military Institute and his law degree from the University of Texas. He was a trial attorney for twelve years in Texas. He also was an adjunct professor at the University of Dallas, where he taught law and economics. Send him email.

Israeli settlements breach international law, an indisputable fact.

The UN Charter bans use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, as well as forcible acquisition of territory not its own.

A joint statement by nearly 50 human rights experts said the following:

“The annexation of occupied territory is a serious violation of the Charter of the United Nations and the Geneva Conventions, and contrary to the fundamental rule affirmed many times by the United Nations Security Council and General Assembly that the acquisition of territory by war or force is inadmissible,” adding:

“The international community has prohibited annexation precisely because it incites wars, economic devastation, political instability, systematic human rights abuses and widespread human suffering.”

“What would be left of the West Bank would be a Palestinian Bantustan, islands of disconnected land completely surrounded by Israel and with no territorial connection to the outside world.”

“Israel has recently promised that it will maintain permanent security control between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River.”

“Thus, the morning after annexation would be the crystallization of an already unjust reality: two peoples living in the same space, ruled by the same state, but with profoundly unequal rights.”

“This is a vision of a 21st century apartheid.”

“The world community has a duty not to recognize, aid or assist another state in any form of illegal activity, such as annexation or the creation of civilian settlements in occupied territory.”

“The lessons from the past are clear: Criticism without consequences will neither forestall annexation nor end the occupation.”

Fourth Geneva’s Article 49 states:

“Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.”

“The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.”

Security Council Resolution 2334 (December 2016) said the following:

Settlements have “no legal validity and constitute a flagrant violation under international law.”

The resolution demands “Israel immediately and completely cease all settlement activities in occupied Palestinian territory, including East Jerusalem.”

It recognizes no territorial changes “to the 4 June 1967 lines, including with regard to Jerusalem, other than those agreed by the parties through negotiations.”

It “(c)alls upon all States, to distinguish, in their relevant dealings, between the territory of the State of Israel and the territories occupied since 1967.”

It “(c)alls for immediate steps to prevent all acts of violence against civilians, including acts of terror, as well as all acts of provocation and destruction, calls for accountability in this regard…”

On Wednesday, 14 of the Security Council’s 15 members rejected the Netanyahu regime’s annexation scheme, the US the sole outlier.

During a virtual online session, opposition to the scheme was voiced by SC members, the Trump and Netanyahu regimes alone supporting what has no legal standing.

According to Pompeo, the question of annexation is for Israel alone to decide, ignoring the illegality of settlements and occupation of historic Palestinian land.

Regional peace, equity and the rule of law matter most.

Breaching them defies the UN Charter, the Geneva Conventions, other international law, and for US ruling regimes and Congress — America’s Constitution.

On Wednesday, White House counselor to the president Kellyanne Conway said he’ll soon make a “big announcement” on the Netanyahu regime’s plan to annex (historic Palestinian) West Bank land, adding:

“There are conversations being had. Obviously the president will have an announcement.”

“He’s talked about this in the past and I’ll leave it to him to” him to explain his regime’s position on the issue.

His no-peace/dead before arrival/Deal of the Century OK’d illegal annexation.

Clearly he’s highly unlikely to walk away from what his regime took many months to prepare, at most perhaps intending to advise Netanyahu to advance his annexation scheme incrementally — his apparent plan, according to Israeli media reports.

On Monday according to Reuters, an unnamed senior Trump regime official said the following:

As Israeli annexation “approaches, the main thing going through our heads is: ‘Does this in fact help advance the cause of peace (sic)?’ ”

For the US, NATO, and Israel, the  notion of peace is anathema.

Endless US-led preemptive wars on nonbelligerent states threatening no one speak volumes about its aversion to world peace and stability.

The same goes for Israel, at war on historic Palestine for decades, along with waging undeclared aggression against Syria.

The Trump regime more one-sidedly supports Israel at the expense of fundamental Palestinian rights than any of its predecessors.

There’s virtually no chance of softening its position other than perhaps rhetorically.

Addressing the Security Council Wednesday, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia read a statement by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the Netanyahu regime’s annexation scheme, saying the following:

“We are…a few days away from a decision that could undermine efforts to achieve a just and sustainable Middle East settlement.”

“Russia has always stood and stands against unilateral actions or plans that, as history has shown, are not capable of bringing peace to the Middle East and prejudge final settlement.”

“(W)e see no alternative to the two-state solution. We see no alternative to the two states – Palestine and Israel – coexisting in peace and security.”

Lavrov’s diplomatic language ignored reality. What may have been possible long ago, no longer is now.

Only two viable options exist under international law, no others.

Israel and Washington reject both: Palestinian statehood within June 1967 borders free from occupation, or one state of Israel/Palestine for all its people.

The alternative is an apartheid Jewish state, its Arab population treated like 5th column threats, Occupied Palestinians abused as enemies of the state.

Lavrov also stressed other major issues that need addressing, including “Jerusalem, refugees, borders, water, (other resources), settlements,” adding:

“(A)nnexation may permanently block the path to their solution and to direct dialogue between Palestinians and Israelis.”

It “will entail negative and even dangerous consequences for the entire Middle East region.”

“It will directly affect the neighbors of Israel and Palestine — Syria, Lebanon, Jordan. It will affect the destiny of Palestinian refugees around the world.”

Lavrov “reiterate(d) the need to abandon the annexation steps and launch the Palestinian-Israeli negotiation process as soon as possible in order to achieve a just and sustainable Middle East settlement and peace in the region.”

He left unsaid what he clearly understands. The Israeli/Palestinian peace process is a colossal hoax.

Stillborn from inception, journalist Henry Siegman years ago called it “the most spectacular deception in modern diplomatic history.”

Former Prime Minister Yitzhak Shamir once said he wanted to drag out peace talks for a decade while vastly expanding settlements.

Netanyahu earlier called the peace process “a waste of time.”

When surfacing, it’s always dead on arrival because the US and Israel demand Palestinian surrender to their interests, not equitable conflict resolution.

The US and Israel use the peace process ruse to advance their regional agenda.

It’s all about dominating this oil-rich part of the world — peace and stability defeating, not furthering, their diabolical aims.

Israel’s longstanding objective is maximum land with minimum Arabs.

Supported by the US, Palestinians were long ago abandoned.

Like virtually always over most of the past century, they’re ill-governed, ill-served, ill-treated, dying to live free, and on their own to pursue fundamental rights denied them.

A Final Comment

International criticism of Israel surfaces time and again, Wednesday in the Security Council the latest example.

Criticism without punitive actions with teeth accomplish nothing, the way it’s been throughout Jewish state history.

How it’s treated by the international community reflects the old adage, saying: Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never harm me.”

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.

Award-winning author Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The U.S. Naval Command in the southern region announced on Wednesday, that a warship belonging to it sailed near the Venezuelan coast, hours after an Iranian tanker was docked in the port of Caracas.

According to the Southern Command’s official website, the U.S.S. Nitze sailed in an area outside Venezuelan territorial waters, which extends for approximately 12 nautical miles from its coast.

“Today, while peacefully operating in the Caribbean Sea, the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke-class guided missile destroyer USS Nitze (DDG 94) conducted a freedom of navigation operation, contesting an excessive maritime claim by Venezuela,” they said.

The Southern Naval Command indicated that

“U.S. Navy ship conducted the operation in international waters outside Venezuela’s 12 nautical-mile territorial jurisdiction.

“The United States will continue to fly, sail and operate wherever international law allows, preserving the rights, freedoms and lawful use of the sea and airspace guaranteed to all nations,” said Adm. Craig Faller, Commander of U.S. Southern Command. “These freedoms are the bedrock of ongoing security efforts, and essential to regional peace and stability.”

The move comes after U.S. President Donald Trump’s decision to send and increase the military presence in the Caribbean, for military and security purposes related to U.S. national security.

On Tuesday, an Iranian oil tanker entered Venezuelan waters to deliver its contents to the South American nation.

In addition to the oil delivery, the Iranian tanker was also carrying equipment to fix the Venezuelan facilities that are in desperate need of repair.

*

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 is from AMN

The United States government expanded their indictment against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange to criminalize the assistance WikiLeaks provided to NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden when staff helped him leave Hong Kong.

Sarah Harrison, who was a section editor for WikiLeaks, Daniel Domscheit-Berg, a former spokesperson, and Jacob Appelbaum, a digital activist who represented WikiLeaks at conferences, are targeted as “co-conspirators” in the indictment [PDF], though neither have been charged with offenses.

No charges were added, however, it significantly expands the conspiracy to commit computer intrusion charge and accuses Assange of conspiring with “hackers” affiliated with “Anonymous,” “LulzSec,” “AntiSec,” and “Gnosis.”

The computer crime charge is not limited to March 2010 anymore. It covers conduct that allegedly occurred between 2009 and 2015.

Prosecutors rely heavily on statements and chat logs from Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson and Hector Xavier Monsegur (“Sabu”), who were both FBI informants, in order to expand the scope of the prosecution.

In March, Judge Anthony Trenga dismissed the grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia, that was investigating WikiLeaks. U.S. Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, who refused to testify before the grand jury, was released from jail after spending about a year in confinement for “civil contempt.” She was still ordered to pay $256,000 in fines.

Activist Jeremy Hammond, who was sentenced to 10 years in prison for his involvement in the hack against the intelligence consulting firm Stratfor, refused to testify as well. Trenga ordered his release, and he was transferred back into the custody of the Bureau of Prisons.

Prosecutors accuse Assange and other WikiLeaks staffers of engaging in “efforts to recruit system administrators” to leak information to their media organization.

WikiLeaks Openly Displayed ‘Attempts To Assist Snowden In Evading Arrest’

“To encourage leakers and hackers to provide stolen materials to WikiLeaks in the future, Assange and others at WikiLeaks openly displayed their attempts to assist Snowden in evading arrest,” the indictment declares.

It notes Harrison (“WLA-4”) traveled with Snowden to Moscow from Hong Kong, leaving out the part where the State Department revoked his passport and trapped him in Russia.

During an interview for “Democracy Now!” in September 2016, Sarah Harrison said WikiLeaks understood Snowden was in a “very complex legal and political situation” and needed “some people to assist with technical and operational security expertise.

“I went over there, as the person on the ground in Hong Kong, to help him, not only for him, himself, because he had clearly done something so brave and deserved the protection, I felt, but also for the larger objective to try and show that despite [President Barack] Obama’s war on whistleblowers, that actually there was another option.”

Harrison added.

“At the time, the Obama administration was intent upon putting alleged source Chelsea Manning into prison for decades—as she is now in prison for 35 years—and we really wanted to try and show the world that there are people that will stand up, there are people that will help. And The Guardian, for example, did not give any additional help to Edward Snowden as a source, as a person there, and we wanted to show there are publishers that will help in these scenarios.”

Prosecutors note WikiLeaks booked Snowden on “flights to India through Beijing” and Iceland as examples of how Assange engaged in an alleged conspiracy.

At the annual Chaos Computer Club conference in Germany on December 31, 2013, Assange, Appelbaum, and Harrison participated in a panel discussion called, “Sysadmins of the World, Unite! A Call to Resistance.” (Assange appeared via video.)

The indictment criminalizes Assange’s speech in support of Snowden and any future whistleblowers and twists his words into a prime example of WikiLeak “encouraging” the “theft of information” from the U.S. government.

Prosecutors even omit particular words to make the message Assange shared seem more nefarious than an endorsement of radical transparency.

From the indictment:

…Assange told the audience that “the famous leaks that WikiLeaks has done or the recent Edward Snowden revelations” showed that “it was possible now for even a single system administrator to…not merely wreck[] or disabl[e] [organizations]…but rather shift[] information from an information apartheid system…into the knowledge commons…

But here is the full quote:

…And we can see that in the cases of the famous leaks that WikiLeaks has done or the recent Edward Snowden revelations, that it’s possible now for even a single system administrator to have a very significant change to the—or rather, apply a very significant constraint, a constructive constraint, to the behavior of these organizations, not merely wrecking or disabling them, not merely going out on strikes to change policy, but rather shifting information from an information apartheid system, which we’re developing, from those with extraordinary power and extraordinary information, into the knowledge commons, where it can be used to—not only as a disciplining force, but it can be used to construct and understand the new world that we’re entering into.

Assange’s video message to Chaos Computer Club conference attendees in 2013. (Screen shot from “Democracy Now!” broadcast.)

Assange encouraged young people to “join the CIA. Go in there. Go into the ballpark and get the ball and bring it out—with the understanding, with the paranoia, that all those organizations will be infiltrated by this generation, by an ideology that is spread across the Internet. And every young person is educated on the Internet.”

“There will be no person that has not been exposed to this ideology of transparency and understanding of wanting to keep the Internet, which we were born into, free. This is the last free generation,” Assange added.

The government presents this message as evidence that WikiLeaks solicits government employees to steal classified information. However, what Assange did was appeal to young people to help the public address a crisis of corruption in government by forcing transparency at a time when the government abuses the classified information system to conceal waste, fraud, abuse, and other illegal actions.

Appelbaum is singled out for saying Harrison “took actions” to protect Snowden, and “if we can succeed in saving Edward Snowden’s life and to keep him free, then the next Edward Snowden will have that to look forward to. And if we look also to what has happened to Chelsea Manning, we see additionally that Snowden has clearly learned.”

This is a fairly innocuous observation numerous people in the news media, including this author, have shared. It means if whistleblowers do not believe they will be punished with decades of prison or forced to flee their home country then we will have more whistleblowers because they will not believe it so dangerous to come forward.

At no point does the Justice Department attempt to connect the alleged “recruitment” of “hackers” or “leakers” to an actual individual, who heard these words and acted upon them.

Of course, the Justice Department refuses to accept the public benefit that came from Snowden’s disclosures. He still faces an indictment for allegedly violating the Espionage Act, which is why he remains in Russia, where he obtained asylum in 2013.

On May 6, 2014, the indictment alleges Harrison “sought to recruit those who had or could obtain authorized access to classified information and hackers to search for and send the classified or otherwise stolen information to WikiLeaks by explaining, ‘from the beginning our mission has been to public classified, or in any other way, censored information that is of political, historical importance.’”

It is one of the clearest indications that the “conspiracy” charge is a not-so-subtle effort to criminalize the journalism of an adversarial media organization that the United States has spent the last decade working to destroy. At no point in this statement does Harrison ask any specific persons to steal information.

If what Harrison did—and by association, Assange supported—is a crime, then there are countless news media organizations which pride themselves on publishing documents they obtain from sensitive sources that must worry they are opening themselves up to prosecution if they boast about their work in a public setting.

Conspiracy Charge Depends On Statements From Paid FBI Informants

The section of the indictment on Assange’s alleged role in “conspiring” with “hackers” mentions a “Teenager, who Assange met in Iceland. This individual is Sigurdur “Siggi” Thordarson.

As Wired Magazine reported,

“When a staff revolt in September 2010 left the organization short-handed, Assange put Thordarson in charge of the WikiLeaks chat room, making Thordarson the first point of contact for new volunteers, journalists, potential sources, and outside groups clamoring to get in with WikiLeaks at the peak of its notoriety.”

Thordarson was fired from WikiLeaks in November 2011 after the media organizations discovered he embezzled about $50,000.

After the FBI asked to talk with him in person following his termination, Thordarson “begged the FBI for money. Agents initially ignored his requests, but eventually they paid him $5,000 for “the work he missed while meeting with agents” in Alexandria, Virginia, where the grand jury investigation was empaneled.

In 2013, WikiLeaks stated,

“Because of requests from people close to him and his young age [Thordarson] was offered the opportunity to repay the stolen funds, which amounted to about $50,000. When it became clear he would not honor the agreement the matter was reported to the Icelandic Police.”

Thordarson apparently embezzled funds from several other organizations in Iceland that were not related to WikiLeaks. The Icelandic authorities process charges of embezzlement.

“It has materialized that the individual has engaged in gross misrepresentations of different types to obtain benefit from a range of parties,” WikiLeaks added. “We will not identify him by name in light of information that he has recently received institutional medical treatment.”

“In light of the relentless ongoing persecution of U.S. authorities against WikiLeaks, it is not surprising that the FBI would try to abuse this troubled young man and involve him in some manner in the attempt to prosecute WikiLeaks staff. It is an indication of the great length these entities are willing to go that they will disrespect the sovereignty of other nations in their endeavor. There is strong indication that the FBI used a combination of coercion and payments to pressure the young man to cooperate,” WikiLeaks contended.

Hammond was the target of an FBI operation. As Dell Cameron previously reported for the Daily Dot, chat logs, surveillance photos, and government documents showed it was Monsegur who introduced Hammond to a hacker named Hyrriya, who “supplied download links to the full credit card database as well as the initial vulnerability access point to Stratfor’s systems.”

According to Hammond, he had not heard of Stratfor until Monsegur brought the firm to his attention. Monsegur transferred the details for at least two stolen credit cards.

In December 2011, Monsegur gave “AntiSec” or the group of hackers targeting Stratfor access to the private intelligence firm’s systems. He pushed Hammond and others to “unknowingly transfer ‘multiple gigabytes of confidential data’ to one of the FBI’s servers. That included roughly 60,000 credit card number and records for Stratfor customers that Hammond was ultimately charged with stealing,” according to Daily Dot.

Anthropologist Gabriella Coleman wrote in her book, Hacker, Hoaxer, Whistleblower, Spy: The Many Faces of Anonymous, that AntiSec went to the WikiLeaks internet relay chat server. Monsegur was largely unaware. A deal was made to provide files from Stratfor to WikiLeaks.

”When talking to WikiLeaks,” Hammond recounted to me, “they first asked to authenticate the leak by pasting them some samples, which I did, [but] they didn’t ask who I was or even really how I got access to it, but I told them voluntarily that I was working with AntiSec and had hacked Stratfor.” Soon after, he arranged the handoff. When Sabu found out, he insisted on dealing with Assange, personally. After all, he told Hammond, he was already in contact with Assange’s trusted assistant “Q.”

Thordarson was “Q.”

According to Hammond, Monsegur attempted to entrap WikiLeaks by suggesting the organization pay him “cash for the leaks.” But WikiLeaks already had the documents they planned to publish.

The U.S. government had a deadline in June 2019 for submitting an extradition request. It seems improper to add these substantial details to the request, especially since a one-week hearing was already held.

While the conspiracy charge includes sensational claims of collaboration with hackers, it is no less of a political charge than the seventeen Espionage Act offenses Assange faces for publishing information.

The additional sections in the indictment represent an attempt to give the illegitimate prosecution a greater veneer of criminality. Unfortunately, it does not take much to scrape it off and expose the contempt for press freedom that still lies behind this vindictive prosecution.

*

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.

Kevin Gosztola is managing editor of Shadowproof. He also produces and co-hosts the weekly podcast, “Unauthorized Disclosure.”

Featured image is from InfoBrics

It appears that despite achieving so-called independence from the Soviet Union and joining the EU and NATO in 2004, Lithuania does not have full sovereignty. In yesterday’s negotiations with US President Donald Trump, the interests of Vilnius were not represented by Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, but by Polish President Andrzej Duda. Lithuania has effectively announced that it is a satellite of not only the US in Eastern Europe, but also of Poland, delegating Warsaw the right to vote and lobby in international affairs on its behalf.

“The President spoke with the President of Poland, Duda, before leaving, and we received such assurance that President Duda would represent our interests as well,” Lithuanian Foreign Minister Linas Linkevičius told reporters on Tuesday before the meeting.

“We have stressed numerous times that the Baltic states and Poland are one territory, if we speak about the defence logic and NATO defence planning,” Linkevičius said, adding that “therefore, we find what is happening in Poland of direct importance to us in the national [security] sense.”

This raises significant questions like whether this is in violation of the Lithuanian constitution; will Poland begin to dominate domestic issues; and, are we seeing a re-emergence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?

Nausėda’s agreement for Duda to represent Lithuania in Washington comes at a time when not only anti-Russian rhetoric is growing stronger in Poland, but also anti-Lithuanian, with many politicians, organizations and movements shouting out that the Lithuanian capital of Vilnius “is ours” as it was once a prosperous city under Polish rule.

Source: InfoBrics

Trump and Duda discussed the supply of LNG to the European continent and energy independence from Russia, as well as the deployment of an additional contingent of US troops in Poland, and by extension, potentially even in Lithuania when we consider Linkevičius words  that “the Baltic states and Poland are one territory.” He has risked a major scandal with not only neighbouring Latvia and Estonia, but also with Russia via its Baltic Kaliningrad region. Although the strategic security interests of Latvia and Estonia may overlap with Lithuania, by speaking on their behalf, Linkevičius undermined their own presidents and foreign ministries. Therefore, Linkevičius decided that Latvia and Estonia were part of an ephemeral version of a new Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but this time under NATO patronage.

NATO is strengthening pressure at Russia’s borders, particularly in the Baltics, justifying its actions as a possible “Russian threat.” Moscow has repeatedly emphasized that it is not going to attack any country, and NATO are fully aware of this despite their constant rhetoric of a supposed Russian threat. In addition, the Baltic States, especially Lithuania, are actively concluding large-scale defense agreements with the US and deploying NATO military contingents on their territories. Washington is trying to maintain a high level of military presence and tension in the Baltics.

Most significantly, Duda was the first foreign leader to visit Trump since the coronavirus pandemic. During his visit to the White House, Trump was full of praise for Poland, highlighting that it was only one of eight NATO countries that committed to 2% of GDP spending on the military. Trump proudly boasted of the “close personal relationship” he had with Duda, saying “I don’t think we’ve ever been closer to Poland than right now.” Duda in response said it was a “privilege and an honour” to be at White House and he hoped to discuss building an even “stronger alliance.”

With Duda being the first foreign leader to meet Trump in Washington, it demonstrates how important the US president finds Poland in escalations against Russia. It is for this reason that Trump said Warsaw “will be paying for the sending of additional troops, and we will probably be moving them from Germany to Poland,” adding that the US is decreasing its military presence in Germany “very substantially.”

Trump did not hide that the likely relocation of American soldiers from Germany to Poland is aimed against Russia, saying

“It sends a very strong signal to Russia, but I think a stronger signal sent to Russia is the fact that Germany is paying Russia billions of dollars to purchase energy from Russia through the pipeline.”

With this, we can see a tier system where Poland is becoming a tool aimed against Russia and willing agent of Washington to dominate affairs in the Baltics on behalf of the US. It remains to be seen how Estonia and Latvia will react to being under Polish influence and dominance, but Lithuania appears to be willing and confident for Poland to control the external affairs of the Baltics on behalf of Washington’s interests.

*

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.

Paul Antonopoulos is an independent geopolitical analyst.

Department responsible tells MEE it has no documents about botched import of medical gear, raising concerns of cover-up ahead of inquiry into government’s response to Covid-19

***

The British government’s health ministry says it has no record whatsoever of its shambolic attempt to import life-saving personal protective equipment (PPE) for health workers from Turkey at the height of the coronavirus crisis.

Officials say they do not have a single report or memo about the affair, nor a single email, either generated within the ministry or sent to it.

The claim raises concerns that Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) files are going missing in advance of a public inquiry into the UK government’s handling of the pandemic.

More than 200 healthcare and care home workers have died in the UK due to Covid-19, following months of complaints about shortages of PPE items such as face masks, visors and gloves.

Among members of the public, the country has one of the highest death rates in the world.

Asked repeatedly whether it was destroying files – an act that would be unlawful in the UK – the DHSC refused to comment.

“We have nothing further to add,” a department spokesperson told MEE.

The UK’s Cabinet Office, which co-ordinates the work of the prime minister’s office and government departments, also denied that it had any records about the matter. It too declined to say whether any records had been destroyed.

The two departments made the claims after receiving requests made by Middle East Eye under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act. Appeals are now under way at the request of MEE.

The UK’s defence ministry and foreign office said that it did hold relevant material and are now considering requests that the material be released.

Calls for inquiry

Prominent scientists, doctors’ and nurses’ leaders and bereaved families are demanding a public inquiry into the UK’s handling of the pandemic, and ministers have conceded that there will be “lessons to be learned” once it has passed.

At the height of the Covid-19 crisis in the UK in mid-April, when rates of infections and deaths were starting to soar and when healthcare workers were wearing bin liners because PPE was in such short supply, a government minister had claimed that the following day the UK would be importing 84 tonnes of PPE from Turkey.

A few hours earlier, the Financial Times had published a highly critical report on the British government’s attempts to encourage companies to design new ventilators, and ministers were aware that the Sunday Times was about to publish a lengthy investigation into their failure to respond quickly to the crisis, and secure more supplies of PPE.

Insiders within Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s Downing Street office say that his chief adviser, Dominic Cummings, has “an obsession with announcements”, using them to deflect attention from the government’s problems, but showing little interest in delivering the substance of ministers’ pledges once those announcements have been made.

When the 84 tonnes of PPE failed to arrive in the UK the following day, a British Royal Air Force (RAF) cargo plane was dispatched to Istanbul, with the British defence ministry briefing journalists that this was intended to “put pressure on Ankara” to release the consignment.

The Turkish government told MEE that it was doing all it could to assist its fellow Nato ally, but said that there was a major problem: the private company that was selling the PPE had only ever had the capacity to supply 2,500 items.

Officials in Ankara appeared bemused that the British government should be suggesting that it had got to grips with its PPE crisis by entering into a contract with such a tiny firm.

Referring to the current requirement that Turkish firms must apply for permission to export PPE from the country, one official said:

“God, the company doesn’t even have the capacity to apply online for the export exemption.”

The Turkish government says it appealed to garment manufacturers across the country, which had been repurposed to manufacture PPE, asking them to assist the UK amid its deepening crisis.

Cargo plane returned nearly empty 

The RAF cargo aircraft eventually returned to the UK three days later than promised, but with less than a quarter of the PPE supplies pledged in the ministerial announcement.

There were subsequently claims that some of the material was substandard, although the Turkish company responsible for the shipment said the British government knew that it had provided – free of charge – some PPE that was intended not for use in intensive care units, but which was instead designed to be donned by visitors to hospitals and care homes.

The episode led to a well-publicised row between the DHSC and Number 10, with Boris Johnson’s aides suggesting to journalists that the health secretary, Matt Hancock, would be blamed for the affair. Healthcare unions warned that all confidence in Hancock was “draining away.”

For his part, Hancock telephoned his Turkish counterpart, Fahrettin Koca, to thank him for the support that Turkey had offered British healthworkers.

Yet according to the DHSC’s response to MEE’s freedom of information request, all this happened without any documents or memoranda being retained within the department, and with not a single email about the episode, written or received by anyone working there, being preserved.

Meanwhile, a health service procurement agency known as NHS Supply Chain told MEE that it held no records on the affair as they would be held by the DHSC.

Following publication of this report, the DHSC maintained that it did not have any records relating to the matter – not even keeping a note of Hancock’s telephone conversation – because the importation had been the work of a local NHS organisation in London.

IIt is unclear whether the health ministry and Cabinet Office have destroyed records relating to the affair, have simply handled the freedom of information request in an incompetent fashion, or have decided to flout their obligations under the law.

However, critics of Cummings say that his contempt for the UK’s Freedom of Information Act is well-known: in 2011, when he was an adviser at the UK’s Department for Education, the Financial Times caught him using a personal email address in an attempt to evade the requirements of the act.

In one email to colleagues, Cummings wrote:

“I will not answer any further e-mails to my official DfE account  … i will only answer things that come from gmail accounts from people who i know who they are. [sic] i suggest that you do the same in general but thats obv up to you guys – i can explain in person the reason for this .”

The Information Commissioner, the official responsible for enforcing the UK’s Freedom of Information Act, was reported to have been shocked by that email.

Subsequently, the Financial Times reported that Cummings and other senior advisers to then-education secretary Michael Gove had systematically destroyed official government correspondence. Gove is now the minister responsible for the Cabinet Office.

Destruction of government documents that are of historical significance – such as those that would assist any public inquiry – is unlawful under the UK’s Public Records Acts, while destruction or alteration of any document that has been requested under the Freedom of Information Act is a criminal offence.

Polls suggest that the British public’s trust in Johnson’s government has plummeted since May, when Cummings and his wife, Mary Wakefield, a journalist, were discovered to have ignored the lockdown rules that he had helped develop for the British public.

After Wakefield felt ill, the couple drove more than 400 kilometres to Cummings’ parents’ home with their young son.

A magazine article that Wakefield had written in which she falsely implied that the couple had remained at their London home has been referred to the UK’s press regulator.

*

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.

Late on June 23, the Israeli Air Force conducted airstrikes on alleged Iranian-linked targets near al-Sukhna and Kabajab in central Syria and near Tel Al-Sahn in the countryside of as-Suwayda in southern Syria. A second wave of Israeli strikes early on June 24 targeted Salamyieh and al-Sabboura in the province of Hama. Syrian state media denied that the strikes hit Iranian targets saying that 2 soldiers were killed, 4 others injured and some material damage was caused by the attack. As was expected the airstrikes took place just a few days after Hezbollah-affiliated media had released a video with threats to strike targets inside Israel in the event of an escalation.

Since June 23 intense fighting has been ongoing in the countryside of Idlib and the southern part of the province between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) and the recently formed coalition of al-Qaeda-linked groups, Fa Ithbatu.

The Idlib central prison area, the village of Arab Said, and the towns of Barisha, Sarmada and Ariha were the main focal points of the confrontation. According to pro-militant sources, the fighting broke out as a result of recent tensions caused by the arrests of some members of Fa Ithbatu by Hayat Tahrir al-Sham security forces. From demands to release its members, Fa Ithbatu forces moved to a direct confrontation with Hayat Tahrir al-Sham. However, as of the morning of June 24th, they had not yet achieved any major successes in these efforts.

Simultaneously, tensions grew between Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and another al-Qaeda-linked group, the Turkistan Islamic Party, in the town of Jisr al-Shughur. Turkistan Islamic Party members reportedly surrounded a local HQ of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

Fa Ithbatu and the Turkistan Islamic Party are apparently very unhappy with the recent actions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, which had indirectly supported the implementation of the Turkish-Russian de-escalation agreement on southern Idlib and pressured other al-Qaeda-linked groups in the area to gain more support from Turkey.

While the close cooperation with Turkey allows Hayat Tahrir al-Sham to increase its military and financial capabilities, the implementation of the de-escalation deal poses a direct threat to interests of smaller radical groups such the ones from Fa Ithbatu. Thus, there is a clear conflict of interest that may yet turn into a full-scale military confrontation.

*

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.

Support South Front in its endeavors. If you’re able, and if you like our content and approach, please support the project. Our work wouldn’t be possible without your help: PayPal: [email protected] or via: http://southfront.org/donate/ or via: https://www.patreon.com/southfront

In December 2019, the Washington Post released a reviews of The Afghanistan Papers. A series of interviews and documents “compiled in secret” and then the subject of a “legal challenge” from the US government. The WaPo baldly called it: “A secret history of the war”. But there’s nothing here that’s really secret, and very little actual history. What do they tell us? Absolutely nothing, except what we’re supposed to believe.” ( Kit Knightly, December 20, 2019)

What is the unspoken “secret truth” which has not been featured in the Afghanistan Papers? The 2001 US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan sustains the surge in heroin and opioid addiction in the United States.

The following article (first published in December 2018) is brought to the attention of Global Research readers as a contribution to the June 26 2020 United Nations “global observance to raise awareness of the major problem that illicit drugs represent to society”. 

***

Afghanistan’s opium economy is a multibillion dollar operation which has a direct impact on the surge of  heroin addiction in the US. 

Despite president Trump’s announced US troop withdrawal, the Afghan opium trade continues to flourish. It is protected by US-NATO occupation forces on behalf of a nexus of powerful financial and criminal  interests. 

Today a rough estimate based on US retail prices suggests that the global heroin market is above the 500 billion dollars mark. This multibillion dollar hike is the result of a significant increase in the volume of heroin transacted Worldwide coupled with a moderate increase in retail prices.

Based on the most recent (UNODC) data (2017) opium production in Afghanistan is of the order of 9000 metric tons, which after processing and transformation is equivalent to approximately 900,000 kg. of pure heroin.

With the surge in heroin addiction since 2001, the retail price of heroin has increased. According to DEA intelligence, one gram of pure heroin was selling in December 2016 in the domestic US market for $902 per gram.

The Heroin trade is colossal: one gram of pure heroin selling at $902 is equivalent to almost a million US dollars a kilo ($902,000) (see table below)

Flash back to to 2000-2001.

In 2000, the Taliban government with the support of the United Nations implemented a successful drug eradication program, which was presented to the UN General Assembly on October 12, 2001, barely a week after on the onset of US-NATO invasion. Opium production had collapsed by 94 percent.

In 2001 opium production had collapsed to 185 tons down from 3300 tons in 2000. (see Remarks on behalf of UNODC Executive Director at the UN General Assembly, Oct 2001, excerpt below)

---

---

The US-NATO led War against Afghanistan served to Restore the Illicit Heroin trade

The Afghan government’s drug eradication program was repealed.  The 2001 war on Afghanistan served to restore as well as boost the multibillion dollar drug trade. It has also contributed to the surge in heroin addiction in the US.

Opium production had declined by more than 90 per cent in 2001 as a result of the Taliban government’s drug eradication program.

Immediately following the invasion (October 7, 2001) and the occupation of Afghanistan by US-NATO troops, the production of opium regained its historical levels.

In fact the surge in opium cultivation production coincided with the onslaught of the US-led military operation and the downfall of the Taliban regime. From October through December 2001, farmers started to replant poppy on an extensive basis.” (see Michel Chossudovsky, op cit.)  

Since 2001, according to UNODC, the production of opium has increased 50 times, (compared to 185 ton in 2001) reaching 9000 metric tons in 2017. It has almost tripled in relation to its historical levels. (See Figure 1 below)

Heroin Addiction in the US

Since 2001, the use of heroin in the US has increased more than 20 times. Media reports rarely report how the dramatic increase in the global “supply of heroin” has contributed to “demand” at the retail level.

There were 189,000 heroin users in the US in 2001, before the US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan. By 2012-13, there were 3.8 million heroin users in the US according to a study by Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health. Extrapolating the 2012-2013 figures (see graph below), one can reasonably confirm that the number of heroin users today (including addicts and casual users) is well in excess of four million.

In 2001, 1,779 Americans were killed as a result of heroin overdose. By 2016, the number of Americans killed as a result of heroin addiction shot up to 15,446. (see graph below)

“My Administration is committed to fighting the drug epidemic” says Donald Trump.

Those lives would have been saved had the US and its NATO allies NOT invaded and occupied Afghanistan in 2001. 

The first thing they did was to undermine the drug eradication program, restore the opium economy and the drug trade.

Source: National Institute of Drug Abuse

Opium production has increased 50 times in relation to 2001 (following the Afghan government’s drug eradication program). In 2001, the areas of opium cultivation had fallen to 8000 hectares (185 metric tons of opium).

War is good for business. It contributed to spearheading heroin use. The Afghan opium economy feeds into a lucrative trade in narcotics and money laundering.

What this new methodology has done is to obfuscate the size and criminal nature of the Afghan drug trade, intimating –without evidence– that up to 20% of Afghan opium is no longer channeled towards the illegal heroin market.

More than Half a Trillion Dollars

The profits are largely reaped at the level of the international wholesale and retail markets of heroin as well as in the process of money laundering in Western banking institutions, an issue which is not addressed by the Vienna based UNODC.

The global monetary value of the heroin market (which is protected by powerful groups) is colossal.

Estimation

The retail price of heroin (sold by the gram) can vary dramatically from one country to another, it also depends on the percentage of pure heroin. This does not facilitate the process of estimating the monetary value of the global trade in heroin.

Recorded retail street prices for heroin with a low level of purity must be converted to a dollar value which corresponds to pure heroin.

What is sold at the street level usually has a low percentage of pure heroin. The process of estimation requires transforming the street level prices into what the DEA calls heroin price per gram pure (PPG)

From one ton of opium you can produce 100 kilos of pure heroin. The US retail prices for heroin (with a low level of purity) was, according to UNODC (2012) of the order of $172 a gram (namely $17,200 per kilo)

The estimated price per gram of pure heroin, however, is substantially higher.

In December 2016, the heroin price per gram pure (PPG) was of the order of $902 in the US, according to DEA intelligence  ie. $902,000 a kilo.

Heroin Prices in the UK

In the UK which is the entry point of Afghan heroin into the EU market, the recorded retail price (according to a 2015 estimate quoted by the Guardian) is consistent with that estimated for the US market by the DEA:

“An imported kilo [of heroin] cut at 25% street purity provides enough raw material for 16,000 individual deals at £10 a hit – pushing the takings to £160,000 [a kilo] (The Guardian, December 20, 2015)

GBP160,000 (25% purity) converts into GBP 640,000 per kilo for pure heroin, ie. approximately  US$960,000 per kilo (December 2015 GBP USD exchange rate).

Rough Estimate of the  Monetary Value of  Afghanistan’s Global Heroin Market

According to the UNODC, 7600-7900 tons of opium were available for heroin production and export (out of a total of 9000-9300 metric tons). According to the UNODC, approximately half of the opium is processed into heroin within Afghanistan.

The global monetary value for heroin can be roughly estimated using the US price equivalent PPG measurement for pure heroin of US 902,000 a kg. (December 2016, DEA) and the (lower) production figure of 790,000 kg of pure heroin (estimated by the UNODC).

Using the US retail price equivalent of pure heroin (DEA), the global monetary value generated by the Afghan heroin trade (2017) is of the order of  $712,580,000,000 (712.58 billion dollars), an amount equivalent to the US defense budget.

This is a conservative estimate based on adopting the “lower figure” of 7900 metric tons (2017)  (recommended by the UNODC methodology which is arbitrary and questionable, see above).

If we had based the calculation on the total production of opium which is in excess of 9ooo metric tons (2017), the global monetary value of the heroin market would have been in excess of $800 billion. It should also be mentioned that this estimate relies solely on the the US price for pure heroin (DEA).

Back in August 2018, President  Trump signed the 2019 National Defense Authorization Act “which authorizes a top-line [defense] budget of $717 billion”, just a few million dollars in excess of the estimated global monetary value of the Afghan heroin market.

The global monetary value of the heroin market is of the same order of magnitude as the defense budget of the USA.

Needless to say, the Pentagon not to mention the CIA which launched the opium economy in Afghanistan in the late 1970s  are intent upon protecting this multibillion dollar industry. The proceeds of the Afghan drug trade were initially used to finance the recruitment of Al Qaeda Mujahideen mercenaries to fight in the Soviet-Afghan war.

“The protests, riots, violent and non-violent actions sweeping across the United States since May 25, including an assault on the gates of the White House, begin to make sense when we understand the CIA’s Color Revolution playbook,” writes economic researcher, historian, and freelance journalist F. William Engdahl. 

Engdahl then breaks down the connections between Black Lives Matter, socialist organizations, George Soros’ Open Society Foundations, the Ford Foundation (as previously noted, a CIA front organization), the Foundation to Promote Open Society, Borealis Philanthropy, the Kellogg Foundation, Ben & Jerry’s Foundation, and the Heinz Foundation (John Kerry). 

Following the murder of George Floyd, “major corporations such as Apple, Disney, Nike and hundreds others may be pouring untold and unaccounted millions into ActBlue under the name of Black Lives Matter, funds that in fact can go to fund the election of a Democrat President Biden.”

#BlackLivesMatter (1/3) pic.twitter.com/k4sIcUiPwP

— Sony (@Sony) May 31, 2020

BLM is part of the Movement for Black Lives Coalition (M4BL), a cutout created by the Ford Foundation, in other words, the CIA. It has called for “defunding police departments, race-based reparations, voting rights for illegal immigrants, fossil-fuel divestment, an end to private education and charter schools, a universal basic income, and free college for blacks,” according to its website. 

"The initiative of the Movement for Black Lives needs to be picked up by others…. A coalition of movements that joins a future whirlwind moment to win the struggle can at last make racial justice a reality."—Quaker activist @GeorgeLakey_ at @wagingnv https://t.co/ITwFBv4q5g

— Friends Journal (@friendsjournal) June 16, 2020

As Engdahl points out, B4BL and BLM are Democrat-dominated operations. They receive money from ActBlue Charities, a “progressive” organization in support of the Joe Biden campaign. “ActBlue is a pass-through organization and service for donations to left-of-center nonprofits and PACs,” notes InfluenceWatch.

B4BL takes money from Google (also linked to the CIA)  and a host of labor unions, including the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, and the AFL-CIO Committee on Political Education.

An article posted back in 2009 by Human Events states that despite “its stripped-down appearance, ActBlue is frothing with the elitist pretension characteristic of the modern Left. The hip tenets of ‘grassroots’ campaigning, highbrow blathering and self-possessed pseudo-coolness seep through the slogans, descriptions and thematics of the [ActBlue] website.”

As Engdahl points out, the “role of tax-exempt foundations tied to the fortunes of the greatest industrial and financial companies such as Rockefeller, Ford, Kellogg, Hewlett and Soros says that there is a far deeper and far more sinister agenda to current disturbances than spontaneous outrage would suggest.”

The founders of BLM admit to being Marxist revolutionaries determined to destroy capitalism (no longer recognizable as such).

“The policy platform proposed by BLM in August [2016]… calls for collective ownership of resources, banks, and businesses, a highly progressive income tax, a guaranteed minimum income, and government jobs are lifted straight from the pages of Karl Marx’s ‘Communist Manifesto,’” writes Thurston Powers. “BLM has simply substituted Marx’s class conflict between the proletariat and bourgeoisie for class conflict between blackness and whiteness.”

BLM co-founder confirms what anyone who’s read their work knows: they’re proudly marxists. pic.twitter.com/vvUk5jTp7j

— Rita Panahi (@RitaPanahi) June 18, 2020

The black vs. white dichotomy creates a permanent enemy class, to which defection is always incomplete. And unlike the proletariat class consciousness, race consciousness already exists, making mobilization easier. This can be seen in the comments of a Milwaukee protester from August: “We do not want justice or peace anymore. We done with that shit. We want blood. We want blood. We want the same shit ya’ll want. Eye for an eye. No more peace. F–k all that. Ain’t no more peace. Ain’t no more peace. We done. We cannot cohabitate with white people, one of us have to go, black or white. All ya’ll have to go!”

It is nonsensical to believe the transnational corporations and banks now funding BLM buy into the Marxist rhetoric and objectives of BLM—that is to say, they are not supporting their very own destruction as evil capitalist enterprises. 

BLM and its Marxist leaders will be jettisoned after Biden wins the election. Either BLM will conform to the democrat masquerade—a kinder and gentler face plastered on the neoliberal project—or it will become irrelevant to national one-party politics pushed on the American people by a corporate propaganda media. 

After a Biden victory, BLM will be expected to head for the bleachers where they will be required to cheerlead “diversity,” which is basically yet another ruling elite control mechanism. 

Instead, they will go to the streets. 

*

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.

Kurt Nimmo writes on his blog, Another Day in the Empire, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from CODEPINK

From the first paragraph of “Venezuela Libre”, the ninth chapter of John Bolton’s upcoming book, The Room Where It Happened, it is obvious that the tale Bolton spins is full of fabrications, half-truths, propaganda and the occasional kernel of truth. The chapter is a 35-page screed in which the infamous warmonger places blame for the Trump administration’s disastrous Venezuela policy on everyone from Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, to State Department bureaucrats and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and, of course, President Trump. The criticism also extends to opposition figure Juan Guaidó and Colombian President Ivan Duque. Exempt from criticism are the policy’s two architects: Mauricio Claver-Carone (handpicked by Bolton as the National Security Council’s Senior Director for the Western Hemisphere) and Bolton himself.

Per Bolton, Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro remains in power only because the Trump administration lacked the determination to keep the pressure on. He argues that sanctions were neither strict nor swiftly applied. Yet during Bolton’s tenure, the Trump administration blocked Venezuela’s ability to trade gold, froze the assets of state oil company PDVSA (including U.S. based subsidiary Citgo Petroleum), sanctioned Venezuela’s Central Bank, and imposed an economic embargo. All of this occurred between November 2018 and August 2019, during Bolton’s tenure as Trump’s National Security Advisor.

Four major sanctions over 10 months that crippled the Venezuelan economy are hardly indicative of an administration that “vacillated and wobbled”, in Bolton’s words. There was nothing slow about the implementation of these sanctions; they were applied in reaction to events on the ground and designed to cause as much economic damage as possible. The gold industry sanction came as Venezuela was exporting it to Turkey. The PDVSA sanctions were intended as a death knell for Venezuela’s oil industry, preventing Citgo from refining its oil and sending diluents to process Venezuela’s heavy crude (it was also meant to hand over Citgo and its assets to Juan Guaidó). The Central Bank sanction froze Venezuelan assets abroad, essentially freezing it out of the international financial system and impeding the country’s ability to import goods, including food and medicine. The August 2019 economic embargo prevented any U.S. business from working in Venezuela, was compared to sanctions “faced by North Korea, Iran, Syria and Cuba” and was announced just as the Venezuelan government and opposition were to engage in talks in Bermuda.

The most useful piece of information to come out of “Venezuela Libre” is Bolton’s assertion that in January 2019, then-UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt was “delighted to cooperate on steps [the UK] could take, for example freezing Venezuelan gold deposits in the Bank of England.” Days later, the Bank of England (BoE) froze over $1.2 billion in gold belonging to Venezuela, despite the fact that it is supposed to be an independent institution “free from day-to-day political influence.” This revelation by Bolton will likely be used in the Venezuelan government’s lawsuit against the BoE. The lawsuit seeks to free Venezuela’s gold in order to transfer it to the United Nations Development Programme, which will purchase food and medical supplies for the country to counter the COVID-19 pandemic. Bolton even lays out an added benefit of his grim pursuit of sanctions: “central banks and private bankers weren’t looking for reasons to be on the Fed’s bad side”, meaning that they would cease to do business with Venezuela or freeze its assets. Known among sanctions experts as “overcompliance”, Bolton exposes this as a feature, not a bug, of his sanctions regime.

The State Department even boasted of how tough these sanctions were in a since deleted fact sheet, yet if they had been applied all at once – like Bolton presumably wanted, there is no reason to believe regime change would have followed. The Maduro government demonstrated its capacity to adapt to the sanctions, staving off the worst of COVID-19 and, despite the economic devastation, showing economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2019.

In addition to being cruel, the sanctions were counterproductive in terms of their desired goal to have the population rise up against the government. One survey found that 82% of Venezuela reject the sanctions, and even the country’s most prominent opposition pollster admitted that the majority of Venezuelans “strongly reject the general, economic, oil and financial sanctions that affect the population.” At the risk of praising Bolton, he at least remains honest about the sanctions. While the State and Treasury Departments routinely insist the sanctions only affect Venezuelan government insiders, Bolton admits “the harm [they] would cause the Venezuelan people.”

It wasn’t just the sanctions that were counterproductive from the perspective of the White House. The military threats, attempted coups and provocations also helped unite Maduro’s base. While Bolton laments Trump’s fixation on military threats and his calls for the Pentagon to draw up plans for an invasion, it wasn’t because the notorious hawk suddenly developed dove-ish sensibilities, rather it was because of the “inevitable congressional opposition” and his belief that regime change would not require U.S. troops.

Bolton dedicates a substantial portion of the chapter to detailing the events of Guaidó’s April 30 coup attempt, still believing that they were so very close to achieving their goals that day. Bolton and the White House thought they had convinced Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino López to defect, along with other key figures, including the head of Venezuela’s Supreme Court. They did not defect. Instead, the coup fizzled within hours and all Guaidó managed to do was look foolish as he and around a dozen soldiers briefly took over a highway overpass. In the media, Bolton insisted that Padrino López betrayed the coup plotters at the last minute, but everything indicates that Bolton “got played”, as President Trump put it in June 2019, when he was reported – not for the first time – to have lost interest in Venezuela.

He certainly got played by Fabiana Rosales, Guaidó’s spouse, who appealed to Bolton’s vanity by claiming that the Venezuelan government is “most afraid when John Bolton starts tweeting.” Bolton brags about his tweets and stunts (like when he flashed a notepad with “5,000 troops to Colombia” scribbled on it during a press conference), but these were used as propaganda to solidify the Maduro government’s base. To wit, in January 2019, Venezuela’s civilian militia had under two million members; today, that same militia has over four million enlisted. Bolton, with his constant tweeting about Venezuela and to Venezuelan officials, as well as his history of warmongering, did much more to make Venezuelans believe the U.S. might invade than Trump’s own threats.

President Nicolás Maduro addressed hundreds of thousands of supporters on May 1, 2019, a day after Guaidó’s attempted coup. 

Bolton’s hubris has long been known, but what’s rather stunning about the Venezuela chapter is his poor analysis of the situation and (willful?) ignorance of facts. Delving into all of Bolton’s lies and misstatements would take another thousand words, but here are three of the many examples. He writes that President Maduro was “held under the tightest security for several days… [and] remained invisible, not coming out in public” after the April 30 coup. Yet the photo above shows Maduro addressing tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of supporters on May 1. He claims that government supporters burned humanitarian aid trucks on February 23, despite the many reports that came out proving the opposition itself that burned the aid. He cites the Daily Mail in claiming that National Constituent Assembly President Diosdado Cabello sent his children to China on February 23, yet they appeared live in Caracas on Venezuelan television four days later.

The White House is caught in an echo chamber, believing the very propaganda it seeds in the mainstream media. Ironically, propagandist-in-chief Trump, as quoted by Bolton, appears to be closest to breaking out of the information bubble. Here are a few of Trump’s quotes in Bolton’s chapter “Venezuela Libre”:

• Maduro is “too smart and too tough” to fall.

• “I don’t like where we are… The entire army is behind him… I’ve always said Maduro was tough. This kid [Guaidó] – nobody’s ever heard of him.”

• On Guaidó: “He doesn’t have what it takes… Stay away from it a little; don’t get too much involved.”

Of course, Trump isn’t immune to propaganda, claiming that Venezuela “is really part of the United States” – a damning statement of Bolton’s beloved Monroe Doctrine.

May Day 2019 rally in support of the Venezuelan government – the largest chavista demonstration since President Chávez’s death in 2013. Photo courtesy of @OrlenysOV

In another turn of irony, the best analysis of the situation in Venezuela in The Room Where It Happened comes from Russian President Vladimir Putin, which Bolton dismisses as a “brilliant display of Soviet-style propaganda.” Putin concludes that the White House’s policy has strengthened President Maduro, offering the massive May Day rallies in support of the Maduro government as evidence. Apparently, the Russian President was the only person offering Trump an alternative perspective on Venezuela.

Perhaps the biggest takeaway from Bolton’s “Venezuela Libre” chapter is that he and others in the administration dissuaded Trump from engaging in dialogue with the Venezuelan government. Unfortunately, even with Bolton gone from the White House, other actors continue to influence Trump in the same way. On June 19, in an Axios interview, Trump expressed a willingness to meet with President Maduro and once again expressed skepticism of Guaidó. He retracted his remarks the day after they were published, following pressure from the media, Florida politicians and presidential candidate Joe Biden, who predictably tried to outflank Trump from the right. As Bolton put it, “support on both sides of the aisle for [the] hard line in Venezuela was almost uniform.” Regardless of who wins in November, there appears to be little hope for lifting the cruel sanctions, if even suggesting dialogue is akin to a third rail in American politics.

Yet in Venezuela there is a sense of hope that cooler heads will prevail, as moderates are breaking off from the hardline opposition, negotiating with the government and preparing for upcoming legislative elections. Bolton’s book, and his time in office, proves that the United States – try as it might – is no longer capable of imposing its will. Hopefully, both that chapter of history and Bolton’s career have finally come to an 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.

Leonardo Flores is Latin American policy expert and campaigner with CODEPINK.

Featured image is from Alliance for Global Justice

President Donald Trump’s former National Security Advisor John Bolton would have been confident.  His indulgent The Room Where it Happened: A White House Memoir pitted him against the administration in a not infrequent battle over material that is published by former officials recounting their giddy days in high office.  On June 17, the US government filed a civil suit seeking a preliminary injunction ahead of the planned release of the memoir on June 23, and a “constructive trust” arising from all profits issuing from the publication of the work. 

Bolton had, as Jack Goldsmith and Marty Lederman point out, signed two separate, fundamentally similar non-disclosure agreements, “corresponding to two different sets of Specialized Compartmented Information programs to which he was afforded access.”

Publishing sensitive national security information in the US context is governed by that driest of documents known as Standard Form 312.  Bolton undertook that he would “never divulge classified information to anyone unless: (a) [he has] officially verified  that the recipient has been properly authorized by the United States Government to receive it; or (b) [he has] been given prior written notice of authorization from the United States Government … that such disclosure is permitted.”  The second feature of the agreement is that Bolton agreed that, should he be “uncertain about the classification status” of any information in question, he would “confirm from an authorized official that the information is unclassified before [he] may disclose it.”

This was not all.  To further supress information that would otherwise make it into the public domain is Standard Form 4414, which covers “Special Access Programs”, referred to in the field as sensitive compartmented information (SCI).  The policing authority in this case is the National Security Council, which required Bolton to submit to review “any writing … that contains or purports to contain any SCI or descriptive of activities that produce or relate to SCI or that I have reason to believe derived from SCI, that I contemplate disclosing to any person not authorized to have access to SCI or that I have prepared for public disclosure.”

Judge Royce Lamberth of the US District Court for the District of Columbia was not convinced by arguments made by the administration for a preliminary injunction halting the memoir’s publication.  But this did not necessarily make Bolton an endearing defendant.  The judge admitted that “Bolton’s unilateral conduct raises grave national security concerns” but found that “the horse is out of the barn”.    

Ultimately, Bolton’s decision to go forth with the publication without final clearance from the intelligence censors was incautious but irreversible.  The judge even conceded that “Bolton may indeed have caused the country irreparable harm.”  The point was rapid, vast distribution and spread, assisted by the nature of technology.  In “the Internet age, even a handful of copies in circulation could irrevocably destroy confidentiality.” All was required was for a determined individual, armed with the contents of such a publication, to “publish [it] far and wide from his local coffee shop.” Resigned, the judge conceded that “the damage is done.  There is no restoring the status quo.” 

To that end, any injunction “would be so toothless”.  The other obvious point – that over 200,000 copies of the book had already been shipped domestically, with thousands of copies being exported to booksellers in Europe, India and the Middle East – rendered the need for such a restraint moot.  “By the looks of it,” mused the judge, “the horse is not just out of the barn – it is out of the country.”

The Bolton episode underscores the very legitimacy of the prepublication review process.  Former CIA operative John Kiriakou makes the unimpeachable point that such documents, however sympathetic their authors, need to get into open circulation.  The republic needs the oxygen of revelation.  The process of review, he attests, is “deeply flawed and frequently political.”  As Kiriakou reminds us, such a system of suppression drew breath from the case of Victor Marchetti, who worked as an analyst at the CIA between 1955 and 1969.  Serialised versions of his book reflecting on the grand old days were slated to run in Esquire.  The CIA took issue, filed a temporary injunction against publication of the book citing the presence of classified information and the naming of undercover operatives.  The case made its way to the US Supreme Court, which held that the initial judgment in favour of an injunction was sound.  The non-disclosure regime was appropriate.  “We find the contract constitutional and otherwise reasonable and lawful.”  What followed was an arduous process of review, cutting and redaction, with Marchetti seeking clearance, and the CIA being miserly in concession.

Not all was lost for former members of the intelligence community and publishers.  Texts might still make it into circulation, provided they were cleared, and done so within 60 days by the relevant prepublication board.  Those not cleared might see profits confiscated.  But this did not address the issue of zealous overclassification, unnecessary redaction and violations of the 60 day rule.

The battle against the very constitutionality of the prepublication review system has begun in earnest.  On January 27, 2020, the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the ACLU filed a Freedom of Information request seeking records related to the review of the manuscripts of 25 former federal officials, among them Bolton’s memoir.  In April 2, 2019, the Knight First Amendment Institute filed a lawsuit challenging the very constitutionality of prepublication review.  Along with the ACLU, the action was undertaken on behalf of five former public servants arguing that the prepublication system spanning the CIA, the Defence Department, the National Security Agency and the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, violated the First Amendment right “to convey and of the public to hear, in a timely manner, the opinions of former government employees on issues of public importance.”  

The action further argued that the prepublication process violated the First Amendment in not providing former employees “with fair notice of they can and cannot publish without prior review”, one that also invited “arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement by censors.” 

On April 16, 2020, the District Court in Maryland found in favour of the government, holding the prepublication review system to be constitutional.  Judge George Hazel found that the ACLU and Knight First Amendment Institute had standing to challenge the review process, but felt governed by the forty-year old Supreme Court case of Snepp v. United States.  The defects of the prepublication system, be it in terms of vagueness on classification, the certainty of review standards, and the absence of procedural safeguards, had little bearing on the question of constitutionality.

The plaintiffs have duly appealed. Among their arguments is the fact that Snepp focused on remedies rather than First Amendment principles, sidestepping the very merits of the CIA review system.  The limits of government authority in imposing prepublication review obligations also remained untested.  The reasoning of Snepp has also aged, both in terms of the law of pre-restraint on employee obligations and the factual environment.  As the Knight First Amendment Institute urges, “We need to hear these voices [of former employees of the intelligence services], but if we want to hear them, we have to fix the obstacle course that prepublication review has become.”

*

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

Featured image is by Christopher Halloran/Shutterstock

“We beseech independent African states to help us bring our problem before the United Nations, on the grounds that the United States Government is morally incapable of protecting the lives and the property of 22 million African-Americans. And on the grounds that our deteriorating plight is definitely becoming a threat to world peace…. In the interests of world peace and security, we beseech the heads of the independent African states to recommend an immediate investigation into our problem by the United Nations Commission on Human Rights.” (Quote from the memorandum presented by Malcolm X on behalf of the Organization of Afro-American Unity to the Organization of African Unity second summit in Cairo, Egypt, July 17, 1964)

Nearly 56 years ago Malcolm X (El Hajj Malik Shabazz) visited the city of Cairo, Egypt for the second time within three months.

His mission was to take the plight of the African American people to the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor today’s African Union (AU), in order to solicit the assistance of the-then 33 independent nations on the continent in bringing the gross human rights violations committed by the U.S. government to the United Nations.

In 2020, the dramatic shift in mass activity and political debate surrounding the role of policing within the context of institutional racism and national oppression has come to the fore once again in the U.S. These developments prompted by demonstrations involving millions across the U.S. and internationally, along with the attacks on private property and symbols of slavery and colonialism, have drawn the attention of the modern day UN Human Rights agency which held a hearing on these issues during the third week of June. A series of extra-judicial killings of African Americans Ahmaud Abery, Breonna Taylor and later George Floyd sparked outrage which is still being manifested.

Image on the right: Burkina Faso Ambassador to UN Human Rights Council in Geneva during session on racism in the U.S.

On June 12, 54 member-states within the continental AU demanded a debate in Geneva over the events which have transpired in the U.S. surrounding the police and vigilante attacks against African Americans. A memorandum was sent to the UNHRC President Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger of Austria, signed by the government of the West African state of Burkina Faso requesting the convening of a session to discuss this pertinent issue.

In light of the unrest which spread throughout the U.S. and the world in the immediate wake of the brutal police execution of George Floyd by the Minneapolis police on May 25, Washington under the administration of President Donald Trump has failed miserably in adequately addressing the present situation. Trump in response to unrest in Washington, D.C. and other cities, evoked the Insurrection Act of 1807, threatening to deploy federal troops to areas where demonstrations are occurring to purportedly restore order.

The situation created such an embarrassing conundrum for the White House that existing and former Pentagon officials were compelled to make statements in an attempt to distance themselves from the president. Nonetheless, there have been more than 20 people killed by law-enforcement agents and National Guard over the previous month, while thousands have been beaten, gassed and detained by police.

Even the Voice of America (VOA), the broadcasting organ of the State Department, which has come under criticism by the Trump administration, reported on the international diplomatic maneuvering surrounding the racial turmoil in the U.S. saying:

“In a letter written on behalf of the 54 countries of the African Group, of which he is coordinator for human rights questions, the ambassador of Burkina Faso to the United Nations in Geneva, Dieudonné Désiré Sougouri, asked the body to the U.N. to organize an ‘urgent debate on the current racially-inspired human rights violations, systemic racism, police brutality against people of African descent and violence against peaceful demonstrations. The tragic events of May 25, 2020 in Minneapolis, USA, which resulted in the death of George Floyd, sparked worldwide protests over the injustice and brutality faced by people of African descent daily in many regions of the world,’ wrote the ambassador. ‘The death of George Floyd is unfortunately not an isolated incident,’ he wrote, adding that he was speaking on behalf of the representatives and ambassadors of the African Group.”

The Outcome of the UN Human Rights Debate

As a result of the UN Human Rights Council discussions on June 17-18 in Geneva, the body decided to conduct further investigations on the question of racism and brutality in the U.S. Such a decision portends much for the effectiveness of international solidarity related to the African American struggle.

Amid a burgeoning economic crisis directly stemming from job losses due to the COVID-19 pandemic which has impacted the U.S. more than any other country, African Americans are being disproportionately affected. This same situation prevails in regard to the infection rate for the virus itself. In cities such as New York, Detroit, Chicago, Los Angeles and in rural and less densely populated areas of the South and Southwest, the pandemic has taken a devastating toll particularly among oppressed peoples.

A rising antiracist and class consciousness is bound to escalate during this period of uncertainty and dislocation. Consequently, the repressive apparatus of the capitalist state will continue its efforts to suppress the demonstrations, rebellions and political demands which call for the defunding and dismantling of police.

The UN News Service said of the session in Geneva that:

“Michelle Bachelet, is to spearhead efforts to address systemic racism against people of African descent by law enforcement agencies, the Human Rights Council decided on Friday (June 19). The resolution – decided unanimously without a vote – follows a rare Urgent Debate in the Council earlier in the week, requested by the African group of nations, following the death of George Floyd in the US state of Minnesota…. The text also calls on Ms. Bachelet – assisted by UN appointed independent rights experts and committees ‘to examine government responses to anti-racism peaceful protests, including the alleged use of excessive force against protesters, bystanders and journalists.’ Overseeing the resolution, Ambassador Elisabeth Tichy-Fisslberger (Austria), President of the Human Rights Council (14th cycle) announced that the text was ready for their consideration and asked whether a vote could be dispensed with, in light of the general consensus.”

Ambassador Sougouri of Burkina Faso described the debate in Geneva as historic. Senegalese Human Rights Ambassador Coly Seck echoed the protests in the U.S. saying “Black Lives Matter” and that racism runs contrary to the Charter of the UN.

The Future of the Struggle Against Racism in the U.S.

As recognized in the opening quote from Malcolm X’s intervention at the July 1964 OAU Summit in Cairo, the importance of internationalizing the movement to end institutional racism and national oppression in the U.S. is an important aspect of the overall effort to secure victory. Although Washington and Wall Street oversees the largest economy on the globe, the fragility and contradictory character of the U.S. capitalist system has been exposed in recent months as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, the subsequent financial downturn and the eruption of social unrest.

The testimony of the younger brother of George Floyd, Philonise, on June 17 before the UN Human Rights Council, spoke volumes in relationship to the nature of racism and policing in the U.S. The younger Floyd said to the Director:

“My brother, George Floyd, is one of the many Black men and women that have been murdered by police in recent years. The sad truth is that the case is not unique. The way you saw my brother tortured and murdered on camera is the way Black people are treated by police in America. You watched my brother die. That could have been me.” (See this)

This process of internationalizing the African American struggle against racism is protracted. One scholar who wrote on the intersection between the liberation movements of Africans on the continent and the Diaspora emphasizes the importance of creating and maintaining these working relationships.

Image below: Malcolm X at OAU Summit in Cairo during July 1964

Prof. Azaria Mbughuni raises an important point in his assessment of Malcolm X’s OAAU visit in 1964 illustrating that:

“One of the highlights of his last trip to Africa was the passing of a resolution addressing the plight of African Americans in the U.S. This resolution was passed with the assistance of the President of Tanzania, Julius K. Nyerere (1922-1999). The contact between Malcolm and East African leaders contributed to the strengthening of linkages between the struggles of African people in Africa and African Americans and to Malcolm X’s own growth as a revolutionary…. Writers studying Malcolm (Malcolm X, El-Hajj Malik Shabazz) often focus exclusively on his pilgrimage to the city of Mecca in Saudi Arabia and to his tours in West Africa. Furthermore, most writers dismiss the resolution on the African American struggle passed by the Second Summit of Organization of African Unity as insignificant…. The passage of a resolution on the struggle of African Americans and racism in the U.S. by the Cairo OAU Summit in July 21, 1964 was an important step in connecting the struggles of African Americans and that of African people in Africa.” (See this)

Therefore, moving forward the importance of independent organizing to build a sustainable antiracist and African American liberation movement becomes paramount. Events in recent weeks have forced the international community to take notice of the ongoing social strife emanating from the racist-capitalist system.

*

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: George Floyd’s brother addresses the UN Human Rights Council on June 18, 2020/All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated