While Western and Europeans and Asians race to find vaccines for coronavirus, Africa can no longer wait for that scientific discovery that experts have said it would, most probably, be ready in a year or two. Some experts have argued that coronavirus would never disappear, but rather becomes endemic.

Indeed, the crisis has put the global science to practical test. Every individual country is busy fighting the pandemic in its own way, trying to make sure that it gains from the crisis. As the virus persistently sweeps across the world, southern African island of Madagascar seems desirous with an initiative to tap into its local herbal science to produce COVID-Organics to save human lives.

Madagascar, a southern African island in the Indian Ocean, has found an alternative to fight the fast spreading coronavirus, beginning on experimental basis and with a rudimentary approach at home. With increasing number of coronavirus, Madagascar is steadily depending on its natural resources to help Africa. As a result of the island’s isolation, Madagascar is home to various unexploited plants found nowhere else on Earth. Many native plant species are used as herbal remedies for a variety of afflictions.

On April 21, the President of Madagascar Andry Rajoelina officially launched a local herbal remedy claimed to prevent and cure the novel coronavirus. The drink is simply called COVID-Organics and is derived from Artemisia – a plant with proven efficacy in malaria treatment.

During an African Union meeting late last month, he stressed the importance of the herbal cure – a variant of which prevents the virus, while another cures it. Speaking to colleague heads of state with a bottle of COVID-Organics on his table, he reiterated the viability of the herbal cure.

“There are two treatment protocols (curative and preventive). The state of health of COVID-19 patients who took Tambavy CVO CovidOrganics improved after 7 days and fully recovered after 10 days. These patients have taken no other product than COVID-Organics,” Rajoelina said.

In an exclusive interview with FRANCE 24 and RFI, Rajoelina defended his promotion of a controversial homegrown remedy for COVID-19, stressing that COVID-Organics works really well. He further claimed that if a European country had discovered the remedy, people would not be so skeptical.

“What if this remedy had been discovered by a European country, instead of Madagascar? Would people doubt it so much? I don’t think so,” the president told FRANCE 24’s Marc Perelman and RFI’s Christophe Boisbouvier.

“What is the problem with COVID-Organics, really? Could it be that this product comes from Africa? Could it be that it’s not OK for a country like Madagascar, which is the 63rd poorest country in the world… to have come up with (this formula) that can help save the world?” asked Rajoelina, who claims the infusion cures patients within ten days.

“No one will stop us from moving forward – not a country, not an organization,” Rajoelina said in response to the WHO’s concerns, and added the proof of the tonic’s efficacy was in the “healing” of “our patients”, calling it a “preventive and curative remedy,” according to the report.

In a similar argument, Dr. Charles Andrianjara, Malagasy Institute of Applied Research (IMRA) Director General pointed out straight “COVID-Organics will be used as prophylaxis that is for prevention, but clinical observations have shown a trend towards its effectiveness in curative treatment.”

In a response to an email media query, an official at the presidency wrote:

“We are committed to taking the traditional therapies through the same clinical trials as other medication. It’s about time to participate and not only observe. As the opportunity emerges, we have the resources to use as a remedy against coronavirus, and to save lives. We need to think how to use it productively and profitably now.”

The global scientific community has become curious. Scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute in Potsdam are among a group of researchers from Germany and Denmark collaborating with the United States company, ArtemiLife, to explore whether the Artemisia plant can really be used against the coronavirus. “It is the first study in which scientists are investigating the function of these plant substances in connection with COVID-19,” the Head of the Study Group, Peter Seeberger, said in an interview with DW.

On April 28, while in a video conference with Foreign Ministers from Brazil, China, Russia and South Africa, the Indian Foreign Affairs Minister, Dr. Subrahmanyam Jaishankar noted that the pandemic not only poses a great risk to the health and well-being of humanity but also severely impacts on the global economy.

According to Jaishankar, India is providing pharma assistance to nearly 85 countries, including many countries in Africa, to support their response to the pandemic, and emphasized the need to provide support to businesses, especially small and medium scale enterprises, and the efficacy of traditional medicine systems.

Chinese are highly sensitive to opportunities, leverage indiscriminately to almost all sectors in Africa. Now China is showing interest in adopting and collaborating with Madagascar’s herbal initiative. China has already promised to scale up its assistance to Africa by creating a health care initiative that allow African countries to access funds to address challenges in the healthcare delivery. It plans to build the headquarters of the African Center for Disease Control and Prevention.

One area that presents the world with opportunity, and has be explored in the search for treatment is the field of herbal medicine. So far, many countries are adopting supportive care and non-specific treatment options to relieve patient symptoms. Chinese traditional medical practices in China and herbal preparation from Madagascar raise hopes for COVID-19. The potential here gives credence for consideration as traditional and herbal remedy for COVID- 19, argued Justice Ray Prah from the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology (KNUST).

Madagascar’s scientific initiative has drawn wide criticisms, instead of encouragement and support. The World Health Organization (WHO), established to monitor and tackle global health problems, research for innovative ways to ensure health of people, was rather the first to punch Madagascar. It warns on its website that there is “no evidence to suggest that COVID-19 can be prevented or treated with products made from Artemisia-based plant material.” The officials explained that the local African brew safety and effectiveness have not been assessed internationally, nor has any data from trials been published in peer-reviewed studies. Mainstream scientists have warned of the potential risk from consumption of untested herbal brews.

The African Union (AU), Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have also made similar claims and said they would only support and endorse products that proved effective through scientific study. But, the African Union, all African Governments and Regional Organizations have to get committed to taking “traditional therapies” through the same clinical trials as any other medication. It is worth to say that it is necessary to make collective or continental efforts toward finding a remedy against coronavirus.

African leaders have to understand that an effective COVID-19 vaccine, if it ever arrives, has to be treated as a public good for the whole of the global society, but at a cost not as a humanitarian aid. Acknowledging that profit-motivated global monopolies and market speculators in the health sector will nevertheless use the chance to their advantage. The combination of national self-interest and pressure for the pharmaceutical industry to make a profit is already triggering a geopolitical bust up over who actually gets access to the vaccine first.

Several media reports said an increasing number of African countries are opting for the COVID-Organics. About 10 African leaders have, already ordered for it since its launch in April. The countries include Chad, Comoros Islands, Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Equatorial Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Niger, Togo and United Republic of Tanzania.

With COVID-19, Africa has to explore its own resources. African countries and the African Union (AU) have to reinforce scientific cooperation among its member states so that the continent can be ready for quick and concerted efforts to deal with unexpected health crises such as coronavirus, recently argued Dr Aminata Touré, former Prime Minister of Senegal and currently President of the Economic, Social and Environmental Council in Dakar, Senegal.

It is certainly too soon to draw some lessons on the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic since it continues to dramatically affect significant segments of the world population and still remains a puzzle, an enigma for the world scientific community. Some African governments, at different levels, have mobilized their resources and expertise, elaborated innovative strategies and carried out bold and strategies to contain the spread of the coronavirus, she explained.

“The African Union has to reinforce the scientific cooperation among its member states in order to ensure our common health sovereignty. This is urgent today, to put in place a genuine scientific partnership between our African universities so that we can identify anticipatory and preventive therapeutic and pharmaceutical solutions to human suffering. We must actively encourage the African scientific diaspora to build solid cooperation, exchange network systems with our counterparts from the continent in order to build African centers of research and laboratory excellence,” suggested Touré.

Touré explicitly concluded that only these would be capable of helping to inspire widely recognized African initiatives on the cutting edge of research and development for medicinal and vaccine cures. This is the true path to health sovereignty.

Nearly a quarter of a billion people across Africa will catch coronavirus during the first year of the pandemic, the World Health Organization has said in a new study published in the British Medical Journal. The study further warns that 190,000 Africans could die of COVID-19 in the first 12 months of the pandemic unless urgent action is taken.

According to the latest figures from the WHO, Africa has more than 60,000 cases of COVID-19, which implies that Africa has been spared the worst of the pandemic. Experts say that the low number of tests in Africa is certainly hiding the true scale of the crisis. The African countries most affected by the pandemic included South Africa and Maghreb countries of Algeria, Egypt, and Morocco. Ghana and Nigeria have disturbing infected numbers in West Africa.

Thirty-five (35) African countries have each recorded less than a thousand cases. Eritrea is among a handful of African countries that have not recorded deaths as of May 15, others are Madagascar, Central Africa Republic, Mozambique, Namibia, Seychelles, Lesotho, Rwanda and Uganda. Mauritius declared total recoveries (332) from coronavirus infections (332) as of May 11.

Madagascar reported no deaths. Out 238 cases, it claimed 126 active and 112 have recovered. Madagascar’s natural resources include a variety of agricultural and mineral products. Its major health infrastructure, in poor conditions, similar to many African countries. Madagascar, located in southern Africa, has 26.3 million population and belongs to the group of least developed countries, according to the United Nations. It is a member of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and African Union (AU).

*

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

All images in this article are from the author

There’s a growing consensus among Russia’s leading experts that International Relations are increasingly characterized by what they’ve termed the “new bipolarity” that’s emerging out of World War C, and it’s within this global context that the continued improvement of Russian-Pakistani relations can ensure that Moscow is able to fulfill its grand strategy of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in Eurasia.

The Valdai Club: Russia’s Policymaking Vanguard

The countless paradigm-changing processes that have been unleashed across the world as a result of this year’s COVID-19 outbreak can be referred to as World War C because their collective impact on International Relations is expected to be just as powerful as that of the two World Wars. There’s a growing consensus among Russia’s leading experts that the emerging international system will no longer be multipolar like was earlier anticipated, but bipolar, with practically everything defined to one degree or another by the global competition between the US and China. This was most recently expressed during an online discussion that the Valdai Club, one of Russia’s most prestigious think tanks, held with India’s equally prestigious Observer Research Foundation last week titled “Russia and India: How Not to Fall Under the Grindstone of Others’ Rivalries“. Russia’s reputable and publicly financed TASS international media outlet reported on its outcome in an article titled “Russia, India must avoid involvement in China-US standoff, says expert“, which quoted some of the most significant insight shared by several of the participants.

The “New Bipolarity” Gives Birth To The “Neo-NAM”

Valdai Club research director Fyodor Lukyanov is reported to have said the following:

“We should by all means stay away from the flywheel of the US-Chinese confrontation, which is gaining momentum. One of the tasks of Russia’s foreign policy in the foreseeable future will be to accurately build a system of counterbalances that would on the one hand prevent us from being involved in this confrontation, and on the other hand, enable us to use the fact that there are some other countries that have absolutely no intention to participate in it. Their interests differ, but also their interests may coincide in different ways. There is a common task of positioning oneself in the new world in a new way. I think that India and Russia can play the role of flagships.”

Vasily Kashin, a senior research fellow at the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of the Far East, said that:

“What makes the role of Russia and India so special is that the outcome of the US-Chinese standoff will depend on them. The key role of Russia and India is more than obvious to many in the United States and China. Our position implies certain opportunities, but it is rather risky at the same time. It will be quite logical for us to step up our political consultations and political coordination and to give thought to practical cooperation guidelines that would enable us to put greater emphasis on bilateral cooperation.”

Although not directly stated, these experts are referring to what their peers have previously described as the “new bipolarity” and the urgent need for Russia to lead a “new Non-Aligned Movement” (which I refer to as the “Neo-NAM”) in response.

Andrey Kortunov, the Director General of Russia’s similarly influential Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), wrote at length about the first-mentioned concept in the following three works, among others:

Alexey Gromyko, the Director General of the Russian Academy of Sciences’ Institute of Europe, described how the “new bipolarity” of the New Cold War differs from the traditional bipolarity of the Old Cold War:

As for the “new Non-Aligned Movement”, this was proposed by Oleg Barabanov a programme director at the Valdai Club, professor at MGIMO University, and professor at the Russian Academy of Sciences — in May 2019:

Alexei Kupriyanov and Alexander Korolev, a researcher at Moscow’s Institute of World Economy and International Relations (IMEMO) and a junior research fellow at the Moscow’s Higher School of Economics respectively, combined the two concepts in September 2019 to propose that Russia and India jointly lead what they termed the “Peaceful Development Movement” to balance between both superpowers:

Elaborating more on their proposal, I co-authored an academic article that was published by Vestnik, the official journal of the Moscow State Institute of International Relations (MGIMO) that’s run by the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs:

India’s “Multi-Alignment” Against China

The idea of Russia and India jointly leading the Neo-NAM in order to “balance” between the American and Chinese superpowers fully aligns with Moscow’s grand strategic vision that I described back in May 2018:

On paper, the Neo-NAM proposal is theoretically sound, but much more difficult to pull off in practice because of India’s unprecedented strategic outreaches to the US in recent years that it unconvincingly describes as “multi-alignment”. This slogan is really just a clever marketing ruse to disguise its de-facto pivot towards the US in pursuit of their shared goal of “containing” China. I’ve written dozens of articles extensively analyzing this development, but here are five of the most relevant, beginning with the one where I first made my bold claim over four years ago and then followed by four of the more recent ones confirming that my initial assessment was indeed correct:

Interestingly, though, this trend hasn’t had any noticeably negative effect on Russian-Indian relations. To the contrary, ties between the two are closer than ever before, which initially seems counterintuitive unless one recognizes that they’re most likely being driven by the same unstated motivation of jointly building the Neo-NAM. This emerging network of partnerships would enable them to better “balance” between the American and Chinese superpowers, relying on one another as counterweights to those two world leaders with the intent of collectively pooling their diplomatic and other resources in the direction of helping others more confidently do the same under their aegis:

Restoring “Balance” To Russia’s “Balancing” Act

India is clearly leveraging its strategic partnerships with the US and Russia to “balance” China, evidently not caring anymore at this point whether Beijing perceives it to be a hostile development or not. Russia, however, doesn’t intend for its recent outreaches towards India to be perceived as threatening China’s interests since it fears the inadvertent emergence of a “security dilemma” between it and its largest Asian neighbor that could be exploited by third parties and thus ultimately prove to be mutually detrimental. Nevertheless, as it stands, Russia’s “balancing” act is becoming increasingly unbalanced in favor of India, as I wrote about here:

Russia arguably cannot afford to continue along the present trajectory of tilting much closer to India at what’s being perceived to be China’s expense, hence why it must urgently recalibrate its “balancing” act. This can theoretically be accomplished through the successful creation of the Neo-NAM, though it’ll require a bit than just that in practice in order to convince China that Russia hasn’t become India’s “junior partner” in “containing” the People’s Republic. Russia must therefore retain its hard-earned trust with China simultaneously with preserving its strategic autonomy vis-a-vis India.

The second-mentioned objective is extremely significant given India’s de-facto pivot towards the US, which could potentially see New Delhi “dumping” Moscow in the worst-case scenario if the latter is regarded (possibly as a result of Washington’s lobbying efforts) as having outlived its strategic utility to the South Asian state. After all, the very concept of “balancing” is a natural outcome of the Neo-Realist theory of International Relations which emphasizes the predominance of ever-changing interests in an anarchic international system, so Russia would do well to “balance” India with someone else the same as India is “balancing” it with the US in order to retain “strategic parity” — and therefore stability — within the emerging Neo-NAM so as to offset that scenario.

The solution to the dual dilemmas of Russia retaining trust with China simultaneously with preserving its strategic autonomy vis-a-vis India is for Moscow to continue to improve its relations with the global pivot state of Pakistan. I first proposed this in my November 2019 article about “India’s RCEP Refusal, Russia’s Eurasian Vision, And Next Week’s BRICS Summit“, which built upon the extensive work that I’ve done over the years on the topic of their bilateral relations. For the convenience of those readers who haven’t been following my work all that closely during this time or aren’t even familiar with it to begin with, here are a few useful links:

In short, Russia can use its rapidly expanding relations with Pakistan to perfect its “balancing” act between China and India, just like Pakistan can use them for the purpose of perfecting its own “balancing” act between China and the US. Their cooperation can take the physical form of the N-CPEC+ trade corridor for connecting Russia to the Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean via Pakistan after transiting through Central Asia and Afghanistan, which also opens up those two aforementioned markets and Russia’s to Pakistan. Russia and Pakistan are each other’s keys to perfecting their respective “balancing” acts, which therefore grants them pivotal global significance.

Concluding Thoughts

The New Cold War between the American and Chinese superpowers, which was already unfolding prior to the onset of World War C but was drastically accelerated by it, has led to the emergence of what Russian experts are describing as the “new bipolarity”. This state of international affairs provides the perfect environment in which the Eurasian Great Power can pursue its grand strategic objective of becoming the supreme “balancing” force in the supercontinent, though provided that its relevant policies are properly practiced. For that to happen, the joint creation of a Neo-NAM with India isn’t enough since that development might in and of itself be perceived very negatively by China and could subsequently provoke an unintended “security dilemma”. In addition, Russia also risks becoming India’s “junior partner”, which would put it in a very disadvantageous position if that pro-American South Asian state decides to “dump” it in the future (possibly as a result of Washington’s lobbying) and at sometime after Moscow might have inadvertently burned some of its bridges with Beijing. Russia’s dilemma is therefore twofold: retain its hard-earned trust with China simultaneously with preserving its strategic autonomy vis-a-vis India.

The solution to this seemingly unsolvable problem is simple enough, and it’s for Russia to continue improving its relations with Pakistan. The global pivot state is also attempting to “balance” between the American and Chinese superpowers, just like Russia is, and their rapidly expanding relations with one another send important signals to India and China. New Delhi sees that Moscow has a regional alternative in the event that India moves too close to the US at Russia’s perceived expense, just like Beijing sees that Russia is strengthening ties with the host country of the Belt & Road Initiative’s (BRI) flagship project of the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that China proudly describes as its “iron brother“. The expected outcome is that India would be disinclined to upset the “strategic parity” that it has with Russia in the emerging Neo-NAM out of fear that its partner might pivot towards Pakistan in response, while China would be reassured of Russia’s neutral “balancing” intentions by virtue of the fact that it’s prioritizing strategic relations with Beijing’s South Asian ally. Seeing as how Russian-Pakistani relations are the fulcrum upon which these complex “balancing” acts are being practiced, this axis can therefore be regarded as among the most strategically significant anywhere in the world in the context of the “new bipolarity”.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Even during a major public health crisis compounded by economic collapse — a domestic perfect storm — the Trump regime continues waging war on China by other means, including its blame game, wanting Beijing held responsible for its own failures.

There’s no end of what’s going on in prospect. The harsher unacceptable US policies become, the greater the negative blowback.

Last May, the Trump regime blacklisted Chinese tech giant Huawei and its 70 affiliates from the US market on the phony pretext of preventing the company from “potentially undermin(ing) US national security.”

At stake is the race to roll out 5G technology in Western and world markets, Huawei way ahead of competitors.

Trillions of dollars of economic value are up for grabs. The Trump regime wants imports of Chinese tech products restricted or blocked.

Trump also banned US companies from using information and communications technology from any source his regime calls a threat to US national security.

US tech companies Intel, Google, Qualcomm and others suspended sales to Huawei.

Last year, Beijing warned US tech companies they’ll face “dire consequences” if they comply with the Trump regime’s ban to cut Huawei out of the global supply chain.

On Friday, Trump’s Commerce Department imposed further restrictions on the company, banning sales of US software and technology used to develop and produce semiconductors.

The new move aims to prevent Huawei from obtaining US technology from domestic and offshore sources that incorporate technology from US firms, wanting Huawei cut off from US high tech products to produce its own and compete with corporate America effectively.

Separately, Trump’s Commerce Department said it’ll extend a temporary license that lets US tech companies sell certain non-critical products to Huawei for another 90 days through late August — for the last time.

At the same time, the Trump regime has been pressuring other countries to cut off normal business relations with Huawei with limited results at best.

Germany, Britain and other nations value access to Huawei’s technology.

In response to the Trump regime’s tightened restrictions, China’s Foreign Ministry denounced what it called the destruction of “global manufacturing, supply and value chains,” adding:

Beijing “firmly uphold(s) Chinese firms’ legitimate and legal rights and interests.”

“We urge the US side to immediately stop its unreasonable suppression of Huawei and Chinese enterprises.”

The only language the US understands is toughness. Urging and diplomatic efforts accomplish nothing.

According to China’s Global Times, citing an unnamed government source, Beijing will target Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco and Boeing in retaliation against the latest hostile Trump regime action.

These and other US companies may be added to China’s “unreliable entity list,” their activities to be investigated, purchases of their products perhaps suspended, no action taken so far.

US war on China by other means risks rupturing relations if things go too far.

A far greater risk is direct confrontation between two nations able to smash each other destructively.

China seeks cooperative relations with other countries, confrontation with none.

If the US pushes things too far, Beijing will do whatever it takes to defend its sovereign rights and security.

*

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 CGTN

Lying is a money making activity and lies are commodities. There is a profitable global market for media and public figures committed to spreading disinformation.

Needless to say, “Telling the Truth”, on the other hand, Is Not a Money-Making Proposition. 

With this in mind, can you spare a dollar a day to keep disinformation away? Your support could make the difference and ensure that GlobalResearch.ca is here for a long time to come!

Click to donate:

*     *     *

Guaido Was the ‘Commander in Chief’ of the Failed Mercenary Operation Against Venezuela

By Patricio Zamorano, May 18, 2020

This more complete document confirms what the mercenary and head of SilverCorp, Inc., Jordan Goudreau, had already revealed to the media: the agreement was aimed at “planning and executing an operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolas Maduro (heretoafter “Primary Objective”) remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaido.”

Britain Warned Against ‘Coup-mongering’ in Venezuela After Embassy Discovery

By Steve Sweeney, May 18, 2020

Venezuela has warned Britain against “coup-mongering” after the discovery of a “Venezuelan reconstruction unit” in the Foreign Office.

Demanding an urgent explanation, Foreign Minister Jorge Arreeazalodged a formal complaint with ambassador Duncan Hill, who the minister said confirmed the existence of the unit and “tried to justify the unjustifiable.”

Ottawa’s Ties with Far Right Colombian President Undermines Human Rights Rhetoric Regarding Venezuela

By Yves Engler, May 18, 2020

Still, the leader of the invasion Jordan Goudreau, a veteran of the Canadian military and US special forces, has been remarkably forthright about the involvement of opposition figure Juan Guaidó. A leaked contract between Guaidó’s representative in Florida and Goudreau’s Silvercorp USA describes plans for a multi month occupation force, which after ousting Maduro would “convert to a National Asset Unit that will act under the direction of the [Guaidó] Administration to counter threats to government stability, terror threats and work closely” with other armed forces. Apparently, Goudreau was hoping for a big payday from Venezuela’s opposition. He also had his eyes on the $15 millionbounty Washington put up in March for Maduro’s capture as well as tens of millions dollars for other members of the government.

Canadians Must Ask Questions About the Mercenary Raid on Venezuela

By Nino Pagliccia, May 15, 2020

Details of the failed armed mercenary incursion on Venezuela are surfacing daily thanks to the prompt public information system from Venezuela and scant corporate media reports. The so-called Operation Gideon took off from Colombia on May 3 and was effectively disbanded a few hours later by the prompt action of the Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB) and the Bolivarian National Police’s Special Actions Force (FAES) with substantial help from the civilian population that helped in the capture of mercenaries. At this point about 46 mercenaries, out of an estimated total of 60, have been captured. The search for the others is ongoing.

Revealed: Secretive British Unit Planning for ‘Reconstruction’ of Venezuela

By John McEvoy, May 14, 2020

Over the past 16 months, the UK government has consistently supported Venezuelan opposition figure Juan Guaidó’s attempts to topple the elected government of president Nicolás Maduro.

In late January 2019, for example, the UK Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO) urged the Bank of England to grant Guaidó access to £1.2bn of Venezuelan gold reserves.

The Department for International Development (DFID) has also pledged some £40m of ‘humanitarian assistance’ to Venezuela, but it has refused to reveal where this assistance is going.

US Imperialism’s Decomposition Accelerates: Outsourcing ‘Regime Change’. Mercenary Incursions into Venezuela

By Francisco Dominguez, May 14, 2020

The mercenaries received training in at least three camps in Riohacha, Colombia, had the full support of the Colombian government that has declared explicitly its desire to overthrow the government of President Maduro. All sorts of their logistical needs were resolved by well-known narco-trafficker and paramilitary, Elkin Javier López Torres, alias ‘Doble Rueda’1, leading member of the La Guajira drug cartel, who offered his own ranch to host the mercenaries and financed all Gedeon’s preparation expenses. It would be impossible for Doble Rueda or any other Colombian drug kingpin to happily engage and participate in such a hefty political adventure without the Colombian government approving, supporting and collaborating with it. There is nothing surprising about this: It was the Colombian drug cartel Los Rastrojos who gave armed protection to Juan Guaidó after he illegally crossed the border to attend the Branson-led Cucuta concert in February 2020. After Los Rastrojos took pictures of themselves with Guaidó, handed him over to Colombia’s presidential guard who took him to the presidential helicopter who would fly him to the concert.

Canada and the Coup Attempt Against Venezuela

By Arnold August, May 14, 2020

One of the leaders of the failed coup attempt is Canadian-born Jordan Goudreau, a former US Marine who heads up a private Florida-based security firm called Silvercorps USA. While he did not participate directly in the raid, he did leave behind a video recorded in Colombia in which he and his Venezuelan military partner take credit for the attempted coup. The other two Americans captured also testified to their involvement. The confessions lead us through a labyrinth of corruption and shady deals, from Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó all the way up to Donald Trump.

*

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.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Who Is Behind the Failed Invasion of Venezuela?

Federal Reserve Financial Mismanagement

May 18th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

The misnamed Federal Reserve isn’t federal. It’s owned and controlled by major Wall Street banks.

It serves their interests at the expense of sound economic policy, ignoring its congressional mandate to “promote effectively the goals of maximum employment, stable prices, (low inflation), and moderate long term interest rates.”

The Fed transformed monetary policy into a tool for elevating stock prices to more greatly enrich America’s privileged class at the expense of protracted Depression conditions, high unemployment, and far greater underemployment throughout most of the new millennium.

Its mismanagement is greatly exacerbated by the current economic collapse, a likely protracted economic death cycle for most Americans.

Tens of millions are unemployed. Millions with jobs are working reduced hours for poverty-level pay and few or no benefits.

Countless millions lost healthcare coverage at a time when it’s most needed.

GDP, retail sales, industrial production, unemployment, and other economic data plunged to record low levels while food prices are surging — risking a 2nd epidemic of hunger and malnutrition.

Real unemployment isn’t the phony Labor Department’s 14.7%.

When calculated according to its pre-1990 model, it’s 39.6% and rising, according to economist John Williams.

By comparison, unemployment during the depths of the Great Depression was around 25%.

Noted Wall Street analyst Jeremy Grantham earlier slammed what he called “ruinous” Fed policymaking, saying:

“If I were a benevolent dictator, I would strip the Fed of its” wrongheaded policymaking, “limit(ing) its meddling to attempting to manage inflation,” adding:

“I would limit (Fed) activities to making sure that the economy had a suitable amount of liquidity to function normally – a Goldilocks formula, not too hot, not too cold, just right.”

“I would force it to swear off manipulating asset prices through artificially low rates and asymmetric promises of help in tough times” — the so-called Fed put, believing its policymaking will  reverse stock prices if fall too far.

The so-called Reagan era-established Plunge Protection Team operates by manipulating stock, bond, commodity, and currency markets.

There’s nothing random about market movements, one of many Wall Street myths.

Grantham also explained that abnormally low interest rates for protracted periods encourage destabilizing speculation, adding:

Fed governors know that “low rates and moral hazard encourage higher asset prices and increased speculation, heading, when unchecked, to bad endings,” small investors and ordinary people hurt most.

Policies of Greenspan, Bernanke, Yellen, and now Powell elevated markets to unsustainable bubble levels.

Artificially low interest rates like now also transfer wealth from savers and retirees to corporate America and high-net-worth individuals.

Quantitative easing has nothing to do with reviving economic growth — everything to do with providing investors with low-cost or near-free money for speculation.

It lets corporations buy back shares to artificially elevate their valuations.

Despite decades of Fed policy errors, it failed to learn from its mistakes and correct them.

It’s more off-the-rails under Powell than his predecessors, handing trillions of dollars of virtual free money to Wall Street banks and other corporate favorites at a time when policymaking should focus like a laser on helping ordinary Americans by creating jobs and reviving economic growth.

Instead, neoliberal slow-motion train wreck Fed, White House, and congressional policies keep worsening conditions at a time when vital aid is needed for most Americans.

Instead of contributing to the solution, the Fed is a key part of the problem.

Even the late free market economist Milton Friedman called for abolishing the Fed, saying:

It has a “very poor record, and it’s done more harm than good” by creating financial crises.

“We don’t need the Fed,” he said, adding:

“I have for many years been in favor of replacing the Fed with a computer (that) would print out a specified number of paper dollars” to augment the money supply — the “same number, month after month, week after week, year after year.”

“The Fed has had very few periods of relatively good performance. For most of its history, it’s been a loose cannon on the deck, and not a source of stability.”

“I do not believe the Fed ought to let its monetary policy be determined by the stock market.”

“The Fed ought to devote its attention solely to keeping a relatively stable price level of goods and services” and working for full employment.

Since established in 1913 by federal law at the behest of monied interests, time and again the Fed failed to achieve its mandated obligations.

Sunday on CBS News 60 Minutes, Fed chairman Jerome Powell was interviewed.

Instead of apologizing for failed policies and vowing to change his wasy for the betterment of the economy and ordinary Americans, he falsely blamed dire economic conditions on COVID-19.

He ignored the longtime house of cards US economy. If coronavirus didn’t trigger collapse, it would have been something else — notably because of Fed mismanagement.

He maintained the myth that “the the economy…can start getting better fairly soon,” ignoring its rotting underbelly because of wrongheaded Fed, congressional, and executive branch policymaking.

Rome burns while he, Trump, and congressional leaders pretend otherwise.

At the same time, Powell admitted that recovery “could stretch through the end of next year. We really don’t know.”

He failed to explain that since economic collapse began this year, over 100,000 US small and medium-sized business shut down permanently, millions of jobs gone, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study.

He largely ignored record high plunges of key economic data, notably unemployment that way exceeds the worst of the Great Depression with no near-term prospect for turning things around.

If a second coronavirus outbreak occurs, all bets are off. It could be worse than what’s ongoing, perhaps lasting well into next year or longer — exacerbating a collapsed economy and human misery more greatly than already.

Throughout the 60 Minutes interview, Fed mismanagement was ignored, Powell’s feet not held to the fire.

Nor were the economically harmful policies of his most recent predecessors.

Instead of challenging Powell’s false claim that millions of Americans were only laid off “temporarily,” the deception wasn’t corrected.

Nor was his projected max 20 – 25% unemployment challenged when it’s already near-40%.

Powell also deceptively claimed that “we had a very healthy economy two months ago” — ignoring its house of cards status, a bubble economy burst by a public health crisis.

A litany of misinformation and disinformation was offered viewers throughout the interview.

At no time was Powell’s feet held to the fire.

Nor was anything said about how Wall Street manipulators transformed America into an unprecedented money making racket, facilitated by government collusion at the highest federal, state and local levels — at the expense of the general welfare.

Notably since the neoliberal 90s, ordinary Americans have been scammed of their savings, jobs, homes, and futures to let privileged elites get richer and more powerful.

Money power runs America and the world. The Wall Street owned Fed does it by controlling money, credit and debt, along with manipulating markets for corporate and private enrichment without oversight or supervision.

Fed money printing madness defrauds the public, instead of constructively sustaining prosperous, inflation-free, growth that colonial America enjoyed for a generation — long before the Fed existed.

Markets today work by manipulating them for special interests to profit hugely at the expense of an economy that works for all Americans.

None of the above was discussed during the CBS interview with Powell.

Like most everything aired and published by establishment media on major issues, Sunday’s broadcast was a exercise in mass deception.

Viewers were left uninformed about the economy’s dismal state that’s likely to sustain harder than ever harm times for the vast majority of Americans longterm.

*

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.

More than 250 global artists and writers including rocker Peter Gabriel, director Ken Loach and actor Viggo Mortensen have appealed to Israel to stop the “siege” of Gaza.

The coronavirus epidemic could have a devastating effect in “the world’s largest open-air prison”, the artists said in an online letter.

“Long before the global outbreak of COVID-19 threatened to overwhelm the already devastated healthcare system in Gaza, the UN had predicted that the blockaded coastal strip would be unliveable by 2020,” the letter said.

“With the pandemic, Gaza’s almost two million inhabitants, predominantly refugees, face a mortal threat in the world’s largest open-air prison,” it added.

Other signatories included poet Taha Adnan, Canadian writer Naomi Klein and British group Massive Attack.

The Gaza Strip has been under an Israeli blockade since 2007 when the Islamist movement Hamas took control of the enclave.

Israel argues the measures are necessary to isolate Hamas, considered a terrorist organization by most Western countries.

It says that restrictions on some imports to the coastal strip are designed to deny Hamas materials that could be used to enhance its fighting capabilities.

Israel and Hamas have fought three wars since the group took control of the enclave, but reached a tentative truce in late 2018 that was renewed after successive flare-ups last year.

The Gaza Strip also borders Egypt, which severely restricts movement in and out of the territory.

“Well before the ongoing crisis, Gaza’s hospitals were already stretched to breaking point through lack of essential resources denied by Israel’s siege. Its healthcare system could not cope with the thousands of gunshot wounds, leading to many amputations,“ the artists said.

“Reports of the first cases of coronavirus in densely-populated Gaza are therefore deeply disturbing,“ they said.

“We back Amnesty International’s call on all world governments to impose a military embargo on Israel until it fully complies with its obligations under international law.“

*

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.

Source is AFP

Covid Chaos: From Lockdown to Body Bags

May 18th, 2020 by Rob Woodward

The national Covid strategy managed by the government is now in disarray. The mood in Tory HQ is migrating away from its beloved Brexit leader. The mainstream media are now causing confusion, the country is heading towards chaos.

What is the general public supposed to believe when one mainstream newspaper reports that Covid cases are plunging and another says it’s going in the opposite direction. Another says hospital cases (in the wards) are falling, another says the infection rate (testing) is rising. One reports that Britain is open for business, another reports the second wave will do just as much damage as the first?

The children’s commissioner says the unions should stop squabbling and teachers should get back to work, the British Medical Association has backed the unions and said it’s too dangerous.

All of this reporting is just one day on the front pages.

For the time being, the general public is on the side of the government. The latest voting intentions (CantarPublic) put the Tories at 51 per cent (down 3 points) and Labour at 32 per cent (plus 4 points). Saving jobs and businesses have been widely recognised that without government intervention, ten million people would now be fully unemployed and one million companies would have gone bankrupt. This is, in fact, the number of people out of work right now and the number of businesses that have applied for government loans to save them from collapse.

The entire railway in Britain system has been effectively nationalised. Transport for London has just gone bust and also been nationalised. I hear that members of the TFL board have even been removed and government officials are in charge. Sadiq Khan is blaming the government when in reality TFL was already in big trouble before the pandemic hit Britain.

We are told by the government that the peak of Covid infections and deaths in Britain has been reached and we’re on the way down. And yet, we now hear that the government is expecting a brutal second wave and ordered funeral directors to prepare for 100,000 dead in the autumn.

We are told that deaths from Covid are just over 30,000 when the evidence is there that over 60,000 (Financial Times) have died so far.

We are told by the government that arrivals to airports and ports in Britain will require a 14 day period of quarantine (BBC) – and then told that is not the case (BBC).

We are told the virus will be ‘wiped out’ within weeks in London (The Sun) and yet the infection rate will now increase within weeks (ITV).

Boris Johnson clearly stated to parliament that his government moved swiftly to protect the country’s vulnerable care homes, when, in fact, that did not happen at all (Reuters Exclusive).

This confusion is deliberate. It has been concocted to get the government out of the mess it finds itself in. It is largely the work of Dominic Cummings – a man who believes in chaos theory and that better things can be rebuilt from the rubble and ‘once in a lifetime opportunity”. The confusion allows the government to manoeuvre and provides cover from the evident tracks of failure. So far, the government has moved from blaming individuals to whole organisations. Strategically, the government has now shifted to blaming the entire country by allowing ‘common sense’ to prevail.

The overall strategy has been one of failure. This is because the government are working behind the evidence. They are relentlessly monitoring public opinion, using focus groups and blending societal wide data with aides receiving near-daily updates on the public mood. Instead of acting, the government is reacting.

The governments’ own 50-page Covid Recovery Strategy Document makes clear what actions are required. But the car-crash of chaos has happened.

This collision, of obsessive data tracking of public opinion, says a lot about a government that got into power by deceit but is now in a crisis it can’t manipulate.

It explains Johnson’s team approach and the U.K.’s response to the pandemic.

The car-crash has Tory principles of the free-market, of angry Tory donors and his own ranks banging the desk with clenched fists against what the science says and what a very hesitant public really thinks. Ending the lockdown is good for the backers of Boris but bad in the eyes of the public.

We’ve gone from the certainty of ‘Stay Home’ to the ambiguity of ‘Stay Alert.’ The clear first message has gone to confusion. Charlie Cooper from Politico reports that – “the phrase “Stay Alert’ itself did not emerge from a vacuum. The internal polling is pretty extensive every day,” (said the official). “We get an overnight breakdown of surveys of 2,000 adults. We get stats on how worried people are, people’s perceptions of risk, whether they feel they’re being served by government information, whether we’ve got the balance right between the economy and healthcare, polling on people’s finances, thoughts on the NHS, about social distancing, businesses, workplace, face masks.”

The Johnson government is more concerned about how many people have heard of ‘R’, if more of the public want to wear face coverings in shops; whether people are comfortable about relaxing the two-meter social distancing rule, or about sending their children back to school than they are about the actual science or recommendations from the scientific organisations set up to advise government officials.

The car-crash has revealed something else to the Johnson team of public relations. The general public is now moving to a stage where more than 50 per cent are now becoming traumatised by the knowledge that at least 40,000 people are to die in phase one of the pandemic and that phase two might be as bad.

There are some “libertarians in the party who want us to say that it must be up to any individual to decide their own risk and take part in the economy as they want,’” one influential backbencher and former Cabinet minister said. But “the bulk of the party recognizes the public has been through a very bitter experience and wouldn’t thank us if we relaxed too quickly.”

One senior Tory has said – “People have got to get their heads around the fact that the government is no longer going to be able to tell them exactly what to do. They are going to have to have agency and apply common sense. It stands to reason we’ve got to trust people.”

That’s all very well, but the thinking is that when 50,000 people are officially recorded as having died from Covid, public opinion will reverse, especially if the lockdown is proven to have been lifted to early.

The deliberate manufacture of confusion is no better explained than this. “The truth is that people really understand the message, people understand what ‘Stay Alert’ means.” This is what Health Secretary Matt Hancock told BBC Radio 4’s “Today” program last Tuesday. However, the government knew that only 30 per cent (govdocs pdf) of the public understood it.

Johnson, in his ‘Stay Alert’ speech on Sunday was explicit that it was in the hands of the people to bring the alert level down.  The message was reinforced by a graphic that was aired by every braodcaster in the land.  “As we go, everyone will have a role to play in keeping the R down. By staying alert and following the rules.

The general public is to be blamed for the second wave death count, which may or may not be as bad as the first. That is what everyone is being prepared for. They are effectively being told to ‘take back control.’ In the meantime, Tory hardliners are getting fed up with Boris Johnson. There are rumours in the corridors of power that if things get any worse in the eyes of the public, they will wait and jettison a leader who would have failed when facing a convincing opposition figurehead in the shape of a forensic and intelligent new leader – Keir Starmer. Johnson’s lack of knowledge, dislike of detail, reluctance for hard work and lack of ability at the despatch box may have worked against Corbyn but it is now irritating senior Tories, big donors and people like Rupert Murdoch.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Covid Chaos: From Lockdown to Body Bags

New information divulged this week reveals that Juan Guaidó was designated as “commander and chief” of the mercenary operation that completely unraveled on the shores of Venezuela. The 41 page contract that formed the basis of the already known eight page General Services Agreement was published by the Washington Post[1] this week.

This more complete document confirms what the mercenary and head of SilverCorp, Inc., Jordan Goudreau, had already revealed to the media: the agreement was aimed at “planning and executing an operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolas Maduro (heretoafter “Primary Objective”) remove the current Regime and install the recognized Venezuelan President Juan Guaido.”

The document provides complete information about the money that would be invested (212 million dollars), and the payments and commissions that SilverCorp would receive from Guaidó’s team, which includes Juan José Rendón, Sergio Vergara and attorney Manuel Retureta.

The document also explains the promised retainer of 1.5 million dollars that Goudreau has been complaining about publicly since the failed operation last Sunday, May 3.

What has not been said: information about the operation was published two days before the attack

There is an important detail that the world press has not analysed. One AP article[2] which details the preparations for the attack was published Friday May 1, two days before the attempt to invade Venezuela was launched from Colombia. The article  provides particulars on the presence of three paramilitary groups (deserters from the Venezuelan armed forces and police) in Colombia and explains how this operation had been foiled and aborted. It clearly names Jordan Goudreau, including a profile on the mercenary and many other details about the planned attack. No Colombian nor US authority mobilized to neutralize the illegal paramilitary camps.

This document also appears to confirm that Goudreau, despite the exposure of the planned incursion by the press, still proceeded with the attack, irresponsibly putting at risk the lives of those involved. It also shows that neither US intelligence agencies, nor the Colombian police, nor even Guaidó’s team took action to stop the attack.

One can extrapolate two possible reasons for this. Allowing the operation to move forward, without directly committing to SilverCorp, would show the actual consequences of the operation (whether a success or failure). The operation could also expose the government of Maduro to world criticism if it produced fatalities on one side or the other. What is certain is that all of these scenarios, “whether above or under the table” in the words of Rendón on CNN, were discussed extensively with Guaidó and his advisors with the aim of illegally overthrowing Maduro. Rendón told CNN in Spanish that “they analysed all of the scenarios; alliances with other countries, their own actions, uprisings of people from within, of the soldiers that are there, the eventual use of actors that are outside, retired soldiers. All these scenarios were produced, as the president said well, we are analysing things above and below the table.”[3]

Guaidó was leader of the operations

The most important theme of this story, which the Washington Post does not even mention in its article, is what is described on page 39 of the contract.

Under the title “ATTACHMENT N: CHAIN OF COMMAND,” the document includes the following:

  1. Commander in Chief – President Juan Guaidó
  2. Overall Project Supervisor – Sergio Vergara
  3. Chief Strategist: Juan Jose Rendon
  4. On Site Commander – To be determined

The page is signed by Guaidó’s advisors and there is a large black box that surely hides compromising information about SilverCorp.

Denial is followed by selective recognition

The evidence is very clear that Guaidó’s team has decided to change its strategy. The first reaction of Guaidó was to deny that he was involved in the disastrous operation[4] in the face of the cost of lives of eight mercenaries, former Venezuelan soldiers, and the capture of numerous paramilitaries, including two US former soldiers. Guaidó’s team  however,  publicly acknowledged this week their involvement, but they tried to discredit SilverCorp as if it had acted on its own. Nevertheless Rendón recognized that he had paid 50 thousand dollars to the mercenary company[5] of Florida and that his signature on the document is legitimate.

The big question is what will be the response of the legal authorities in the US and Colombia. So far there has been no arrest, despite the fact that all of the details of the operation and the violations of law committed are clear and irrefutable.

In the coming days it will become evident whether the governments of Trump and Duque in Colombia opt for the strategy of impunity. This scandal without doubt weakens in an important way the illegal policy of sanctions and the dirty campaign supported by the hard-line Venezuelan opposition that has broken with the strategy of dialogue that other more moderate anti-Chavista sectors continue to advance in Caracas.

*

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.

Translation made from the original Spanish by Fred Mills, academic and Co-Director of COHA

Notes

[1] “From a Miami condo to the Veenzuelan coast, how a plan to ‘capture’ Maduro went rogue”, https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/from-a-miami-condo-to-the-venezuelan-coast-how-a-plan-to-capture-maduro-went-rogue/2020/05/06/046222bc-8e4a-11ea-9322-a29e75effc93_story.html

[2] “Ex-Green Beret led failed attempt to oust Venezuela’s Maduro”, https://apnews.com/79346b4e428676424c0e5669c80fc310

[3] “J.J. Rendón habla sobre la Operación Gedeón en Conclusiones de CNN en Español”, https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2020/05/07/j-j-rendon-habla-sobre-la-operacion-gedeon-en-conclusiones-de-cnn-en-espanol/

[4] “Guaidó niega vínculos con intento de invasión en Venezuela”, https://www.chicagotribune.com/espanol/sns-es-coronavirus-guaido-niega-vinculo-intento-invasion-venezuela-20200505-uiditc4i6nbdda3nyx24n26zee-story.html

[5] “J.J. Rendón habla sobre la Operación Gedeón en Conclusiones de CNN en Español”, https://cnnespanol.cnn.com/2020/05/07/j-j-rendon-habla-sobre-la-operacion-gedeon-en-conclusiones-de-cnn-en-espanol/

Venezuela has warned Britain against “coup-mongering” after the discovery of a “Venezuelan reconstruction unit” in the Foreign Office.

Demanding an urgent explanation, Foreign Minister Jorge Arreeaza lodged a formal complaint with ambassador Duncan Hill, who the minister said confirmed the existence of the unit and “tried to justify the unjustifiable.”

“We demand that [the UK] abandon Washington’s coup-mongering plans and any destabilising initiative. We demand respect for our sovereignty and the purposes and principle of the UN charter,” Mr Arreaza said.

The unit, headed by former UK ambassador to Venezuala John Saville, is believed to be part of plans to “rebuild” Venezuela and promote British interests after the removal of democratically elected President Nicolas Maduro and the Bolivarian government.

A botched coup attempt involving former US Green Berets working for US-based private security company Silvercorp was foiled at the beginning of May as they tried to enter Venezuela from neighbouring Colombia.

The contract, seen by the Morning Star, detailed plans to kidnap Mr Maduro and replace him with the opposition politician Juan Guaido, who is alleged to have funded the plot.

Mr Maduro insisted that the coup attempt was authorised by US President Donald Trump, who has previously refused to rule out military intervention to topple the Bolivarian leader.

Last month Washington placed a $15 million (£12.37m) bounty on Mr Maduro’s head and mobilised warships off the coast of Venezuela in scenes reminiscent of when former CIA asset General Manuel Noriega was removed from power in Panama in 1989.

Britain, which recognises Mr Guaido’s claim to the Venezuelan presidency, has a history of meddling in the country.

Last year the British government was forced to deny allegations that it was using a military base in Guyana to train armed militias to overthrow the Venezuelan government.

Questions were posed by the Morning Star after Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said last August that dozens of Venezuelans had arrived at a clandestine British military base in Guyana.

She said they would “undergo training in reconnaissance and sabotage teams” and would “infiltrate Venezuela, destabilise the situation there and commit various acts, including extremist and terrorist attacks.”

A Freedom of Information request by the Star last year also exposed that the British government was funding opposition media organisations and “yellow unions” under the guise of supporting democracy.

The Foreign Office confirmed that it was bankrolling three “Freedom of Expression” projects in Venezuela – Consorcio Informativo (Information Collective), the Sindicato Nacional de Trabajadores de la Prensa (National Union of Press Workers) and the Instituto Radiofonico Fe y Alegria (Radiophonic Institute of Faith and Joy).

All three are known opposition groups committed to the overthrow of the Venezuelan government and regularly produce anti-Maduro propaganda.

*

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.

Tehran ordered Shia factions to back the prime minister in return for Washington ‘looking the other way’ over release of assets targeted by sanctions, Iraqi officials tell MEE

***

The nomination of Mustafa al-Kadhimi as Iraqi prime minister was the result of a horse trade between the US and Iran in which Tehran agreed to back the former intelligence chief in return for an unfreezing of some of its assets targeted by sanctions, senior Iraqi political sources have told Middle East Eye.

The US policy of exerting “maximum pressure” on Iran will not change, but the US agreed to de-escalate militarily in the Gulf and to “look the other way” if a third-party country in Europe released some of the Iranian money frozen when sanctions were applied, the Iraqi sources said.

As recently as 4 March, Kadhimi’s candidacy for the premiership was called a “declaration of war on the Iraqi people” by the top commander of the pro-Iranian Kataib Hezbollah militia, Abu Ali al-Askari.

Askari accused Kadhimi of involvement in the US drone strikes in January which killed top Iranian general Qassem Soleimani and influential militia leader Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, a charge explicitly denied by Iraq’s Intelligence Service (INIS).

Other Shia militia and political leaders also vociferously opposed Kadhimi’s nomination and yet last week his new government was installed with majority support in Iraq’s parliament.

Kataib Hezbollah continued to threaten Kadhimi personally but other Shia political factions influenced by Iran allowed his nomination to go ahead.

Iraqi sources say that a behind-the-scenes deal between Washington and Tehran explains the sudden U-turn, with Iran agreeing to lean on the Shia factions it influences in return for some relief from economically crippling US sanctions with the unfreezing of some assets in Europe.

Iraqi sources declined to say where Iranian assets would be unfrozen, but pointed to a decision last month by a court in Luxembourg to block a US request to transfer $1.6bn in Iranian assets to victims of the 9/11 attacks in a case dating back to 2012.

The Iranian assets are held by a Luxembourg-based clearing house, Clearstream, owned by Deutsche Boerse. The court decision was hailed by Iranian President Hassan Rouhani who said the country had won a legal victory over the assets that had long been frozen in Luxembourg at Washington’s request.

“The Americans managed to get their man, and the Iranians to get their money,” said one source with knowledge of the secret deal.

“The economic hardship that Iranians have faced, and all the difficulties they faced after the assassination of Qassem Soleimani, has hit them hard. There were negotiations. The deal ended with the Iranians accepting this guy [Kadhimi] and they told their allies to vote for him.”

Easing of Gulf tensions

Kadhimi was asked in April to form the government after failed attempts to first install Mohammed Tawfiq Allawi and then Adnan al-Zurfi as prime minister, following the resignation of Adel Abdul Mahdi last November over the killing of protesters by Iraqi security forces.

In March, a senior source in Tehran told MEE that the US had agreed to grant waivers allowing some countries to release Iranian assets without facing punitive measures to help Iran to buy medical supplies to fight the coronavirus outbreak.

“The efforts of some countries have led to the release of some of the Iranian central bank’s money,” he said.

“Those countries will receive a sanctions waiver [for releasing Iran’s frozen assets], this has been granted and we are following this issue.”

He added:

“The unfreezing of Iranian central bank money will decrease pressure regarding the lack of foreign exchange for importing medication and life necessities.”

The Iranian source denied then that an official deal had been struck between Tehran and Washington. The report was also denied by the US State Department.

The Iraqi sources said that a precedent for the current agreement was set when Nouri al-Maliki was backed for a second term as prime minister by both Washington and Tehran, after nine months of political conflict following the victory of the al-Iraqqiya bloc in 2010 elections.

The sources said that the US’s withdrawal of Patriot missiles from Saudi Arabia last week and a lowering of military tensions in the Gulf was part of the deal with Tehran.

“As a consequence of this, to reduce the tension in the Gulf, there was a pullout of the Patriots. More importantly, the US agreed to give a green light to allow for Europe to release some of the frozen assets for the Iranians. The US will not object to the release of some of the frozen assets. They will look the other way,” the source said.

Track record

Kadhimi has a track record of working with US intelligence services, which dates back to his association with Ahmed Chalabi, the late Iraqi politician who provided US President George W. Bush with false reports about Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction before the invasion of Iraq in 2003.

A former journalist and editor with Al Monitor news website, whose real name is Mustafa Abd al-Latif, Kadhimi became head of intelligence services under the premiership of Haider al-Abadi.

Kadhimi

Kadhimi (C), with Iraqi officials during a visit to Saudi Arabia in November 2018 (SPA)

In 2018, he attended a meeting in Washington with Mike Pompeo, who was then head of the CIA, and Khalid bin Ali al-Humaidan, the head of Saudi intelligence, to discuss measures to support the candidacy of Abadi and counter Iranian backed candidates. That effort failed.

MEE phoned Kadhimi’s office repeatedly for comment on this story but our calls went unanswered.

The possibility of a deal between the US and Iran over Kadhimi has been commented on in the Arab media.

The London-based Al-Quds Al-Arabi newspaper said in an editorial that the Iraqi parliament’s approval for the new government was important, but that it was an Iranian-American deal which was the “decisive matter that opens the way for the parliamentarians’ agreement, and then the regional and world agreement”.

In The Arab newspaper, also published in London, Ibrahim al-Zubaidi wrote: ”As you saw and you see, [political currents] agreed to pass it in parliament, as if nothing had happened, only when the last orders and instructions were issued from the [Iranian] embassy in Baghdad, or from the embassy of Uncle Donald Trump. Theatrics you would not have believed.”

Kadhimi’s nomination has been publicly welcomed in both Washington and Tehran.

Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said Iran would “be with the government with all our might to help it progress and establish stability”, according to a statement on the Iranian foreign affairs ministry website.

Meanwhile, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo last month announced details of a proposed strategic dialogue with the Iraqi government that is set to take place in June. Pompeo said that “all strategic issues” would be on the agenda at the talks.

Officials in Washington and Tehran played down reports of a deal over Iraq.

A State Department spokesperson dismissed the reports as “absurd”.

“We respect Iraq’s sovereignty and have consistently advocated for Iran to do so as well and end its interference in their internal matters,” the spokesperson told MEE.

The Iranian foreign ministry did not respond to a request for comment but an Iranian official approached by MEE said he had not heard of any deal, and described it as “unlikely”.

Significantly, the first call Kadhimi got after his nomination was from the crown prince of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Salman, who asked the new Iraqi prime minister to restart mediation with Iran, the sources said.

Although bin Salman will consider Kadhimi closer to him than any other candidates, the restart of a dialogue between Washington and Tehran is not strategically good news for Saudi Arabia. Secret negotiations by Oman to release an American prisoner in Iran ended up with the nuclear deal between Iran and the US under Barack Obama.

Along with the unilateral withdrawal of US-operated Patriot missiles, the crown prince is coming under fresh US pressure to end the three-year blockade on Qatar. To this end, the emir of Kuwait sent a minister to Qatar to reopen mediation efforts.

“While Trump will claim credit for his maximum pressure policies on Iran, the fact is US policy in the Gulf, the Saudi campaign in Yemen which it can no longer afford, and the pressures on Iran – all three powers are in trouble. And this is something for the Saudis to consider: the collapse of a US-based strategy to push back on Iran. Trump will not mind negotiating a new nuclear deal with Iran, just as long as it has got his name on it,” said one Iraqi official.

This may lead to negotiations resulting in further agreements between Washington and Tehran, the Iraqi official added.

*

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 public domain

Iran – Powerful and Determined

May 18th, 2020 by Andre Vltchek

I refuse to describe Iran as a victim. It is not. It is one of the most influential and strong-minded nations on Earth.

When facing mortal danger, its people unite, harden themselves and get ready to face invaders, no matter how threatening they might be.

Iran is home to one of the oldest and deepest cultures in the world, and it’s precisely this culture that helps Iranian people to survive the most frightening moments.

And one such moment is sadly, right now.

***

US battleships are sailing right next to the Iranian territorial waters. One mistake, one false move, and war could erupt, engulfing the entire region in flames. Iran is a proud nation, and it takes its independence extremely seriously.

Right now, the country is facing one of the most unjust embargos in human history. It is being punished for nothing; or more precisely, for sticking to all the points of the agreement called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) also known as The Iran Nuclear Deal, which it signed in 2015 with China, France, Russia, United Kingdom, United States—plus Germany, and which the United States abandoned, without providing any logical explanation. While not particularly happy about the U.S. withdrawal; Germany, France and U.K. are doing all they can not to anger their senior partner, and its leaders in Washington.

Add COVID-19, and inability of the country, due to sanctions, to buy medical equipment, at least in the West, and you have the perfect scenario for a national calamity and even for imminent collapse.

Or more precisely, anywhere else this would be the case, but not in Iran!

After receiving terrible blows from the West, one after another, Iran has never fallen to its knees. It has never abandoned its internationalist and socialist course (socialist, with Iranian characteristics), and it has preserved its dignity.

What it has managed to achieve is amazing, nothing short of heroic, given the circumstances.

***

If you look at the latest, 2019 HDI (Human Development Index, compiled and published by the UNDP), Iran is in the High Human Development bracket, and only 3 steps from the Highest Human Development group of countries. Which is thoroughly amazing, given the above-mentioned sanctions, embargos and constant military intimidations.

Whenever I visit Iran, I am astonished by its public spaces, cultural institutions, public transportation, fountains, comfortable trains… The country is functioning well, showing incredible grace under pressure. Its television channel – PressTV – is one of the most important anti-imperialist news outlets in the world. I don’t see extreme misery, or homelessness, there. Iranians are polite, well-educated and proud. They have to deal with complex exchange rates, which I do not understand. Whenever I pay in a café or taxi, I simply extend my hand full of local currency, and I never get cheated. Things are solid and reassuring there; I feel it and really appreciate it.

Iran is an internationalist country. Not unlike Cuba or Venezuela, who are its long-term allies. Even when injured, itself, it helps others, those who need solidarity even more. This can never be forgotten, particularly in places like Latin America, or Syria.

Hezbollah, Iran’s close ally in the Middle East, is fighting the most dangerous terrorist groups in Syria; those groups that have been injected there by the West, but also by Washington’s allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Turkey. But Hezbollah is also essentially the only social net for the poor in Syria’s neighbor – Lebanon. And not only for the Shi’a Muslims, but also for the disadvantaged Sunni citizens, for the Christians, and non-believers. Whoever is destitute in Lebanon, comes to Hezbollah, for assistance. I was based in Beirut for five years, and I know what I am talking about. All this, while the Lebanese elites are burning money in Paris, in Nice, in the nightclubs of Beirut, driving their lavish cars through the slums. And the more Iran and Hezbollah help the region, the more frustrated, outraged and aggressive the West gets.

Look at Palestine. When it comes to the liberation of the Palestinian people from the long and brutal Israeli occupation, the Gulf countries just talk and talk. In the end, some of them side with the West and Israel. The closest, the most determined allies of the long-suffering Palestinian people in the region, are, without doubt, Iran and Syria. That, everybody in the Middle East, knows, and it is only “a secret” to Westerners.

In Afghanistan, particularly in Herat, I witnessed long lines of Afghan people in front of the Iranian consulate. Devastated by the NATO occupation, Afghanistan is in despair, rated as a country with the shortest life expectancy in Asia, and the lowest Human Development Index (HDI) on the Asian continent. Tens of thousands of the Afghan people have been travelling to Iran in search of jobs. Without Iran, Herat would most likely starve to death. And now, Iran is searching for ways, (together with China and Russia), how to help Afghanistan to find a political solution, and send the NATO forces packing.

For years, all the Socialist countries of Latin America, could always rely on Iran. Be it Bolivia, before the legitimate government of Evo Morales was overthrown, or Cuba and especially Venezuela. Iran has been building social housing, it was helping with oil technology, and with many other social essentials.

Iraq and Iran, two great nations, in the past brutally pitched against each other by Washington, are once again cooperating, working together. The Western occupation has already thoroughly ruined Iraq (as it has ruined Afghanistan), historically one of the richest countries in the region. However, more positively Iran gets involved in neighboring Iraq, the more aggressively the West behaves. It now habitually crosses all the lines of acceptable behavior. In January 2020, a U.S. drone strike murdered Iran’s national hero, General Quasem Soleimani, while he was travelling right near the Baghdad International Airport.

For years now, Iran has been standing shoulder to shoulder with Russia, China, Syria, Venezuela and Cuba; the nations which are openly and bravely deterring the aggression and brutality of Western imperialism.

It seems that no matter what the West tries to do, Iran cannot be broken. Despite the embargos and sanctions, it demonstrates that it is capable of producing and shooting satellites into space, or of producing its own medical equipment to combat the COVID-19 pandemic. While the nation creates its great scientific and technological achievements, Iranian filmmakers keep producing their cinematic masterpieces. What a nation!

Unfortunately, all this is hidden from the eyes and ears of the public, both in the West, and in the client states. There, Iran is portrayed as a “threat”.

***

Look at this irony. On April 30, 2020, Reuters released a report about the German move to ban Hezbollah:

“Last December, Germany’s parliament approved a motion urging Chancellor Angela Merkel’s government to ban all activities by Hezbollah on German soil, citing its “terrorist activities” especially in Syria.

On a trip to Berlin last year, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said he hoped Germany would follow Britain in banning Hezbollah. Britain introduced legislation in February of last year that classified Hezbollah as a terrorist organization.”

When the West says “Terrorist activities, especially in Syria”, what it really means is “fighting the terrorism injected by the West and its allies, into Syria”. Everything is twisted, perverted and turned upside-down by the propaganda outlets operating out of the United States, Europe, Israel and the Gulf.

“Terrorist activities” outside Syria, also means supporting the Palestinian struggle for independence, as well as at least moral support for Syria, in its attempts to regain the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights, an occupation which has never been recognized, even by the United Nations. It also means helping Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as Latin American countries, which are brutalized (or should we say ‘terrorized’), relentlessly, by Washington and its allies.

This is precisely the logic and lexicon which was used by German propagandists during WWII, to describe resistance forces in its colonies. Freedom fighters and partisans were labeled as terrorists, in France, Yugoslavia, Ukraine.

***

Even the otherwise mainstream newspaper – The Independent – published on May 1, 2020 a report critical of the bizarre US scheming against Iran:

“The United States is pushing ahead with a scheme to extend a United Nations arms embargo on Iran that is due to be lifted in October as part of the nuclear deal that Washington abandoned two years ago.

To force the extension, Washington will attempt to lobby the Security Council to continue the arms embargo, which bars weapons sales to or from Iran.

But it also is making what legal experts and diplomats describe as a convoluted argument that it is still part of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action it left, and hence able to use one of its provisions to “snapback” the embargo.”

This weird political somersault has been, according to The Independent, criticized even by one of Washington’s allies, the French President Emmanuel Macron:

“China and Russia have already vowed to use any means to block the US plan. France’s Emmanuel Macron has been working behind the scenes to sabotage the Trump scheme because of what it sees as an attempt by the White House to destroy international legal norms, said a well-placed European diplomat.”

France, the UK, Germany and other EU countries are not necessarily happy with Washington’s foreign policy towards Iran, but their outrage is far from being moral indignation. Iran is big and it is far from being poor. European companies are losing billions of euros in trade, because of the sanctions. For instance, in the recent past, two Iranian airlines were ready to purchase large numbers of brand-new Airbus aircraft, in order to compete with Qatar Airways and the Emirates. Such plans collapsed, because of the US withdrawal from the JCPOA, and the almost immediate imposition of new, senseless but brutal sanctions against Teheran. Now even Mahan Air, a civilian airline, is facing sanctions, allegedly because of its flights to Venezuela, and to several Middle Eastern destinations.

***

Now, many are perhaps wondering, what triggered, in the West, such hate towards Iran?

There is a well-hidden (again, in the West) secret regarding Iran: “It is a Socialist country. Socialist with Iranian characteristics.”

In his latest and by all means ground-breaking book about Iran (“Socialism’s Ignored Success: Iranian Islamic Socialism”), which our publishing house Badak Merah will be publishing later in May 2020, an Iranian author and the PressTV Paris chief correspondent, Ramin Mazaheri, passionately defends the Iranian socialist concept:

“I think that if open-minded leftists would simply become aware of the facts and… modern socialist interpretations of Iran’s policies – many of which I’m sure are being presented in English for the first time – I’m sure that they would not be waiting breathlessly for the collapse of the Middle East’s greatest bulwark against imperialism and capitalism.

It is urgent that Western leftists understand that the reversal of Iran’s popular, democratic revolution would have incredibly negative ramifications for the anti-imperialist movement in the Middle East, and thus the global anti-imperialist movement, and it certainly would be the cruelest loss for Islamic Socialism, which is taken quite seriously in the Muslim world even if atheistic Trotskyism cannot even discuss the concept without resorting to insults.

And, of course, a counter-revolution in Iran would be a major blow for global democracy, as there is no doubt that the Iranian People support their revolution, constitution and unique system in a democratic majority.”

Like Russia and China in Euro Asia and in Asia, like Venezuela, Cuba and before the coup, Bolivia, Iran is spreading hope and revolutionary optimism in its entire part of the world. And it is an extremely wounded part of the world, where hope is absent, but desperately needed.

Spreading hope – that is never forgiven by the Western empire, which, like some gigantic and sadistic prison warden, constantly demands submission, while spreading depression and fear.

In the entirety of modern history, Iran has never invaded, never attacked anyone. Iran is a peaceful nation. But at the same time, it is a powerful, brave and proud country.

The United States and its turbo-capitalist regime understand brutal force, only. They do not comprehend, do not appreciate cultural nuances, let alone depth. Pity! There is so much to learn from Iran and its culture.

Iran will not attack anyone, that is clear as is proven by history. But if physically confronted, it will defend itself, and its people. It will fight, well and bravely.

The West should know: if it triggers a war with Iran, the entire Middle East will be consumed by terrible fire.

*

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.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He’s the creator of Vltchek’s World in Word and Images, and a writer that has penned a number of books, including China’s Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries Saving Millions of Lives. He writes especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

“We were Hezbollah trainers. It is an organisation that learns quickly. The Hezbollah we met at the beginning (1982) is different from the one we left behind in 2000”. This is what the former Chief of Staff and former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Gabi Ashkenazi, said twenty years after the Israeli unconditional withdrawal from Lebanon.

For the first time we met a non-conventional army, but also an ideological organisation with deep faith: and this faith triumphed over us. We were more powerful, more technologically advanced and better armed but not possessing the fighting spirit …They were stronger than us”. This is what Brigadier General Effi Eitam, Commander of the 91st Division in counter-guerrilla operation in south Lebanon said.

Alon Ben-David, senior defence correspondent for Israel’s Channel 13, specialised in defence and military issues, said: “Hezbollah stood up and defeated the powerful Israeli Army”.

Former Prime Minister Ehud Barak, the architect of the Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon, said: “The withdrawal didn’t go as planned. The deterrence of Hezbollah and its capability increased greatly. We withdrew from a nightmare”. Barak meant he had planned to leave behind him a buffer zone under the control of his Israeli proxies led by the “South Lebanon Army” (SLA) commander Antoine Lahad. However, his plans were dismantled and the resistance forced Lahad’s men to run towards the borders, freeing the occupied buffer zone. As they left Lebanon, the Israeli soldiers said: “Thank God we are leaving: no one in Israel wants to return”.

In 1982, Israel believed the time had come to invade Lebanon and force it to sign a peace agreement after eliminating the various Palestinian organisations. These groups had deviated from the Palestinian compass and had become embroiled in sectarian conflict with the Lebanese Phalange, believing that “the road to Jerusalem passed through Jounieh” (the Maronite stronghold on Mt. Lebanon, northwest of Beirut, a slogan used by Abu Iyad). Israel intended Lebanon to become the domicile of its Palestinian conflict. It failed to realise that in so doing it was letting the Shiite genie out of the bottle. Signs of this genie began to appear after the arrival of Sayyed Musa al-Sadr in Lebanon and the return of students of Sayyed Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr from Najaf to their home country and residency in the Lebanese Bekaa. Also, the victory of Imam Khomeini and the “Islamic revolution” in Iran in 1979 was not taken into consideration by Israel, and the potential consequences for the Lebanese Shia were overlooked.

The 1982 Israeli invasion triggered the emergence of the “Islamic resistance in Lebanon”, which later became known as “Hezbollah”, and it forced Israel to leave Lebanon unconditionally in 2000. This made Lebanon the first country to humiliate the Israeli army. Following their victory over the Arabs in 1949, 1956, 1967 and 1973, Israeli officials had come to believe they could occupy any Arab country “with a brass band”.

Israeli soldiers exited through the “Fatima Gate” (on the Lebanese border, also known as Good Fence, HaGader HaTova) under the watchful eyes of Suzanne Goldenberg on the other side of the border. She wrote:

After two decades and the loss of more than 1000 men, the chaotic Israeli withdrawal from southern Lebanon leaves its northern flank dangerously exposed, with Hezbollah guerrillas sitting directly on its border. The scale of the Israeli fiasco was beginning to unfold… After the Israelis pulled out of Bint Jubayl in the middle of the night, their SLA allies, already in a state of collapse in the centre of the strip, simply gave up. Branded collaborators, they and their families headed for exile. Behind them, they left tanks and other heavy equipment donated by their patrons. Shlomo Hayun, an Israeli farmer who lives on Shaar Yeshuv farm, said of the withdrawal, “This was the first time I have been ashamed to be Israeli. It was chaotic and disorganised.”

Israeli withdrawal (2000) crossing Fatima Gate.

What did Israel and its allies in the Middle East achieve?

In 1978, Israel occupied a part of southern Lebanon and in 1982, for the first time, it occupied an Arab capital, Beirut. During its presence as an occupation force, Israel was responsible for several massacres amounting to war crimes. In 1992, Israel thought that it could strike a death blow to Hezbollah by assassinating its leader, Sayyed Abbas Al-Mousawi. He was replaced by his student, the charismatic leader, Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah. Nasrallah has proved to be more truthful than the Israeli leaders, and thus capable of affecting the Israeli public through his speeches, as Israeli colonel Ronen, chief Intelligence officer for the Central Command of Israel Defence Forces, has said.

The new Hezbollah leader showed his potential for standing up to and confronting Israel through TV appearances. He mastered the psychological aspects of warfare, just as he mastered the art of guerrilla war. He leads a non-conventional but organised army of militants “stronger than several armies in the Middle East,” according to Lieutenant General Gadi Eisenkot, the former Israeli Chief of Staff.

The Israeli doctrine relies on the principle of pre-emptively striking what is considered as a potential threat, in order to extinguish it in its cradle. Israel first annexed Jerusalem by declaring it in 1980 an integral part of the so-called “capital of the state of Israel”. In June 1981, it attacked and destroyed the Iraqi nuclear reactor that France had helped build. In 2007, Israel struck a building in Deir Ezzor, Syria, before it was completed, claiming that the government had been building a nuclear reactor.

6 years after its withdrawal, Israel declared war on Lebanon in 2006, with the aim of eradicating Hezbollah from the south and destroying its military capacity. Avi Kober, a member of the department of political studies at Bar Ilan University and researcher at the Israeli BESA centre said:

The war was conducted under unprecedented and favourable conditions the like which Israel has never enjoyed – internal consensus, broad international support (including tacit support on the part of moderate Arab States), and a sense of having almost unlimited time to achieve the war objectives. The IDF’s performance during this war was unsatisfactory, reflecting flawed military conceptions and poor professionalism and generalship. Not only the IDF fail in achieving battlefield decision against Hezbollah, that is, denying the enemy’s ability to carry on the fight, despite some tactical achievements, throughout the war, it played into Hizballah’s hands.”

“Soon we shall pray in Jerusalem” (Portray Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah).

Israel withdrew from the battle without achieving its goals: it was surprised by Hezbollah’s military equipment and fighting capabilities. Hezbollah had managed to hide its advanced weapons from the eyes of Israeli intelligence and its allies, who are present in every country including Lebanon. The result was 121 Israeli soldiers killed, 2,000 wounded, and the pride of the Israeli army and industry destroyed in the Merkava Cemetery in southern Lebanon where the Israeli advance into Wadi al-Hujeir was thwarted.

Hezbollah hit the most advanced class Israeli destroyer, the INS Spear saar-5, opposite the Lebanese coast. In the last 72 hours of the war, Israel fired 2.7 million bomblets, or cluster bombs, to cause long-term pain for Lebanon’s population, either through impeding their return or disrupting cultivation and harvest once they did return. “An unjustified degree of vindictiveness and an effort to punish the population as a whole”, said the report of the UN commission of inquiry conducted in November 2006 (Arkin M. W. (2007), Divining Victory: Airpower in the 2006 Israel-Hezbollah War, Air University Press, Alabama, pp 67-71).

The battle ended, Israel withdrew again, closed the doors behind its army, raised a fence on the Lebanese borders, and installed electronic devices and cameras to prevent any possible Hezbollah crossing into Palestine.

When Israel’s chief of staff Gabi Ashkenazi said “Israel instructed Hezbollah in the art of war”, he was right. Hezbollah has learned from the wars that Israel has waged over the years. In every war, Hezbollah saw the necessity of developing its weapons and training to match and overcome the Israeli army (which is outnumbered) and which enjoys the tacit support of Middle Eastern regimes and the most powerful western countries. Hezbollah developed its special forces’ training and armed itself with precision missiles to impose new rules of engagement, posing a real threat to the continuity of the permanent Israeli violations of Lebanon’s sovereignty.

Today, Hezbollah has sophisticated weapons, including the armed drones that it used in Syria in its war against the Takfirists, and precision missiles that can reach every region, city and airport in Israel. It has anti-ship missiles to neutralize the Israeli navy in any future attack or war on Lebanon and to hit any harbour or oil platform. It is also equipped with missiles that prevent helicopters from being involved in any future battle. The balance of deterrence has been achieved. Hezbollah can take Israel back to the Stone Age just as easily as Israel envisages returning Lebanon to the Stone Age.

Hezbollah is Israel’s worse nightmare, and it was largely created by the Israeli attempt to overthrow the regime in Lebanon, occupy Lebanon, and impose an agreement that Israel could then mould to its own liking. But the tables were turned: a very small force emerged in Lebanon to become a regional power whose powerful support was then extended to the neighbouring countries of Syria and Iraq. The harvest journey has begun.

*

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

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated; featured image: A woman mocking an Israeli tank left behind when withdrawing from south of Lebanon in the year 2000, using its cannon as a hanger to dry cloths. Photo by @YounesZaatari

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Twenty Years After the Unconditional Israeli Withdrawal From Lebanon, What Has Been Achieved?
  • Tags: , ,

A week ago a former Canadian soldier instigated a harebrained bid to kidnap or kill Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro. Launched from Colombia, the plot failed spectacularly with most of the men captured or killed.

Still, the leader of the invasion Jordan Goudreau, a veteran of the Canadian military and US special forces, has been remarkably forthright about the involvement of opposition figure Juan Guaidó. A leaked contract between Guaidó’s representative in Florida and Goudreau’s Silvercorp USA describes plans for a multi month occupation force, which after ousting Maduro would “convert to a National Asset Unit that will act under the direction of the [Guaidó] Administration to counter threats to government stability, terror threats and work closely” with other armed forces. Apparently, Goudreau was hoping for a big payday from Venezuela’s opposition. He also had his eyes on the $15 million bounty Washington put up in March for Maduro’s capture as well as tens of millions dollars for other members of the government.

As the plot has unraveled, Ottawa has refused to directly criticize the invasion launched from Colombia. The military has also refused to release information regarding Goudreau’s time in the Canadian forces. What’s more, since the plot began Canada’s foreign affairs minister has reached out to regional opponents of Maduro and reasserted Ottawa’s backing for Guaidó. The PM also discussed Venezuela with his Colombian counterpart.

The Trudeau government’s reaction to recent events suggest the global pandemic has not deterred them from brazenly seeking to overthrow Venezuela’s government. In a bid to elicit “regime change”, over the past couple years Ottawa has worked to isolate Caracas, imposed illegal sanctions, took that government to the International Criminal Court, financed an often-unsavoury opposition and decided a marginal opposition politician was the legitimate president.

The day after the first phase of the invasion was foiled foreign minister François-Philippe Champagne spoke to his Colombian, Peruvian and Brazilian counterparts concerning the “Venezuela crisis and the humanitarian needs of Venezuelans.” Four days later Champagne tweeted,

great call with Venezuela Interim President Juan Guaidó. Canada will always stand with the people of Venezuela in their desire to restore democracy and human rights in their country.”

On Monday Prime Minister Justin Trudeau spoke with Colombian President Iván Duque Márque. According to the official release, they “discussed the crisis in Venezuela and its humanitarian impact in the region which is heightened by the pandemic. They underscored the need for continued close collaboration and a concerted international effort to address this challenging situation.” Over the past 18 months Trudeau has repeatedly discussed Venezuela with a Colombian president who has offered up his country to armed opponents of Maduro.

The Trudeau government has been chummy with Duque more generally. After he won a close election marred by fraud allegations then Foreign Minister Chrystia Freelandcongratulated” Duque and said, “Canada and Colombia share a commitment to democracy and human rights.” In August 2018 Trudeau tweeted,

today, Colombia’s new President, Ivan Duque, took office and joins Swedish PM, Norway PM, Emmanuel Macron, Pedro Sánchez, and others with a gender-equal cabinet. Iván, I look forward to working with you and your entire team.”

A month later he added,

thanks to President Ivan Duque for a great first meeting at UNGA this afternoon, focused on growing our economies, addressing the crisis in Venezuela, and strengthening the friendship between Canada & Colombia.”

But, Duque is from the extreme right — “le champion du retour de la droite dure en Colombie”, according to a Le Soleil headline. The Colombian president has undercut the peace accord the previous (right, but not far right) government signed with the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) to end Colombia’s 50-year civil war, which left some 220,000 dead. Duque’s policies have increased violence towards the ex-rebels and social activists. Seventy-seven former FARC members were killed in 2019. Even more human rights defenders were murdered. The United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights found that at least 107 Colombian, mostly Indigenous, rights defenders were killed in 2019.

Through the first part of this year the pace at which social leaders and demobilized FARC members have been killed has increased. According to the UN observer mission in Colombia, 24 demobilized guerrillas have already been assassinated and a recent Patriotic March report on the “The other pandemic lived in Colombia” details 95 social leaders, human rights defenders and former guerrillas killed in the first four months of 2020.

Trudeau’s dalliance with Duque is difficult to align with his stated concern for human rights in Venezuela.

The same can be said for Ottawa’s failure to condemn the recent invasion attempt. The Trudeau government should be questioned on whether it was involved or had foreknowledge of the recent plot to invade Venezuela.

*

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 Presidencia de la República

Military Spending and the Pandemic

May 18th, 2020 by Dispatches from the Edge

“There have been as many plagues as wars in history, yet plagues and wars take people equally by surprise” –Albert Camus

“The Plague”

Camus’ novel of a lethal contagion in the North African city of Oran is filled with characters all too recognizable today: indifferent or incompetent officials, short sighted and selfish citizens, and lots of great courage. What not even Camus could imagine, however, is a society in the midst of a deadly epidemic pouring vast amounts of wealth into instruments of death.

Welcome to the world of the hypersonic weapons, devices that are not only superfluous, but which will almost certainly not work, They will, however, cost enormous amounts of money. At a time when countries across the globe are facing economic chaos, financial deficits and unemployment at Great Depression levels, arms manufacturers are set to cash in big.

Hypersonic weapons are missiles that go five times faster than sound—3,800 mph—although some reportedly can reach speeds of Mach 20—15,000 mph. They come in two basic varieties, one powered by a high-speed scramjet, the other –launched from a plane or missile—glides to its target. The idea behind the weapons is that their speed and maneuverability will make them virtually invulnerable to anti-missile systems.

Currently there is a hypersonic arms race going on among China, Russia and the US, and, according to the Pentagon, the Americans are desperately trying to catch up with its two adversaries.

Truth is the first casualty in an arms race.

In the 1950s, it was the “bomber gap” between the Americans and the Soviets. In the 1960s, it was the “missile gap” between the two powers. Neither gap existed, but vast amounts of national treasure were, nonetheless, poured into long-range aircraft and thousands of intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). The enormous expenditures on those weapons, in turn, heightened tensions between the major powers and on at least three occasions came very close to touching off a nuclear war.

In the current hypersonic arms race, “hype” is the operational word.

“The development of hypersonic weapons in the United States,” says physicist James Acton of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, ”has been largely motivated by technology, not by strategy. In other words, technologists have decided to try and develop hypersonic weapons because it seems like they should be useful for something, not because there is a clearly defined mission need for them to fulfill.”

They have certainly been “useful” to Lockheed Martin, the largest arms manufacturer in the world. The company has already received $3.5 billion to develop the Advanced Hypersonic Weapon (Arrow) glide missile, and the scramjet- driven Falcon Hypersonic Technology Vehicle (Hacksaw) missile.

The Russians also have several hypersonic missiles, including the Avangard glide vehicle, a missile said to be capable of Mach 20. China is developing several hypersonic missiles, including the DF-ZF, supposedly capable of taking out aircraft carriers.

In theory hypersonic missiles are unstoppable. In real life, not so much.

The first problem is basic physics: speed in the atmosphere produces heat. High speed generates lots of it. ICBMs avoid this problem with a blunt nose cone that deflects the enormous heat of re-entering the atmosphere as the missile approaches its target. But it only has to endure heat for a short time because much of its flight is in frictionless low earth orbit.

Hypersonic missiles, however, stay in the atmosphere their entire flight. That is the whole idea. An ICBM follows a predictable ballistic curve, much like an inverted U and, in theory, can be intercepted. A missile traveling as fast as an ICBM but at low altitude, however, is much more difficult to spot or engage.

But that’s when physics shows up and does a Las Vegas: what happens on the drawing board stays on the drawing board.

Without a heat deflecting nose cone, high-speed missiles are built like big needles, since they need to decrease the area exposed to the atmosphere Even so, they are going to run very hot. And if they try to maneuver, that heat will increase. Since they can’t carry a large payload they will have to very accurate, but as a study by the Union of Concerned Scientists points out, that is “problematic.”

According to the Union, an object traveling Mach 5 for a period of time “slowly tears itself apart during the flight.” The heat is so great it creates a “plasma” around the craft that makes it difficult “to reference GPS or receive outside course correction commands.”

If the target is moving, as with an aircraft carrier or a mobile missile, it will be almost impossible to alter the weapon’s flight path to intercept it. And any external radar array would never survive the heat or else be so small that it would have very limited range. In short, you can’t get from here to there.

Lockheed Martin says the tests are going just fine, but then Lockheed Martin is the company that builds the F-35, a fifth generation stealth fighter that simply doesn’t work. It does, however, cost $1.5 trillion, the most expensive weapons system in US history. The company has apparently dropped the scramjet engine because it tears itself apart, hardly a surprise.

The Russians and Chinese claim success with their hypersonic weapons and have even begun deploying them. But Pierre Sprey, a Pentagon designer associated with the two very successful aircraft—the F-16 and the A-10—told defense analyst Andrew Cockburn that he is suspicious of the tests.

“I very much doubt those test birds would have reached the advertised range had they maneuvered unpredictably,” he told Cockburn. “More likely they were forced to fly a straight, predictable path. In which case hypersonics offer no advantage whatsoever over traditional ballistic missiles.”

While Russia, China and the US lead the field in the development of hypersonics, Britain, France, India and Japan have joined the race.

Why is everyone building them?

At least the Russians and the Chinese have a rationale. The Russians fear the US anti-missile system might cancel out their ICBMs, so they want a missile that can maneuver. The Chinese would like to keep US aircraft carriers away from their shores. But anti-missile systems can be easily fooled by the use of cheap decoys, and the carriers are vulnerable to much more cost effective conventional weapons. In any case hypersonic missiles can’t do what they are advertised to do.

For the Americans, hypersonics are little more than a very expensive subsidy for the arms corporations. Making and deploying weapons that don’t work is nothing new. The F-35 is a case in point, but nevertheless, there have been many systems produced over the years that were deeply flawed.

The US has spent over $200 billion on anti-missile systems and once they come off the drawing boards, none of them work very well, if at all.

Probably the one that takes the prize is the Mark-28 tactical nuke, nick named the “Davy Crockett,” and its M-388 warhead. Because the M-388 was too delicate to be used in conventional artillery, it was fired from a recoilless rife with a range of 2.5 miles. Problem: if the wind was blowing in the wrong direction the Crockett cooked its three-man crew. It was only tested once and found to be “totally inaccurate.” So, end of story? Not exactly. A total of 2,100 were produced and deployed, mostly in Europe.

While the official military budget is $738 billion, if one pulls all US defense related spending together, the actual cost for taxpayers is $1.25 trillion a year, according to William Hartung of the Center for International Policy. Half that amount would go a long way toward providing not only adequate medical support during the Covid-19 crisis, it would pay jobless Americans a salary.

Given that there are more than 31 million Americans now unemployed and the possibility that numerous small businesses—restaurants in particular—will never re-open, building and deploying a new generation of weapons is a luxury the US—and other countries—cannot afford. In the very near future, countries are going to have to choose whether they make guns or vaccines.

*

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: Moscow’s breakthrough Avangard missile system with the hypersonic boost-glide vehicle will be deployed on combat duty with the Strategic Missile Force in December 2019 (Indian Punchline)

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla discussed the April 30 attack on the country’s embassy in Washington with the press yesterday, stating: “Here is the attacker, an AK-47 rifle, 32 shell casings, 32 bullet holes and a statement – by the perpetrator – of his intention to attack and kill”

***

Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez Parrilla, during an online press conference, yesterday May 12, to discuss the April 30 terrorist attack on the Cuban embassy in the United States, stated:

“Here is an attacker, an AK-47 rifle, 32 shell casings, 32 bullet holes and a statement – by the perpetrator – of his intention to attack and kill.”

From the U.S. government we have received only silence, a silence that we know well, one that has accompanied violence against Cuba by groups based in U.S. territory for years. Every wave of terror was preceded by rabid campaigns of hate, rancor, threats, and attempts to discredit Cuba’s work in the international arena, alongside tightening of the economic siege.

The deaths number 3,478, with 2,099 Cubans disabled, in addition to incalculable economic damage. Terrorism has cost the country, carried out with or without the support of the U.S. government, but always with its blessing, following CIA directives. Hundreds of terrorists groups have been created, financed and trained by the CIA, organizations that had in their ranks notorious killers like Orlando Bosch, Luis Posada Carriles, Guillermo and Ignacio Novo Sampol, among others.

The Coordination of United Revolutionary Organizations (CORU), created in 1976, meant the integration of an international terrorist network, the first in history. “War on the roads of the world,” as they called it, did not respect borders or international law, and Cuban embassies were the preferred target.

More than 370 terrorist operations were carried out in those years; the atrocious bombing of a Cuban civilian airplane in mid-flight was the ultimate expression of this hatred, aggravated and protected by silence from the White House.

The perpetuator of the most recent attack on our embassy in Washington, Alexander Alazo Baró met with persons of known hostile behavior toward the Cuban Revolution, at a church called the Doral Jesus Worship Center. One of his “friends” at the religious center, Pastor Frank Lopez, maintains close relations with none other than Marco Rubio, Congressman Diaz-Balart and other persons with recognized extremist positions.

His behavior prior to the attack could not have been more obvious; he did not hide his hatred for the nation of his birth, or his delusions, be they real or fictitious; he was short of money, without a steady job, as his wife stated to several sources. Days earlier he had surveyed the site, planned every step of what he would do, all in the middle of Washington DC, just a few blocks from the White House, in a heavily guarded area. Ready for anything, at zero hour he drove miles with an AK-47, and fired on his target.

Cuba has every reason to demand an exhaustive investigation of the facts from the U.S. government, and that the necessary measures be adopted to prevent a return to times of spilled innocent blood, to put an end to the country’s hostile policy, verbal attacks, and actions that encourage such behavior.

*

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.

While selling 5G technology to the public as a means for faster downloads, Big Wireless — comprising a web of telecom companies, lobbyists and law firms– is spending millions to lobby governments the world over to implement the next generation of cellular technology because of its potential for data collection and surveillance of citizens.

***

While the debate continues around 5G’s potential impact on human health, the environment and wildlife, often overlooked in the discussion about 5G  is how the technology will be used for data collection and surveillance. Big Wireless has spent over three decades lobbying  state powers to build this technology while selling it to the public as a means for faster downloads.

5G Telecommunication tower antenna in morning sky Evening sky

In that time the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association – an organization whose leadership has maintained a revolving door relationship with the U.S. Federal Communication Commission – has collaborated on or guided regulatory policy related to not only 5G, but the roll out of cell phones and other digital technology. The CTIA annually lobbies for the industry to the tune of millions of dollars, making them one of the most powerful telecom lobby groups.

The COVID19 pandemic has caused governments around the world to lockdown their nations, cancel public school sessions, and cost millions of people their jobs. Fears of spreading the virus and overloading the healthcare system are triggering an authoritarian response from many of these governments — including the United States. For many Americans, these aggressive measures have halted typical daily activities. Taking a trip to the gym, work, school, or out with friends – are no longer an option.

However, while most non-essential activities have stopped, the controversial expansion of the 5th generation of cellular infrastructure has continued. With the support and lobbying of the CTIA, Big Wireless’ 5G agenda is quickly expanding. Records from ProPublica show the CTIA lobbied for 2 recents bills related to 5G infrastructure.

On March 23, the 5G rollout took one step forward in the U.S. when President Donald Trump signed a bill aimed at “securing America’s 5G infrastructure.” The Secure 5G and Beyond Act calls for Congress to present a comprehensive plan for accelerating the nation’s 5G network “not later than 180 days.” The building of the next generation network has rapidly advanced due to the passing of the Secure 5G and Beyond Act and the Broadband Deployment Accuracy and Technological Availability (DATA) Act, which passed the House in December  2019.

In April 2019, President Donald Trump held a press conference where he stated his intention to expand the U.S. wireless infrastructure as part of the effort to defeat China in the so-called “Race to 5G”. During the press conference Trump stood next to the head of the Federal Communications Commission and telecommunication employees as he declared, “The race to 5G is on and we must win.” While Trump is certain that America must win this apparent race – even during the middle of a pandemic – determining exactly who is the driving force behind the push towards the 5th generation of cellular technology requires digging through decades of lawsuits, industry corruption, and captured agencies.

What is 5G?

Over the last couple years telecom companies and governments have spent billions of dollars promoting, marketing, and building the next generation of telecom technology, known as 5G, or 5th Generation. The telecom companies involved in various aspects of the 5G rollout include Crowd Castle, American Tower, and Towerstream on the infrastructure side, and Comcast, Verizon, T-Mobile, Sprint, and AT&T on the internet/mobile service provider side.

Beginning with the introduction of 1G in 1979, a new generation of cellular standards has appeared approximately every ten years. Each generation is characterized by new frequency bands, higher data rates and non–backward compatible transmission technology. As we move into the 2020’s, the shift to the 5th generation has begun. Beginning in late 2018, cities like Houston, Atlanta, Boston, Chicago, Denver, San Diego, New York City, and Washington D.C. started deploying 5g for residential and commercial use.

While 5g is often touted as the solution to 4k movie downloads and virtual reality games, the new generation is also expected to herald the beginning of Smart Cities, where driverless cars, traffic lights, pollution sensors, smart phones and countless other smart devices interact in what is known as “The Internet of Things.” The IoT has raised alarm bells for some privacy advocates because it will involve surrounding the public with hundreds of thousands of interconnected devices and sensors which are gathering mass amounts of data that will be used for public advertising and monitoring of habits. 5G infrastructure will be the backbone to the IoT.

The switch from 4g to 5g is a change unlike those of previous generations. One notable difference is that 5G technology uses much higher frequencies, ranging from 10-300 GHZ. Currently, 4G wireless systems operate on 700 to 2700 MHz. 5g is using millimeter waves which do not travel far and are easily blocked by trees, buildings, and walls. Due to the nature of mm waves the FCC has stated that for 5G to operate successfully it will require the installation of hundreds of thousands of new cell sites, towers, and additions to existing infrastructure.

Due largely to the concerns about this exponential increase in towers (and the subsequent exposure to radiofrequency radiation) the 5G roll out has been opposed by thousands of doctors, scientists, health professionals, and even the U.S. military and branches of the U.S. government. The movement against the 5G roll out also sparked a global day of protest in January and April 2020. Meanwhile, nations like Sweden, Slovenia, and cities like Brussels, Belgium have decided to ban or temporarily halt the roll out of the new infrastructure until further health studies are conducted.

Who’s Behind the Race to 5G?

For the last year, Americans have been peppered with messages from telecommunications companies and the tech industry at large, stressing the importance of being first in the Race to 5G. We are told if we want driverless vehicles, robot assistants, cleaner and safer cities, and more convenient lives we must support and pay for the upgrades to 5G. Apparently, the public should also ignore the fact that this upgrade has sparked lawsuits over health, privacy, and local power concerns. But beyond being a lackluster marketing campaign to convince the public to adopt the next generation of cell phones and devices, what exactly is this race about?

Geopolitically speaking, the Race to 5g describes the ongoing rift between the U.S. and China, the new digital Cold War where these two superpowers race to implement the next generation of cellular technology because of its potential for massive profit and massive data collection.

The American mainstream media and President Trump have stated that Chinese company Huawei could use their 5g infrastructure to spy on Americans. Additionally, Trump has called on federal officials and American companies to abandon Huawei equipment. In January Foreign Policy wrote, “Because the (Chinese) companies that make the equipment are subservient to the Chinese government, they could be forced to include backdoors in the hardware or software to give Beijing remote access. Eavesdropping is also a risk, although efforts to listen in would almost certainly be detectable.”

This fear of Chinese spying using 5g equipment completely ignores the reality that the U.S. government has the same exact opportunity to pressure American companies to spy on the private data of Americans. Foreign Policy noted, “These insecurities are a result of market forces that prioritize costs over security and of governments, including the United States, that want to preserve the option of surveillance in 5G networks. If the United States is serious about tackling the national security threats related to an insecure 5G network, it needs to rethink the extent to which it values corporate profits and government espionage over security.”

Whether the public is actually demanding faster downloads is up for debate, but what is not debatable is that the telecoms, global governments, and the tech industry are pushing the shift towards 5g. While it is true that 5g has the potential to spur on innovation in the fields of medicine, manufacturing, entertainment, and other industries – it seems much of the hype around the 5G rollout is coming from the telecommunication industry itself, specifically the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association, or CTIA.

Established in 1984, the CTIA claims to represent the U.S. wireless communications industry, from carriers and equipment manufacturers. The CTIA “advocates for legislative and regulatory policies at federal, state, and local levels that foster the continued innovation, investment and increasing economic impact of America’s wireless industry. CTIA is active on a wide range of issues including spectrum policy, wireless infrastructure, and the Internet of Things, among others.” They also host events on topics ranging from cybersecurity to 5G.

The CTIA’s Board of Directors includes the presidents, CEOs and other senior officials of Verizon, Sprint, T Mobile, Nokia, Erricson, Intel, General Motors, Tracfone, EZ Texting and others. Brad Gillen, the current Executive Vice President of the CTIA, was formerly a Legal Advisor to a former FCC Commissioner and served in other senior policy roles at the FCC and with DISH Network. Mr. Gillen was also a partner at Wilkinson Barker Knauer, LLP, a law firm stacked with former employees of the FCC, the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other state government positions.

The CTIA’s current President and CEO is Meredith Attwell Baker. Baker has spent the last two decades bouncing between lobbying for the telecoms and working for the government. From 1998 to 2000, Baker worked as Director of Congressional Affairs at the CTIA. From 2004 to 2007 she served under the Bush administration as Acting Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information and Acting Administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). The NTIA is the President’s principal advisor on telecommunications and information policy. Afterwards, she worked for the U.S. government as an FCC Commissioner between July 2009 to June 2011. During her tenure at the FCC she was vocal about her opposition to net-neutrality regulations. In January 2011, she voted in favor of Comcast purchasing NBCUniversal. Only four months later she would leave the FCC to take her position as senior vice president of government affairs at Comcast-NBCUniversal. Finally, in 2014 – after spending a decade bouncing between lobbying for industry and working for the government – Baker went back to the CTIA, where she is now President and CEO, responsible for promoting the Race to 5G.

One of the ways the CTIA has spread enthusiasm for the Race to 5g is by working with city officials. The CTIA has honored City Mayors who have worked to erode local authority regarding the 5g roll out. The 5G Wireless Champion Awards “honor the state and local officials” who “bring next-generation 5G networks” into communities and “remove barriers to the deployment of next-generation wireless infrastructure”. In 2018, the CTIA gave out 3 “5g Wireless Champion Awards” to mayors across the United States, including Houston’s Mayor Sylvester Turner.

The 5G Wireless Champion Awards are but one example of how the CTIA lobbies on behalf of the telecommunications industry, sometimes derisively known as Big Wireless. The industry has achieved the nickname due a revolving door between the government agencies designed to regulate the cellular industry  – namely, the Federal Communications Commission – and the industry itself. This arrangement has allowed the telecoms to grow while facing little legal challenges or roadblocks. In the process, this incestuous relationship has overtaken the voices and concerns of the American people.

A 2015 expose published by investigative journalist Norm Alster for the Harvard Edmund J. Safra Center for Ethics details the financial ties between the FCC and telecom companies and how the industry has direct access and power over the agency meant to regulate it. The report, “Captured Agency: How the Federal Communications Commission is Dominated by the Industries it Presumably Regulates”, details how the FCC, an independent government agency created in 1934 to regulate interstate communications by radio, television, wire, satellite and cable, has become a captured agency with Big Wireless leaders filling the government seats in a revolving door fashion similar to other federal agencies.

Regarding the passing of the 1996 Telecom Act – the act meant to regulate the developing mobile phone and internet infrastructure – Alster writes,

Late lobbying won the wireless industry enormous concessions from lawmakers, many of them major recipients of industry hard and soft dollar contributions. Congressional staffers who helped lobbyists write the new law did not go unrewarded. Thirteen of fifteen staffers later became lobbyists themselves.”

Alster states that direct lobbying by industry is “just one of many worms in a rotting apple”. His report says the FCC is involved in a network of powerful moneyed interests with limitless access and a variety of ways to shape policy. Alster believes the worst part is that the wireless industry has been allowed to grow unchecked and virtually unregulated, with fundamental questions on public health routinely ignored. The Captured Agency report makes it clear that this type of corruption takes place because of “the free flow of executive leadership between the FCC and the industries it presumably oversees”.

For example, at the time of the report’s release, the Chairman of the FCC was Tom Wheeler, a man with deep ties to the wireless industry. In 2013, Wheeler was nominated as FCC chairman by former President Barack Obama after raising more than $700,000 for his presidential campaigns. Wheeler led the two most powerful industry lobbying groups: The National Cable & Telecommunications Association (NCTA) and the CTIA. In 20, Wheeler was also the head of the FCC during the debate around Net Neutrality.

Ajit Pai, current chairman of the FCC, is another example of this revolving door relationship. Pai is an attorney who served as Associate General Counsel at Verizon Communications Inc. between 2001 and 2003, where he handled competition and regulatory matters. Pai was appointed to the FCC by Barack Obama in 2012 and then made FCC Chairman by Donald Trump in January 2017. In an odd skit

In February, Pai admitted that the FCC failed to protect Americans’ privacy after it was revealed that at least two companies were gaining access to Americans’ private data and selling it to law enforcement. Pai called for a fine of over $200 million on AT&T, Verizon, T-Mobile, and Sprint. “This FCC will not tolerate phone companies putting Americans’ privacy at risk,” Pai stated when announcing the fine.

FCC Commissioner Brendan Carr is yet another example of a government official working closely with industry and maintaining relationships which clearly present conflicts of interest. Carr is credited with accelerating the 5G build out. Prior to joining the FCC, Carr worked as an attorney at Wiley Rein where his clients were Verizon, AT&T, Centurylink, and CTIA.

The Wiley Rein law firm is a hotbed of activity for former government officials and industry regulars. One of the founders of the law firm is Richard Wiley, himself a Former FCC Chairman. According to Open Secrets, in the first four months of 2020 the Wiley Rein law firm has been retained by several telecoms, including AT&T for $80,000, the CTIA for $50,000, and Verizon for $30,000. For the last 15 years the law firm has spent at least $2 million dollars lobbying for their clients. Open Secrets also shows the CTIA has spent $3 million on their own lobbying efforts.

On September 30, 2019, Commissioner Carr and other FCC officials were in Houston to discuss the future of 5G. I interviewed Commissioner Carr about the concerns regarding his connections with the wireless industry, as well as the implications of the Captured Agency report released by Harvard’s School of Ethics. Unfortunately, Mr Carr had no interest in addressing these questions and refused to answer my questions and only stated, “We’re excited about the 5G build out and working with local leaders.”

The silence from FCC officials on the charges of corrupted regulators and ignored studies is simply another facet of the relationship between industry and government. Again, the strongest influence over the U.S. regulatory agencies can be traced to the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association.

A History of Big Wireless Bullying and Corruption

In 2018, Senator Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut exposed that Big Wireless and the FCC have failed to adequately fund independent studies into the health effects of emerging 5G technology. At a Senate Commerce committee hearing, Blumenthal questioned Brad Gillen, Executive Director of the CTIA, about the absence of this research.

How much money has the industry committed to supporting additional independent research—I stress independent—research? And we’re talking about research on the biological effects of this new technology,” Blumenthal asked. To which Gillen responded,  “There are no industry backed studies to my knowledge right now.”

At the end of the exchange, Blumenthal concluded, “So there really is no research ongoing. We’re kind of flying blind here, as far as health and safety is concerned.”

One of the reasons Americans are “flying blind”, as Blumenthal stated, is because of a history of pressure and defunding of researchers who reached conclusions which were at odds with the official line of the wireless industry: cell phones and wireless devices do not cause harm to humans or animal life.

During the 1990’s, biochemist Jerry Phillips was hired by cell phone giant Motorola to study the effects of the radiofrequency radiation emitted by cell phones. Phillips previously worked with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs’ Pettis VA Medical Center in Loma Linda, California and is currently the director of the Excel Science Center at the University of Colorado at Colorado Springs. His team looked at the effects of different RF signals on rats and on cells in a dish. In the documentary Public Exposure, Phillips says the relationship between him and his employer was initially cordial but soured once he submitted research data to Motorola which found that exposure to radio-frequency radiation produced by cell phones caused damage to the DNA structure. The negative results were not to Motorola’s liking and they began putting pressure on him.

These folks were very, very upset, and began to talk about how they are going to handle this, what sort of spin can we put on this, what can we expect from this. From that point on the relationship changed,” Phillips states in the documentary.  “What we saw was that Motorola began to exert more and more control over the work. Telling us what to do, telling us how to write abstracts, what to say in the abstracts, what to say in the papers, how to do the work. No, don’t do this. Yes, do it this way. This was unacceptable.”

Phillips describes how Motorola was unwilling to accept his study and urged him not to publish it.  Despite the pleas, Phillips published his study in the Journal of Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics in 1998 and ceased his work with Motorola. Phillips cautioned that independent research on cell phones is sparse because “there is no money available for research other than what’s coming from industry.”

In another example of industry attempting to influence research, Dr. Henry Lai, the University of Washington, and fellow researcher Narendra Singh were looking at the effects of nonionizing radiation – the same type of radiation emitted by cell phones and 5G – on the DNA of rats. The researchers found that the DNA in the brain cells of the rats was broken by exposure to radiation. Dr. Lai’s experiments showed negative health consequences at levels considered safe by the FCC.

After publishing the research in 1995, Dr. Lai would later learn of a “full-scale effort” to discredit the experiments. At some point Motorola became aware of Lai’s unpublished results showing harm from cell phone radiation. In a leaked internal Motorola memo executives claimed to have succeeded in “War-Gaming ” and undermining the Lai-Singh experiments. Lai and Singh caused further controversy when they publicly complained that their funders, the Wireless Technology Research (WTR) program, had placed restrictions on their work.. In response to the complaints, George Carlo, the head of the WTR, sent a memo asking Richard McCormick, president of University of Washington at the time, to fire Lai and Singh. McCormick refused, but a clear message had been sent to the researchers.

This shocked me. The letter trying to discredit me, the ‘war games’ memo,” Lai told Seattle Mag. “As a scientist doing research, I was not expecting to be involved in a political situation. It opened my eyes on how games are played in the world of business. You don’t bite the hand that feeds you. The pressure is very impressive.”

Once again, the fingerprints of the CTIA are found in this attempt at suppressing unfavorable studies. Carlo had recently been appointed head of the WTR after the FCC and the CTIA promised to fund research into the dangers of cell phones. The move came in 1993 after David Reynard sued the NEC America company because he blamed his wife’s lethal tumor on their phone. Reynard’s story became a national sensation, leading to a congressional investigation. Wheeler claimed the new studies would “re-validate the findings of the existing studies.” Soon after, Carlo would ask the University of Washington to defund Lai for alleged violations of research protocols and Lai would accuse the WTR of interfering with his experiments. Eventually, Carlo himself would have a falling out with the FCC and rebrand himself as a whistleblower. He also accused the FCC and the CTIA of covering up evidence of cell phone harms.

5G Conspiracy Theorists?

Despite the diverse credentials of the mass movement against 5G, the opposition has largely been derided as conspiracy theorists or quacks who don’t understand the electromagnetic spectrum. In March 2019, William Broad of the New York Times wrote a piece promoting the idea that those who are concerned about the health effects of 5G are simply falling prey to Russian propaganda designed to make America lose the Race to 5G. His article, “Your 5G Phone Won’t Hurt You. But Russia Wants You to Think Otherwise.”, sought to place the blame for concern around 5G on the shoulders of America’s favorite boogeyman – The Russians.

This practice seems to be a new trend for corporate media as the Washington Post announced a similar deal with ATT in November 2019. Questions regarding potential conflicts of interest have not been addressed between news outlets attacking those critical of 5G’s safety and telecom companies who fund them.

Interestingly, only a month after Broad’s article, in April 2019 the Times announced a partnership with Verizon to showcase a “5g journalism lab”. Broad wrote a second piece titled “The 5G Health Hazard That Isn’t”,  attacking the critics of the rush to 5G and attempting to paint the opposition as being based on one single study which he says was found to be false.

Dr. Devra Davis, PhD, President of the Environmental Health Trust, responded to Broad’s claim by noting that “by relegating concerns about 5G to a Russian ploy, he misses altogether the fact that the purportedly independent international authorities on which he relies that declare 5G to be safe are an exclusive club of industry-loyal scientists. China, Russia, Poland, Italy and several other European countries allow up to hundreds of times less wireless radiation into the environment from microwave antennas than does the U.S..”

Davis went even further, comparing the treatment of those who raise awareness about the public impact of radio frequency microwave radiation to that of those scientists in the 1950’s and 60’s who attempted to ring alarm bells about the dangers of tobacco. Davis wrote,

Scientists who showed the harmful impacts of tobacco found themselves struggling for serious attention and financial support. For health impacts from wireless radiation, a similar pattern is emerging. Each time a U.S. government agency produced positive findings, research on health impacts was defunded. The Office of Naval Research, the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, the Department of Health, Education and Welfare, and the Environmental Protection Agency all once had vibrant research programs documenting dangers of wireless radiation. All found their programs scrapped, reflecting pressure from those who sought to suppress this work.”

These forces which “sought to suppress this work” have indeed been operating and influencing public policy on cellular technology for decades.

This cursory look at the history of the FCC, the CTIA, and the cell phone industry show clear conflicts of interests and suppression of research. Now, these same forces are calling on the public to embrace the Race to 5G. While most of the public is unaware of this history, understanding the corporate and lobbyist influence on the scientific research and light regulatory touch, is absolutely imperative as the world prepares to be surrounded by the devices and infrastructure of the emerging 5G industry.

*

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.

Derrick Broze is an investigative journalist, documentary filmmaker, activist, and author from Houston, Texas. He is the founder of The Conscious Resistance Network. His most recent documentary, The 5G Trojan Horse, was released in February 2020. Broze is also the author of 5 books, most recently “How To Opt-Out of the Technocratic State”. His journalism can be found on TheConsciousResistance.com, The Mind Unleashed, MintPress News, and The Last American Vagabond.

Featured image is by Antonio Cabrera via MPN

‘We’ll cut off the whole relationship’ – Trump threatened China in a recent Fox-Business interview, suggesting he may cut diplomatic relations with China and thereby saving US$ 500 billion. He didn’t say how, though.

Mr. Trump’s anger referred to what he calls China’s “mismanagement” of the corona crisis. This is consistent with the new China bashing hard line being pushed by his administration. “I’m very disappointed in China,” Trump said during the same Fox interview. “We asked to go over and they said no,” he continued, referring to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) February offer of assistance to the virus-stricken city of Wuhan. “They didn’t want our help. And I figured that was OK because they must know what they are doing. So, it was either stupidity, incompetence or deliberate.”

These are strong and unsubstantiated words, since there has never been a clearly documented accusation against China in how precisely China mismanaged the COVID-19 outbreak and is supposedly responsible for the COVID crisis in the US – where real mismanagement, corruption, conflict of interest and particularly pharma-interests, competing private vaccine company interests – are written all over the walls, the walls of shame, falsifying corona statistics, by falsifying death certificates, paying hospitals for declaring any patient a COVID-patient, even if many of them aren’t, and for using ventilators, though it is widely known that ventilators are causing death in 40% to 60% of patients; see this.

Was the virus created in a US bio-weapons lab from where it escaped deliberately or by accident and that patient zero was in the US and that the virus was brought to China in one way or another? President Trump knows it. He also knows about the real mismanagement of the crisis in his country, the United States. But he has always been good at self-promoting propaganda and slandering perceived enemies, as long as he thinks it may help him being reelected.

It is obvious that the US China bashing has nothing to do with China’s “mismanagement” of the corona epidemic, but rather with China’s bold move a step further away from the dollar-economy, by

  • First, using the yuan and local currencies boosting trade among the ASEAN+3 countries (Association of Southeast Asian Nations – Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam; plus 3 = Japan, South Korea and China). Monetary transactions will use the CIPS (Cross-Border Interbank Payment System), avoiding the dollar controlled SWIFT payment scheme. This is mostly to prevent US interference in international monetary transactions – and also in response to the United States’ threat of cutting off Chinese supply chains.

The cutting off supply chains, is of course, sheer bluff, as literally 80 percent-plus of US industries depend in one way or another on supplies from China. This dependence is particularly significant in medical supplies, where the US depends for 80% to 90% on China. But China is China, and President Xi acted fast calling the bluff – and the US may suddenly stand therewith an empty cup, since such supply chains are not replaced overnight.

In the first quarter 2020, ASEAN countries have become China’s largest trading partner with 15.1 %, outpacing the European Union (EU). Trade with South Korea and Japan amounted to another 13.7%, bringing the total close to 30%. Adding China’s trade with Russia, another at least 15%, is getting close to a 50% tipping point of China’s closest partners abandoning commercial transactions in US-dollars.

  • Second, by launching a new People’s Bank of China (PBC = China’s Central Bank) controlled crypto-currency for international trade, thereby further circumventing the US-dollar and SWIFT controlled international money transfer system which makes all transactions vulnerable to US interference and sanctions.

China’s new cyber-money, e-RMB (Ren Min Bi, meaning People’s Money), or Yuan, is currently being tested in several Chinese cities, including Shenzhen, Suzhou, Chengdu, and Xiong’an. In these cities it has almost universal acceptance, i.e. for salary payments, public transportation, food and most retail shopping.

The use of digital money is nothing new in China. Today about 90% of all monetary transactions are electronic, for example through WeChat and AliPay, but they do not replace the existing cash currency.

Commodity pricing today mostly dollarized, will be priced by China in yuan and traded in crypto-yuan. Yuan pricing for commodities, such as gold, crude oil and iron ore, has already started. As China is recovering from the pandemic more quickly than the rest of the world, relatively high-returning yuan-denominated investments and commodity assets will become more attractive.

The non-interference factor of a Chinese Central Bank backed crypto-currency is an additional security element that will further boost the Chinese Yuan as a reserve currency. Already now, countries around the globe are sick and tired of US meddling in their international transactions and especially with US sanctions – that may come at a whim – every time a country demonstrates her sovereignty, or disobedience to US dictates. This leads many countries that may not speak out publicly for fear of sanctions, to gradually and quietly divesting their dollar holdings into Chinese yuan.

A tipping point may be reached, when about 50% of world trade and world reserves are denominated in yuan. At this point it would be likely that the worldwide dollar hegemony will be no more, as it may be displaced by the yuan.

Several leaders of countries were killed for attempting to replace the dollar for trading with other currencies. For example, Saddam Hussein, for his intent to use the euro for trading Iraq’s hydrocarbon riches, and Libya’s Gadhafi, when he wanted to introduce the Gold-Dinar as a Pan-African trading currency, thereby freeing Africa from western monetary slavehood. As we all recall, he was literally lynched by NATO on 20 October 2011, at the initiative of Hillary Clinton with the strong support of then French President Sarkozy. By the way, this western monetary stranglehold on Africa prevails as of this day – a new-old kind of colonization, nobody in the western mainstream reports on.

Once the new e-RMB (yuan) has been successfully tested locally it will be launched internationally. While China’s new PBC-backed cyber-currency’s internationalization will make the yuan even more attractive among trading partners – and also as a reserve currency, China may simultaneously divest its huge reserves of US Treasury bonds (about US$1.2 trillion) into purchasing assets abroad paid in US-dollars. The Belt and Road investments may be a suitable vehicle to reduce dollar holdings at home.

In the current high corona debt-crisis around the world, especially the Global South, China may also consider a program of Debt Jubilee (debt forgiveness) to the poorest partner countries – which may be already or potentially be future Belt and Road associates.

At present and since October 2016, the Renminbi (Chinese yuan) is part of a 5-currency basket at the IMF that constitutes the Special Drawing Rights (SDR), the world’s ultimate virtual reserve currency. The SDR share distribution is US-dollar 41.73%, euro 30.93%, Chinese yuan 10.92%, Japanese yen 8.33% and the British pound 8.09%. This currency allocation to the SDR is disproportionate with regard to the economic strength of the respective countries, especially China, the world’s second largest economy, rapidly moving towards first place.

China may want to vigorously renegotiate with the IMF her currency proportion in the SDR, as well as reviewing country quotas which by now are out-of-line with member countries economic weight. An IMF capital increase is overdue. The IMF capital base today is SDR 477 billion (US$ 677 billion). In addition, there is the temporary New Arrangement to Borrow (NAB) which in January 2020 has been doubled to SDR365 billion (US$ 475 billion), a total resource-base of about US$ 1.15 trillion. Yet, the IMF already today foresees US$ 1 trillion for additional corona debt lending and debt forgiveness. Since the NAB is only a temporary arrangement, a quota increase and review, i.e. a proper adjustment for China’s economy, is more than overdue.

A quota adjustment in favor of China and the corresponding adjustment of the yuan’s proportion in the SDR basket would further enhance China’s currency vis-à-vis the rest of the world. This coupled with an incorruptible cryptocurrency controlled by Chinas Central Bank and possibly backed by gold, would be a formidable reserve currency that most countries would like as their chief reserve asset. This, of course is what Washington is afraid of. It would clearly endanger and probably crush the global US-dollar hegemony.

The world would be a better place for it.

Therefore, the current China bashing and attributing guilt for spreading and mismanaging the corona virus, is a sheer farce – a treachery of the world, a deviation of the real reason behind Trump’s attempt to demolish China’s reputation around the globe, namely by doing so, hoping to destroy the rise of China and the appreciation of the Chinese yuan, and thereby the yuan’s attractiveness as an investment currency for most of the rest of the world.

This is pretty similar to the real reason for the 2018-2019 US-China trade war, initiated by President Trump, had the objective of ruining the yuan’s reputation in the world arena. To no avail. Washington eventually quietly and unceremoniously lost the conflict over trade. Despite Trump’s loud declarations to the contrary, the US needs China much more than vice-versa.  Just look at the Chinese supply chain which the west, in particular the US, cannot replace from one day to the other.

Under President Xi Jinping’s leadership, China has switched gears rather fast. Preparations to orient towards Asian markets are in full swing. China is enhancing relations with Asian markets, i.e. the ASEAN countries, plus Japan and South Korea.

Members of the SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) are also a trading market China is already engaged in and may further strengthen it. The SCO, in addition to China and most of the Central Asian countries, include also Russia, India and Pakistan – and Iran is waiting for imminent admission. Others, like Malaysia and Mongolia are in observer status and also slanted to become SCO members in due course.

The combination of SCO, ASEAN-plus 3, amounts to more than half the world population and accounts for more than a third of the world’s economic output. This is a formidable global “market share” – and will likely increase with every atrocity – military and economic – Washington is committing around the globe.

With her new crypto-currency which eventually will be internationalized, China is well on her way to fully dedollarize, with the cyber-yuan replacing the US-dollar as the key trading and main reserve currency and to displace the United States as the world’s financial and economic hegemon.

The current China bashing does not prevent China from forging ahead with her economic activities – trade – and especially the unstoppable Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) via maritime and land routes, already counting on 160 partners (about 120 countries and some 40 multinational organizations) on four continents. This revolutionary global development scheme will require trillions of yuans and dollars for investments. It will also be generating trillions in revenues over time, shared with BRI partners. All towards a common future for mankind – a world moving towards an equilibrium with justice, harmony and peace.

*

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

Peter Koenig is an economist and geopolitical analyst. He is also a water resources and environmental specialist. He worked for over 30 years with the World Bank and the World Health Organization around the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; New Eastern Outlook (NEO); RT; Countercurrents, Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; Greanville Post; Defend Democracy Press; The Saker Blog, the and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

This video was uploaded in August 2019.

The video below shows Doctor Robert Epstein during his 2019 Senate testimony concerning media manipulation in the 2016 US elections. 

He testified that Google’s manipulation of votes, through biased search results, gave at least 2.6 million additional votes to Hillary Clinton in 2016. 

And in 2020, they could shift at least 15 million votes without people’s knowledge and without leaving paper trail for authorities to trace.

*

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 Twitter

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Google Manipulations of Votes in Elections. Doctor Robert Epstein, Senate Testimony

“On the anniversary of the Nakba… a tour through depopulated Palestinian villages within Israel … and rare meetings between the owners of the original Palestinian homes and their current Jewish residents” — Najwan Simri, reporting for Al Jazeera (video clip in Arabic and my translation follow).

.

.

Translation of the video narration

Information on the Palestinian village of Ijzim shown as three consecutive red text blocks throughout the video clip:

  • The village of Ijzim south of Haifa is one of three villages known as the Carmel triangle of villages that fell at the hands of Zionist gangs after the establishment of Israel.
  • A number of the people of the village of Ijzim took refuge in nearby cities and villages. Others took refuge in Arab countries after Ijzim’s occupation by Zionist gangs.
  • Many of the landmarks of the village of Ijzim, south of Haifa, are still there as witness of the events of the Nakba 72 years ago.

… Here lives a family uprooted from a nearby village. We had an appointment with Hajjeh Im Samir to accompany her there. Her [ailing] husband insisted on coming with us because he said the air of Ijzim is the best cure.

Despite its beauty, the road there seems desolate as if it gets you to the place but doesn’t take you there. Eagerly, Im Samir organizes our tour for us and tells us the names of the [Palestinian] owners of the houses.

Our first stop is God’s house. Its stones have been preserved as they were. Alone, the colors of its locked doors change each time the dryness of the seasons intensifies.

Here, Abu Samir does not stay in the car because this stop [station] is the location for which he has most longed in order to banish the other stations of his life. “This was our house, my father’s house. After the ’48 wars, the Jews occupied it.”

After a few minutes, the residents of the house come out to [the gate]. They ask us what we want. We say, this is the owner of the house; how do you feel living in a house built on the wreckage of his house? [The answer] Frankly, I don’t feel anything. I am very happy. Living here is very enjoyable.

How strange is the distance between the owner of the house and he who is occupying it. How strange is the irony between he who has to stand inside the gate and he who must stand outside the gate. How strong Abu Samir is! For other uprooted people have refused to accompany us [on our tour]. One of them told us that he cannot bear to glimpse through the window of his father’s house a foreigner living there.

And that [glimpse] could possibly be of a strange symbol, like [what is glimpsed through the window] of a stolen [Palestinian] school converted into a temple with an emblem [the flag of Israel] that is not as old as the memory of the stones of the school.

Flag of Israel glimpsed through the window of the converted school of the Palestinian village of Ijzim, which is now a Temple

And so, an extreme picture! It is said that the passage of time helps in forgetting, but, in the Palestinian case, it seems that the equation of time is different and that the years are merely a number. Rather, the longer the banishment of the Palestinians is, the more they remember.

This is Najwan Simri, reporting from the depopulated village of Ijzim for Al Jazeera.

*

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

Featured image: An encounter between a Jewish couple in Ijzim, Israel (south of Haifa) the the displaced Palestinians in whose house that couple resides, who are denied return to their village and property. (Screenshot from the video)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Jews to Palestinian Whose Home They Occupy: What Do You Want?

The security situation has been escalating in southern Syria. Over the past 24 hours, at least 3 pro-government fighters and a civilian have been killed in attacks by gunmen in al-Musayfrah and Saida-al-Taebah. The attacks followed the March 14 and March 13 protests that erupted in the town of Tafas and in the southern part of Daraa’s city center, Daraa al-Balad.

A portion of the locals previously affiliated with militant groups defeated in southern Syria was protesting against the recent deployment of the Syrian Army reinforcements to the province. The attempts of the Syrian Army and security forces to restore law and order find no understanding among supporters of radicals.

At the same time, the very same group of persons does not see anything wrong in the recent series of assassinations and attacks on Syrian troops and security personnel. At least 14 people have been reportedly killed in these attacks since the start of May. In these conditions, Syrian forces have no other option, but to launch a series of combing operations to track and neutralize terrorists that still hide in the province.

Fresh videos from the province demonstrate the increased presence of Syrian troops in the villages of Ibtta, Khirbet Ghazaleh and the city of Daraa. The deployed reinforcements included T-72 battle tanks and other heavy military equipment.

On May 14, a strike by an unidentified unmanned combat aerial vehicle destroyed a vehicle and injured 4 fighters of Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham near the town of Sarmin in southern Idlib. The strike took place just a few hours after a joint Russian-Turkish patrol on the M4 highway, between the towns of Saraqib and Arihah.

This was the 11th joint patrol conducted by the sides in the framework of the March de-escalation agreement and the third extended patrol since the removal of a camp of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham supporters from the north of Nayrab. The patrol was faced by a new round of protests by Idlib radicals but they did not try to block or attack it.

Contrary to this, the previous such patrol, held on May 12, was marked by a military incident involving Hayat Tahrir al-Sham supporters. An improvised explosive device detonated just near a patrol when it reached the roundabout at the eastern entrance to Arihah.

The attack did not cause casualties and both the Turkish and Russian sides successfully ignored it in their reports on the joint patrolling. However, the May 14 events demonstrated that the attack did not go unanswered.

A series of mysterious drone strikes in Greater Idlib started in early April and since then led to the killing of over a dozen fighters and field commanders. Maher Kojak, the most prominent TOW missile operator, that reportedly participated in about 150 TOW strikes, was among the eliminated militants.

Opposition sources often claim that the strikes were carried by Iran or Russia. However, the targeting pattern and the timing of strikes indicate that Ankara may have been slowly eliminating the segment of its proxies that do not like its rapprochement with Moscow and try to sabotage the Russian-Turkish de-escalation agreement.

The US-led coalition and the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) continue their series of anti-ISIS raids on the eastern bank of the Euphrates. According to the SDF, two ISIS members blew themselves up during the recent raid in eastern Deir Ezzor. Despite all these efforts, ISIS cells remain very active in the area, especially near the US-controlled Omar oil fields.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Syrian Army Suffers Casualties in Daraa. Militants Attack Russian-Turkish Patrol

The reason why the U.S. Government must be prosecuted for its war-crimes against Iraq is that they are so horrific and there are so many of them, and international law crumbles until they become prosecuted and severely punished for what they did. We therefore now have internationally a lawless world (or “World Order”) in which “Might makes right,” and in which there is really no effective international law, at all. This is merely gangster “law,” ruling on an international level. It is what Hitler and his Axis of fascist imperialists had imposed upon the world until the Allies — U.S. under FDR, UK under Churchill, and U.S.S.R. under Stalin — defeated it, and established the United Nations. Furthermore, America’s leaders deceived the American public into perpetrating this invasion and occupation, of a foreign country (Iraq) that had never threatened the United States; and, so, this invasion and subsequent military occupation constitutes the very epitome of “aggressive war” — unwarranted and illegal international aggression. (Hitler, similarly to George W. Bush, would never have been able to obtain the support of his people to invade if he had not lied, or “deceived,” them, into invading and militarily occupying foreign countries that had never threatened Germany, such as Belgium, Poland and Czechoslovakia. This — Hitler’s lie-based aggressions — was the core of what the Nazis were hung for, and yet America now does it.)

As Peter Dyer wrote in 2006, about “Iraq & the Nuremberg Precedent”:

Invoking the precedent set by the United States and its allies at the Nuremberg trial in 1946, there can be no doubt that the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was a war of aggression. There was no imminent threat to U.S. security nor to the security of the world. The invasion violated the U.N. Charter as well as U.N. Security Council Resolution #1441.

The Nuremberg precedent calls for no less than the arrest and prosecution of those individuals responsible for the invasion of Iraq, beginning with President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of State Condoleez[z]a Rice, former Secretary of State Colin Powell and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Take, for example, Condoleezza Rice, who famously warned “We don’t want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.” (That warning was one of the most effective lies in order to deceive the American public into invading Iraq, because President Bush had had no real evidence, at all, that there still remained any WMD in Iraq after the U.N. had destroyed them all, and left Iraq in 1998 — and he knew this; he was informed of this; he knew that he had no real evidence, at all: he offered none; it was all mere lies.)

So, the Nuremberg precedent definitely does apply against George W, Bush and his partners-in-crime, just as it did against Hitler and his henchmen and allies.

The seriousness of this international war crime is not as severe as those of the Nazis were, but nonetheless is comparable to it.

On 15 March 2018, Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J.S. Davies headlined at Alternet “The Staggering Death Toll in Iraq” and wrote that “our calculations, using the best information available, show a catastrophic estimate of 2.4 million Iraqi deaths since the 2003 invasion,” and linked to solid evidence, backing up their estimate.

On 6 February 2020, BusinessInsider bannered “US taxpayers have reportedly paid an average of $8,000 each and over $2 trillion total for the Iraq war alone”, and linked to the academic analysis that supported this estimate. The U.S. regime’s invasive war, which the Bush gang perpetrated against Iraq, was also a crime against the American people (though Iraqis suffered far more from it than we did).

On 29 September 2015, I headlined “GALLUP: ‘Iraqis Are the Saddest & One of the Angriest Populations in the World’,” and linked to Gallup’s survey of 1,000 individuals in each of 148 countries around the world, which found that Iraq had the highest “Negative Experience Score.” That score includes “sadness,” “physical pain,” “anger,” and other types of misery — and Iraq, after America’s invasion, has scored the highest in the entire world, on it, and in the following years has likewise scored at or near the highest on “Negative Experience Score.” For example: in the latest, the 2019, Gallup “Global Emotions Report”, Iraq scores fourth from the top on “Negative Experience Score,” after (in order from the worst) Chad, Niger, and Sierra Leone. (Gallup has been doing these surveys ever since 2005, but the first one that was published under that title was the 2015 report, which summarized the 2014 surveys’ findings.)

Of course, prior to America’s invasion, there had been America’s 1990 war against Iraq and the U.S. regime’s leadership and imposition of U.N. sanctions (which likewise were based largely on U.S.-regime-backed lies, though not totally on lies like the 2003 invasion was), which caused massive misery in that country; and, therefore, not all of the misery in Iraq which showed up in the 2015 Global Emotions Report was due to only the 2003 invasion and subsequent military occupation of that country. But almost all of it was, and is. And all of it was based on America’s rulers lying to the public in order to win the public’s acceptance of their evil plans and invasions against a country that had never posed any threat whatsoever to Americans — people residing in America. Furthermore, it is also perhaps relevant that the 2012 “World Happiness Report” shows Iraq at the very bottom of the list of countries (on page 55 of that report) regarding “Average Net Affect by Country,” meaning that Iraqis were the most zombified of all 156 nationalities surveyed. Other traumatized countries were immediately above Iraq on that list. On “Average Negative Affect,” only “Palestinian Territories” scored higher than Iraq (page 52). After America’s invasion based entirely on lies, Iraq is a wrecked country, which still remains under the U.S. regime’s boot, as the following will document:

Bush’s successors, Obama and Trump, failed to press for Bush’s trial on these vast crimes, even though the American people had ourselves become enormously victimized by them, though far less so than Iraqis were. Instead, Bush’s successors have become accessories after the fact, by this failure to press for prosecution of him and his henchmen regarding this grave matter. In fact, the “Defense One” site bannered on 26 September 2018, “US Official: We May Cut Support for Iraq If New Government Seats Pro-Iran Politicians”, and opened with “The Trump administration may decrease U.S. military support or other assistance to Iraq if its new government puts Iranian-aligned politicians in any ‘significant positions of responsibility,’ a senior administration official told reporters late last week.” The way that the U.S. regime has brought ‘democracy’ to Iraq is by threatening to withdraw its protection of the stooge-rulers that it had helped to place into power there, unless those stooges do the U.S. dictators’ bidding, against Iraq’s neighbor Iran. This specific American dictator, Trump, is demanding that majority-Shiite Iraq be run by stooges who favor, instead, America’s fundamentalist-Sunni allies, such as the Saud family who own Saudi Arabia and who hate and loathe Shiites and Iran.

The U.S. dictatorship insists that Iraq, which the U.S. conquered, serve America’s anti-Shiite and anti-Iranian policy-objectives. “The U.S. threat, to withhold aid if Iran-aligned politicians occupy any ministerial position, is an escalation of Washington’s demands on Baghdad.” The article went on to quote a “senior administration official” as asserting that, “if Iran exerts a tremendous amount of influence, or a significant amount of influence over the Iraqi government, it’s going to be difficult for us to continue to invest.” Get the euphemisms there! This article said that “the Trump administration has made constraining Iran’s influence in the region a cornerstone of their foreign policy.” So, this hostility toward Iran must be reflected in Iraq’s policies, too. It’s not enough that Trump wants to destroy Iran like Bush has destroyed Iraq; Trump demands that Iraq participate in that crime, against Iraq’s own neighbor. This article said that, “There have also been protests against ‘U.S. meddling’ in the formation of a new Iraqi government, singling out Special Presidential Envoy Brett McGurk for working to prevent parties close to Iran from obtaining power.” McGurk is the rabidly neconservative former high G.W. Bush Administration official, and higher Obama Administration official, who remained as Trump’s top official on his policy to force Iraq to cooperate with America’s efforts to conquer Iran. Trump’s evil is Obama’s evil, and is Bush’s evil. It is bipartisan evil, no matter which Party is in power. Though Trump doesn’t like either the Bushes or Obamas, all of them are in the same evil policy-boat. America’s Deep State remains the same, no matter whom it places into the position of nominal power. The regime remains the same, regardless.

On April 29th, the whistleblowing former UK Ambassador Craig Murray wrote:

Nobody knows how many people died as a result of the UK/US Coalition of Death led destruction of Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and, by proxy, Syria and Yemen. Nobody even knows how many people western forces themselves killed directly. That is a huge number, but still under 10% of the total. To add to that you have to add those who died in subsequent conflict engendered by the forced dismantling of the state the West disapproved of. Some were killed by western proxies, some by anti-western forces, and some just by those reverting to ancient tribal hostility and battle for resources into which the country had been regressed by bombing.

You then have to add all those who died directly as a result of the destruction of national infrastructure. Iraq lost in the destruction 60% of its potable drinking water, 75% of its medical facilities and 80% of its electricity. This caused millions of deaths, as did displacement. We are only of course talking about deaths, not maiming.

UK’s Prime Minister Tony Blair should hang with the U.S. gang, but who is calling for this? How much longer will the necessary prosecutions wait? Till after these international war-criminals have all gone honored to their graves?

Although the International Criminal Court considered and dismissed possible criminal charges against Tony Blair’s UK Government regarding the invasion and military occupation of Iraq, the actual crime, of invading and militarily occupying a country which had posed no threat to the national security of the invader, was ignored, and the conclusion was that “the situation did not appear to meet the required threshold of the Statute” (which was only“Willful killing or inhuman treatment of civilians” and which ignored the real crime, which was “aggressive war” or “the crime of aggression” — the crime for which Nazis had been hanged at Nuremberg). Furthermore, no charges whatsoever against the U.S. Government (the world’s most frequent and most heinous violator of international law) were considered. In other words: the International Criminal Court is subordinate to, instead of applicable to, the U.S. regime. Just like Adolf Hitler had repeatedly made clear that, to him, all nations except Germany were dispensable and only Germany wasn’t, Barack Obama repeatedly said that “The United States is and remains the one indispensable nation”, which likewise means that every other nation is “dispensable.” The criminal International Criminal Court accepts this, and yet expects to be respected.

The U.S. regime did “regime change” to Iraq in 2003, and to Ukraine in 2014, and tried to do it to Syria since 2009, and to Yemen since 2015, and to Venezuela since 2012, and to Iran since 2017 — just to mention some of the examples. And, though the Nuremberg precedent certainly applies, it’s not enforced. In principle, then, Hitler has posthumously won WW II.

The only way to address this problem, if there won’t be prosecutions against the ‘duly elected’ (Deep-State-approved and enabled) national leaders and appointees, would be governmental seizure and nationalization of the assets that are outright owned or else controlled by America’s Deep State. Ultimately, the Government-officials who are s‘elected’ and appointed to run the American Government have been and are representing not the American people but instead represent the billionaires who fund those officials’ and former officials’ careers. In a democracy, those individuals — the financial enablers of those politicians’ s‘electoral’ success — would be dispossessed of all their assets, and then prosecuted for the crimes that were perpetrated by the public officials whom they had participated in (significantly funded and propagandized for) placing into power. (For example, both Parties’ Presidential nominees are unqualified to serve in any public office in a democracy.)

Democracy cannot function with a systematically lied-to public. Nor can it function if the responsible governmental officials are effectively immune from prosecution for their ‘legal’ crimes, or if the financial string-pullers behind the scenes can safely pull those strings. In America right now, both of those conditions pertain, and, as a result, democracy is impossible. There are only two ways to address this problem, and one of them would start by prosecuting George W. Bush.

*

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 The Saker.

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

Featured image: US Stryker vehicle hit by a deeply buried improvised explosive device while conducting operations just south of the Shiek Hamed village in Iraq. 2007. Public domain.

With a better world on the horizon, the old order is desperately asserting its last vestige of power.  What the perpetrators of the coronavirus event were not counting on was that the pandemic would usher in a new era of accelerated awakening as millions continue to acknowledge that there is a new Quantum world emerging. 

That new awareness was followed by the spontaneous  exposure of Big Pharma, Big Science and Big Medicine as more corrupt that previously imagined.  At the same time, the disturbing truth of vaccines lacking scientific merit surfaced as receptacles for nano particles that would alter human DNA as well as enforcing a worldwide mandatory vaccination and digital ID  program – all of which are violations of Universal Law.

It stands to reason that TPTB are terrified of a united opposition of seven billion inhabitants which will never accept their rule,  thereby necessitating a direct assault on free speech and the full acquiescence of a more docile citizenry.

Censorship protects the powerful from criticism just as it needs to keep truth hidden from public awareness.  Censorship is an outright admission that TPTB‘s  grasp is slipping.  As its control continues to falter, more censorship will be applied confirming that their message is not resonating while their control over the population continues to erode.  With the public less than hoodwinked, a second radio frequency wave  is assured.

Section 230 

The Electronic Frontier Foundation refers  to Section 230  as “the most important law protecting internet speech.”

The Communications Decency Act (aka Title V of the Telecommunications Act of 1996) states that No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230).

The translation is that Section 230 was  specifically adopted to protect a service provider against illegal content; so that it could not be held legally liable for whatever a user might say on line. ThusSection 230 provides “immunity from liability for providers and users of an interactive computer service” which publishes information provided by third-party users:

Congressional Findings are clear:  Section 230 was added to protect innovation, free speech and provide a neutral internet platform:

“…offers a forum for true diversity of political discourse, unique opportunities for cultural development, and myriad avenues for intellectual activity.”

Section 230 does not include any ‘community guidelines’ exceptions to allow service providers to make arbitrary, partisan decisions to censor what might be capriciously defined as objectionable or offensive content. Further,

(2) Civil liability No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A)   any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or…”

Clearly, the intent of Section 230 was always to protect internet content and not as a vehicle to allow Big Tech to censor, ban or de-platform/demonetize any website, individual  or information that does not conform to a service providers variable political agenda.

In 2019, Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo) introduced “Ending Support for Internet Censorship Act” (S 1914) which would remove Section 230’s automatic  government-sponsored immunity as  Big Tech would be required to ‘earn’ that immunity back by providing evidence to the FTC that their algorithms and content-removal practices are politically neutral. S 1914 would require a super-majority FTC vote for Big Tech to reapply for government-granted immunity as it must renew its immunity every two years.  In addition, S 1914 only applies to tech companies with more than 30 million active monthly users in the US,, more than 300 million active monthly users worldwide, or who have more than $500 million in global annual revenue

The Censors

Since 2016,  Big Tech has revved up its immense power to increasingly control and suppress political internet content.  Aw Big Tech consistently violates its agreement to adhere to Section 230,  they continue to assume the benefits of its government-granted immunity.  Convinced of its political muscle, the tech industry have counted on a derelict Congress as they continue to subvert the free speech of any website or individual who thinks ‘outside the box’ or offers an alternative political point of view.

Big Tech routinely threaten and issues ultimatums to creators and providers of content although, according to Section 230, they have no authority to do so . Likewise, under Section 230, Big Tech has no authority to ban, censor, de-monetize or de-platform any of its content creators. It is long past time for Big Tech to be declared public utilities. Since the tech companies are privately held corporations and not ‘state actors,’ the First Amendment is not applicable.

More specifically, since the coronavirus crisis, Big Tech has increased its ability to censor all discussion, even by Doctors, scientists and medical professionals who dare question the prevailing wisdom about all aspects of the on-going health  crisis.  Increasingly, the only opinions allowed are the one dimensional views that support Big Pharma and its friends.

Censorship

In  response to a lawsuit complaining that You Tube (YT) is censoring conservative speech, a June 25, 2019 YT response declared “..we apply our policies fairly and without political bias. All creators are held to the same standard.”

With two billion monthly users who watch one billion hours a day, YT would easily qualify for S1914’s elimination of immunity and  its need to provide the algorithmic data to prove its lack of bias. YouTube is especially egregious  in routinely stretching its authority in suppressing  free speech under the guise of committing a ‘community guideline” violation.

In her recent rejection of Dr. Erickson’s video which attracted millions of  worldwide viewers, Susan Wojcicki, YT CEO  articulated narrow explanations confirming that all dissent, any medical information that goes against or even questions the establishmentarian view is verboten.

“…but then we talked about removing information that is problematic. Of course anything that is medically unsubstantiated, so  people will  say, take vitamin c, take turmeric, those will cure you, Those are examples of things as a violation of our policy …anything that goes against World Health Organization recommendations would be a violation of our policy and so remove is another important part of our policy..”

Wojcicki continued that

“…just recently there was a theory that 5G was causing coronavirus symptoms.  Now no established health organization says that 5G is the source of the issue.  We quickly deemed that a violation of our policy, and removed that content“ 

When MS. Wojcicki suggested a blind adherence to WHO, is she referring to their recommendation that masks are not effective or rather their later ‘recommendation’ in favor of mandatory masks  – and was she referring to WHO’s stated opinion that CV was not transmissible or their later turn around that amended that information?

According to Ms. Wojcicki’s pronouncement, she has the right of sole discretion to  decide what medical information should be publicly available even as her opinions are ‘medically unsubstantiated.’

At a time when free and informed discussion is more vital than ever, Ms. W’s lacks the understanding of the necessary role of inquiry and debate as fundamental to Science, she does a disservice to all YT patrons. As a discipline that thrives  on continued exploration of fact-based evidence  which was once the heart of Science, Ms W’s subjective preference is to see them through the narrow authoritarian lens as unnecessary and trivial. With regard to a possible 5G role in the CV, her lack of a curious mind about the military uses of the electro magnetic spectrum denies YT subscribers an opportunity to become better informed.

As the reality is obvious and we all recognize, this is not about the validity of Science or where the truth may lie; it is about the reality that dissent is no longer tolerated even by inferior minds; that those in positions of political power are intent on destroying the First Amendment and shutting down the public’s right to know. Try BitChute.

*

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.

Renee Parsons  has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC.  Renee is a student of the Quantum Field.  She may be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

“Is Trump totally insane?” Experts and the international community couldn’t help but ask this question after US President Donald Trump threatened to “cut off the whole relationship” with China on Thursday in an interview with FOX Business. Observers said that Trump’s word would never deter China, but may shock US political and business circles and its own people, and may put world peace in a dangerous position.

“There are many things we could do,” Trump told FOX Business’ Maria Bartiromo Thursday. “We could cut off the whole relationship.” Trump added that ending relations with China would “save $500 billion.”

Fox Business said in a report that Trump’s Thursday remarks were one of his “strongest comments yet in dealing with China” in the wake of its handling of the coronavirus pandemic.

Americans will suffer

“Again! Trump is talking nonsense.” Trump seems to be losing his mind right now. Even he has such crazy ideas of cutting ties with China, US politicians, businessmen and Americans would not allow him to do so, Xin Qiang, deputy director of the Center for US Studies at Fudan University, told the Global Times.

He noted that Trump is bluffing and acting tough toward China to win more support. Fox News, which has been regarded as Trump’s defender and is notorious for a lack of professionalism, is also making eye-catching news to draw attention.

Jin Canrong, the associate dean of Renmin University of China’s School of International Studies in Beijing, told the Global Times on Thursday that Trump made very irresponsible and emotional remarks in the interview.

“The China-US relationship is the most important bilateral relationship in the world and involves huge interests of the two countries, as well as the rest of the world. Therefore, it is not something he can cut off emotionally,” Jin said.

“If the US unilaterally cuts off ties, the American people will pay a heavier price than us, because China’s domestic market is huge and 75-80 percent of Chinese manufacturers are supplying China’s market, and the 2 to 5 percent that supply the US can also be absorbed by the domestic market,” he noted.

US stocks fell sharply in pre-market trading, with the Dow and NASDAQ futures all dropping more than one percent after Trump’s remarks on Thursday.

China has nothing to be afraid of as “in the past, we didn’t solve the Taiwan question because we wanted to maintain the China-US relationship, and if the US unilaterally cuts it off, we can just reunify Taiwan immediately since the Chinese mainland has an overwhelming advantage to solve this long-standing problem.”

“Trump is like a giant baby on the brink of a meltdown as he faces tremendous pressure due to massive failures that caused such a high death toll,” Shen Yi, an expert from Fudan University, told the Global Times. “It’s like someone who wants to show his guts when he passes by a cemetery in midnight. He needs to shout to give himself the courage,” he said.

Shen also noted that the American companies and industries would suffer the most severe consequences, because the supply chain has been integrated with China.

“The Chinese public would only take such bluffing as a joke,” Shen said, adding that there has been no US president in the history who has made such a ridiculous statement against China, not even during the Cold War.

Yuan Zheng, a research fellow at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS), said he could not even remember any US leader who took a similar action. “His flip-flop rhetoric is unprecedented, but we need to take a look at whether Trump will take real action,” he said, noting that there is no need to pay attention to claims that are unrealistic and meaningless.

New farce, height of blaming China

In the past two months, instead of focusing on handling the COVID-19 pandemic, Trump and his team have insisted on blaming China by using all kinds of excuses – from hyping conspiracies of the virus’ origin, to accusing China of covering up the virus.

Against the backdrop of still increasing infections and deaths from COVID-19 in the US, with no inflection point in sight, Trump has become grumpy and more eager to blame the scapegoat – China, experts said.

“Trump is like a cornered beast doing something desperate, or he could not continue to stay in American politics,” Li Haidong, a professor at the Institute of International Relations of the China Foreign Affairs University, told the Global Times on Thursday.

In a short term, Trump’s words can be taken as election language, Li said.

“The most important thing to Trump is to win the election and maintain power. Everything else can be sacrificed.”

In a long run, frictions and conflicts will continue to surface between China and the US. Divergence management will be a major mission of the two sides. It will not be surprising if the management fails and the conflict worsens, said Li, noting that China-US ties could not go back to the past and it is hard to predict how they would develop in the long run.

Jin noted Trump probably wants China to make more compromises in the future trade deal, and “maybe he doesn’t want China to sell medical supplies to states controlled by the Democrats, but only wants China to sell them to his son-in-law,” Jared Kushner, who is in charge of the medical supplies of the Trump administration.

Lü Xiang, a research fellow on US studies at the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences in Beijing, told the Global Times that the failed handling of the Trump administration of the COVID-19 pandemic is causing total disorder to the country, and the administration’s behavior is getting more unpredictable.

“For Trump, fantasy is power; bluffing is power, so he might use the future of his country to gamble with China. Although China always believes  cooperation is the only right choice for the two countries to solve the problems together, if the US unilaterally and irrationally chooses all-out confrontation, China also needs to be prepared.”

*

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 FinanceTwitter

Palestinians worldwide have an annual day of remembrance called Nakba Day. Nakba comes from the Arabic al-Nakbah and means “disaster” or “catastrophe.” It takes place on May 15th, the day after the Gregorian calendar date for Israeli independence in 1948. It is an opportunity for a people who live largely in exile to recall what was stolen from them by the nascent Israeli state in 1947 through 1949. An estimated 700,000 Palestinians, half of the country’s Arab Christian and Muslim population, were driven from their homes through a deliberate policy of terrorism officially initiated in January 1948 to drive the Palestinian population out, a clear case of government initiated ethnic cleansing.

The expulsion orders, formulated as Plan Dalet in March, were carried out by the Jewish state’s military and militia forces, to include terrorist groups like Irgun and Lehi. The massacre of Arab civilians at Deir Yassin in April 1948, in which hundreds of civilians died, was, for example, implemented to terrorize the local population, forcing it to flee. In the portion of Palestine that was to become Israel fully 80% of the resident Arabs, many of them Christian, were killed, fled in terror or were compelled to leave at gunpoint.

In the expulsion process, which continued into early 1949, between four hundred and six hundred Arab villages were destroyed or rendered uninhabitable, while Palestinians in the larger urban centers were driven from their homes. Those homes were then given to Jews coming from Europe or America and one of the first acts carried out by the new nation Israel’s parliament was to pass laws blocking the return of any Palestinian to his or her home in what was to become the Jewish state. This meant in practice that a European Jew could arrive in Israel on one day and by the next be settled in a former Palestinian home. The legal owner of that home, however, had no right to return or even visit his former property. United Nations demands that the Palestinians should one day be able to return home have been since that time ignored by Israel and unsupported by the United States.

In fact, Israel never intended to allow Palestinians to return to their homes, in spite of the fact that when it joined the United Nations in May 1949 it agreed to “unreservedly accept the obligations of the United Nations Charter and undertake to honor them from the day when it becomes a member of the United Nations.” This included an explicit understanding in principle to allow the return of all Palestinian refugees.

Palestinians are to a certain extent wards of the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA), which was founded in 1949 to support those displaced by the Israelis. In 1949 there were less than one million refugees, but today, due to large families and other population growth, the number who technically qualify for UNRWA’s assistance is over 5 million. Services include education, health care, food security and other essentials, to some 800,000 Palestinians registered as refugees in the West Bank and 1.3 million people in the Gaza Strip, as well as 534,000 in refugee camps in Syria, 464,000 more in Lebanon and also 2 million in Jordan.  Approximately 1 million refugees have no documents other than an UNRWA identification card.

Israel has long been highly critical of UNRWA and the Donald Trump Administration predictably followed its lead to eliminate funding to the organization in August 2018.

The so-called peace plan being promoted by the Trump Administration has been rightly described as a non-starter as it is a wish list for Israel that will permit annexation of much of the West Bank with a rump Palestinian state that has no control over its airspace, water, borders or defense in place for those Arabs who can be induced to remain. It would mark the clearly perceived end of any Palestinian aspirations for either statehood or even for an acceptable relationship marked by mutual respect with its de factoJewish overlords.

American antipathy towards the Palestinians, particularly as expressed by Evangelicals, is somewhat surprising as there has long been a vibrant Christian community in Palestine that has been sharply diminished through the actions of the state of Israel. Residents and church leaders describe the nervousness of the tiny Christian communities in Israel, caught between larger Muslim and Jewish populations. Like other Palestinians, Christians face land seizures, arbitrary arrests, home demolitions and collective punishment that come with the Israeli occupation. Recently radical Jewish settlers have become more active, defacing Christian churches and cemeteries while also threatening and spitting on clergy in the streets.

In and around Bethlehem, Christians constituted 80 percent of the population in 1950 and are only around 12 percent today. Jewish settlements have annexed land owned by Christians in many areas. In Israel itself, Christians were 21 percent of the Arab population in 1948 but number only 8 percent today, just 2 percent of the total population. The process has been described as “a quiet ethnic cleansing… not large-scale massacres or large-scale deportations, but it is bit by bit over many years with a variety of policies which Christians are not necessarily attacked as Christians but they are marked by being Palestinians.”

This year Palestinians are expressing themselves on Nakba Day to demonstrate their rejection of the Trump peace plan as well as of the new Israeli Benjamin Netanyahu led government’s intention to annex large portions of the West Bank, to include the entire Jordan River Valley, after July 1st. They have adopted the hashtag #COVID1948, which seeks to equate the current devastation resulting from the coronavirus with the catastrophe that occurred to the Palestinian people in 1948 at the hands of the Israelis. It is reportedly trending on social media and is in one sense an eloquent reminder of the wrongs committed against an entire people, to include a deliberate policy of ethnic cleansing that bore fruit in 1948-9. It is also a reminder that the Palestinians are a stubborn and self-aware people who will not just go away because the Israelis and the United States would like to see that happen.

*

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 American Herald Tribune.

Philip M. Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from AHT

The trap was set at least twenty-five years ago and the mice jumped at the smell of the cheese.  I am referring to the introduction of the computer as a mass necessity and the Internet that followed. I was slow to enter the trap, “forced” finally in 2007 by the college where I was teaching. Up to that point I was just a member of The Lead Pencil Club, whose motto was “a speed bump on the information superhighway” and whose membership list numbered twenty-three and a half people worldwide. When I slowly and reluctantly reached for the cheese, the trap snapped not on my neck to finish me, but on my head that was half in and half out. 

The out part kept thinking.  What follows are that half-head’s musings on why I didn’t follow my intuition, the whole damn sorry situation we are all in, and what we might do to spring the trap and run free.  I don’t like this trapped feeling.  And, by the way, the cheese was American, which is not exactly real cheese.

In 1960 the sociologist C. Wright Mills said that there was far too much information for people to assimilate and make sense of and that lucid summations were needed.  He was echoing Thoreau who in 1854 said, “If you are acquainted with the principle, what do you care for a myriad instances and applications?” Mills said people needed to develop what he called the sociological imagination that would allow them to condense and simplify news and to connect personal and social matters within historical and structural contexts.

That was the long-lost era of newspapers, long-form paper magazines, the reading of books, and minimal television stations.  To think that there was far too much information then can only make one laugh, now that the digital revolution has buried us in data, information, and “breaking news” at warp speed, usually contradictory and lacking context.  The internet has literally made people crazy, created schizoid or split personalities who don’t know whether they are coming or going or what world they are in, physical or virtual.  This is the era of social schizophrenia.  It is also the era of Covid-19 lockdowns when a far greater online life is promoted as the necessary future.

If people once felt that all the information was too confusing and they were ending up thinking and doing things ass-backwards as a result, back then they might have understood it if you told them that the only way you can do anything is ass-backwards.  Today, many would probably greet you with a look of bewilderment as they googled it to see if there was a way to swivel their asses to the front to get adjusted to the way they feel while waiting online for clear directions to emerge. Which way does an ass go?

They will be waiting for a long, long time.

The Internet is a double-bind because we are damned if we do and damned if we don’t. News, writing, and information of all sorts is now often not available any other way. The era of paper newspapers is coming to an end. This was meant to be. Other sources of fact and fiction have gradually been eliminated, while the content on the Internet has been dramatically increased and progressively censored. The dream of an open Internet is turning into a nightmare. If you look at the Internet’s creation and development by the U.S. military-intelligence-Silicon Valley network as a tool for social control, propaganda, and total spying, if you grasp this nexus and their intentions, you will come away realizing that the Internet and the total integrated digital world is a dystopian tool designed to make you crazy.  To sow confusion and endless contradictory information from minute to minute.  To “flood the zone” (see Event 201) with propaganda and disinformation. To give you a headache, keep you agitated, destroy your genuine human experience in the physical world. To put you into a state of frenetic passivity while whispering in your ear that there is no escape, while allowing elements of truth to emerge to keep you addicted.

This is the double-bind. It is what Jacques Ellul in 1964 called the technological society that is ruled by technique in every aspect of its life.  Technique is a way of thinking that emphasizes efficiency; it is a way of thinking that emphasizes order and standardized means to a predetermined end. It is rational, deliberate, and focused on results.  It is a way of thinking that has penetrated deep into the psychic structures of society and opposes spontaneity and unreflective action.  Machines grow out of technical thinking, and today the computer, the internet, and artificial intelligence are the ideal manifestations of such thinking.  They are the result, not the cause.  As such, digital technology satisfies the technical mindsets that have been created over the decades, which includes regular people who have been gradually softened up to believe these machine dreams.  Efficiency, results, practicality, and speed. The human body as a wonderful machine.

We have all been so conditioned, even those of us old enough to have lived before the computer era. Starting particularly in the early 1990s with the rat-a-tat electronic frenzy of the U.S. televised aggressive war against Iraq, euphemistically called the Gulf War and presented live with round-the-clock television coverage by ghoulish announcers more excited than 13-year-old boys with a porn magazine, the speed of everyday life has increased. If you lived through those years and were sensitive to the social drift, you could feel the pace of life pick up year-to-year, as everyone was induced to get in the fast lane.  On the information superhighway, it is the only lane. Paul Virilio, a French thinker, has focused on this issue of speed in his studies of dromology, from dromos: a race, running.  While his language is perhaps too academic, his insights are profound, as with the following point:

The speed of the new optoelectronic and electroacoustic milieu becomes the final void (the void of the quick), a vacuum that no longer depends on the interval between places or things and so on the world’s extension, but on the interface of an instantaneous transmission of remote appearances, on a geographic and geometric retention in which all volume, all relief vanishes.

This is the world of teleconferencing and the online life, existence shorn of physical space and time and people.  A world where shaking hands is a dissident act. A haunted world of specters, words, and images that can appear and disappear in a nanosecond.  A magic show. A place where, in the words of Charles Manson, you can “get the fear,” where fear is king.  A locus where, as we sit at home “sheltering in place,” we are no longer there. Ernest Hemingway sniffed the future when in The Sun Also Rises, he has the protagonist Jake Barnes say no to Robert Cohn, who wants him to travel to South America with him, with these words: “All countries look like the moving pictures.”  That was 1926.

Things have changed a wee bit since then. But the essence of propaganda and social control remains the same.  “All those people who seek to control the behavior of large numbers of other people work on the experiencesof those other people,” wrote R.D. Laing, in The Politics of Experience. “Once people can be induced to experience a situation in a similar way, they can be expected to behave in similar ways.” Mystification takes place when people can be convinced that a social construction – e.g. the Internet and the digital life – is part of “the natural order of things,” like the air we breathe. And that life online is real life, better and more real than physical existence.

I believe the digital revolution has gone a long way toward destroying our experience as persons. It is the endless magical mystery tour that goes nowhere.  It is the ultimate psychodrama conjured by a satanic magician.

Do I exaggerate?  Perhaps.  But how else explain the spell this medium has cast on billions of people worldwide? Did the human race suddenly get smart? Or are many more people crazy?

I ask myself this question, and now I ask you.  Has the Internet and the devices to access it made your life better or worse? Has it made the life of humanity better or worse? Has its essential role in globalization made for a better world?

Obviously, there are pluses to the Internet, just as there are pluses to almost everything.  I don’t deny that. The plus side of death is that the thought of it reminds you that you are alive. The plus side of television is you don’t have to turn it on. Like you, I could rattle off many good things about the Internet (not cell phones, sorry).  But on the scale of good and bad, where do you come down?  Where do I?

Or is it possible we can’t decide because we are too conflicted and caught in a double-bind?

I am of two minds, or more accurately, two half-heads. The upper part, pinned in the trap and dead to my situation, can only answer yes, sir, now that I am trapped, my life is better.  I can debate endlessly the minutiae of every issue thrown out like pieces of meat for caged lions.  I can check the weather forecast for every hour of every day of the week, even though I know they will probably be wrong.  I can get directions even though I know you don’t need a director to know which way the roads go.  I can research issues quickly and pontificate as if I were an expert on every matter from a to z.  I can feel I am informed while feeling deformed by the contradictory information that appears and disappears every few minutes.  Essentially, I can feel in-touch and worthy of respect from friends and neighbors because I can exchange empty words with them about nothing. I can feel so very normal and rejoice in that.  I can feel sane.

On the negative side, well, my lower half-head, the one that’s still thinking lead-pencil thoughts, the slow and easy stuff, the calm cool breeze oh what a lovely day dreams – you don’t really need to hear what it has to bitch about the Internet.  You can probably guess.

In a fine article, “Vicious Cycles: Theses on a philosophy of news,” in Harper’s Magazine, Greg Jackson writes the following about our addiction to so-called “news” (the Internet):

When we turn away from the news, we will confront a startling loneliness.  It is the loneliness of life.  The loneliness of thinking, of having no one to think for us, and of uncertainty.  It is a loneliness that was always there but that was obscured by an illusion, and we will miss the illusion…. And we will miss tuning in each day to hear that voice that cuts boredom and loneliness in its solution of the present tense, that like Scheherazade assures us the story is still unfolding and always will be.  I don’t know whether we can give it up.

Nor do I.

*

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.

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. Visit the author’s website here.

Featured image is from Distract The Media

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Online Double-bind. “Digital Revolution, …. Many More People are Crazy”

For a long period the Chinese regime has vacillated between seeking accommodation with the U.S.-led imperialist forces to ‘do business’ with the western world, and defending itself against the attempted economic, political, and military encirclement and strangulation of China by those same imperialist forces.

This encirclement campaign against China began under Bush as the Washington regime begain to fear China’s economic rise as a threat to it’s own global dominance. This campaign increased under Obama as 60% of U.S. military forces were moved into Asia and the ‘trans-pacific partnership of the U.S. with its Asian allies was created in a failed attempt to isolate China economically. Under Trumps nationalist ‘America First’banner the anti-China campaign was qualitativly escalated by declaring that combating ‘Strategic competitors’ (i.e., China and Russia), and not global terrorism, was the ‘number one’ military and overall strategic priority for the U.S. regime.

China, though not imperialist like the U.S., had also turned to increased nationalism at least partially in response to the U.S. threat and partially to divert Chinese public attention from the  economic slow-down in China due to the protracted post 2008 world economic crisis.

Now, however, the Chinese vacillation between accommodating the U.S.-led forces and defending itself against them seems to be over. In response to the US.trade war; the false U.S. claims that China is responsible for the U.S. coronavirus crisis; the U.S. South Sea military actions and movement into Asia of 60% of the U.S. military; and the attacks on Huawei and China’s hi-tech sector, the Chinese regime appears to have finally accepted that it must deal with the U.S. as an enemy state.

A lead article in today’s Global Times, a Chinese state newspaper closely aligned with Beijing policies, is entitled ‘China’s countermeasures ready for prolonged ‘war’ with US’.

“The environment for China’s peaceful development has changed greatly. China’s domestic and foreign policies must also adjust. US suppression has become the No.1 challenge to China’s development. For quite a long time, we need to release our strength to destroy US bluster.

“We must be clear that coping with US suppression will be the key focus of China’s national strategy. We should enhance cooperation with most countries. The US is expected to contain China’s international front lines, and we must knock out this US plot and make China-US rivalry a process of US self-isolation.

“That the US suppresses China in full fury goes against trends. As long as we do our job well, there is no need to fear Washington’s thirst for power. If the US really walks beyond the lines, we will first make some US companies suffer to show our strength and resolve. Then we will think how to cope with all these changes and adopt a down-to-earth manner to engage in a prolonged struggle with a reckless US.”

Another article in the same issue is entitled:  ‘China ready to target Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco and Boeing in retaliation against US’ Huawei ban: source.”  The article states that “Apple, Qualcomm, Cisco “and Boeing are all highly dependent on the Chinese market.”

And that investigations or suspensions of their right to do business in China will be implemented if the U.S. regime proceeds with blocking shipments of crucial chips to the Chinese tech giant Huawei.   Stopping all purchases of Boeing aircraft is also mentioned as a distinct possibility.

*

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.

How Biosecurity Is Enabling Digital Neo-Feudalism

May 17th, 2020 by Pepe Escobar

Italian master thinker Giorgio Agamben has been on the – controversial – forefront examining what new paradigm may be emerging out of our current pandemic distress.

He recently called attention to an extraordinary book published seven years ago that already laid it all out.

In Tempetes Microbiennes, Patrick Zylberman, a professor of History of Health in Paris, detailed the complex process through which health security, so far at the margins of political strategies, was sneaking into center stage in the early 2000s. The WHO had already set the precedent in 2005, warning about “50 million deaths” around the world caused by the incoming swine flu. In the worst-case scenario projected for a pandemic, Zylberman predicted that “sanitary terror” would be used as an instrument of governance.

That worst-case scenario has been revamped as we speak. The notion of a generalized obligatory confinement is not warranted by any medical justification, or leading epidemiological research, when it comes to fighting a pandemic. Still, that was enshrined as the hegemonic policy – with the inevitable corollary of countless masses plunged into unemployment. All that based on failed, delirious mathematical models of the Imperial College kind, imposed by powerful pressure groups ranging from the World Economic Forum (WEF) to the Munich Security Conference.

Enter Dr. Richard Hatchett, a former member of the National Security Council during the first Bush Jr. administration, who was already recommending obligatory confinement of the whole population way back in 2001. Hatchett now directs the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a very powerful entity coordinating global vaccine investment, and very cozy with Big Pharma. CEPI happens to be a brainchild of the WEF in conjunction with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Crucially, Hatchett regards the fight against Covid-19 as a “war”. The terminology – adopted by everyone from President Trump to President Macron – gives away the game. It harks back to – what else – the global war on terror (GWOT), as solemnly announced in September 2001 by Donald “Known Unknowns” Rumsfeld himself.

Rumsfeld, crucially, had been the chairman of biotech giant Gilead. After 9/11, at the Pentagon, he got busy aiming to blur the distinction between civilians and the military when it came to GWOT. That’s when “generalized obligatory confinement” was conceptualized, with Hatchett among the key players.

As much as this was a militarized Big Pharma spin-off concept, it had nothing to do with public health. What mattered was the militarization of American society to be adopted in response to bioterror – at the time automatically attributed to a squalid, tech-deprived al-Qaeda.

The current version of this project – we are at “war” and every civilian must stay at home – takes the form of what Alexander Dugin has defined as a medical-military dictatorship.

Hatchett is very much part of the group, alongside ubiquitous Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), very close to WHO, WEF and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and Robert Redfield, director of the U.S. chapter of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Further applications inbuilt in the project will include all-around digital surveillance, sold as health monitoring. Already implemented in the current narrative is the non-stop demonization of China, “guilty” of all things Covid-19-related. That is inherited from another tried and tested war game – the Red Dawn scheme.

Show me your fragility

Agamben did square the circle: it’s not that citizens across the West have the right to health safety; now they are juridically forced (italics mine) to be healthy. That, in a nutshell, is what biosecurity is all about.

So no wonder biosecurity is an ultra-efficient governance paradigm. Citizens had it administered down their throats with no political debate whatsoever. And the enforcement, writes Agamben, kills “any political activity and any social relation as the maximum example of civic participation.”

What we are already experiencing is social distancing as a political model (italics mine) – with a digital matrix replacing human interaction, which by definition from now on will be regarded as fundamentally suspicious and politically “contagious”.

Agamben has to be appalled by this “concept for the destiny of human society that in many aspects seems to have borrowed from religions in decline the apocalyptic idea of the end of the world”. Economics had already replaced politics – as in everything subjected to the diktats of financial capitalism. Now the economy is being absorbed by “the new biosecurity paradigm to which every other imperative must be sacrificed.”

How to fight against it? Conceptual weaponry is available, such as the courses on biopolitics taught by Michel Foucault at the College de France between 1972 and 1984. They may now be consulted via a decentralized platform set up by a collective which delightfully describes itself as “the crayfish”, who “advance laterally”: a concept that does justice to great rhizomatic master Gilles Deleuze.

Nassim Taleb’s concept of Antifragile is also quite helpful. As he explains, “Antifragile is the antidote to Black Swans.” Well, Covid-19 was a Black Swan of sorts: after all deciding elites knew something like it was inevitably coming – even as lowly Western politicians, especially, were caught totally unprepared.

Antifragile contends that because of fear (very much in evidence now) or a “thirst for order” (natural to any political power) “some human systems, by disrupting the invisible or not so visible logic of things, tend to be exposed to harm from Black Swans and almost never get any benefit. You get pseudo-order when you seek order; you only get a measure of order and control when you embrace randomness.”

The conclusion is that “in the black swan world, optimization isn’t possible. The best you can achieve is a reduction in fragility and greater robustness.”

There’s no evidence, so far, that a “reduction in fragility” in the current world-system will necessarily lead towards “greater robustness.” The system has never proved to be so fragile. What we do have is plenty of indications that the system collapse is being refitted, at breakneck speed, as digital neo-feudalism.

Lost in a biopolitical quarantine

Byung-Chul Han, the South Korean philosopher who teaches in Berlin, has attempted to lay it all out. The problem is he’s too much of a hostage of an idealized vision of Western liberalism.

Byung-Chul Han is correct when he notes that Asia fought Covid-19 with rigor and discipline inconceivable in the West – something that I have followed closely. But then he evokes the Chinese social credit system to mount an attack on China’s society of digital discipline. The system unquestionably allows for biopolitical surveillance. But it’s all about nuance.

The social credit system is like the formula “socialism with Chinese characteristics”; a hybrid that is effective only when responding to China’s complex specificities.

The maze of facial recognition surveillance cameras; the absence of restriction to data exchanged between internet providers and the central power; the QR code that tells whether you’re “red” or “green” in terms of infection; all these instruments were applied – successfully – in China to the benefit of public health.

Byung-Chul Han is forced to admit that does not take place only in China; South Korea – a Western-style democracy – is even considering that people in quarantine should wear a digital bracelet. If we talk about the different Asian models used to fight Covid-19, nuance is the norm.

The Asian-wide collectivist spirit and discipline – especially in Confucianist-influenced societies – works irrespective of the political system. At least Byung-Chul Han admits, “all these Asian particularities are systemic advantages to contain the epidemic.”

The point is not that Asian disciplinary society should be seen as a model for the West. We already live in a digital global Panopticum (where’s Foucault when we need him?) Social network vigilance – and censorship – deployed by the Silicon Valley behemoths has already been internalized. All our data as citizens is trafficked and instantly marketized for private profit. So yes; digital neo-feudalism was already in effect even before Covid-19.

Call it surveillance turbo-neoliberalism. Where there’s no inbuilt “freedom”, and it’s all accomplished by voluntary servitude.

Biopolitical surveillance is just a further layer, the last frontier, because now, as Foucault taught us, this paradigm controls our own bodies. “Liberalism” has been reduced to road kill a long time ago. The point is not that China may be the model for the West. The point is we may have been set up for an endless biopolitical quarantine without even noticing 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.

Pepe Escobar is an independent geopolitical analyst, writer and journalist. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Pandemic Scales Up Cases of Mental Illnesses

May 17th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

The global pandemic of the new coronavirus worsens day after day worldwide, bringing with it a series of harms for humanity. As it is known, in addition to the simple infection by the virus, the pandemic causes problems in society as a whole and which daily put the lives of millions of people at risk, such as hunger and misery, which are increasingly aggravated by social chaos. However, what has most caught the attention of health authorities recently is the overwhelming increase in the number of mental illnesses. Social isolation, risk, the global atmosphere of fear and tension, as well as anxiety about the near future are affecting the population with almost the same speed and intensity as the virus itself, contributing greatly to the collapse of the international society.

In a report this week, UN health experts warned that COVID-19 currently poses a serious risk to mental health across the planet. The statement highlights several regions of the planet where the risks are greater, in addition to selecting the vulnerable groups most specifically threatened by the growing wave of mental illness. Among the most vulnerable groups are children, the elderly and health professionals.

“Isolation, fear, uncertainty, economic turmoil – all this causes or can cause psychological problems (…) The mental health and well-being of entire societies have been severely affected by this crisis and are a priority to be addressed urgently”, said Devora Kestel, director of the World Health Organization’s mental health department.

Another problem that has been increasing exponentially is the incidence of domestic violence crimes. In several countries, police records of attendances to such occurrences grow on a frightening scale, mainly due to the psychological imbalance to which spouses are constantly subjected during home confinement.

The main problem, however, still seems to be the social factor. In times of economic crisis and recession, despair becomes a common trend among people. Lacking any prospects, millions of individuals are left to fend for themselves, unable to count on their former jobs and in many cases without any government support, as seen in most of the poorest countries. With no forecast of improvement, with an exponential and overwhelming growth of the disease, what remains is a cruel struggle for survival with the few resources available. This is the ideal scenario for the emergence of all sorts of psychological disorders. Helpless by the health service and without enough money to resort to private treatment, many people succumb to such diseases – often without even realizing that they are being affected by them.

The great challenge that is presented, however, is to manage a pandemic situation with escalating mental illnesses. For decades, governments around the world have neglected mental health and, although they have developed complex and efficient public health mechanisms, they have kept their populations vulnerable and unprotected against this type of “invisible threat”. Now, the results are seen in the most tragic way and the management of this scenario will be much more difficult. In fact, to save their citizens from mental illness, governments will have to invest heavily in distance therapy mechanisms and online psychological and psychiatric duty. Equally, it will be necessary to invest in social programs of financial support and emergency aid for the poorest, preventing them from being victimized by evils such as hunger and misery, which inevitably lead to despair.

In the published report, WHO experts proposed a series of public policies to alleviate the reported ills, guiding governments to seek “to reduce immense suffering among hundreds of millions of people and to mitigate long-term social and economic costs for the society”. Such measures include remedying a historic lack of investment in psychological services, providing “emergency mental health” through remote therapies, such as tele-counseling for frontline health professionals, and working proactively with people who already have depression and anxiety, as well as people at high risk of suffering domestic violence and acute impoverishment.

There is still no official research reporting concrete data on the global number of suicides in this pandemic period. It is possible and even probable that in several regions of the planet the numbers are going up considerably. Unfortunately, a research of this nature is not classified as a priority in times of great calamity, which is why we will hardly know in time to prevent major damages. The most promising, however, is to know that at least something has already started to be done and that mental illnesses are being reported and their affected people are receiving treatment recommendations.

We do not know which governments will heed the recommendations. In most countries, the structure of public health does not even include the number of people infected by the virus itself, and the treatment of mental illness is an even more distant reality. In these cases, the pandemic and misfortune cannot be blamed, but the neglect of public health that has characterized most countries in recent decades. Mental illnesses have not arisen now, they have always existed and our international social structure favors their spread even more. Every year, the number of people with mental disorders increases, as does the number of suicide cases. The neglect does not come from now, just an old “time bomb” is exploding amid an even greater chaos. Perhaps, therefore, the most important would be the legacy to be left to the post-coronavirus 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 InfoBrics.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

A Nation of Sheep

May 17th, 2020 by Judge Andrew P. Napolitano

When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty.” — Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826)

To Thomas Jefferson, the fulcrum between the people and the government they have elected was fear. He argued succinctly that the government would only respect liberty if it feared losing power.

Today, the relationship between people and government is power. Does the government have the power to tell us how to make personal choices, or do we have the power to tell the government to take a hike?

Stated differently, does the government work for us or do we work for the government?

Jefferson’s answer to that question in 1801, the year he became president, was that the government worked for us. Today, unfortunately, this same question has two answers — a functional one ad a formal one. One would stumble answering this question if one looked only at how some state governors are treating the people for whom they claim to be working. One needs to look as well at the nature of government in a free society.

Six months ago, no one could have imagined where we are in America today. Then, if anyone had suggested that the governors of all 50 states, in varying degrees of severity, would be using police to interfere with personal choices — choices that we and our forbearers have all made without giving a second thought to the preferences of the government — no one would have believed it.

Think for a moment of how you would have reacted to any pre-COVID-19 idea that the police in America — using not the force of opinion but the force of arms — would prevent you from going out of your home, operating your business, jogging in a park, patronizing a restaurant or clothing store, buying a garden hose, going to Mass or church or temple or mosque or even joining a small public gathering of folks who want to protest these prohibitions.

Where did these prohibitions come from? They have come from the ever-changing edicts of governors and mayors, who rely on the ever-changing evaluations of medical data from an ever-changing cast of scientific experts. They are the pronouncements of politicians who have forgotten that they are elected to enforce laws, not to write them, and to be the servants of the people, not their masters.

Why do Americans accept this? We are a nation born in a bloody revolution against a king. The founders of America made the profound and indisputable choice of establishing a government dedicated to the cacophony of liberty over the illusion of safety.

They embedded that choice in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The former states, unequivocally, that no government is legitimate without the consent of the governed and that government’s principal duty is to secure our rights.

The latter — which expressly protects the right to make personal choices — is the supreme law of the land, and thus all governmental acts are subordinate to it.

We have fought wars against tyrants who wanted to tell us how to live. Today, we have elected our masters who are doing just that.

Americans seem to accept the restrictions on our rights to speech, religion, travel and commercial activities simply because the origin of those restrictions is a popularly elected person. But even an elected government can be tyrannical.

Should you bow to these restrictions merely because their authors were elected and they have persuaded your neighbors that the prohibitions are for their own good — the Declaration and the Constitution be damned?

Stated differently, the governments that have interfered with our well-established rights to go about our daily lives as we see fit — taking chances whenever we cross the street, drink a glass of water, bite into food, sit next to a stranger on a train or at a baseball game, or go through a green light in our vehicles — have failed their first obligation, which is to safeguard our freedoms to take those chances.

Instead of safeguarding our freedoms — our natural rights to make personal choices — the governors and their police enforcers have treated us as if we work for them.

Does the government work for us or do we work for the government? Formally, it works for us. We elect officials because we trust their judgment. We authorize those officials to protect our rights, and we prohibit them from interfering with our personal choices.

For a few weeks now, I thought the most extreme of these governors has been Gov. Phil Murphy of New Jersey, who publicly admitted that he didn’t think or care about the Bill of Rights, even though he took an oath to uphold it. Yet, Gov. Tom Wolf of Pennsylvania has surpassed him.

When Wolf learned that some Pennsylvania county sheriffs would not use force to enforce his non-law edicts, and some public accommodations would open their doors — consistent with public safety but in defiance of his non-law edicts — he threatened to withhold state aid from all who live in those counties and to close the liquor stores that, by his non-law edicts, remain open.

This is straight out of 1930s Germany — punish the community because of the resistance of a few. In Wolf’s Pennsylvania, the people work for the government.

My colleagues at The Wall Street Journal have unearthed the facts that more Americans die annually from heart disease, cancer, accidents and non-COVID-19 respiratory failure than die annually (annualized) from this coronavirus. Every death diminishes me. So does every suppression of liberty. So does every denial of the right to make choices and take risks.

Does the government really work for us, or are we afraid of 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.

During a security operation carried out with the help of the Syrian Badia’s residents, an ambush was set up against an ISIS terrorist group composed of 6 members where 3 of them were killed and the remaining ones were arrested.

The three arrested ISIS terrorists confessed that they perpetrated many terrorist operations, including murder, execution, kidnapping and acts of destruction .

Many of these terror operations were carried out upon coordination between ISIS ringleaders and US occupation forces that exist in al-Tanf area on the Syrian-Jordanian border.

The terrorist Salah Jaber al-Daher – AKA Abo Abdul Rahman al-Salafi, born in Idleb in 1998, said that he joined ISIS organization through one of his relatives [called Abo Salam Omareyeh] who was among the members of this Takfiri organization and he exploited his need for money and introduced him to another person called Samer al-Bori, who transported him to Jabal al-Bashari area in the Syrian Badia where he was welcomed by ISIS terrorists, including Abo Islam. This took place in 2018.

On his part, the second terrorist Abo al-Baraa al-Homsi, born in Homs in 1999, said that he met a person called Firas al-Khalid in Homs city in 2017. This person had a clothes shop and proposed to give him USD 100-200 and to transport him to Raqqa to join ISIS. He accepted the proposal because he was in need of money.

The third terrorist, Amer Abdul Ghaffar Neameh– AKA Abo Swan– born in Hasaka in 2001, said that he communicated via Whatsapp with his cousin Wahid Meameh, who was in the Badia and he told him that he will get money and a car if he joins the organization.

The 3 terrorists confessed that they were trained for several weeks by ISIS judges, who told them that they are Jihadist and any person fighting against ISIS is an infidel. They were also trained on how to use guns and rockets, including US rockets.

The terrorists were introduced to the so-called ISIS emirs of several nationalities besides fighters of French, British and Indonesian nationalities.

As for some of the crimes in which those terrorists were involved, the first terrorist [Abo Abdul Rahman al-Salafi] said that he killed 21 people while they were searching for truffles and he carried out operations against Syrian army’s convoys.

“We were setting up ambushes against the Syrian army and civilian cars in several areas in aal-Badia'” he added.

The terrorists stressed that they were receiving orders from US occupation forces in al-Tanf area. These occupation forces were ordering ISIS ringleader Hasan Alqam al-Jazrawi of Saudi nationality, to target Syrian army’ units, Palmyra, T4 airbase, oil fields in Palmyra region.

One of the terrorists said:

“A person closed to al-Jezrawi, his name was Hasan al-Wali, told me that he met Americans in al-Tanf base and they told him that we must attack Palmyra region and the T4 airbase and they will provide us with rocket launchers, guns, money, cars and drones. They downlaoded Tag program on their mobiles to observe the movements of the Syrian army. Al-Jazrawi said that he will do that but he needs time to bring fighters from Euphrates region because the current number is not enough”.

The terrorists asserted that there is coordination between ISIS ringleaders and the ringleaders of ” Maghawer al-Thawra” which is affiliated to the so-called the “Free army” in the vicinity of al-Tanf base.

The terrorists were ordered to keep in touch with their ringleaders in order to go in and out the base.

The terrorists cited that the ISIS terrorists were holding the kidnapped people in holes under the ground, in trenches and cars.

The Terrorist pointed out that there were negotiations between ISIS ringleaders in Raqqa and the ringleaders of the US-backed “Syrian Democratic Forces”.

One of the terrorists admitted that the US and SDF forces covered their move from Raqqa towards Der Ezzour.

The terrorists affirmed that three ISIS members : Abo Sofyan al-Jazrawi, Abo Jnid al-Halabi and Abo Brahim al-Demashqi, who were in charge of financial management in Badia, were going every month to al-Tanf base to bring 3 trucks loaded with food, weapons and money to be distributed among ISIS members in Badia region.

Every terrorist gets $100, while ringleaders gets $500 and the military Wali gets $1000.

Al-Tanf base was a safe place for terrorists to receive medical treatment when they were injured.

*

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 American Free Press

Three Daesh terrorists confess to perpetrating a number of operations in cooperation with US occupation forces in al-Tanf.

Russia’s COVID Game of Elites

May 17th, 2020 by South Front

Implementing President Putin’s directives, Russian federal authorities intensified their efforts to contain both the economic and social impact of the nation-wide coronavirus lockdown, and also some local authorities’ overzealous efforts. This move was impatiently awaited by the Russian society for a month.

It became clear in May that something went wrong in Russia. While in March one could still speak of insufficient medical statistics, of contradictory scientific findings, by now the SARS-COV-v2 situation has become clear.

Due to a variety of reasons, in March and April the world had to cope not so much with the spread of the virus, but rather a pandemic of fear and other processes which might collectively be called “coronacrisis”. One can thus identify three main challenges for humanity today:

  1. The coronavirus epidemic as such;
  2. The global socio-economic crisis;
  3. The pandemic of fear and mass psychosis which complicated professional assessments of the first two problems and, therefore, the development of effective anti-crisis measures.

Separately, one should note that many political forces and financial circles have used the situation for profit. This includes deal-makers of all kinds, from petty speculators and local officials to global elites and corporations. No, they did not “create coronavirus”, at least there is no credible data to this effect, but they nevertheless used it to their advantage.

Russia was not bypassed by these processes. What is more, Russia experienced them to a greater extent than others. It turned out that Russian bureaucracy is unable to deal with new threats and challenges. It uncovered the clannish character of a sizable portion of Russian elites. It revealed problems with executive competence of many regional and federal officials. Especially when it comes to the economy, health care, and social security.

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin apparently found himself in informational vacuum, which was particularly evident in the first half of April. It seems that the negative socio-economic developments were triggered by Vladimir Putin’s seemingly correct decision, made in late March, to give regions extraordinary powers. It meant decentralizing authority in order to give regional officials authority to act according to the situation in their region. That’s how many other countries have done, including Germany where the outcome was a positive one.

However, Russian bureaucracy and “liberal” clans that have fused with official institutions and which view themselves as a “new aristocracy” are not the same thing as German regional officials. The gap between Russian elite clans and the population is huge. This is the reason for the clumsy and in some cases even criminal, profit-motivated actions by elite clans after they were granted extraordinary powers.

Modern liberalism, sometimes referred to as “neo-liberalism”, is an ideology promoting serving global monopolies and market speculators. These “liberals” top priority is increasing personal consumption with minimal intellectual or physical effort, using the margin simplification of modern technologies in order to satisfy selfish desires under the guise of post-modern sophistry. Thus they consume public resources while giving nothing in return. Rather, they stand in the way of humanity’s progress.

President Putin and his closest administration members realized by mid-April that unless action is taken at federal level, the situation could quickly transform from critical to catastrophic. It was necessary to reassert control.

On April 23, President Vladimir Putin ordered the government to mitigate the socio-economic crisis being provoked by the COVID-19 outbreak.

“The coronavirus epidemic, challenging the whole world, threatens the lives and health of people first and foremost, but it also impacts the economy, and the condition of entire industries, which is no less dangerous,” Putin said. “Our common crucial task is to mitigate such adverse effects and reduce inevitable socioeconomic losses.”

The president noted that this is exactly why the government made a number of decisions to support families, employment and households’ revenues, individual entrepreneurs, small and medium enterprises, and industry-forming companies, along with measures for disease prevention and bolstering healthcare capabilities.

“Nobody needs abstract promises that don’t affect people’s lives, and the effect of such decisions and allocated resources will be low,” Putin said, adding that the government and the Central Bank should promptly make the necessary changes to the regulatory framework.

“It’s not enough to announce that decisions have been made, dear colleagues. We need to work through all the stages of their implementation so that the help arrives on time so that those who really need it can take advantage of it.”

Earlier, on April 15, the Russian president announced a first package of measures to support the country’ economy hit by consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak and the following lockdown. The measures included:

  • Monthly state payments to small and medium-sized businesses for every employee in April and May, provided firms maintain 90% of their workforce. The payment is 12,130 rubles ($160) for an employee per month;
  • The federal government allocates a package of 200 billion rubles ($2.6 billion) of support for regional budgets;
  • At least 23 billion rubles ($307 million) of government support for airlines.
  • The federal government will reform the government-backed system of interest-free salary loans for firms. The reform is aimed at providing an easier access to loans by businesses.

As of April 24, the Central Bank of Russia (CBR) estimated economic losses at 4-6% of annual GDP. This was the first recorded outcome of actions undertaken by regional authorities and the economic bloc of the federal government, thanks to whom the economy had ground to a halt even in regions where the number of cases was in single or double digits. Even the RCB team of economic liberals was forced to acknowledge that fact, even as they opposed direct economic support of enterprises and the population.

“The Bank of Russia has substantially reviewed its baseline scenario parameters. GDP is forecast to decrease by 4-6% in 2020. The Russian economy is thereafter expected to follow a recovery path with growth predicted to total 2.8-4.8% in 2021 and 1.5-3.5% in 2022,” the press release says.

“The spread of the coronavirus pandemic in Russia and the restrictive measures in place to address it have combined with a drop in external demand and a further decline in the prices of oil and other export goods to make a substantial negative impact on economic activity. In this environment, Q2 GDP is set to decline.”

According to the press release, the deficit of the payment balance in 2020 will be $35 billion in 2020 and $20 billion in 2021, and a return to surplus is expected in 2022. The negative payment balance is forecasted for the first time since 1997.

The complicated socio-economic situation caused by the coronavirus crisis and its economic consequences of the national-wide lockdown revealed a conflict between the representatives of the formally “patriotic” part of the elites and the so-called “liberals” affiliated with the West and the global financial capital.

For example, the head of the Central Bank Elvira Nabiullina publicly opposes initiatives to introduce additional measures to stabilize the Russian currency market and prevent currency speculations amid the developing economic and social crisis.

On April 23, it became publicly known that the office of Elvira Nabiullina has sent the Ministry of Economic Development a letter in which it asked to silence ex-presidential adviser and the current Integration and Macroeconomics Minister of the Eurasian Economic Commission Sergei Glazyev. The letter claimed that Glazyev’s statements “carry reputational risks for joint government and Bank of Russia”.

A few days earlier, Glaziev proposed to levy a tax (0.01%) on purchase of foreign currency, as well as to fix the currency position of commercial banks and introduce a time lag between the application for purchase and delivery of currency. These measures (employed in multiple countries around the world) should help to stabilize the financial market and limit the impact of currency speculations (the tax of 0.01% will affect only actors that make hundreds of thousands speculative purchases).

Glazyev alongside other prominent economists that can afford the luxury of having his own independent opinion describe the current economic crisis “a consequence of profound structural changes in the global economy due to a change in technological and world economic structures”. He emphasizes the need to implement stabilization measures and consistently accuses the Central Bank of giving control of the ruble exchange rate to financial speculators.

It was during this time that the public rift between so-called “globalists” and national-oriented forces was growing not only in the economic sphere. The Federal Government and the Parliament started to demonstrate that they do not support actions of the team led by Moscow Mayor Sergei Sobyanin and forces which it represents. The bone of contention are the draconian lockdown measures, mass surveillance, and illegal fees for violations of the ‘self-isolation regime’ pushed by the Moscow city managers.

While many European countries started to ease coronavirus restrictions in the second half of April, the Sobyanin team was seeking to increase pressure and limitations under the pretext of the crisis. These attempts were being conducted under the cover of unprecedented propaganda campaign that included even threats to deploy troops on the streets of the city, tighten the ‘self-isolation’ regime (in fact the home arrest regime) and further, and statements blaming Moscow residents for failures of the regional authorities.

The threat to deploy troops on the streets of Moscow was made by Sobyanin in an interview with Rossiya 24 TV channel on April 23.

“In many other large cities, the situation is somewhat different, first they introduce very soft, very democratic measures, and then they are forced to send troops into the streets. We don’t want this scenario, so we have the optimal mode of self-isolation installed in Moscow ,” Sobyanin said hinting that if Moscow residents continue demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the city managers’ actions, troops will be deployed.

As later events have shown, these actions had no impact on Moscow’s actual epidemiological situation, though the fines did enrich the city budget and organizations close to the mayor. Moscow government also tried to shift blame onto the inhabitants. For example, on April 24 , Deputy Mayor of Moscow Anastasia Rakova blamed Moscow residents for the regional authorities’ move to harden the imposed regime of ‘self-isolation’.

“Of course, what can I say, Moscow residents are tired. And they really became less responsible towards the compliance with the regime of self-isolation. More and more people go out on the street, use their personal or public transport. We were forced to take measures aimed at tightening the regime of self-isolation,” Rakova said.

Rakova added that there are more and more hospitalized and severely ill patients with COVID-19 in the capital.

“If last week the average daily level of hospitalization was 1,300-1,400 people, today it is 1,900,” Rakova said.

The numbers provided by Rakova originated from the Moscow COVID-19 HQ that on April 23 noted the increase of COVID-19 cases in the city and said that the situation was worsening.

Let’s take a look what happen in Moscow a week earlier that caused the increase of COVID-19 cases. For everyone, excluding Russian mainstream media and the Moscow COVID-19 HQ, the answer is clear.

On April 15, the Sobyanin team introduced a mandatory digital pass system triggering mass traffic jams and throngs of people waiting at metro stations while their digital passes (QR codes) to be checked by authorities. Hundreds of thousands of people (some sources say that over 1 million) struck in crowds.

Note: The pass for movement is a set of letters and numbers. The first four characters indicate the expiration date of the document, and the remaining 12 will identify its owner and the purpose of the trip.

Electronic passes are divided into three categories:

  • for trips to work or business trips – issued once valid through to the end of the month;
  • for trips to medical institutions – issued for trips to a specific hospital, the number of such passes per week is not limited;
  • one-time for trips for personal purposes that do not violate the rules of the self-isolation regime – issued for one day no more than twice a week.

Contrary to the public declarations of the city managers, the very first day of the usage of the digital pass system in fact contributed to the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic in Russia and derailed the previous weeks of the ‘self-isolation regime’ and sacrifices of the country’s  economy.

The reason of the traffic collapse and the new wave of the COVID-19 outbreak spread was the demand of Sobyanin to conduct mass checks of digital passes. The Moscow authorities through its channels immediately laid blame for the consequences of their own actions on Police, in particular on the Head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs branch in the Moscow Metro Colonel Shamil Sibanov.

It is hard to imagine that Sobyanin that has a wide and long experience of management of the social systems and his team of ‘effective managers’ did not foresee how the digital pass system introduction would end.

As a result of the April 15 incident and similar developments of smaller scale in the next days, tens of thousands people (the estimated number is 30,000-50,000) were likely infected.

The average incubation period of the COVID-19 disease is 5.1 days. In the case of a severe progress of the disease, the exacerbation occurs after 2nd-3rd day from the onset of symptoms of the disease. If the course is moderate, then exacerbation could occur on the 7-8th day. Accordingly, the increase in the number of COVID-19 cases in Moscow was expected to begin on April 21-22 and, according to an official data by the Moscow COVID-19 HQ, this happened.

In spite of the tragedy, the Moscow authorities continued to push their ‘digital pass system’ idea and even further expanded the digital surveillance and control measures over Moscow residents.

On April 22, they imposed an automated control of digital passes for personal, government and commercial transport moving around the city. Cameras for photo and video recording of traffic violations monitor whether license plate numbers are included in the lists of such passes. If the number is not entered in the digital pass, the car owner is being recognized as a violator of the ‘self-isolation regime’ and gets a fine of 5,000 rubles (~66 USD).

This applies to everyone, including military service members, special service officers and federal officials. Therefore, Moscow authorities insist that officers (including intelligence officers) and officials should provide their personal data to the united database managed by the regional authorities to avoid fines. This poses a direct threat to the interest of the state and creates conditions for leaks of sensitive data to Western special and intelligence services. There is no secret that a major part of the Sobyanin team, including Sobyanin himself, are directly or indirectly affiliated with the West. For example, the main consultants of Moscow mayor’s office, including the health departments, social welfare, and IT is Boston Consulting Group and people from openly pro-Western Higher School of Economics.

The positions of the federal government, security services and the federal legislative system were ignored. This measure also went contrary to the recommendations of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.

All of these measures were adopted additionally to the already existing fees for ‘self-isolation’ regime violations.

Note: On April 2, Moscow mayor Sergey Sobyanin announced administrative fines for violations of the regime of ‘self-isolation’ in the city. The  document (a Moscow city law) was published on the mayor’s official website. The law provides for a fine for violators of up to 5,000 rubles (~ 65 USD), and for organizations – up to 500,000 rubles (6,410 USD).

This situation created an additional administrative pressure on city residents, especially socially disadvantaged groups of the population that had little resources to pay new fines, but still had an essential need to go to work, travel to the hospital, help relatives with the purchase of products and had other urgent matters to leave home.

The financial explanation of the current situation is that the Moscow city managers are just creating an additional instrument to solidify their own power and compensate economic losses from traffic rules violations fine and paid parking.

On April 22, Moscow authorities reported that the created digital pass tracking system already detected 230,000 cars without digital passes. This is 230,000*5,000=1,150,000,000 rubles (~15,333,333 USD) of revenue in fines for a single day.

The Sobyanin team tried to expand these flawed policies to other regions. The Moscow mayor was a mastermind behind idea to expand the Moscow style system into the entire country. For sure under his control and based on a smartphone app developed for the Moscow region.

Russia needs digital passes “so that we could see the traffic, its volume and the travelers,” he claimed.

“I believe [the system] can be extended… to control the movement of air, rail and intercity and inter-regional bus transport.”

It’s worth reminding these events unfolded between April 6 and 24. In other words, when Moscow’s mayor practically usurped power in the socio-economic realm in the whole country. The Coronavirus HQ headed by Sobyanin duplicated the functions of Prime Minister Mishustin’s government agencies. His influence on regional elites greatly exceeded that of Mishustin who took up his post only 3 months earlier. Moreover, Mishustin was not perceived as a political player but merely as an effective technocrat. Many governors copied Moscow mayor’s actions, viewing him as, at a minimum, the future Prime Minister.

President V.V. Putin only began to overcome the cloud of disinformation at that time. It apparently became possible after Putin was forced to adopt self-isolation and remote work after visiting the Kommunarka infection ward.

On March 24, President Putin visited a hospital for coronavirus patients on Kommunarka. It was the first repurposed Moscow clinic. During his visit, Putin was accompanied by the chief physician Denis Protsenko.

On March 28, Putin’s visible activity dropped off. It did not return to normal on March 30. At the same time, it was announced that Protsenko contracted COVID-19 (he recovered by April 15). Putin self-isolates. After that, in late March and early April, changes were made in federal laws which further allowed Moscow mayor Sobyanin revamp municipal legislation and de-facto take it out of the federal power structure.

It’s not clear whether the decline in Putin’s political activity in the first two weeks of April was connected to his health or whether it was a political maneuver. It’s hard not to notice that after April 15, and especially after April 23, Putin began to operate more actively. There were clear signals given that Putin was not pleased with Putin’s activity. In spite of draconian measures, the number of COVID-19 cases in Moscow grew. There was information about the catastrophic situation in a number of Moscow clinics, and that Moscow health care officials want as many fatalities attributed to COVID-19 as possible.

The situation reached the point of absurdity. Sobyanin and his team claim that tests supposedly don’t work, and therefore COVID-19 diagnosis ought to be given in accordance with symptoms. Deputy Mayor Rakova stated that all Moscow inhabitants with signs of respiratory illness would be considered as potentially coronavirus-infected.

The motivation to categorize all individuals with respiratory symptoms as COVID-19 cases became more clear after it became known that several large sites in Moscow and Moscow region would be reconstructed as hangar-style hospitals.

Such hospitals are being built, for example, in Pavilion No. 75 of VDNKh. With a  surface area of 53 thousand square meters, it can accommodate 1,779 beds. This is an hangar with a single ventilation system where the beds are not separated by hard partitions. In addition to VDNKh, similar temporary hospitals for patients supposedly suffering from COVID-19 will be deployed in the Krasnaya Presnya Expo-Center, the Sokolniki Convention and Exhibition Center, Krylatskoye Ice Palace, and Moskva Mall on the Kashirka Road. They would have a total of 10 thousand beds, not counting 5 thousand additional beds being added to existing city hospitals. These hangar hospitals would collect all patients with signs of respiratory illness, including flu, pneumonia, bacterial bronchitis, allergies, etc., in other words everyone who was suspected of COVID-19.

It’s obvious that there is high danger of intra-hospital mutual infections. Considering the high contagiousness of SARS-COV-v2, one can assume that soon every patient in such hangar hospital would be COVID-19-positive. Billions of rubles were disbursed without proper evaluation of competing offers. The average cost of a single bed, according to open sources, would be about 650 thousand rubles (8,666 USD). In turn, a single COVID-19 course of treatment costs about 205 thousand rubles (2,733 USD), according to mandatory health insurance price tables. It’s more expensive than, for example, a chemotherapy round of treatments in Russia.

In accordance with the decision by Moscow government, these funds ought to be allocated for every patient admitted to a COVID-19 hangar hospital. This in a situation where tests supposedly “don’t work”, diagnoses are issued according to symptoms. As a result, there are massive opportunities for personal enrichment for a small circle of people.

One might object on the basis that lives are more important than money. Nevertheless, Moscow has dozens of empty hospitals. Many of them were closed only recently. Mayor Sobyanin closed 460 municipal medical facilities and reduced the number of ambulances and physicians by 37% during the last five years.

What is more, many existing hospitals repurposed as COVID-19 infection centers are using only 30% of their capacity. For example, the Voronovskoye Moscow Infectious Disease Clinical Center is operating at only 25% capacity. The Center, which has 800 beds, admitted only 233 patients as of May 12. A similar situation can be observed in the Kommunarka hospital where, as of May 13, there were only 317 patients as compared to its capacity of 1300 beds, not counting the 1000 beds that were additionally set up. The 15th Filatovo Hospital which was one of the first to take in COVID-19 patients, had 1340 patients as of May 12, while the capacity was 1740 beds.

Ordinary hospitals in the meantime greatly reduced or stopped planned operations and patient visits. It particularly concerns the cancer patients, heart surgeries, transplants, planned surgeries on children, etc. One can find a video on the Internet with a multi-kilometer chain of ambulances, caused not by a huge number of respiratory patients but criminally incompetent logistical organization.

Death rate is increasing not so much from COVID-19 complications but rather from poorly organized Moscow health care system, and also a decrease in Moscow inhabitants’ immunity who were forbidden to leave homes, participate in any form of physical activity in open air, and were subjected to massive informational stress.

Economic problems are becoming critical, with a sharp increase in unemployment.

None of these facts went unnoticed in the Kremlin. On April 30, 2020, there was unexpected information on how Prime Minister Mishustin allegedly became infected and is leaving for hospital treatment. His place was temporarily occupied by the First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov, a Soviet-school economist. Moreover, he was appointed as the acting Prime Minister by Vladimir Putin’s decree. In earlier such cases of illness or absence, no such decrees followed. Belousov is not only a widely acknowledged professional but also a political heavyweight. He may be compared, with qualifications, to such major figures as Maslyukov and Gerashchenko who led Russia out of the 1998 crisis.

Events continued to unfold. On May 6, there was another meeting that included President Putin and Acting Prime Minister Belousov. Following the meeting, the coronavirus control authority was de-facto returned to the government of the Russian Federation from Sobyanin’s working group. Moreover, the Moscow mayor was not able to force the government to extent quarantine until the end of May for the whole country. Deliberately promoted media hysteria concerning coronavirus dangers did not help either, nor did playing around with statistics. For example, during the meeting Sobyanin claimed that Moscow supposedly had 300,000 infections. Furthermore, he claimed that the number of hospitalizations in Moscow has not changed. Sobyanin’s motives are unclear. They may be based in political ambitions, but also on economic calculations.

Not having achieved his goal, Sobyanin de-facto ignored the president’s position and announced that Moscow’s self-isolation would be extended to May 31 with the regime being further strengthened through the addition of the requirement to wear masks and gloves under the penalty of fines.

Several regions immediately followed suit, apparently by inertia. They included the Moscow region, St. Petersburg, and Crimea. Which makes it all the more surprising to hear that the admissions of patients into hospitals was reduced by, for example in Kommunarka, a factor of three.

Masks and gloves are not provided for free, but rather are being sold by businesses affiliated with the Moscow mayor’s office. For example, the Moscow metro 50 rubles, or 70 cents, will buy you ONE very simple mask and gloves. The Rospotrebnadzor recommended term of wearing such mask does not exceed 2 hours.

On May 14, it was revealed that Moscow authorities bought the largest producer of masks in Russia. According to the available data, before the start of the crisis the cost of a single mask was 1 ruble (0.013 USD). After the start of the COVID-19 crisis, the cost grew up to 7 rubles (0.093 USD). At the same time, the cost of a single mask, which is being sold in the Moscow Metro (controlled by the local authorities), is 30 rubles (0.4 USD). The revenue from this business goes to persons and organizations affiliated with the city’s mayor.

On top of this, the Sobyanin team undertook additional steps to increase an administrative pressure on Moscow residents. In April, local authorities obliged people that receive administrative protocols imposing on them a forceful regime of quarantine (ironically described as the self-isolation) imposed on them because they may be suspected of being infected with SARS-CoV-2 to install a special application on their phones and tablets. The application monitors the activity and location (via GPS) of the user and demands him to make selfies (sent to the dedicated server) to confirm his location several times per day (in fact almost every hour). This move put Moscow a one step closer to becoming a real-life digital concentration camp.

On April 16, Moscow authorities officially announced a decision to label all people with respiratory symptoms will be diagnosed with “suspected coronavirus infection”. All of these people, whom the mayor team was able to locate and detect, became a target of forceful monitoring and administrative limitations. In fact, administrative decisions of these kind are imposed widely towards a variety of people, including children with sinusitis, rhinitis, otits, people with allergy or some chronic illness. The Sobyanin team did not stop on this and on May 10 introduced an update to the monitoring application. This update allowed it to impose fines on residents that fail to make a selfie within an hour after the request. Other reasons for fines are changes of the location, the shut off of application or the phone with the installed application (due to any reasons). The fine of 4,000 rubles (53 USD) is imposed for every such incident.

It’s hard to justify this measures by the need to contain the coronavirus outbreak or care about people. The two main possible reasons are vested interest of the local authorities that pump money into the budget and affiliated structures by this way or political games, in which the Sobyanin team is playing to damage actions and policies of President Putin and the federal government.

Reports appeared in Russian social media that Google proposed the Moscow authorities at least 0.5 million USD to promote information regarding the COVID-19 outbreak; in fact, to fuel the hysteria over the situation.

The next big event took place on May 11. President Vladimir Putin announced the work holiday would come to an end. As of May 12, the regime of limitations would gradually be shut down. Vladimir Putin announced this in his address to the Russian citizens at the beginning of meeting with governors. Then he announced a new and unprecedented, for contemporary Russia, packet of measures of support for ordinary citizens and businesses. These decisions were diametrically opposed to the ideas supported by the liberal clan that includes Nabiulina, Sobyanin, Siluanov, and others.

The new support measures include:

  • All families with children aged 3-15 may receive one-time payments of 10 thousand rubles (133 USD) per child, starting on June 1.
  • Individual entrepreneurs, small and mid-sized businesses in hard-hit industries as well as socially-oriented non-commercial organizations will have all tax and insurance payments canceled for the second quarter, with the exception of value-added tax.
  • Self-employed will have their income taxes paid in 2019 refunded. They will also receive “tax capital” at the rate of one minimum-wage annual salary to fulfill tax payments.

At the same time, Putin’s address left the impression of half-measures. It included announcements that governors’ additional coronavirus-related powers were being extended, giving them the ability to raise and reduce restrictions depending on the situation.

However, even that format had the effect of an exploding bomb.

Since May 11, when Putin announced the decision to ease coronavirus restrictions, Russia has become a target of a large-scale international media campaign designed to fuel the coronavirus panic in the country. Western mainstream media and Russian-language media organizations funded by the West or affiliated with it structures and persons released a coordinated series of articles arguing and speculating (with no evidence) that Russia is hiding the real COVID-19 death toll. An overwhelming majority of these articles refers to ‘anonymous sources’ or representatives of the ‘non-system’ Russian opposition (like Alexei Navalny) that seek to gain some hype without any real evidence.

An example:

The Russian Foreign Ministry descried these reports as fake news. Nonetheless, the interesting fact is that no article released in the framework of this new anti-Russian campaign criticizes actions of Sobyanin or members of the liberal part of the Russian elites. All of them are aimed against President Putin and the federal government. This campaign goes fully in the framework of the efforts of the Russia-based liberal clans to keep the coronavirus-related restrictions and further. In fact, Russian social media and news media are full of reports revealing that in many cases local authorities insist to add any person with a positive (and in some cases even supposedly positive) SARS-CoV-2 test to the coronavirus death toll.

Right after the president’s meeting with the governors, Tatarstan announced removing the pass regime and destroying all personal data collected.

The government of one of Russia’s key regions also signaled immediate removal of all the main limitations starting on May 12. One should note that the Moscow pass regime was based on Kazan’s experience, with Sobyanin himself closely collaborating with Kazan financial and economic elites. Tatarstan was followed by Bashkiriya and many other regions. The Federal Ministry of Health signaled that 33 regions were ready to remove the restrictions.

Moscow Region Governor Vorobyov, who closely followed the example of Moscow mayor and earlier also announced that the quarantine would be extended until May 31, delayed his announcement by four hours. But by 21:20 Moscow time he announced that “due to new demands of the epidemiological legislation the planned construction and production starts are delayed until May 18.” He did not mention the end of May.

It seems that Sobyanin and the liberal team needed a whole day to decide how to proceed. It seems they decided not to change the course of action and instead decided on a collision course with the president, possibly also with the intent of increasing social instability in Moscow. It is difficult to interpret these facts differently.

Interestingly, several unofficial media sources which are nevertheless seen as linked to the presidential administration began to openly accuse Sobyanin of an attempted coup d’etat. Thus the popular Kremlyovskiy Bezbashennik Telegram channel (reportedly linked with former adviser to President Putin -Vladislav Surkov) writes:

“it is entirely correct to write about the consequences of scandalous decisions made by Sobyanin which raise social tensions and which may lead to unrest in Moscow. But these are not mistakes by the mayor and no, he has not lost his mind. It’s all part of the plan being implemented step by step by the Party of Troubles which “Stag” described already at the start of this whole coronavirus bacchanalia. The HQ of the Covid-19 party and its frontman Sobyanin should be happy with the results of the investigation. The battle for Moscow has seen the use of the stratagem of seizure of power through destabilizing the situation an using the “street factor” in order to nullify the Constitution (in other words, the State) and obtain extraordinary powers during social unrest. Therefore as far as Sobyanin is concerned, the worse, the better. They’ll never get another chance to get power”.

If events continue to develop in this way, the last doubts that coronavirus is being deliberately used by certain elite factions in order to achieve certain political and economic objectives will scatter. It looks like that the initial plan of Sobyanin and his colleagues from the liberal clan was to de-facto conduct a creeping seizure of power in the country through the system of digital totalitarianism created under a pretext of the combating coronavirus outbreak. They achieved some successes, but the recent developments demonstrate that apparently this plan has not been 100% effective. The federal government and the Kremlin have realized the threat of the uncontrolled ‘lockdowns’ imposed by the regional authorities and working to compensate the social, administrative and economic damage of these actions.

Furthermore, actions of the Moscow authorities already significantly undermined the trust the Sobyanin team had among Moscow residents and caused a major negative reaction in the social media all across the country. The negative economic, social and medical impact of their actions are an open secret.

Moscow government and allied liberal clans are not about to give up or change their plans. Even modest attempts of the Sobyanin team to turn off the already set course met with a wave of criticism in the media controlled by the so-called liberal bloc. This week, a new media campaign was launched. It claims that Moscow authorities allegedly underestimate mortality from the COVID-19 outbreak.

Moscow risks becoming a center of socio-economic tension and political instability due to Mayor’s Office actions in delaying the gradual removal or weakening of administrative, social, and economic restrictions. Even when they are forced to remove them, Sobyanin’s team will do everything possible to preserve as many powers as possible during the pandemic. This may include the ability to limit the movement of citizens in the capital. In any event, one may confidently predict that the political tension between Moscow and federal authorities will grow. It may enable external forces which are interested in social instability in Russia to further destabilize the situation.

*

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 2020, Lithuania’s and Latvia’s gross domestic product (GDP) will decrease by seven per cent, according to a European Bank for Reconstruction and Development report published only days ago. Estonia’s GDP is projected to decline by six percent. A six to seven percent contraction is the biggest in the European Union, and it certainly can be partly blamed on the current coronavirus pandemic that has shut down entire industries. The total decline in the economies of the Baltic and Central European countries in 2020 will be an average of 4.3 percent, and in 2021 it is forecasted to be a 4.5 percent growth.

Quarantine is in place in Lithuania until May 31. However, the government is lifting more and more previously imposed restrictions. These include the obligatory wearing of masks in public places, work in the entertainment sector, as well as other industries. According to the latest data, more than 1,510 cases of coronavirus were detected in the republic, and 54 patients died. The figures are not all too different in the other Baltic countries.

According to the influential RAND think-tank, some NATO members are concerned that some members are deliberately escalating the confrontation with Russia, fearing that Russia’s threat to the Alliance would otherwise be underestimated. It is clear that Russia’s relations with NATO have been in a deep crisis recently, and anti-Russian tendencies has dominated a lot of the West – primarily the U.S. even though China has now become the main target.

Baltic states are trying to keep the focus on Russia however, fearing that Russia’s threat to the Alliance will otherwise be underestimated, and that they will be left alone in a hypothetical war. According to the study, due to the current mutual mistrust, poor communication, clear lack of understanding of the other side’s position and possible incorrect strategic and tactical conclusions, any minor incident could lead to a military conflict, which Russia and many NATO members themselves do not want.

A study by the Atlantic Council claims that Chinese investment in European infrastructure, like ports and in the telecommunications sector, could have a significant impact on military mobility in Europe. Generally speaking, access to critical infrastructure needs to be restricted as it could disrupt military mobility at a crucial moment. It is written in small print at the bottom of one page that NATO members – especially Poland and the Baltic states – must destroy Russian railways and replace it with a European one and deal with bridges on the border with Russia so that Russian heavy military equipment cannot pass them.

Lithuanian President Gitanas Nausėda, speaking recently with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg, emphasized that despite the epidemic, Lithuania would continue to devote 2% of the country’s GDP to defense and will continue to implement its other NATO commitments through its operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nausėda also noted that Lithuania sees Russia’s so-called efforts to spread disinformation through the pandemic, and is supposedly concerned about Russia’s continuing military activity in the east and other regions, such as Syria and Libya.

Therefore, the President stressed to the NATO Secretary General that the best way to respond to Moscow’s aggressive actions is to implement defense strengthening measures consistently and quickly, as well as strengthening air defense in the Baltic region, the rapid adoption of NATO military forces and developing necessary defense plans.

Unfortunately for the U.S. and the Baltic countries, constructive dialogue with Russia is still alive in a lot of Europe, and at a serious level, with the different parties trying to understand each other’s position and reach some kind of compromise that would increase European security. For this reason, the Baltic countries who will be the worse hit from the economic fallout caused by the coronavirus need to re-establish positive relations with Russia for their own economic benefit.

As much as 19.8% of Lithuanian, 16.2% of Latvian and 11.4% of Estonian exports were directed to Russia in 2013. Despite this huge economic relationship, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were some of the first states to call for tougher EU sanctions against Moscow when it reunited with Crimea in 2014. Russia can be a major market for Baltic made products and Russia in turn can offer cheap energy sources, alleviating a lot of the financial pressure causing by the coronavirus pandemic. Despite these advantages, the Baltic states continue only to want to serve NATO interests contrary to their own benefit and 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.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Normalized Relations with Russia Can Improve Baltic Economies During Pandemic
  • Tags: ,

The COVID-19 Chronicles: China

May 17th, 2020 by Ulson Gunnar

With the US spiraling downward, a downward trajectory merely steepened by the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, we’d expect other nations to suffer likewise.

But China, where we are told the virus first appeared, has already bounced back. While it has significant damage to repair socioeconomically, it has not only overcome the initial outbreak, but has put into place more resilient measures and means to weather future outbreaks.

Health Impact

China, with a population of nearly 1.4 billion, allegedly suffered between 4,000 and 5,000 deaths from COVID-19.

Just how China, with a population as large as the US plus an extra billion, has so many fewer deaths can be explained several ways.

Some cite quick action taken by the Chinese government to contain the spread of COVID-19. But since COVID-19 clearly spread globally and likely all across China as well, another explanation is much more likely.

A Global Times article titled, “Data methods show gap between US, Chinese flu-related deaths,” would note the differences between US and Chinese methods of attributing deaths to the common flu, stating:

“The US flu mortality rate includes cases where flu causes other illnesses to worsen and lead to death, while China only counts people who die directly from flu,” an observer who prefers to be anonymous told the Global Times.”

A similar approach was most likely used to tally COVID-19 deaths.

Clearly, for those who took the time to look into the underlying health issues many who succumbed to COVID-19 had in the US, they would have found a wide variety of preexisting conditions ranging from morbid obesity, diabetes, heart disease, advanced age and even cancer that COVID-19 simply helped push over the edge.

Counting any and all deaths where COVID-19 was simply present as a “COVID-19 death” is inaccurate and borders on dishonest. As previously reported, many millions more in the US appear to have been infected by COVID-19 than is officially admitted with most people easily overcoming the pathogen.

China appears to have only counted cases where COVID-19 was a primary factor in death, rather than simply contributing to a cocktail of preexisting, chronic health conditions. Because of China’s more moderate approach to defining COVID-19’s deadliness, it was able to apply more moderate measures to respond.

Measures

Yes, China did initially crackdown heavily on cities where COVID-19 was present, locking down populations and paralyzing travel. Factories were shuttered and supply chains around the globe were impacted.

But it appears that as quick as these lockdowns were implemented, they were lifted and populations across China allowed back to work.

While US car manufacturer Tesla wages a legal and public battle against the government of California to reopen its car plant in Alameda County, Tesla’s factory in Shanghai has been reopened for months now.

China is moving forward with caution, but not to the extent of paralyzing society or seizing up economic progress. The largest hurdle China’s government will need to overcome is convincing other nations it does business with to return to work and reopen their borders.

Socioeconomic Impact

Because China depends on international trade as well as internal socioeconomic stability to sustain itself, no matter how quickly China itself bounced back from the COVID-19 crisis, the fact that the rest of the world (constituting China’s export markets) is lagging behind with some nations like the United States seemingly collapsing before our eyes, means that China itself will suffer to some extent as well.

Closed borders and restrictions on travel have already complicated China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. As others have pointed out, this presents both challenges and opportunities, with China able to leverage existing networks to move medical assistance abroad as part of a sort of “Healthcare Silk Road.”

For China itself, it is a large and dynamic society with a likewise large and dynamic economy. As Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2018 once famously said:

The Chinese economy is a sea, not a pond. Storms can overturn a pond, but never a sea.

Judging by how quickly China has gone back to business with the most significant damage being incurred simply by China waiting for its trade partners to likewise bounce back, this is just as true today as it was when President Xi said it two years ago.Geopolitically, China faces backlash in the form of US propaganda aimed at scapegoating the nation for America’s own shortcomings both in the form of its self-inflicted lack of preparations for any sort of healthcare crisis and for its already downturned economy taking yet another hit.

The US appears to be using this scapegoating to further advance its agenda of isolating and undermining China upon the global stage as well as redirecting public ire at home abroad against Beijing rather than at those in Washington chiefly responsible for America’s growing crisis.

COVID-19, whatever it actually is, be it a genuinely dangerous pathogen or a dangerous exercise in stoking and exploiting public panic, will define all nations depending on how they weather the crisis and how they bounce back from it.

China appears to have already bounced back and is fully prepared to weather future outbreaks, be they pathogens or in the form of propaganda. For China’s competitors, it is clear that tricks are no substitute for actual economic and geopolitical mettle. Those relying on tricks will find themselves swept away by crises like COVID-19, while those relying on economic and geopolitical mettle will prevail.

*

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.

Gunnar Ulson is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

On Friday, the Dem-controlled House narrowly passed a new $3 trillion stimulus package — by a 208 – 199 majority.

Fourteen House Dems opposed the measure. Republican Peter King, representing New York’s hard-hit 2nd district, supported the so-called Health and Economic Recovery Omnibus Emergency Solutions (HEROES) Act.”

The GOP-controlled Senate and Trump oppose the measure, wanting aid going largely to corporate America, favoring crumbs alone for ordinary people in need.

They oppose further public health and welfare measures that don’t include suspension of employer and worker payroll taxes at least through yearend.

Revenues from them are essential to fund Social Security and Medicare, vital programs they want eroded and eliminated.

As things now stand, the politicized House measure in an election year is going nowhere — despite serving the interests of the US pay or die health insurance industry, benefits it lobbied for heavily.

The House bill includes insurance company subsidies through yearend to continue coverage for laid off or furloughed workers whose employers provide high-quality health insurance.

The benefit was included in House legislation primarily to assure a continued revenue stream for insurers through January 31, 2021 — instead of guaranteeing healthcare for all Americans, a new national policy, Medicare for all that both right wings of the one-party state oppose.

Subsidies to insurers will largely benefit them and workers with high-quality employer-provider coverage of most or all their healthcare needs.

Uninsured workers are left out. Ones way under-insured are marginally helped at best, far short of what’s needed, leaving them unable to receive expensive healthcare services for lack of being able to pay for them.

The House bill also provides no health insurance for individuals who bought their own coverage.

Tens of millions of Americans are on their own uninsured during unprecedented economic collapse that’s likely to be protracted.

A national healthcare emergency exists for individuals becoming seriously ill at this time — unaddressed by House legislation.

The world’s richest country is indifferent toward the health and welfare of its ordinary people, serving privileged ones alone, including at a time of economic crisis that’s likely to worsen before beginning to improve.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell responded derisively to the House measure, saying:

“We have not yet felt the urgency of acting immediately. That time could develop, but I don’t think it has yet.”

The measure includes about $1 trillion for states and cities that face their severest budget shortfalls in memory.

Without considerable federal help, they’re increasingly forced to lay off workers and slash public expenditures for lack of funds.

New York needs over $60 billion in federal aid, almost as much for California at around $54 billion.

Without a proposed income tax hike, my own state of Illinois will be $7.4 billion short of being able to meet its financial obligations for the fiscal year beginning July 1.

My home city of Chicago has a $1 billion budget hole, Mayor Lori Lightfoot saying “we are going to be in a world of hurt” because of lost tax revenues.

Along with worker layoffs, the city’s already high property taxes may be raised to help reduce the revenue shortfall.

Other provisions of the House bill include $200 billion in hazard pay for frontline workers, and another $1,200 for laid off individuals up to a maximum $3,600 for affected households with three or more members.

More funding for COVID-19 testing and tracing is also included.

At around 29,000 tested per one million population, the US lags well behind Russia, Spain, Italy, Germany, and Belgium.

It about matches the testing level in Britain and Canada.

There’s no data available on China, a nation that mass-tested almost everyone in areas hard-hit by COVID-19 outbreaks.

Days earlier, the South China Morning Post reported that all 14 million Wuhan area residents will be retested over a 10-day period after a small number of new outbreaks occurred in the city.

China quickly responds to outbreaks when happen to prevent a second large-scale wave it’s going all-out to avoid.

According to US public health experts, close to a million tests should be conducted daily in the country to control outbreaks — things nowhere near this standard.

Inadequate contact tracing and the testing shortfall are key factors behind continued US large numbers of new cases daily.

The new House bill also includes $10 billion in additional funding for food stamps, a small fraction of what’s needed.

Another $10 billion is for small businesses. Most small US enterprises have gotten little or nothing in federal aid, why hundreds of thousands that shut down won’t reopen.

The bill includes $25 billion for the financially-strapped US Postal Service that Trump and GOP leaders want privatized.

With Senate GOP and White House opposition, the House measure is going nowhere.

Perhaps a revised bill will surface in the weeks ahead.

Whatever new legislation is congressionally passed and enacted into law by Trump will be corporate America-friendly at the expense of equity and justice for the nation’s ordinary people.

*

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 US is at war by hot or others means against all nations unwilling to subordinate their sovereign rights to its interests.

Russia and China top its regime change target list, Iran and Venezuela close behind.

The Islamic and Bolivarian Republics are allied in mutual cooperative efforts.

Along with China, Iran has been helping Venezuela deal with its fuel shortage.

These and other countries dealing cooperatively with Venezuela face a likely harsh Trump regime response, including illegal secondary sanctions.

Because of significant fuel shortages, Caracas is working with Tehran and Beijing to repair and upgrade its oil refining capabilities.

Reportedly since April, around 20 flights from Iran and China brought hundreds of tons of technical equipment and personnel to work on the project.

State-owned China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC) is supplying Venezuela with compressors and refinery parts.

Iran’s state-owned Khatam al-Anbiya engineering firm is also providing this needed equipment and technicians to install it.

Venezuela Analysis reported that state oil company PDVSA reopened its El Palito refinery.

When fully operational, it “has a capacity to refine 80,000 bpd.” President Maduro aims to upgrade and restart refining operations nationwide that have been largely offline since last year.

Repair work began on Venezuela’s Paraguana Refining Complex, the world’s second largest.

Iranian and Chinese technicians are working to bring it back online. Reactivating the Cardon refinery is another priority.

The Trump regime is hostile toward nations involved in legally aiding its adversaries — invented ones. The US faced no foreign threats since WW II ended, what establishment media never explain.

Last month, Pompeo called on Middle East and other nations to deny Iranian airline Mahan Air access to their airspace, saying:

“Over the last few days, multiple aircraft belonging to Mahan Air have transferred unknown support to” Venezuela — Iran’s legal right.

“This is the same…airline that Iran used to move weapons and fighters around the Middle East (sic).”

The flights “must stop just as many (countries) denied landing rights to” the airline because of heavy-handed US pressure and threats.

In late April, a Venezuelan official said materials were received from Iran to help restart the Cardon refinery’s cracking unit that’s necessary to produce gasoline.

According to TankerTrackers.com, several Iranian vessels with gasoline are heading to Venezuela.

The country faces a major shortage of the fuel because until upgrading of its refining capacity is completed, it’s unable to supply internal needs.

It’s only able to produce about 10% of diluents needed for gasoline production.

On Friday, Reuters headlined: “Exclusive: US weighs measures in response to Iran fuel shipment to Venezuela,” saying:

An unnamed Trump regime official threatened further US actions against Tehran.

“It is not only unwelcome by the United States but it’s unwelcome by the region (sic), and we’re looking at measures that can be taken,” the official said.

Unilateral US sanctions against both countries and others have no legal validity.

Nations observing them are in violation of international law. They’re also complicit with Washington’s war on humanity, wanting all countries transformed into US vassal states.

It’s unclear what actions the Trump regime intends taking against Iran.

Is interdicting its tankers in international waters one of them?

US warships patrol Caribbean Sea waters as part of the Trump regime’s economic embargo on Venezuela.

AMN News reported that the USS Detroit, Lassen, Preble and Farragut are operating near Venezuela’s coastline — on the phony pretext of conducting anti-drug operations.

The CIA profits hugely from the illicit trade in cahoots with the underworld. So do major Wall Street banks by laundering billions of dollars of dirty money.

If the Trump regime orders the interdiction and seizure of Iran vessels in international waters, an act of high-seas piracy if it goes this far, Tehran will surely respond in its own way at an appropriate time.

*

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: The photograph shows a meeting between Iranian President Hassan Rouhani and Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro on October 22nd, 2016. 

Genetically engineered crops are a form of food imperialism. This technology allows mega-corporations like Bayer/Monsanto to patent seeds, lure farmers into buying them with visions of high yields, and then destroy the ability of small farmers to survive.

Genetic engineering produces an artificial combination of plant traits which often results in foods with less nutritional value while introducing health problems to animals and humans who eat them. It increases costs of food production, pushing millions of farmers throughout the world into poverty and driving them off their land.

Agricultural corporations get control of enormous quantities of land in Africa, Latin America and Asia which they use to control the world’s food supply and reap super-profits from the cheap labor of those who work for them, sometimes people who once owned the same land. These crops can be developed in open-field testing which allows the novel pollen to contaminate wild relatives of the engineered crops.

Agro-industries which dominate this process have the resources to lobby two sections of governments. They tell one government agency that their plants do not need to pass safety tests because they are “substantively equivalent” to already existing plants. Yet, out of the other side of their mouths, corporate lawyers argue that, far from being equivalent to existing plants, their engineered ones are so novel as to deserve patents, patents which allow companies to sue farmers who save seeds for planting during the next season.

As a resident of St. Louis, former world headquarters of Monsanto (now Bayer), I have participated in and organized dozens of actions at the company’s world headquarters, as well as forums and conferences. It is necessary to compare the use of biotechnology by food corporations with that of Cuba to decide if they are the same or fundamentally different.

Medicine in Cuba

John Kirk’s Health Care without Borders: Understanding Cuban Medical Internationalism (2015) provides a wealth of information regarding Cuba’s early use of biotechnology in medicine. It is a poor country suffering effects of a blockade by the US which interferes with its access to materials, equipment, technologies, finance, and even exchange of information. This makes it remarkable that Cuba’s research institutes have produced so many important medications. Even a partial list is impressive. The use of Heberprot B to treat diabetes has reduced amputations by 80 percent. Cuba is the only country to create an effective vaccine against type-B bacterial meningitis, and it developed the first synthetic vaccine for Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib), which causes almost half of pediatric meningitis infections. It has also produced the vaccine Racotumomab against advanced lung cancer and has begun clinical tests for Itolizumab to fight severe psoriasis.

By far, the best known efforts of Cuban biotechnology followed an outbreak of dengue fever in 1981 when its researchers found that it could combat the disease with Interferon Alpha 2B. The same drug became vitally important decades later as a potential cure for COVID-19. Interferons are signaling proteins which can respond to infections by strengthening anti-viral defenses. In this way, they decrease complications which could cause death. Cuba’s interferons have also shown their usefulness and safety in treating viral diseases including Hepatitis B and C, shingles and HIV-AIDS.

A tale of two technologies

There are marked differences between corporate biotechnology for food and Cuba’s medications for health. First, corporations produce food that fails to be healthier than non-engineered food which it replaces. Cuba’s biotechnology improves human health to such a degree that dozens of nations have requested Interferon Alpha 2B.

Second, corporate food production drives people off of their land while making a few investors very rich. No one loses their home due to Cuban medical advances.

Third, food imperialism fosters dependency but Cuba promotes medical independence. While corporate biotechnology drains money from poor counties by monopolizing genetically modified organisms (GMOs), Cuba strives to produce drugs as cheaply as possible.

Patents for its many medical innovations are held by the Cuban government. There is no impetus to increase profits by charging outrageously high prices for new drugs – these medications become available to Cubans at much lower cost than they would in a market-based health care system like that of the United States. This has a profound impact on Cuban medical internationalism. The country provides drugs, including vaccines, at a cost low enough to make humanitarian campaign goals abroad more achievable. Its use of synthetic vaccines for meningitis and pneumonia has resulted in the immunization of millions of Latin American children.

Cuba’s other phase of medical biotechnology is also unknown in the corporate world. This is the transfer of new technology to poor countries so that they can produce drugs themselves and do not have to rely on purchasing them from rich countries. Collaboration with Brazil has resulted in meningitis vaccines at a cost of 95¢ rather than $15 to $20 per dose. Cuba and Brazil worked together on several other biotechnology projects, including Interferon Alpha 2B, for hepatitis C, and recombinant human erythropoletin (rHuEPO), for anemia caused by chronic kidney problems.

In perspective

The bigger picture is that technology of all types is not “value free” – it reflects social factors in its development and use. Nuclear plants require military forces for protection from attack, making them attractive in any society dominated by those who employ a high degree of violence to suppress dissent.

Market forces within capitalism select technologies that are profitable, even if they are destructive to human welfare. Of course, medicine such as antibiotics benefit humanity even if their original goal was profits for pharmaceutical giants.

At other times, products that damage society as a whole are pursued because they augment corporate profits by weakening labor unions. Planting and harvesting equipment have been used to undermine organizing efforts of agricultural workers. In the mid-1880s Chicago McCormick adopted new molding machines which could be run by unskilled workers. The company used them to replace skilled workers of the National Union of Iron Molders.

Expensive technologies can destroy small competitors so that large companies with more capital can better control the market. No case is clearer than the use of GMOs in agriculture. By use of market control (making non-GMO seeds unavailable), financial terrorism (such as lawsuits against resistant farmers), and the pesticide addiction treadmill, GMO giants such as Bayer/Monsanto have increased the cost of food production. This destroys the livelihood of small farmers across the globe while transforming the large farmers who remain into semi-vassals of these multinational lords of seeds and pesticides.

Though a century separated them and they affected different types of labor, actions by McCormick and Bayer/Monsanto had something in common. They both utilized novel technology which resulted in less desirableproducts but increased profits.

Because they were an invaluable weapon against the union, McCormick used molding machines that produced inferior castings and cost consumers more. GMOs in agriculture result in lower-quality food. Since two-thirds of GMOs are designed to create plants that can tolerate poisonous pesticides such as Roundup, pesticide residues increase with GMO usage.

GMOs are also used to increase the production of corn syrup which sweetens a growing quantity of processed foods, and thereby contributes to the obesity crisis. At the same time, food engineered to be uniform, survive transportation, and have a longer shelf life contains less nutritional value. The use of GMOs in corporate agriculture is one of the largest contributing factors to the phenomenon of people simultaneously being overweight and undernourished.

Cuba’s use of biotechnology to create medications is in sharp contrast to both McCormick and Bayer/Monsanto. Its drugs, especially Interferon Alfpha 2B, are used to help people overcome illnesses. They are created to share throughout the world rather drive people into worse poverty. Making a distinction between the biotechnology of Bayer/Monsanto and Cuba requires understanding the difference between bioimperialism and biosolidarity. Imperialism subdues. Biosolidarity empowers.

*

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.

Don Fitz ([email protected]) is on the editorial board of Green Social Thought where a version of this article first appeared. Portions of this article are from his forthcoming book, Cuban Health Care: The Ongoing Revolution, to be published by Monthly Review Press in June, 2020.

Smug assertions of liability in history are often incautious things.  They constitute a fruit salad mix: assertions of the wishful thinkers; hopes of the crazed; the quest of genuinely aggrieved generations who feel that wrongs need to be rectified (the Elgin Marbles and transatlantic slavery come to mind).  Before you know it, the next historical act will require compensation, the next crime balanced on the ledger of misdeeds.  Lawyers will be summoned, writs and briefs drawn up.   

The advocates of the China-compensation initiative for COVID-19 are growing in number; most are charmingly untouched by history.  Sociologist Massimo Introvigne is one, and with a certain peashooter menace claims that China, specially the Chinese Communist Party “may find itself attacked by an enemy its mighty military power will not be able to stop, aggressive Western lawyers.” Introvigne, while clearly no sharp taloned legal eagle, suggests reference to the International Health Regulations of 2005 which obligate States to conduct surveillance of, and convey accurate and timely information about, diseases through their agencies to the World Health Organization.  Tardiness on the issue of reporting outbreaks that can constitute public health emergencies, for Introvigne, might constitute such grave breaches as to violate the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. 

These particular articles, drafted by the International Law Commission, are not binding. But the Blame-China lobby has been cunning.  James Kraska of the US Naval War College, for instance, thinks that the restatement has been absorbed into the ether of international state practice.  Magically, the articles have been constituted as international customary law, which is binding. 

A rash of legal suits have appeared across the United States, all sharing one common theme: a guerrilla compensation war via courts against a sovereign state.  Members of Congress have been drafting various bills seeking to ease the pathway of private and public suits. 

Tennessee Senator Marsha Blackburn is one of several, hoping to amend that imposing legal obstacle to suing states known as the Foreign State Immunities Act of 1976 by establishing “an exception to jurisdictional immunity for a foreign state that discharges a biological weapon”.  The name of the bill is instructive and leaves little to the imagination, being either the “Stop China-Originated Viral Infectious Diseases Act of 2020” or the “Stop COVID Act of 2020”.   

This sort of legal pamphleteering and raging from the stump is interesting but not very instructive.  Guilt and agency is already presumed by the advocates: China was not merely negligent in not containing the outbreak of COVID-19, but had actually created the virus with venality.  The supreme self-confidence of those in this group leads to problems, the most obvious being the evidence they cite, and much they do not.

Even if there was something to be made about international pandemic wrongfulness, the United States would surely be one of the first to be cautious in pushing the compensation cart. The measure by Senators Tom Cotton and Josh Hawley, for instance, would grant the US president powers to impose visa and financial sanctions on foreign government officials who “deliberately conceal or distort information” about public health crises.  This would also cover associates and those assisting in the endeavour. 

But as has been pointed out by more grounded analysts, such measures will simply place US officials in the retaliatory firing line, including those who were rather slipshod with informing the US public about the dangers of the novel coronavirus.  Rachel Esplin Odell is convincing in her summation at War on the Rocks: “If applied to Chinese officials, such sanctions would likely invite swift retaliation against US officials who themselves dismissed the threat of COVID-19, shared incorrect medical information about it, or spread false theories about its origins, such as the president, vice president, and many governors and members of Congress – including Cotton himself.”

Odell also warns that using the Draft Articles on State Responsibility in the context of public health is more than mildly treacherous.  Disease outbreaks can be unruly things, hard to monitor and track; the the customary rule accepting that a state in breach of international law is required “to make full reparation for the injury caused” by that breach has not featured in international health efforts. 

David Fidler, a global health specialist, also suggests abundant caution in Just Security for linking state wrongs with infection and disease.  What such eager commentators as Kraska avoid is the tendency in state practice to avoid attributing “state responsibility for acts allegedly to be legally wrongful with respect to the transboundary movement of pathogens.”  Compensatory mechanisms are absent in any treaty dealing with the spread of infectious disease, and this includes the International Health Regulations (2005). 

The pursuit of blame, and efforts to monetise it, also brings to mind the fact that an imperium such as the United States should be reluctant to cast stones in the glass house of international politics. That pedestrian dauber yet dangerously inept President George W. Bush might be free to pontificate about COVID-19 and the sweetness of solidarity but remains silent about his misdeeds in ruining Iraq, and, by virtue of that, a good deal of the Middle East.  This was an individual who, in March 2003, said that the US would meet the threat of “an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder” so as not to do so “later with armies of firefighters and police and doctors on the streets of our cities.”  Unlike the case of pathogen transmission, the issue of attribution in that case is far from difficult. 

While international law furnishes little by way of financial compensation for damage caused by pandemics, it does about the criminal liability of state leaders and military commanders for war crimes and crimes against humanity.  It is also worth noting that the foundations for the invasion by the US and its allies was conspiratorial and deceptive, filled with the sorts of fabrications and mendacity that make the bumbling authorities in Wuhan seem childishly modest.  In doing so, the crime against peace, sketched by the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, was committed.  As a Dutch Parliamentary inquiry found in 2010, UN Security Council Resolution 1441, giving Saddam Hussein a final chance to disarm, could not “reasonably be interpreted as authorising individual member states to use military force to compel Iraq to comply with the Security Council’s resolutions.”  The warning for US law and policy makers in seeking Chinese scalps should be starkly crystal in clarity.

*

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]

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Liabilities of History: The Dangers of Pandemic Compensation. The Blame China Lobby
  • Tags: , ,

UPDATE (May 8, 9:00AM EST): Archbishop Viganò, who gathered the signatures and communicated with Cardinal Sarah about the initiative, has now issued a timeline of his communications with Sarah. Read full report here.

UPDATE (May 7, 8:00PM EST): This story originally indicated, based on information from the organizers, that Cardinal Robert Sarah, prefect of the Vatican’s Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, had joined the appeal. But the cardinal has now written on Twitter that he did not sign. “From a personal point of view, I may share some questions or preoccupations raised regarding restrictions on fundamental freedom but I didn’t sign that petition,” he wrote.

A Note from Global Research:

This a powerful statement for all humanity. It upholds fundamental values. It rejects “global governance”. It upholds the sovereignty of nations. It points to the irresponsibility of national governments which pay lip service to a global public health concern while adopting economic and policies which impoverish their citizens. Politicians in high office have become the lackeys of powerful financial interests.

The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the Covid-19 epidemic, the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world… (read statement in full below)

The rights to income and employment are denied. Social engineering is imposed leading to a de facto police state. Increasingly, there is evidence that the data pertaining to the COVID-19 has been deliberately manipulated with a view to sustaining the fear campaign led by the corporate media.

The Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) supports the substance of this important endeavor of the catholic clergy. This message should spread Worldwide.

Michel Chossudovsky, May 11, 2020

 

***

Catholic clergy led by former papal nuncio Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganò and Cardinals Gerhard Ludwig Mueller, Joseph Zen, and Janis Pujats have joined an appeal “for the Church and the world” that warns that the COVID-19 pandemic is being used as a “pretext” by world leaders to “control” people, strip them of their fundamental rights, while providing a “disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control” (read full text below).

In the face of restrictions around the world on the public celebration of the sacraments, the signatories assert the right of the Church to offer public worship, unimpeded by State interventions.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church.

The signatories ask that “restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.”

Along with the 4 cardinals signing the appeal are 8 bishops, 3 priests, 21 journalists, 11 medical doctors, 13 lawyers, 18 teachers and professionals, and 12 various groups and associations.

SIGN Appeal for the Church and the World here

In reference to coronavirus lockdown measures around the world and the reduction of individuals’ civil liberties, the signatories say that they believe there are powers at work in society “interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements.”

“The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control,” they state.

Arguing that widespread closures of shops and businesses has in some instances “precipitated a crisis that has brought down entire sectors of the economy,” the signatories continue to raise concerns about potential radical changes to the geopolitical landscape. They stated that such weakened economies “encourages interference by foreign powers and has serious social and political repercussions.”

“Those with governmental responsibility must stop these forms of social engineering, by taking measures to protect their citizens whom they represent, and in whose interests they have a serious obligation to act,” the letter states.

The letter also directly addresses several questions related to medical treatments for Covid-19.

In the first instance, the letter implores governments and international bodies not to allow “shady business interests” to influence their responses to the coronavirus.

“It is unreasonable to penalize those remedies that have proved to be effective, and are often inexpensive, just because one wishes to give priority to treatments or vaccines that are not as good, but which guarantee pharmaceutical companies far greater profits, and exacerbate public health expenditures,” the signatories write.

On the question of potential coronavirus vaccines, the signatories say that “for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.” They insist too that individuals must be free to reject such vaccines without any penalties being imposed on them.

The letter also calls on governments not to adopt attempts to control people through “tracking systems or any other form of location-finding,” or for the crisis to be used as an excuse for increasing levels of media censorship and the de-platforming of dissenting voices.

“Let us not allow centuries of Christian civilization to be erased under the pretext of a virus, and an odious technological tyranny to be established, in which nameless and faceless people can decide the fate of the world by confining us to a virtual reality,” the letter urges.

The signatories stress that in the face of the current crisis, followers of God must try to understand the current situation in the light of the Gospels.

“This means taking a stand: either with Christ or against Christ. Let us not be intimidated or frightened by those who would have us believe that we are a minority: Good is much more widespread and powerful than the world would have us believe.”

“With faith, let us beseech the Lord to protect the Church and the world. May the Blessed Virgin, Help of Christians, crush the head of the ancient Serpent and defeat the plans of the children of darkness,” the appeal concludes.

***

APPEAL FOR THE CHURCH AND THE WORLD

To Catholics and all people of good will

Veritas liberabit vos. Jn 8:32

In this time of great crisis, we Pastors of the Catholic Church, by virtue of our mandate, consider it our sacred duty to make an Appeal to our Brothers in the Episcopate, to the Clergy, to Religious, to the holy People of God and to all men and women of good will. This Appeal has also been undersigned by intellectuals, doctors, lawyers, journalists and professionals who agree with its content, and may be undersigned by those who wish to make it their own.

The facts have shown that, under the pretext of the Covid-19 epidemic, the inalienable rights of citizens have in many cases been violated and their fundamental freedoms, including the exercise of freedom of worship, expression and movement, have been disproportionately and unjustifiably restricted. Public health must not, and cannot, become an alibi for infringing on the rights of millions of people around the world, let alone for depriving the civil authority of its duty to act wisely for the common good. This is particularly true as growing doubts emerge from several quarters about the actual contagiousness, danger and resistance of the virus. Many authoritative voices in the world of science and medicine confirm that the media’s alarmism about Covid-19 appears to be absolutely unjustified.

We have reason to believe, on the basis of official data on the incidence of the epidemic as related to the number of deaths, that there are powers interested in creating panic among the world’s population with the sole aim of permanently imposing unacceptable forms of restriction on freedoms, of controlling people and of tracking their movements. The imposition of these illiberal measures is a disturbing prelude to the realization of a world government beyond all control.

We also believe that in some situations the containment measures that were adopted, including the closure of shops and businesses, have precipitated a crisis that has brought down entire sectors of the economy. This encourages interference by foreign powers and has serious social and political repercussions. Those with governmental responsibility must stop these forms of social engineering, by taking measures to protect their citizens whom they represent, and in whose interests they have a serious obligation to act. Likewise, let them help the family, the cell of society, by not unreasonably penalizing the weak and elderly, forcing them into a painful separation from their loved ones. The criminalization of personal and social relationships must likewise be judged as an unacceptable part of the plan of those who advocate isolating individuals in order to better manipulate and control them.

We ask the scientific community to be vigilant, so that cures for Covid-19 are offered in honesty for the common good. Every effort must be made to ensure that shady business interests do not influence the choices made by government leaders and international bodies. It is unreasonable to penalize those remedies that have proved to be effective, and are often inexpensive, just because one wishes to give priority to treatments or vaccines that are not as good, but which guarantee pharmaceutical companies far greater profits, and exacerbate public health expenditures. Let us also remember, as Pastors, that for Catholics it is morally unacceptable to develop or use vaccines derived from material from aborted fetuses.

We also ask government leaders to ensure that forms of control over people, whether through tracking systems or any other form of location-finding, are rigorously avoided. The fight against Covid-19, however serious, must not be the pretext for supporting the hidden intentions of supranational bodies that have very strong commercial and political interests in this plan. In particular, citizens must be given the opportunity to refuse these restrictions on personal freedom, without any penalty whatsoever being imposed on those who do not wish to use vaccines, contact tracking or any other similar tool. Let us also consider the blatant contradiction of those who pursue policies of drastic population control and at the same time present themselves as the savior of humanity, without any political or social legitimacy. Finally, the political responsibility of those who represent the people can in no way be left to “experts” who can indeed claim a kind of immunity from prosecution, which is disturbing to say the least.

We strongly urge those in the media to commit themselves to providing accurate information and not penalizing dissent by resorting to forms of censorship, as is happening widely on social media, in the press and on television. Providing accurate information requires that room be given to voices that are not aligned with a single way of thinking. This allows citizens to consciously assess the facts, without being heavily influenced by partisan interventions. A democratic and honest debate is the best antidote to the risk of imposing subtle forms of dictatorship, presumably worse than those our society has seen rise and fall in the recent past.

Finally, as Pastors responsible for the flock of Christ, let us remember that the Church firmly asserts her autonomy to govern, worship, and teach. This autonomy and freedom are an innate right that Our Lord Jesus Christ has given her for the pursuit of her proper ends. For this reason, as Pastors we firmly assert the right to decide autonomously on the celebration of Mass and the Sacraments, just as we claim absolute autonomy in matters falling within our immediate jurisdiction, such as liturgical norms and ways of administering Communion and the Sacraments. The State has no right to interfere, for any reason whatsoever, in the sovereignty of the Church. Ecclesiastical authorities have never refused to collaborate with the State, but such collaboration does not authorize civil authorities to impose any sort of ban or restriction on public worship or the exercise of priestly ministry. The rights of God and of the faithful are the supreme law of the Church, which she neither intends to, nor can, abdicate. We ask that restrictions on the celebration of public ceremonies be removed.

We should like to invite all people of good will not to shirk their duty to cooperate for the common good, each according to his or her own state and possibilities and in a spirit of fraternal charity. The Church desires such cooperation, but this cannot disregard either a respect for natural law or a guarantee of individual freedoms. The civil duties to which citizens are bound imply the State’s recognition of their rights.

We are all called to assess the current situation in a way consistent with the teaching of the Gospel. This means taking a stand: either with Christ or against Christ. Let us not be intimidated or frightened by those who would have us believe that we are a minority: Good is much more widespread and powerful than the world would have us believe. We are fighting against an invisible enemy that seeks to divide citizens, to separate children from their parents, grandchildren from their grandparents, the faithful from their pastors, students from teachers, and customers from vendors. Let us not allow centuries of Christian civilization to be erased under the pretext of a virus, and an odious technological tyranny to be established, in which nameless and faceless people can decide the fate of the world by confining us to a virtual reality. If this is the plan to which the powers of this earth intend to make us yield, know that Jesus Christ, King and Lord of History, has promised that “the gates of Hell shall not prevail” (Mt 16:18).

Let us entrust government leaders and all those who rule over the fate of nations to Almighty God, that He may enlighten and guide them in this time of great crisis. May they remember that, just as the Lord will judge us Pastors for the flock which he has entrusted to us, so will He also judge government leaders for the peoples whom they have the duty to defend and govern.

With faith, let us beseech the Lord to protect the Church and the world. May the Blessed Virgin, Help of Christians, crush the head of the ancient Serpent and defeat the plans of the children of darkness.

8 May 2020

Our Lady of the Rosary of Pompeii

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Catholic Clergy on COVID-19: Three Cardinals Join Global Appeal Decrying Crackdown on Basic Freedoms Over Coronavirus
  • Tags: ,

The Real Coronavirus Victims: Relations between People

May 15th, 2020 by Dr. Pascal Sacré

“Only touch, medicine and speech can truly heal. »

Hippocrates, 5th century B.C.

Some say the world is going to change. For me, it has already changed in March 2020.

A “coronavirus” world

A better world?

That depends.

For me, the world doesn’t change for the better. It’s never just a point of view, my point of view, because for the Big Pharma manufacturers of future drugs and vaccines [1], of course, it’s a change for the better.

The minority for whom the world is “changing for the better” because of the coronavirus :

Phenomenal profits in the offing. A gush of dollars and euros to come for the majority shareholders and CEOs of Big Pharma, who are already immensely wealthy.

For the already richest people in the world, it’s a change for the better, yes [2].

                                         © image taken from the site: Graphseobourse.fr. Source Investir.

According to Forbes [3],

“The unemployment rate and the number of COVID-19 cases continue to skyrocket, but the stock market is doing better. The Dow Jones Industrial Average and the S&P 500 both jumped more than 12% in the week ending April 9. (Markets closed on April 10 for Good Friday). Stocks jumped significantly on Thursday as the Federal Reserve announced a $2.3 trillion (trillion) loan to support the economy. Market gains led to a combined $51.3 billion increase for 10 of the world’s billionaires since the market closed a week ago on April 2.”

I’ve always wondered why, at such a level of wealth, would you want to be even richer.

But this is certainly the naive questioning of a person who is not part of this “world of the super-rich” (and does not want to be part of it).

For governments, business leaders, directors, for any person in power attracted by an authoritarian, even totalitarian, dictatorial drift [4], this is a change for the better too.

This is the case at the global level, at the national level but also in all power structures, major and minor.

Wherever leaders prefer to impose rather than propose, to force rather than convince, the coronavirus crisis makes it possible to suspend rights, to establish manu militari their austerity programs, almost neither seen nor known. (ni vu ni connu)

The coronavirus crisis threatens to make us live in a “Chinese-style” dictatorship [5], an “Amazon” social model [6], an “Apple” ethical model [7], a “Google” moral model [8], a “Facebook” model of righteousness [9] … this time on a worldwide scale.

The expression “free world” will no longer have any meaning.

Already nibbled, gnawed, attacked from all sides, this expression will explode into thousands of unrecognizable little pieces. It is already well underway.

In the “coronavirus” world, you are “a number”, a “piece of meat”, a more or less profitable “piece of brain”, without social protection, without rights except the right to do what “the power” tells you to do.

Always using the same propaganda language:

“More security for less freedom”.

“State of emergency… health”.

A novel language leitmotiv repeated ad infinitum, and the more it is repeated, the more it is accepted.

For example, in some countries, patients can leave hospital by agreeing to wear an electronic bracelet [10]. This is only a sample of all the totalitarian measures planned or even already decided by our governments in favor of the coronavirus crisis. It goes much further, it’s limitless [11] and it affects a good part of the world, if not the whole world [12]:

“After the drones equipped with loudspeakers that we saw calling recalcitrant citizens to conform, in China and then in Paris, tracking devices are now flourishing all over the world. In France, the Stop-Covid application is thus being promoted by the government as a necessary tool for deconfinement, while on the other side of the Atlantic, rival companies Apple and Google are teaming up to produce an application to go up the transmission chain.”

It is not surprising that Apple, Google and Facebook are putting themselves “at the service” (big profits in perspective) of these totalitarian drifts.

The same goes for YouTube, whose CEO Susan Wojcicki has arrogated to herself the right to delete all information that does not follow the WHO’s recommendations [13].

After Bill Gates, a non-medical person who tells us what to do, it is now the turn of the CEO of an online video site to meddle with our health and decide what is good or bad for us to know. In the name of what? In whose name?

As for doctors, the real ones, or other specialists like health anthropologist Jean-Dominique Michel [14], they are vilified. People are told not to listen to them!

What an inverted world!

More control versus less autonomy.

In the meantime, all the constitutional rights dearly acquired by our ancestors and all human rights are under attack.

Freedom to demonstrate, to assemble, freedom of expression, to hug, to breathe freely, to move around, to challenge any health dogma coming from the official line.

What makes sense and is scientifically founded is fake news.

What is false news is unassailable truth.

In this “coronavirus” world that will benefit the minority described at the beginning of this article.

Some people have been forcibly interned in psychiatric hospitals, a practice I thought relegated to the last century or to communist dictatorships. It is today, in Italy [15], in Germany [16], in this new “coronavirus” world.

So,

– For very rich people (no, it’s much more than that, for stratospherically rich people)
– For the majority shareholders and CEOs of the financial monsters that pharmaceutical companies have become (1000 billion euros in profits over twenty years).
–  For the corporate media, who make money and live better by spreading fear and crises which they sell to their readers,
–  For all those interested in more authority, more power for themselves and less autonomy and freedom for citizens

The world is changing for the better.

For billions of people, you, me, the world is changing for the worse.

Yes, here, as long as you’re not one of those rulers, CEO of a pharmaceutical company, journalist spokesperson for governments or director addict to strong power, it’s you, it’s me that we’re talking about now.

This “coronavirus” world is a change for the worse.

Unless we (you, me) reject it “en masse”:

Then we must be such a number that it is impossible to commit us all to a mental hospital, a mass critical enough for the brutal repression of so many to cause the awakening of all the others.

All the more so since, for me, it is not necessary to revolt or use violence, especially not!

It is enough:

– To no longer take part in this terrifying scene.
– Not to take this path that leads us to more poverty, more famine:

The tyranny of the coronavirus – and death by starvation, by Peter Koenig, who worked for the World Bank and the WHO for years:

“By the end of 2020, more people will have died from hunger, despair and suicide than from coronavirus. We, the world, are facing a famine pandemic of biblical proportions. This true pandemic will far surpass the “COVID-19 pandemic”. The famine pandemic is reminiscent of the film “Hunger Games” because it is based on similar circumstances of a dominant minority controlling who can eat and who will die – through competition. »

Not to condone this destruction of all social ties, a deadly phenomenon that the coronavirus dictatorship even wants to impose on our kindergarten children:

The school cannot become a prison where the teachers are the matrons.

Parents, protect your children! Not only from the coronavirus, but especially from these abuses. Boycott schools that attack the very purpose of life, human relations, and this is done through contact, play and mutual aid.

A review of scientific studies has failed to find a single case of transmission of the virus from a child to an adult [18].

–  Not to accept this social distancing:

Social distancing in pictures, all over the world…

Yes, let us protect the sick, but if not, let us live the life for which we are here on earth, with emphasis on relationships, mutual support, solidarity and empathy.

– Not to put on masks, all of us, all the time:

Faces and smiles disappear under masks, whereas these masks do not protect us, prevent us from breathing and from oxygenating [19], a much more important parameter of good health, can aggravate the situation by concentrating possible exhaled viruses close to our respiratory tracts, and that the WHO itself reserves this practice only for the sick (who must then stay at home) and for the caregivers.

These are all ways to resist.

Choose something else.

Two world views are now clashing, exacerbated by this coronavirus crisis.

On one hand:

A cold, contactless, masked and tyrannical world, the same for all, without thought or common sense, promising enormous power and profit for a minority of people already immensely rich and powerful.

On the other hand:

A world where contact, warmth, looks, smiles remain the inviolable basis of all humanity.

A world where touch, (natural) medicine and speech [20] continue to form the unshakeable pillar of human medicine.

A world in which not everything is sacrificed, human dignity, human rights (and women’s rights), in exchange for life at all costs, because to do so deprives life of its value.

Testimony of this 97-year-old woman [21]:

I’m locked up, it’s not a life,” she says, crying. I can’t even go to my neighbor’s house. We can’t even talk. All day long I’m locked in there. »

She hardly feeds herself any more because she feels that this life is not worth living.

Right now, this woman is more likely to die from loneliness than from the coronavirus.

That is the human choice we must make today.

                                                                                                                                                                                            

Dr. Pascal Sacré is Anesthesiologist-intensivist  and a frequent contributor to mondialisation.ca

Translated from French by Maya Chossudovsky-Ladouceur. 

Notes:

[1] Coronavirus: the race against time to find a vaccine.

[2] The big VIDOC scam 19: the 10 billionaires made $51 billion last week…

[3] 10 Billionaires Gained $51 Billion This Week As Markets Edged Up From The Stock Crash, Forbes.com, April 11, 2020.

[4] Techno-tyranny: How the US security state is using the coronavirus crisis to realize an Orwellian vision.

[5] Coronavirus is pushing dictatorship, and not just in China.

[6] Testimonies from the inside showed another face of Amazon: that of an abusive, ultra-liberal firm, importing management methods that are hardly compatible with French law. On this point, the minister is silent.

[7] Is Apple an ethical company: the great illusion of the dividend.

[8] Google no longer respects its ethical principles, according to a former director. The former director of international relations at Google accuses the internet giant of having abandoned its founding moral values and of being complicit in human rights violations in certain countries, such as China and Saudi Arabia.

[9] Facebook and its dubious ethics, copying users.

[10] In several countries, such as Russia, patients can decide to leave the hospital if they wear an electronic bracelet. The French government would study this possibility.

11] In a kindergarten in Varese, Italy, electronic bracelets for the social distancing of children are being used in a nursery school.

[12] Monitored and docile. It’s Justin Trudeau’s turn to be seduced by the sirens of tracking applications.

[13] Coronavirus: YouTube removes all information that does not follow WHO recommendations. YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki told CNN that any coronavirus-related content that contravenes World Health Organization (WHO) recommendations will be removed from its platform.

[14] Jean-Dominique Michel, health anthropologist

[15] In Italy, an opponent of confinement placed in a psychiatric hospital, 9 May 2020

16] Covid-19, a lawyer interned in psychiatry because she dared to get in the way of the Coronavirus. Me Beate Bahner, a lawyer based in Heidelberg / Germany, filed an appeal for the annulment of the measures taken by the German government.  Indeed, following Covid-19, restrictive measures were put in place by the Chancellor.  Me Bahner pleads that the German people’s rights of freedom have been violated by the measures put in place to curb the spread of the virus. She therefore asked the Federal Constitutional Court to annul these measures restricting freedoms. The result? Psychiatric confinement!

Origin: Polizei bringt “Coronoia”-Anwältin Bahner in die Psychiatrie

“Police take “Coronoia” lawyer Bahner to the psychiatrist”

[17] French media, who owns what?

[18] https://dontforgetthebubbles.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/COVID-data-top-10.pdf

[19] Face Masks Pose Serious Risks to the Healthy

[20] Le toucher, le remède, la parole, by Roberta Milanese and Simona Milanese, SATAS editions, 2015 original edition in Italian, 2018, English translation. To heal is to take care of the person as much as of the disease.

[21] “I’m locked up, it’s not a life”: Jeanne, 96 years old, gives a moving testimony, April 21, 2020.
Dr. Pascal Sacré, Mondialisation.ca, 2020

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Real Coronavirus Victims: Relations between People
存在严重的健康危机,必须适当解决。这是第一要务。

但是还有另一个重要方面必须解决。

数以百万计的人失去了工作,失去了生命积蓄。在发展中国家,贫穷和绝望盛行。

尽管封锁已作为解决全球公共卫生危机的唯一方法提交了公众舆论,但其破坏性的经济和社会影响却被忽略了。

不言而喻的事实是,新的冠状病毒为强大的经济利益和腐败的政客提供了借口,使整个世界陷入大规模失业,破产和赤贫的漩涡。

这是正在发生的事情的真实画面。贫穷无处不在。与此同时,饥荒在第三世界国家(更接近该国)爆发

“数百万绝望的美国人正在等待大众的慈善”

“在过去的一周中,美国各地的食品银行和失业办公室已经形成了数千英里的边界。”

 

**

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

**

Fake Coronavirus Data, Fear Campaign. Spread of the COVID-19 Infection

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 25, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 迈向新的世界秩序?全球债务危机与国家私有化 大流行是否曾经使世界陷入大规模失业,破产和绝望的漩涡?

First published on April 16, 2020

There is a serious health crisis which must be duly resolved. But there is another important dimension which has to be addressed. 

Millions of people have lost their jobs, and their lifelong savings. In developing countries, poverty and despair prevail. 

While the lockdown is presented to public opinion as  the sole means to resolving a global public health crisis,  its devastating economic and social impacts are casually ignored.  

The entire World has been precipitated into a spiral of  mass unemployment, bankruptcy and extreme poverty. 

VIDEO: Coronavirus: Economic and Social Collapse: Mass Unemployment, Bankruptcy, Poverty and Despair

Summarized Timeline  

(For Complete Analysis and Timeline click Here)

October 18, Event 201. New York. Coronavirus nCoV-2019 Simulation and Emergency Preparedness Task Force, John Hopkins Bloomberg School of Health Security.  Big Pharma-Big Money Simulation Exercise sponsored by WEF and Gates Foundation 

Simulation Exercise of a coronavirus epidemic which results in 65 million dead. Supported by the World Economic Forum (WEF) representing the interests of Financial institutions, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation representing Big Pharma.

January 1, 2020: Chinese health authorities close the Huanan Seafood Wholesale Market after Western media reports that wild animals sold there may have been the source of the virus. This initial assessment was subsequently refuted by Chinese scientists.

January 7, 2020: Chinese authorities “identify a new type of virus” which was isolated  on 7 January. The coronavirus was named 2019-nCoV by the WHO exactly the same name as that adopted in the WEF-Gates-John Hopkins October 18, 2019 simulation exercise. 

January 21-24, 2020: Consultations at the World Economic Forum, Davos, Switzerland under auspices of  the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) for development of a vaccine program. CEPI is a WEF-Gates partnership. With support from CIPI, Seattle based Moderna will manufacture an mRNA vaccine against 2019-nCoV, “The Vaccine Research Center (VRC) of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of NIH, collaborated with Moderna to design the vaccine.”

January  30, 2020Geneva: WHO Director General determines that the outbreak constitutes a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). This decision was taken on the basis of 150 confirmed cases outside China, First case of person to person transmission in US is reported, 6 cases in the US, 3 cases in Canada, 2 in the UK.

The WHO Director General had the backing of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Big Pharma and the World Economic Forum (WEF). There are indications that the decision for the WHO to declare a Global Emergency was taken on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos (January 21-24) overlapping with the Geneva January 22 meeting of the Emergency Committee.

Both WHO’s Director Tedros as well as Bill Gates were present at Davos 2020. Bill Gates announced the Gates Foundation’s $10 billion commitment to vaccines over the next 10 years.

January 30, 2020 The Simulation Exercise Went Live. The same corporate interests and foundations which were involved in the October 18 John Hopkins Simulation Exercise became REAL ACTORS involved in providing their support to the implementation of the WHO Public Health emergency (PHEIC).

January 31, 2020 – One day later following the launch of WHO Global Emergency, The Trump administration announced that it will deny entry to foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggers a crisis in air transportation, China-US trade as well as the tourism industry, leading to substantial bankruptcies, not to mention unemployment.

Immediately triggers a campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western World.

Early February: the acronym of the coronavirus was changed from nCoV- 2019 (its name under the October Event 201 John Hopkins Simulation Exercise before it was identified in early January 2020) to COVID-19.

February 28, 2020: A massive WHO vaccination campaign was announced by WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus  

Late February 2020. Collapse of the stock markets, surge in the value of the stocks of Big Pharma.

Early March devastating consequences for the tourist industry Worldwide.

February 24:  Moderna Inc supported by CIPI  announced  that it experimental mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, known as mRNA-1273, was ready for human testing.

Late February 2020. Second wave of transmission of the virus (Worldwide) to a large number of countries.

Late February – Early March: China: More than 50% of the infected patients recover and are discharged from the hospitals. March 3, a total of 49,856 patients have recovered from COVID-19 and were discharged from hospitals in China.

March 7: USA: The number of “confirmed cases” (infected and recovered) in the United States in early March is of the order of 430, rising to about 6oo (March 8). Rapid rise in the course of March.

Compare that to the figures pertaining to the Influenza B Virus: The CDC estimates for 2019-2020 “at least 15 million virus flu illnesses… 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths. (The Hill)

Early March:  IMF and World Bank To the Rescue 

The WHO Director General advises member countries that “the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have both made funds available to stabilize health systems and mitigate the economic consequences of the epidemic”. That is the proposed neoliberal  “solution” to COVID-19. The World Bank has committed $12billion in so-called “aid” which will contribute to building up the external debt of developing countries.

March 7:  China: The Pandemic is Almost Over

Reported new cases in China fall to double digit. 99 cases recorded on March 7.  All of the new cases outside Hubei province are categorized as  “imported infections”(from foreign countries).

March 10-11, 2020: Italy declares a lockdown, followed by several other countries of the EU.  Deployment of 30,000 US troops in the EU as part of the “Defend Europe 2020” war games directed against Russia.

March 11, 2020: the Director General of the WHO officially declares the COV-19 Pandemic. Bear in mind the global health emergency was declared on January 3oth without stating officially the existence of a pandemic outside Mainland China.

March 11:  Trump orders the suspension for 30 days of all transatlantic flights from countries of the European Union, with the exception of Britain. Coincides with the collapse of airline stocks and a new wave of financial instability. Devastating impacts on the tourist industry in Western Europe.

March 16: Moderna  mRNA-1273 is tested in several stages with 45 volunteers in Seattle, Washington State. The vaccine program started in early February:

“We don’t know whether this vaccine will induce an immune response, or whether it will be safe. That’s why we’re doing a trial,” Jackson stressed. “It’s not at the stage where it would be possible or prudent to give it to the general population.” (AP, March 16, 2020)

March 21, 2020: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo while addressing the American people from the White House stated that COVID-19 is a live military exercise.

This is not about retribution, … This matter is going forward — we are in a live exercise here to get this right.”

With a disgusted look on his face, President Trump replied: “You should have let us know.”

April 8, 2020: Mounting fear campaign led by Western media. Very rapid increase in so-called “confirmed cases”. “1,282,931 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 72,776 deaths, reported to WHO” (April 8). Mounting doubts on the reported “confirmed cases” of COVID-19. Failures of the CDC’s categorization and statistical estimates.

March- April: Planet Lockdown. Devastating economic and social consequences. The economic and social impacts far exceed those attributed to the coronavirus. Cited below are selected examples of  a global process: 

  • Massive job losses and layoffs in the US, with more than 10 million workers filing claims for unemployment benefits.
  • In India,  a 21 days lockdown has triggered a wave of famine and despair affecting millions of homeless migrant workers all over the country. No lockdown for the homeless: “too poor to afford a meal”.  
  • The impoverishment in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa is beyond description. For large sectors of the urban population, household income has literally been wiped out.
  • In Italy, the destabilization of the tourist industry has resulted in bankruptcies and rising unemployment. 
  • In many countries, citizens are the object of police violence. Five people involved in protests against the lockdown were killed by police in Kenya and South Africa.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Coronavirus: Economic and Social Collapse: Mass Unemployment, Bankruptcy, Poverty and Despair

特朗普认为冠状病毒是“中国制造的”。而中国威胁着美国。

美国总统希望美国人相信冠状病毒大流行带有“中国制造”的标签。

Mike Pompeo将其称为“武汉冠状病毒”。

“大谎言”始于1月30日,当时世卫组织总干事在强大的美国经济利益的压力下宣布发生全球性公共卫生突发事件,中国境外只有150例(经世卫组织确认),在美国只有6例。这被称为大流行病。

“假媒体”立即受到关注。中国被认为对全球的“传播感染”负有责任。

在第二天(2020年1月31日),特朗普宣布他将拒绝“过去14天来中国旅行的中国人和外国人”入境美国。这立即引发了航空旅行,运输,中美商业关系以及货运和海运交易的危机。

虽然冠以“中国制造”的冠状病毒标签,但潜意识的目标是使中国经济屈服。

这是一场“经济战”,它不仅损害了中国的经济,而且损害了大多数西方国家(美国的盟国)的经济,导致了破产浪潮,更不用说失业,旅游业,关闭学校等

而且,截至2月初,特朗普的“中国制造”冠状病毒标签几乎立即引发了针对整个西方世界的华人运动。

***

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

 

Coronavirus COVID-19: “Made in China” or “Made in America”? 

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 14, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on 冠状病毒COVID-19:“中国制造”还是“美国制造”?

In the wake of the lockdown: Bankruptcies and mass unemployment, the economic destabilization of entire countries. 

Millions of people have lost their jobs, and their lifelong savings. They are unable to pay their home mortgages.

In developing countries, poverty and despair prevail.

The political implications are far-reaching. The lockdown undermines real democracy. 

It would be naive to believe that the financial crisis was solely the result of spontaneous market forces. It was carefully engineered.

The coronavirus continues to provide a camouflage. Fear and panic (generated profusely by the corporate media) create “favorable conditions” for “institutional speculators”, many of whom had detailed foreknowledge of the WHO decision to launch a Global Public Health Emergency on January 30th, at a time when there were only 150 “confirmed cases” outside China.

The collapse of stock markets has resulted in one of the most important transfers in money wealth in modern history, yet to be firmly established.

The Coronavirus is not the cause of financial collapse. What prevails is an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty which enables powerful financial interests to manipulate the stock market and consolidate their financial positions.  There is evidence that “corporate insiders sold off billions of dollars worth of shares in their own companies just before the stock market imploded.”

This crisis has led to an unprecedented concentration of money wealth.

In early February, roughly $6 trillion were wiped off the value of stock markets Worldwide. Massive losses of personal savings (e.g. of average Americans) are ongoing not to mention corporate failures and bankruptcies.

Each time Trump opens his mouth, or blames the Chinese on twitter, the stock markets respond. Those who have inside information or foreknowledge of US policy decisions will make a bundle of money.

Behind the global public health emergency, there are powerful economic interests: Wall Street, Big Pharma, the Washington Consensus, Corporate Charities and Foundations, the IMF, World Bank, et al. They met on the sidelines of the World Economic Forum (WEF) on January 21-24, one week prior to the launching of the WHO global public health emergency.

The “international community” is calling for economic recovery. How will it be instrumented? So-called “corporate bailouts” i.e. “handouts” for banks, major corporations including airlines are contemplated.

One trillion promised by the US Federal Reserve, another trillion by the European Central Bank (ECB) now headed by Christine Lagarde.

“We have a responsibility to recover better” than after the financial crisis in 2008, said UN secretary general António Guterres:

“We have a framework for action – the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development and the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. We must keep our promises for people and planet.”

That so-called “promise” is meant to promote “Green Bonds”, a multibillion investment project sponsored by the Rockefellers among others, the objective of which is to “redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects.”

For Big Money in America and Western Europe it’s “hand-outs”. For Big Pharma, the multibillion dollar global vaccination program will be funded by debt.

“Developing countries”

And what happens to the so-called “developing countries” most of which are indebted up to their ears.

The process of impoverishment in Latin America and sub-Saharan Africa is beyond description. In large cities, informal urban sector workers are self-employed, paid on a daily basis, Others are paid on a weekly basis. What this means is that for large sectors of the urban population, household income has literally been wiped out.

In India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi ordered a 21 days lockdown which has resulted in an immediate spiral of unemployment coupled with famine, despair and disease:

“The only way to save ourselves from coronavirus is if we don’t leave our homes, whatever happens, we stay at home…” said Modi.

This statement was accompanied with outright threats: “If we are not able to manage the next 21 days, then many families will be destroyed forever.” Diabolical statement by a “democratically elected” head of government.

At the time of Modi’s announcement (March 20), India had 482 cases of the coronavirus and 10 deaths (India’s total population: 1.37 billion). Forget COVID-19? In India, an estimated 37, 500 children under five die on a daily basis. And that figure will increase under the 21 days lockdown (2015 estimate, The Lancet)

My message to PM Modi, “You are killing India’s children”.

Third World Debt Overhang 

The debt overhang in developing countries is in the trillions.

It’s a debt driven agenda directed against developing countries which are already heavily indebted: new loans to pay back “bad debts”. It is a “safety net” for both the Western creditors and the Big Pharma conglomerates involved in the multibillion global vaccination project.

Real debt cancellation is not contemplated.

A rescue package for the heavily indebted developing countries has been announced. In early March, the IMF Managing Director together with the World Bank Group President held a joint press conference. A lot of humanitarian rhetoric.

The magic number: “We rely on $1 trillion in overall lending capacity.” (IMF M-D Georgieva)

At first sight this appears to be “generous”, a lot money. It encourages corruption at the highest levels of government. But ultimately it’s what we might call “fictitious money”, what it means is

“We will lend you the money and with the money we lend you, you will pay us back”.(paraphrase).

It is equivalent to usury.

The unspoken truth is that this one trillion dollars ++ is intended to drive up the external debt. And then the Western creditors will impose massive economic reforms including privatization of health and education, freeze on wages, etc. That’s the neoliberal solution applied at a global level: No real economic recovery, more poverty and unemployment Worldwide.

The IMF is explicit. In one of its lending windows, the Catastrophe Containment and Relief Trust, which applies to pandemics, generously “provides grants for debt relief to our poorest and most vulnerable members.” Nonsensical statement, it is there to replenish the coffers of the creditors, the money is allocated to debt servicing.

“For low-income countries and for emerging middle-income countries we have … up to $50 billion that does not require a full-fledged IMF program.”

No conditions on how you spend the money. But this money increases the debt stock and requires  reimbursement. The countries are already in a straight-jacket. The more you lend, the more you squeeze the developing countries into political compliance. And ultimately that is the objective of the failing American Empire.

“the World Bank Group Board announced a $12-billion package … to provide a fast, flexible response, … to reduce the transmission of the pathogens. (supplies, equipment, medication, etc. vaccination?)”

The financing of the vaccination program is not explicitly mentioned. Most probably loans for the vaccination program will be announced at a later date.

Economically Advanced “Developed Countries”

For EU member countries, a debt driven recovery of bankrupt national economies is in the pipeline.

Without significant debt relief or cancellation, what can we expect in the wake of the lockdown?

A process of outright “Thirdworldisation” of the “advanced” European countries?

If this program is accepted by the EU member states: Real wages will plummet, the Welfare State which developed in the post war era will be scrapped. Social services will be privatized. Assets will be sold off to pay back the debt.

Millions of small and medium sized enterprises including family farms and urban services, tourism, etc are affected. The 2015 “Greek model” of brutal debt restructuring (or worse) could be applied to Italy and Spain…

We have provided a brief summary of a complex process. Negotiations with the creditors are ongoing in the course of the lockdown.

While panic and fear prevail with regard to COVID-19, these are the potential impacts of  what we might describe as “Dirty Economic Medicine”.

People across the land, nationally and internationally in solidarity must understand what is happening.

In the wake of the lockdown: what is the economic and social aftermath of this crisis?

It is crucial that this “Neoliberal Solution” to the crisis which consists in building up the debt be forcefully rejected.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What Happens In the Wake of the COVID-19 Lockdown? Economic Destruction, Global Poverty, Bankruptcies, Mass Unemployment. Neoliberalism to the Rescue

Bill Gates — who invests in the same industries he gives charitable donations to, and who promotes a global public health agenda that benefits the companies he’s invested in — has gone on record saying life will not go back to normal until we have the ability to vaccinate the entire global population against COVID-19.1

To that end, he is pushing for disease surveillance and a vaccine tracking system2 that might involve embedding vaccination records on our bodies. One example of how this might be done is using an invisible ink quantum dot tattoo, described in a December 18, 2019, Science Translational Medicine paper.3,4

According to statements made by Gates, societal and financial normalcy may never return to those who refuse vaccination, as the digital vaccination certificate Gates is pushing for might ultimately be required to go about your day-to-day life and business. Without this “digital immunity proof,” you may not even be allowed to travel locally or visit certain public buildings.

Gates has a history of “predicting” global pandemics with vast numbers of deaths,5 and with his call for a tracking system to keep tabs on infected/noninfected and vaccinated/unvaccinated individuals, he’s ensuring an unimaginably profitable future for the vaccine makers he supports and makes money from via his Foundation investments.

Along with Gates, The Rockefeller Foundation is also coordinating efforts in the direction of social control through the implementation of draconian COVID-19 tracking and tracing measures that are clearly meant to become permanent.

National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan

April 21, 2020, The Rockefeller Foundation released a white paper6 titled, “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities.” In the foreword, Rockefeller Foundation president Dr. Rajiv J. Shah writes:

“In the face of an ineffective nationally-coordinated response, insufficient data, and inadequate amounts of protective gear and testing, we need an exit plan. Testing is our way out of this crisis.

Instead of ricocheting between an unsustainable shutdown and a dangerous, uncertain return to normalcy, the United States must mount a sustainable strategy with better tests and contact tracing, and stay the course for as long as it takes to develop a vaccine or cure.

Any plan to do so must win the faith of private and public sector leaders across the country, and of individual Americans that they and their loved ones will be safer when we begin to return to daily life.

The Rockefeller Foundation exists to meet moments like this. In the past two weeks we have brought together experts and leaders from science, industry, academia, public policy, and government — across sectors and political ideologies — to create a clear, pragmatic, data-driven, actionable plan to beat back Covid-19 and get Americans back to work more safely.”

The plan calls for testing and tracing 1 million Americans per week to start, incrementally ramping it up to 3 million and then 30 million per week (the “1-3-30 plan”) over the next six months until the entire population has been covered.

Test results would then be collected on a digital platform capable of tracking all tested individuals so that contact-tracing can be performed when someone tests positive. According to the “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan”:

“Policy makers and the public must find the balance between privacy concerns and infection control to allow the infection status of most Americans to be accessed and validated in a few required settings and many voluntary ones.”

To this end, they suggest using incentives “to nudge the voluntary use” of tracking and contact tracing apps rather than making them mandatory. They also call for the use of “innovative digital technologies” aimed at improving “workforce monitoring and early detection of recurrent outbreaks.”

When integrated into national and state surveillance systems, such innovations may enable the same level of outbreak detection with fewer tests.

Promising techniques include anonymous digital tracking of workforces or population-based resting heart-rate and smart thermometer trends; continually updated epidemiological data modeling; and artificial intelligence projections based on clinical and imaging data,” the document states.7

Modern ‘Wartime’ Effort That Will Cost Billions

According to the “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan”:8

“Monitoring the pandemic and adjusting social distancing measures will require launching the largest public health testing program in American history … The effort will ultimately grow to billions of dollars per month … But with widespread business closures costing the country $350 billion to $400 billion each month, the expense will be worth it.

This testing infrastructure is intended to tide the country over until a vaccine or therapy is widely available.

Coordination of such a massive program should be treated as a wartime effort, with a public/private bipartisan Pandemic Testing Board established to assist and serve as a bridge between local, state, and federal officials with the logistical, investment and political challenges this operation will inevitably face.”

Don’t Be Naïve About Infectious Tracking Plan

Call me jaded, but this sounds like a plan to surveil Americans so that they can easily be tracked down for mandatory vaccination once a COVID-19 vaccine becomes available. It also creates the necessary infrastructure for vaccination tracking across the board, for all vaccines.

While they give lip-service to privacy and anonymization of data, privacy promises have been repeatedly broken in the past. Besides, the document clearly states that:9

Some privacy concerns must be set aside for an infectious agent as virulent as Covid-19, allowing the infection status of most Americans to be accessed and validated in a few required settings and many voluntary ones.

The loss of privacy engendered by such a system would come at too high of a price if the arrival of a vaccine early next year was a certainty. But vaccine development and manufacture could take years, and when it comes certain populations may be excluded from receiving it for health reasons.

In the meantime, infection status must be known for people to participate in many societal functions. Legislation protecting people from being fired over infection status must be passed.

Those screened must be given a unique patient identification number that would link to information about a patient’s viral, antibody and eventually vaccine status under a system that could easily handshake with other systems to speed the return of normal societal functions.

Schools could link this to attendance lists, large office buildings to employee ID cards, TSA to passenger lists and concert and sports venues to ticket purchasers. Such connections should be made in a way that protects personally identifying information whenever possible … Whenever and wherever possible data should be open.”

patient identification number

Are You Ready to Give Up EVERYTHING Over a Virus?

“Privacy concerns must be set aside.” Infection status must be “accessed and validated in a few required settings.”

Infection status will be linked to schools, office buildings, places of work, airports, concert and sport venues — in other words, most areas people need or want to frequent, if not daily, then at least occasionally. Infection status must be known “for people to participate in societal functions.” Legislation must be passed to protect people from being fired from their jobs based on their infection status. Are you concerned yet?

Anyone who remembers the tactics employed in Nazi Germany, or anyone familiar with the current surveillance of the Chinese population, will realize where this is headed.

Reading through the plan, it should also be crystal clear that this tracking and surveillance program is not designed to be temporary. You can be strongly assured this will be permanent. It calls for hundreds of thousands of new employees, updating computer systems and new laws that in many ways resemble the implementation of TSA post-9/11.

Not addressed in this report is the question of just how often would you have to undergo testing. A negative test today may not be valid tomorrow, if you happen to come across someone who is infected between now and then. Would you have to undergo testing every single day? Once a week?

If regular retesting is not part of the plan, then the whole system is worthless as your infection status could change at any time.

Other questions not addressed: If you happen to be in the vicinity of someone who tests positive in the near future, would you have to quarantine for two weeks? Will your employer pay for that time off? Will you have a job when you come out of quarantine?

What if you quarantine for two weeks but don’t get sick and test negative for antibodies, then go out and happen across yet another person who ends up testing positive shortly thereafter. Will you be forced into quarantine again? Where does it end?

The tracking system The Rockefeller Foundation is calling for is eerily similar to that already being used in China, where residents are required to enroll in a health condition registry. Once enrolled, they get a personal QR code, which they must then enter in order to gain access to grocery stores and other facilities.10

The plan also demands access to other medical data. According to the “National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan”:11

“This infection database must easily interoperate with doctor, hospital and insurance health records in an essential and urgent national program to finally rationalize the disparate and sometimes deliberately isolated electronic medical records systems across the country …

Unfortunately, obtaining the necessary clinical data to bring these powerful analytic tools to bear has been difficult due to information-blocking tactics of electronic health records (EHR) vendors. Among the longtime tactics used by such vendors has been charging unreasonable fees for data access, requiring providers to sign restrictive contracts, and claiming patients’ clinical data is proprietary.

On March 9, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) released two long-awaited final rules that would prohibit information blocking in health care and advance more seamless exchange of health care data. But publication in the Federal Register, necessary to activate the rules, has been inexplicably delayed. This delay must end.”

In other words, this plan is far more comprehensive than merely tracking COVID-19 cases. It’s designed to replace the current system of “disparate and sometimes deliberately isolated electronic medical records systems across the country.”

ID2020

While The Rockefeller Foundation’s white paper simply calls for the use of a digital “patient identification number” without indicating exactly how you would carry this ID number on your person, Gates has repeatedly talked about the “need” for some sort of implantable vaccine certificate.

In 1999, The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation donated $750 million to set up Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance.12 Gavi, in turn, has partnered with the ID2020 Alliance, along with the Bangladeshi government, to launch a digital identity program called ID2020.13

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation also funded the GSMA Inclusive Tech Lab, launched in 2019, the aim of which is to promote access to digital and biometric identity services and systems.14,15

ID2020, which also launched in 2019, is designed to “leverage immunization as an opportunity to establish digital identity.” This digital identity system is said to carry “far-reaching implications for individuals’ access to services and livelihoods,” so to think that Gates’ call for implantable COVID-19 vaccine certificates would be limited to that alone would again be a grave mistake.

Like The Rockefeller Foundation, Gates is not presenting short-term, temporary measures. They’re both aiming to implement a Worldwide control system. It’s not so far-fetched to imagine a future in which your vaccine certificate or “unique patient ID number” replaces personal identifications such as your driver’s license, state ID card, Social Security card and passport, and is tied not only to your medical records in total, but also your finances.

I remain confident that it would be a tragic mistake to trust Gates, Rockefeller, Google or any of the other players that are being brought before us as the saviors of the day. While most people are well-acquainted with the Rockefeller name, few probably know the true history of the Rockefellers’ rise to power. If you fall in this category, be sure to read “How the Oil Industry Conquered Medicine, Finance and Agriculture,” which features an excellent video report by James Corbett.

Those who are ignorant of history are bound to repeat it, and if the Rockefeller story tells us anything, it is that unless we realize what has been done, we’ll be deceived again and again, because the oil oligarchy’s end game is yet to be realized — if we let them.

*

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

Notes

1 GatesNotes April 30, 2020

2 Forbes March 18, 2020

3 Science Translational Medicine December 18, 2019; 11(523): eaay7162

4 Scientific American December 18, 2019

5 Business Insider April 2018

6, 7, 8, 9, 11 The Rockefeller Foundation, National COVID-19 Testing Action Plan — Strategic Steps to Reopen Our Workplaces and Our Communities, April 21, 2020 (PDF)

10 Berggruen Institute March 6, 2020

12 Gavi.org, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

13 Biometric Update September 20, 2019

14 Biometricupdate.com October 11, 2019

15 Old Thinker News April 12, 2020

Israel Perfecting Surveillance Tech

May 15th, 2020 by Philip Giraldi

Israel’s external spy organization Mossad and its internal espionage equivalent Shin Bet have reputations that are much larger than their actual successes, but the one area where they have excelled is electronic intelligence gathering. Recent electronic spying around the White House and other federal buildings in Washington carried out by the Israeli Embassy demonstrates that Israel does not differentiate much between friends and enemies when it conducts espionage. In fact, spying targeting the U.S. is probably its number one priority due to the fact that the Jewish state is so heavily dependent on American support that it feels compelled to learn what discussions relating to it are taking place behind closed doors.

Israeli penetration of U.S. telecommunications began in the 1990s, when American companies like AT&T and Verizon, the chief conduits of the National Security Agency (NSA) for communications surveillance, began to use Israeli-produced hardware, particularly for law enforcement-related surveillance and clandestine recording. The devices had a so-called back door, which meant that everything they did was shared with Israel. Israeli cyber-specialists even broke into classified networks with the NSA and FBI aware of what was going on but unwilling to confront “America’s best ally.” President Bill Clinton once quipped to Monica Lewinski that they should avoid using the Oval Office phone because someone might be listening in. He was referring to Israel.

To be sure, the Jewish state’s high-tech sector has been much assisted in its effort by “own goals” provided by the United States, which allows Israel to bid on government contracts relating to national security, virtually guaranteeing that any technical innovations will be stolen and re-exported by Israeli high-tech companies. Major technology innovators like Intel, which works with the NSA, have set up shop in Israel and have publicly stated, “We think of ourselves as an Israeli company as much as a U.S. company.” Vulture capitalist Zionist billionaire Paul Singer has recently been accused of steering highly paid U.S. tech sector jobs to Israel, jobs that are lost to the American economy forever.

So, Israel is a leader in using electronic resources to carry out espionage and collect information on various targets of interest. Israel is also an innovator, and its close relationship with the U.S. intelligence community (IC), most particularly the NSA, means that technologies and procedures developed by the Jewish state will inevitably show up in America.

The U.S. is in any event working hard on its own tools for managing the public, spurred by Covid-19 hysteria. Special ID cards could help track the health status of individuals. This status would be recorded and updated on a chip readable by government scanners that, by some accounts, might be either carried or even permanently embedded in everyone’s body. Another plan being promoted in a joint venture by Apple and Google that appears to have White House support involves “add[ing] technology to their smartphone platforms that will alert users if they have come into contact with a person with Covid-19. People must opt into the system, but it has the potential to monitor about a third of the world’s population” with monitoring done by central computers. Once the legal principle is established that phones can be manipulated to do what is now an “illegal search,” there are no technical or practical limits to what other tasks could also be performed.

Developments in Israel

With those steps being taken to control the movements of possibly infected citizens in mind, some recent developments in Israel are, to put it mildly, ominous. The Jewish state is currently achieving multi-level 24/7 surveillance of everyone residing in the country conducted in real time. Investigative reporter and peace activist Richard Silverstein describes in some detail why it is happening now, what it means, and how it works.

Per Silverstein, Israel, like every other authoritarian state, is currently taking advantage of the distraction caused by the coronavirus pandemic. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, whose political fortunes seemed to be on the wane due to three hung elections, exploited the fear of the virus to assume emergency powers and obtain Knesset approval to use a highly classified national database “compiled by the Shin Bet and comprising private personal data on every Israeli citizen, both Jewish and Palestinian. In the aftermath of 9/11, Israel’s Knesset secretly assigned its domestic intelligence agency the task of creating the database, which was ostensibly meant as a counterterrorism measure.”

The database, nicknamed “The Tool,” includes names, addresses, phone numbers, employment, and educational information but it goes well beyond that in using phone tracking data to record every phone call made by the individual to include names and numbers of those called and the geo-location of where the call was made from. Phone tracking also enabled Shin Bet to create a log of where the caller traveled in Israel and the occupied territories. Internet use, if active on the phone, was also recorded. It is as complete and total surveillance of an individual as is possible to obtain and it does not involve any human participation at all, every bit of it being done by computer.

Netanyahu publicly proclaimed his intention to use the database, stating that it would be employed to combat the coronavirus, which he described as a threat to national survival. As a result of the claimed crisis, he and his principal opponent, Blue and White party leader Benny Gantz, were able to come to terms on April 20 to form a “national emergency unity government” with Netanyahu as prime minister yet again.

The exploitation of the fear of the virus plus that revelation about Israel’s powerful technical tool to thwart it produced a victory for Netanyahu, who effectively portrayed himself as a strong and indispensable leader, erasing the stigma resulting from his pending trial on charges of massive corruption while in office. One of the first steps Netanyahu will reportedly take is to replace the attorney general and state prosecutor who were seeking to send him to prison, effectively taking away the threat that he might go to prison.

The exposure of the existence of the database inevitably led to charges that Netanyahu had, for personal gain, revealed Israel’s most powerful counterterrorism weapon. There were also concerns about the significance of the huge body of personal information collected by Shin Bet, to include suggestions that it constituted a gross violation of civil liberties. But carefully stoked fear of the virus combined with some political deals and maneuvers meant that use of the data was eventually approved by the Knesset security committee at the end of March.

Israel, which has closed its borders, and which still has a relatively low level of coronavirus infections and deaths, has already started using the Shin Bet database while also turning the attempts to deal with the disease as something like an intelligence war. The information obtained from “The Tool” enables the police and military to determine if someone were standing near someone else for more than a few minutes. If the contact included someone already infected, all parties are placed under quarantine. Any attempt to evade controls leads to arrest and punishment of a six-month prison term plus a $1,500 fine. Armed soldiers patrolling the streets are empowered to question anyone who is out and about.

Mossad is also involved in fighting the virus, boasting of having “stolen” 100,000 face masks and also respirators from a neighboring country presumed to be the United Arab Emirates. Silverstein observes that “Israel’s far-right government has militarized the contagion. Just as a hammer never met a nail it didn’t want to pound, it is only natural for a national security state like Israel to see Covid-19 as a security threat just as much or more than a health threat.” And when it comes to bioweapons, Israel is no parvenu. Ironically, the hidden story behind the “war on the coronavirus” is that Israel is itself one of the most advanced states in developing and testing biological weapons at its lab at Nes Tziona.

Returning to the emergence of “The Tool,” hardline Defense Minister Naftali Bennett has also suggested monetizing the product by selling a “civilian version of it,” to include its operating system, analytic capabilities, and setup details to foreign countries, including the United States. Israel has already successfully marketed to security agencies and governments a similar product called Pegasus, which has been described as the most sophisticated malware on the market.

Like The Tool, Pegasus does data mining and real-time analysis of individuals based on a range of collection techniques. The Israeli cyber company NSO Group that markets Pegasus was recently involved in an attempt to hack Facebook-owned secure communications system Whats-App, targeting journalists and political activists, on behalf of an unknown client. Ironically, it is believed that Facebook had earlier used NSO Group’s somewhat shadowy services. Perhaps more notoriously, Pegasus was also used to monitor contacts and establish physical location in the case of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, who was murdered by Saudi intelligence agents in Istanbul.

So, Americans should beware when confronted by the new cyber-security software being promoted by Israel because the Jewish state is also exporting its own vision of a centrally controlled militarized state where all rights are potentially sacrificed for security. As whistleblower Edward Snowden has already revealed, the NSA has the capability to collect vast amounts of information on citizens. If the United States government falls for the bait and moves in the Israeli direction, using that data to enable the surveillance and manage all the people all the time, the temptation will be great to employ the new capability even if its use is not strictly speaking warranted.

And there will be no one there to say nay to the new powers, not in Congress, on the Supreme Court or in the White House. And the media will be on board, too, arguing that security against external and internal threats requires some infringements of individual rights. It is one of the ironies of history that the United States of America, with its vast resources, large population and legacy of individual freedom, has been becoming more like its tiny militarized client state Israel. It is a tendency that must be resisted at all costs by every American who cares about fundamental liberties.

*

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 American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. His other articles appear on the website of “The Unz Review.”

Featured image is from American Free Press

Details of the failed armed mercenary incursion on Venezuela are surfacing daily thanks to the prompt public information system from Venezuela and scant corporate media reports. The so-called Operation Gideon took off from Colombia on May 3 and was effectively disbanded a few hours later by the prompt action of the Bolivarian National Armed Force (FANB) and the Bolivarian National Police’s Special Actions Force (FAES) with substantial help from the civilian population that helped in the capture of mercenaries. At this point about 46 mercenaries, out of an estimated total of 60, have been captured. The search for the others is ongoing.

Thanks to the voluntary confessions by some of the mercenaries, whose statements were carefully matched with Venezuela’s intelligence work, the clear image of a network of key figures associated with the master plan is emerging. In the 44-minute long video of a media report Venezuelan Vice President of Communication, Tourism and Culture, Jorge Rodriguez gives full details about the network and the major actors involved. Despite denial of involvement by the Trump administration some links can credibly be made all the way to the White House.

Aside from the fact that, Jordan Goudreau, the owner of the US company Silvercorp contracted to carry out the incursion, is Canadian-born and served in the Canadian military in the 1990s, there is no direct Canadian connection to the raid on Venezuela that we are aware of. At the time of writing there has been no official reference to the event as if did not happen. However, author Arnold August in a recent Canadian Dimension article asks the pertinent question, “Was Canada Unaware?” He offers an answer:

“One would have to be naive to believe that both the successive tweets by Champagne and Trudeau’s statement were not coordinated to reiterate the government’s support for Guaidó as self-declared interim president, and its tacit alignment with Duque and Trump’s regime change agenda.”

Further, in response to a direct request by Media Co-op for a statement about the raid, “Global Affairs Canada sent a short email stating ‘Canada is aware of reports of developments in Venezuela and is following the situation closely,’ and that ‘Canada is committed to working with its partners around the world to ensure a peaceful transition.’ “

That is not enough given the severity of the situation in the region. Canadians expect and deserve more clarity.

I would like to suggest that Canadians are misrepresented by the Trudeau government in light of serious consequences that stem from the Guaidó-Goudreau signed contract revealed by the Washington Post. Some implications have been reviewed. But two statements are particularly disturbing in my view as a Canadian that prompted me to raise specific questions to the Canadian government.

The first says, “Service Provider Advisors will advise and assist Partner Group in planning and executing an operation to capture/detain/remove Nicolas Maduro (heretoafter ‘Primary Objective’), remove the current Regime, and install the recognised Venezuelan President Juan Guaido.” (emphasis mine).

Upon reading that statement, I posted the following questions on a Facebook note to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland and Minister of Foreign Affairs François-Philippe Champagne:

  • Is your government condoning removal of political opponents in other countries?
  • Is your government supporting the destabilisation of Venezuela?
  • Is your government supporting a coup in Venezuela that may cause hundreds of civilian deaths?
  • Is your government condoning political assassinations in other countries, like Venezuela?
  • Is your government aware that your protégé Juan Guaidó is not using a democratic process to attain power in his country but rather offers to pay multi million dollars in order to“capture/detain/remove President Nicolás Maduro”?

Let me ask again:

  • Does your government realise that Juan Guaidó has been plotting a coup and contracting out a foreign service to carry out a political assassination? Will you tell Canadians if you agree and explain why you support Juan Guaidó?

But there is a second disturbing paragraph in the contract that refers to a wider range of targets that are called “Declared Hostile Forces”, “these individuals and/or groups may be neutralized.” Those are:

  1. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia – People’s Army (FARC-EP);
  2. The National Liberation Army (ELN);
  3. Hezbollah;
  4. Illegitimate Venezuelan Forces;
    1. Nicolas Maduro, his lieutenants, key associates, any armed supporters of Nicolas Maduro have been designated as a declared hostile force;
    2. Diosdado Cabello, his lieutenants and key associates have been designated as a declared hostile force;
  5. Drug Trafficking Organisations & Cartels; and,
  6. Armed and Violent Collectivos. [sic]

We cannot accept that a private mercenary army would attempt to “neutralize” any of those “individuals and/or groups” regardless of your position on them. Even under the slightest suspicion that the Trudeau government may be associated with an individual organising such actions, the Canadian government would try to distance itself from such an individual. A recent article by Scott Taylor in the Hill Times says precisely that, “Hopefully, Canada will cut its ties with Guaidó now that his true colours have been revealed. The Venezuelan people deserve better.”

Nevertheless, as a Canadian, I sent an e-mail to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau with these questions:

  • Does your government consider that seizing power by force is constitutional?
  • How can your government justify its support for an individual in Venezuela who engages in a military action to gain access to power in the country?
  • Will your government issue an explanation to Canadians how Canadian values are enhanced by supporting such an individual and by recognising him as the legitimate interim president of Venezuela?
  • Will your government drop all pretensions of granting legitimacy to an individual like Juan Guaido – self appointed 16 months ago – and now engaged in the use of foreign military mercenary activities to gain power undemocratically?

The Canadian people deserve better and wait for an answer!

*

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.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) pressed Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether or not there is a political bias at the social media giant.

.

.

.

Like with the disastrous Iraq quagmire years before the US war machine came to Syria under Obama, Washington’s rationale and justification for occupying the Syrian Arab Republic has shifted and changed drastically multiple times over.

When ultimately what started as US covert regime change efforts targeting Assad failed (based ostensibly in “protecting civilians”), the official mission then conveniently switched to ‘defeating terrorism’ — though of course this meant turning on the very jihadists the US armed and trained in the first place. Then the Kurds became the proxy flavor of the month, which also happened to have control of all the major oil and gas fields in the country’s east (“secure the oil!” – Trump has repeatedly echoed of late).

When the Islamic State collapsed and became just another underground insurgency like its al Qaeda cousin, the ever-hawkish national security state establishment argued that Trump must not pull troops out because of ‘Iranian expansion’.

But now that the myth that somehow Assad and the Syrians just want to hand their sovereign country over to their allies the Iranians has also largely fallen away (remember that Baathist Syria is a secular Arab and multi-confessional state, while Iran is a hardline Shia Islamic theocracy), a new official – and it might be added, provocative – US administration rationale has been concocted.

Washington now says it’s all about defeating the Russians. While it’s not the first time this has been thrown around in policy circles (recall that a year after Russia’s 2015 entry into Syria at Assad’s invitation, former CIA Deputy Director Mike Morell admitted in a TV interview he views that the US should be in the business of “killing Russians and Iranians covertly”).

And now the top US special envoy to region, James Jeffrey, has this to say on US troops in Syria:

“My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”

Ironically, Jeffrey’s official title has been Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL, but apparently the mission is now to essentially “give the Russians hell”.

His comments were made Tuesday during a video conference hosted by the neocon Hudson Institute:

Asked why the American public should tolerate US involvement in Syria, Special Envoy James Jeffrey points out the small US footprint in the fight against ISIS. “This isn’t Afghanistan. This isn’t Vietnam. This isn’t a quagmire. My job is to make it a quagmire for the Russians.”

He also emphasized that the Syrian state would continue to be squeezed into submission as part of long-term US efforts (going back to at least 2011) to legitimize a Syria government in exile of sorts. This after the Trump administration recently piled new sanctions on Damascus.

As University of Oklahoma professor and expert on the region Joshua Landis summarized of Jeffrey’s remarks: “He pledged that the United States will continue to deny Syria – international funding, reconstruction, oil, banking, agriculture & recognition of government.”

But no doubt both Putin and Assad have understood Washington’s real proxy war interests all along, which is why last year Russia delivered it’s lethal S-300 into the hands of Assad (and amid constant Israeli attacks).

As for oil, currently Damascus is well supplied by the Iranians, eager to dump their stock in fuel-starved Syria amid the global glut. Trump has previously voiced that part of US troops “securing the oil fields” is to keep them out of the hands of Russia and Iran.

***

Recall the CIA’s 2016 admission of what’s really going on in terms of US action in Syria:

*

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.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on “My Job Is to Make Syria a Quagmire for the Russians”: CIA Doctrine Made Official Policy
  • Tags: , ,

In “freedom and democracy” America there is only official truth, and it is a lie.  A person or website that speaks real truth is shunted aside as a “conspiracy theorist,” “Russian agent,” “racist,” “anti-semite,” or other such name with the purpose of discrediting the message and the messenger.  

For example, when I told the truth that Russiagate was a hoax, which it has proved to be, an anonymous website, possibly a CIA or NATO operation called “PropOrNot,” included this website among its fake list of 200 “Russian agents/dupes.”  The Washington Post, a believed long-time CIA asset, hyped the PropOrNot revelation as if it were the truth.  With “Russiagate” in full hype, the purpose was to scare readers away from those of us who were exposing the hoax.

When in a book review of one of David Irving’s World War II histories I reported his finding that many Jews were killed by Nazis, but that the holocaust that took place was different from the official story, Zionist agents at Wikipedia put into my biography that I am a “holocaust denier.”  Simply reporting a historian’s findings in a book review was all it took to be labeled with a name that in Europe can mean a prison sentence. Does this mean I cannot risk ever again traveling to Europe where Zionists on the basis of this spurious claim could have me arrested?

Because I investigated the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty, interviewed many of the survivors, and reported the factual story, I was branded an “anti-semite.” 

Because I reported conclusions of scientists, architects, and engineers about 9/11, I became a “conspiracy theorist.”  In other words, in America today any dissent or merely the reporting of dissent, no matter how factual, is not tolerated.

The way those with agendas control the explanations is by shouting down those who provide objective accounts.  Social media is part of the censorship. Explanations out of step with official ones are labeled “abusive,” and in “violation of community standards.”  In other words, truth is unacceptble. Two weeks ago the Unz Review, a widely read website with dissenting views was kicked off of Facebook for being in violation of official opinion.  The same thing happened to Southfront.

Everyone who uses social media is by their use supporting censorship. Facebook imposes fascist censorship in order to protect official explanations.  The presstitutes and universities do the same.  In America truth has lost its value.

Even a public health threat like coronavirus is politicized.  One would think that there would be an interest in accurate information is order to know what steps to take and which treatments offer promise.  But that is not the case. If you are a Democrat you want the economy kept closed in hopes that a bad economy with people out of work and small businesses ruined will defeat Trump in the election.  If you are a Republican you want the economy reopened ready or not in order to boost Trump’s reelection chances.  Instead, attention should be focused on how to prepare for a successful reopening that can be sustained and not result in a flood of new cases and a second closedown as China has had to do.

If you are Big Pharma, NIH, CDC, or the research professionals dependent on grants from these sources, you want a vaccine, not a cure.  This means a long wait, assuming an effective and safe vaccine is possible.  If you are a doctor involved in treating Covid-19 patients, you want a cure or a treatment that prevents the progress of the disease.  The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), zinc, and intravenous vitamin C treatments, which have proved to be effective, are  badmouthed by Big Pharma and its minions.  In other words, the profit agenda over-rides health care and the saving of lives.  There are reports that Facebook censures Covid-19 reporting that does not support the line that Dr. Fauci of NIH has taken. 

The FDA is clearing the way for Gilead’s Remdesivir on the back of claims that HCQ, in safe use for decades, causes heart attacks.  It is all about money.  There are no profits for Big Pharma or a chance for patents for Dr. Fauci unless inexpensive HCQ, zinc, and Vitamin C can be sidelined.  

The race for a vaccine is on as everyone wants the profits from the patent.  Instead, effort should go into testing and refining what appear to be cures or at least treatments that prevent the virus’ progression.  A vaccine might be iffy, and if the process is rushed people could be in danger from the vaccine as well as from the virus.  

Covid-19 is now a big business for the pharmaceutical corporations, for bankruptcy lawyers, for fat cats who can buy up bankrupted businesses, and for labor service providers who will hire laid-off workers and lease them back to the firms that laid them off for a fee less than the cost to the firms of full-time employees.  Many interests will be served but not that of the public.

*

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. Paul Craig Roberts writes on his blog, PCR Institute for Political Economy, where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from TP

It is time for the United States to end its bipartisan blanket support for Israeli policies that violate the human rights of Palestinians. At this critical moment, where Israel has announced its intention to annex Israeli settlements on the West Bank with the support of the Trump administration, we must speak out and resist this blatant violation of international law and the right of Palestinians to self-government.

Friday, May 15 is the anniversary of the Nakba, which Palestinians commemorate as The Day of Catastrophe, when hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were displaced from their own lands, homes, and businesses preceding and following the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. Between 1947 and 1949, at least 750,000 Palestinians of a total Palestinian population of 1.9 million became refugees, 530 Palestinian villages and cities were destroyed and about 15,000 Palestinians were killed and 78 percent of Palestine was claimed by the State of Israel. Since 1967, Israel has militarily controlled the remaining 22% and expanded Jewish settlements into these occupied territories.

This year a new phase of land theft from the Palestinians is developing with the Israeli plan, backed by the Trump administration, to annex Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank to the State of Israel. This annexation is illegal under international law and opposed by all the members of the UN Security Council, except the United States. It is opposed nearly unanimously in the UN General Assembly and unanimously across the Palestinian political spectrum.

Democratic Party leaders nominally oppose the annexation, but the Biden wing refuses to call for measures to pressure Israel to drop its ambitions. Bernie Sanders has called for a cut-off of US military aid to Israel if the annexation goes forward, but Joe Biden along with other Democratic Party leaders have called Sanders’ position “outrageous.”

The new coalition of government led by a partnership between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Knesset Speaker Benny Gantz says it could announce the annexation plan to the Knesset after July. It may be timed to come right before or after the Republican Convention.

The United States should stop giving Israel blanket support no matter how much it violates Palestinian rights and expands the illegal settlements on Palestinian land.

The growth of illegal settlements and the annexation of Palestinian land, as well as Jewish-only roads and hundreds of checkpoints already dominating in the occupied West Bank, is making the two-state solution, supported by international law, increasingly untenable. The two-state solution calls for an independent State of Palestine alongside the State of Israel, west of the Jordan River, based on the pre-1967 borders. As a result of the constant expansion of Israeli settlements on the West Bank, Palestinians and pro-justice Israelis are increasingly turning to the one-democratic-state solution as the only just solution that is possible now.

The One Democratic State solution respects the multicultural character and the collective rights of the peoples living in the country, Palestinian Arabs and Israeli Jews among others. It calls for a constitutional democracy in which all citizens enjoy a common citizenship, a common government, and equal civil rights. Constitutional protection will prohibit laws that discriminate against any ethnic or religious community, which addresses the key concern Israeli Jews that their religious and cultural rights will be protected in a country in which they will be a minority.

Regarding the Gaza Strip, which has become a large open-air prison, the Israeli blockade of Gaza must be lifted so that food, construction equipment, and the essentials for healthcare and other humanitarian aid are allowed into the area. The repeated bombings by Israel of Gaza must come to an end. The 715,000 people of Gaza must be given democratic rights and their human rights protected.

The US should be putting pressure on Israel to change its policies by no longer providing Israel with political protection in the UN and no longer providing $3 billion in annual funding and military aid without any conditions that require Israel to respect Palestinian human rights and negotiate with the Palestinians for a just solution.

I support an escalating program of Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) to put pressure on Israel to respect human rights and negotiate a just settlement, starting with cuts to US military aid to Israel, as called for by the Palestinian BDS National Committee with broad support across Palestinian society. I oppose laws in the United States that criminalize individuals and businesses that take their own BDS actions. These laws violate our constitutional rights to organize, speak out, and take political action.

If the US is going to play a positive role diplomatically in promoting a just solution, it has to end its unconditional support for Israel in whatever it chooses to do and instead become a neutral broker helping both sides to negotiate their differences. The political solution is up to the Palestinians and Israelis to negotiate because self-determination means they decide their solution, not us.

*

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.

Howie Hawkins is the leading candidate for the Green Party nomination for president. His website is HowieHawkins.US.

COVID-19:  Construir os empregos do futuro AGORA! 

May 15th, 2020 by Flávio Gonçalves

Reconstruir as economias depois da pandemia de COVID-19 parece ser uma tarefa impossível dado ao contrário do que sucede numa guerra convencional não há infra-estruturas a reconstruir, o que criaria emprego e relançaria a economia. Ou será esta a oportunidade para um Novo Pacto Verde realista?

 Não há danos na infra-estrutura

Tenho lido e ouvido compulsivamente todas as análises por parte das correntes de opinião dominantes na comunicação social tanto nacional como internacional sobre como poderíamos fazer ressuscitar a economia depois dos isolamentos causados pelo COVID-19 e todos parecem concordam num só ponto: estamos todos a comparar esta pandemia a uma guerra, mas não podemos aplicar medidas semelhantes ao Plano Marshall porque não se trata de uma guerra real, por isso não temos infra-estruturas que possamos reconstruir para criar emprego e relançar a economia.

Caso se tratasse de uma catástrofe mais terrena como um tsunami ou um terramoto, ameaças que historicamente têm afectado Portugal e as ilhas dos Açores, ainda podíamos aplicar a habitual fórmula que todos os Estados empregam para reduzir o desemprego e reforçar a economia: reconstruir as infra-estruturas danificadas, mas o COVID-19 sendo microscópico os danos que criou são muito menos palpáveis.

Há um par de dias tropecei num debate no Twitter com outras pessoas de esquerda e comecei a sugerir uma série de medidas que a meu ver podiam ser tomadas, o mês passado entrevistei a activista climática e autora Carmen Lima para a edição portuguesa do Pravda.ru e reparei que precisamos que sejam construídas muitas infra-estruturas caso alguma vez queiramos mesmo implementar mudanças de fundo que possam dar origem a uma economia e a um modo de vida que seja muito menos danoso para este planeta do que o actual modelo capitalista enlouquecido e quanto mais depressa se der essa mudança, melhor.

Concordamos que as guerras geopolíticas do futuro serão por recursos naturais como a água e o lítio, do mesmo modo que as guerras do século XX foram em grande parte pelo petróleo necessário para manter a economia dos Estados Unidos, tinha isso em mente quando entrei no debate, que sim, realmente não temos infra-estruturas para reconstruir, mas porque é que então não começamos a construir centrais de dessalinização, fábricas para produzir baterias de lítio, indústrias de plástico biodegradável, sistemas de redes fotovoltaicas, fábricas de hidrogénio, a velha fórmula “vamos fazer grandes obras públicas para criar emprego e restaurar a economia” só que numa vertente mais verde que criaria AGORA os novos empregos do futuro.

Um Novo Pacto Verde?

A reacção que recebi foi: portanto, um Novo Pacto Verde? Nunca foi propriamente grande entusiasta do Novo Pacto Verde se tornar em algo palpável no meu tempo de vida, achamos mesmo que as economias de orientação capitalista e os governos liberais vão adoptar tais medidas, reduzindo os lucros dos accionistas? Parecia-me tudo demasiado optimista, disparates da esquerda identitária, o tipo de Utopia vegan e ciclista que para mim não tinha qualquer apelo, quanto mais para a classe trabalhadora que está mais preocupada em chegar ao fim do mês com comida na mesa do que em ter de escolher produtos ecológicos caros e em pensar a longo prazo no futuro dos seus filhos.

Mas agora parece-me algo concretizável, precisamos de nos reindustrializar, os governos parecem estar finalmente dispostos a investir na criação de empregos em vez de se cingirem a resgatar os bancos e as grandes empresas multinacionais só para que estes nos mantenham vivos em empregos sem quaisquer perspectivas de futuro, com ordenados mínimos e uma dívida impagável crédito atrás de crédito, empréstimo atrás de empréstimo, então porque não aproveitar esta oportunidade para reindustrializar o país por via de um Novo Pacto Verde?

Podemos criar HOJE os empregos do futuro, não estaremos só a criar os habituais empregos na construção civil, teremos também que treinar equipas inteiras que possam operar todas estas fábricas novas tendo em vista uma economia com um Novo Pacto Verde, que limpe o ar, que extraia água potável do nosso oceano, que crie quintas biológicas, ferramentas solares, maquinaria eléctrica, transportes públicos ecológicos, iremos criar todo o tipo de empregos de produção e investigação país acima e abaixo, precisamos de mudanças e precisamos destas mais rapidamente do que a burocracia dos nossos governos as consegue concretizar, tudo isto me parecia impossível há um par de meses, com acordos climáticos que empurram as mais ínfimas mudanças como “objectivos” concretizar só daqui a décadas. Quando provavelmente já será demasiado tarde para terem qualquer efeito.

Esperança no pós-COVID-19

É que a maior parte dos activistas contra as alterações climáticas não conseguem fazer chegar à maior parte da classe trabalhadora que ao poluir estamos a criar as condições para a nossa própria extinção, o planeta consegue sobreviver a isto e restaurar a sua fauna e flora muito depois da humanidade se envenenar ou morrer de fome. E quando os guerreiros ecologistas conseguem fazer com que essa mensagem chegue a uns poucos membros da classe trabalhadora, a sua reacção é um mero: o ordenado só me dura uma semana depois de pagar as contas, a renda e a comida, a minha vida é horrível, sinto-me um miserável, que mal tem morrermos? Estou-me nas tintas…

As pessoas precisam mais de ordenados melhores do que de esperança, todos estes novos empregos industriais e técnicos verdes teriam que ser calculados de acordo com um Ordenado de Subsistência. Pela primeira vez desde sempre estou um tanto ou quanto optimista que os nossos governos podiam, caso tenham coragem para isso, construir um futuro melhor para todos nós por via de um Novo Pacto Verde que relançasse a economia e criasse empregos depois dos isolamentos do COVID-19.

Estou esperançoso, mas já sou demasiado velho para acreditar em utopias e em governos que se preocupem com o bem estar deste planeta e da população que nele vive, os milionários preferem investir em bunkers apocalípticos e em mansões fortaleza na Nova Zelândia para fugirem às massas famintas e depauperadas do mundo do que investirem para criar empregos verdes com ordenados altos, infelizmente só os governos poderão intervir e uma vez que não podem aplicar um novo Plano Marshall, o mínimo que podiam fazer era criar os empregos do futuro agora ao construir as infra-estruturas que um Novo Pacto Verde irá necessitar se alguma vez se concretizar.

Flávio Gonçalves

 

Flávio Gonçalves é membro do Conselho Consultivo do Movimento Internacional Lusófono, sócio fundador do Instituto de Altos Estudos em Geopolítica e Ciências Auxiliares, tradutor, revisor, autarca, crítico e difusor literário, editor da Libertaria.pt e colaborador dos Pravda.ru, Center for Global Research, Center for a Stateless Society, Conselho Português para a Paz e Cooperação, da campanha Tirem as Mãos da Venezuela e da coligação Tirem as Mãos da Síria, anima os blogues Autarcias, Livros à Mesa e Portugal for Bernie Sanders, pode segui-lo em @flagoncalv e contactá-lo pelos [email protected] ou via Apartado 6019, EC Bairro Novo, 2701-801 Amadora, Portugal

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on COVID-19:  Construir os empregos do futuro AGORA! 

Philip’s third interview with Ellen Brown focused on the Universal Basic Income, which Philip believes is the ONLY way out of the current economic crisis. The social distancing forced by the COVID-19 epidemic has shut down the country, and one-time stimulus payments are not enough.

*

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 interview was originally published on It’s the Empire Stupid.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is Universal Basic Income the Way Out of the Current Economic Crisis?

In the Race for Immunity, Sweden Leads the Pack

May 15th, 2020 by Mike Whitney

In a pandemic, there is no substitute for immunity, because immunity provides the best protection against reinfection. That’s why Sweden set its sights on immunity from the very beginning. They crafted a policy that was designed to protect the old and vulnerable, prevent the public health system from being overwhelmed, and, most important, allow younger, low-risk people to interact freely so they’d contract the virus and develop the antibodies they’d need to fight future infections. That was the plan and it worked like a charm. Now Sweden is just weeks away from achieving herd immunity (which means that future outbreaks will not be nearly as severe) while the lockdown nations– that are just now easing restrictions– face an excruciating uphill slog that may or may not succeed. Bottom line: Sweden analyzed the problem, figured out what to do, and did it. That’s why they are closing in on the finish line while most of the lockdown states are still stuck at Square 1.

As of this writing, none of the other nations have identified immunity as their primary objective which is why their orientation has been wrong from the get-go. You cannot achieve a goal that you have not identified. The current US strategy focuses on stringent containment procedures (shelter-in-place, self-isolation) most of which have little historical or scientific basis. The truth is, the Trump administration responded precipitously when the number of Covid-positive cases began to increase exponentially in the US. That paved the way for a lockdown policy that’s more the result of groupthink and flawed computer models than data-based analysis and nimble strategic planning. And the results speak for themselves. The 8-week lockdown is probably the biggest policy disaster in US history. Millions of jobs have been lost, thousands of small and mid-sized businesses will now face bankruptcy, and the future prospects for an entire generation of young people have been obliterated. The administration could have detonated multiple nuclear bombs in the country and done less damage than they have with their lunatic lockdown policy.

At present, 24 states have begun the process of reopening their economies. There is no uniform criteria for lifting restrictions, no standardized approach to opening one sector over the other, and no plan for dealing with the inevitable surge of new cases and deaths. It all looks like another disaster in the making but we’ll reserve judgement until the results are in. What we know for certain is that no one in the Trump administration gave the slightest thought to the problems that might arise from eventually lifting the restrictions. We know that because we know that there was no “exit strategy”, just make-it-up-on-the-fly and hope for the best.

In contrast, Sweden won’t need an exit strategy because it never shut down its economy or quarantined its people to begin with. So the transition to normal life and stepped-up economic activity is not going to be as difficult. That’s the benefit of strategic planning, it anticipates the problems one might encounter on the path one’s goal. Here’s a clip from an interview with Swedish an infectious disease clinician, Johan Giesecke, , who served as state epidemiologist of Sweden as well as Chief Scientist at the European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control. Giesecke helps explain why the Swedish approach is different. It’s a matter of perception as well as analysis:

“What we are seeing is a rather mild infection spreading around the globe. I think there is relatively little chance of stopping this whatever measures we take. Most people will become infected by this and most people won’t even notice. We have data now from Sweden that between 98 and 99% of the cases have had a very mild infection or didn’t even realize they were infected. So we have the spread of this mild disease around the globe and most of it is happening where we don’t see it because it happens among people who don’t get very sick and , spread it to someone else who doesn’t get very sick… What we looking at (with the official number of cases and deaths) is a thin layer at the top of people who do develop the disease and an even thinner layer of people who go into intensive care and an even thinner layer of people who die. But the real outbreak is happening where we don’t see it.” (“Swedish scientist Johan Giesecke asks Australia how it plans to lift its lockdown without deaths”, you tube…52 second mark to 1:48)

Giesecke’s analysis veers from the conventional view of the virus which explains why the Swedish response has been so different. For example, he says: “I think there is relatively little chance of stopping this whatever measures we take.”

This gets to the root of the Swedish approach. Sweden is not trying to suppress the infection which they see as a force of nature (like a tsunami) that cannot be contained but only mitigated. From the beginning, the Swedish approach has been to “control the spread of the virus”, not to suppress it through containment strategies. There’s a fundamental difference here, and that difference is expressed in the policy.

Second, “We have data now from Sweden that between 98 and 99% of the cases have had a very mild infection or didn’t even realize they were infected.” In other words, this is highly-contagious infection that poses little or no threat to most people. That suggests the economy can be kept open without endangering the lives of low-risk groups. The added benefit of allowing certain businesses to remain open, is that it creates a controlled environment in which the infection can spread rapidly through the healthy population who, in turn, develop the antibodies they need for future outbreaks. This all fits within Sweden’s plan for managing, rather than avoiding, the virus.

Finally, “What we looking at is a thin layer at the top of people who do develop the disease and an even thinner layer of people who go into intensive care and an even thinner layer of people who die.” The vast majority of people who die from Covid are over 65 with multiple underlying conditions. It’s a terrible tragedy that they should die, but destroying the lives and livelihoods of millions of working people in a futile attempt to stop an unstoppable force like Covid, is foolish and unforgivable. The appropriate response is to protect the old and infirm as much as possible, carefully monitor the rise in cases to prevent the public health system from cratering, and keep the economy operating at a lower level. And that’s exactly what Sweden has done.

FAUCI vs. PAUL: Operation “Obfuscate Immunity”

Not surprisingly, the issue of immunity came up during Dr Anthony Fauci’s testimony on Capitol Hill on Tuesday. There was a heated exchange between Fauci and Senator Rand Paul who challenged the infectious disease expert on the misleading information that the WHO has been spreading in the media. Here’s an excerpt from the transcript:

Senator Rand Paul: “Dr. Fauci, Studies show that the recovering COVID-19 patients from the asymptomatic to the very sick are showing significant antibody response. Studies show that SARS and MERS, also coronaviruses, induce immunity for at least 2 to 3 years, and yet the media continues to report that we have no evidence that patients who survive coronavirus have immunity. I think actually the truth is the opposite. We have no evidence that survivors of coronavirus don’t have immunity and a great deal of evidence to suggest that they do….

You’ve stated publicly that you’d bet it at all that survivors of coronavirus have some form of immunity. Can you help set the record straight that the scientific record, as it is being accumulated, is supportive that infection with coronavirus likely leads to some form of immunity, Dr. Fauci?”

Dr. Anthony Fauci: “Thank you for the question, Senator Paul. Yes, you’re correct that I have said that, given what we know about the recovery from viruses such as coronaviruses in general, or even any infectious disease with very few exceptions, that when you have antibody present it very likely indicates a degree of protection.

I think it’s in the semantics of how this is expressed. When you say has it been formally proven by long-term natural history studies, which is the only way that you can prove, one, is it protective, which I said and will repeat, it’s likely that it is, but also what is the degree or titer of antibody that gives you that critical level of protection and what is the durability. As I’ve often said and again repeat, you can make a reasonable assumption that it would be protective, but natural history studies over a period of months to years will then tell you definitively if that’s the case.” (Real Clear Politics)

This is a critical exchange that helps to underscore what an elusive and calculating political character Fauci really is. You will notice that his answer is completely scripted, completely circuitous and carefully avoids any mention of the word “immunity”.

Rand Paul’s question couldn’t be more straightforward: Do Covid survivors have immunity or not? Yes or no?

And, the answer is: “Yes, they do. Covid survivors do have immunity.”

But Fauci doesn’t deliver that answer, after a long-winded rumination, Fauci finally offers the most opaque response he can conjure up, he says, “you can make a reasonable assumption that it would be protective.” In other words, he carefully avoids a definitive answer. But, of course, that’s understandable since the WHO has been spreading false rumors about herd immunity trying to muddy the science since it doesn’t jibe with their pro-vaccine agenda. That’s what this is all about, bashing natural immunity to clear the way for a vaccine. Check out this clip from an article at Business Insider:

“…leaders at the World Health Organization Monday expressed outrage at the idea that some people might have to die in pursuit of a far-fetched virus-fighting strategy called herd immunity.

This idea that, ‘well, maybe countries who had lax measures and haven’t done anything will all of a sudden magically reach some herd immunity, and so what if we lose a few old people along the way?’ This is a really dangerous, dangerous calculation,” the WHO’s Executive Director of Health Emergencies Mike Ryan said on a call with reporters.

Ryan didn’t mention any specific countries by name, but it was hard not to think about the high death rate in Swedish nursing homes as he mentioned that “in some countries, over half of the cases have occurred in longterm care facilities,” where people haven’t been “properly shielded.”…

“Humans are not herds,” Ryan said. “I think we need to be really careful when we use terms in this way around natural infections in humans, because it can lead to a very brutal arithmetic which does not put people, and life, and suffering at the center of that equation.”

Ryan was audibly troubled by the idea that the world would accept an infection spreading through a population, and even killing some people, to provide a kind of herd protection, especially one which scientists don’t even know exists. He said that’s not a calculus that any “responsible” country should be willing to take.” (“Humans are not Herds”, Business Insider)

As you can see, the Gates Vaccine Gestapo has launched a propaganda campaign aimed at discrediting, obfuscating and ridiculing other methods for achieving immunity that don’t coincide with their grandiose ambitions to use vaccines as an entry-point for enhanced global tracking, surveillance and social control. Is anyone surprised by this?

But the fact remains that–as Paul says, “recovering COVID-19 patients …show significant antibody response (and will likely have) immunity for at least 2 to 3 years.” Here’s more from Sweden’s chief epidemiologist Anders Tegnell who made this comment in an interview last week:

“It is quite certain that immunity does exist…. For all the cases we have had in Sweden, there has not been one single person who had this disease twice. And we have a very strict identification system. So there is no way we would miss a person who had it twice. I haven’t heard any reports from any countries where there has been a certified case who has actually had this twice. There’s been rumors about it. But in the end, they have been disclaimed.” (“Key quotes: Sweden’s top epidemiologist challenges conventional wisdom on COVID-19” ijnet)

Repeat: “there has not been one single person who had this disease twice.”

The science is clear, immunity is real and Sweden is on its way to achieving herd immunity within the month.

Sweden’s public health experts have loosened the grip of a vicious pandemic and delivered the Swedish people to a place of safety and security where they can get on with their lives without fear of contracting a lethal infection.

Hurrah for Sweden!

*

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 The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

 Despite Covid-19, Iraqis have returned to the streets to demand an end to mismanagement, corruption and sectarianism as Mustafa Al Kadhimi was confirmed as the country’s new prime minister. His first act was to mollify protesters by calling for the release of dozens of their number imprisoned since they took to the streets last October, promising compensation to those who were slain by security forces, and pledging to “hold to account all those who shed Iraqi blood.”

He followed up these verbal assurances by ordering security forces to arrest five men from a local party’s office in the southern city of Basra after the shooting death of a protesters outside the building. Since demonstrations began, shooters have generally got away with murder. He will have to continue this crack-down if he is to retain credibility.

Kadhimi also promoted highly-respected and popular General Abdel Wahab Al Saadi, who played a major role in the fight against Daesh but was demoted last year by former Prime Minister Adel Abdel Mahdi.

Kadhimi is said to have stamps of approval of regional rivals, Iran and the US. An independent and pragmatist, he lived in exile in Tehran during the rule of Saddam Hussein and wrote articles critical of him. While intelligence chief from 2016 until his appointment as premier, he cultivated good relations with Washington.

While courting the public, Kadhimi has been subjected to a rough ride from competing assembly factions which have squabbled over his nominees for the oil and foreign affairs ministries and rejected his candidates for trade, justice, culture, agriculture and migration. Only 15 of his 22 nominees have been confirmed.

He has to contend with two competing domestic blocs, Binna which is loyal to Iran and Islah which is dominated by the unpredictable Shia cleric Muqtada Al Sadr. Both blocs group Shia, Sunni and Kurdish parties which have multiple agendas and are committed to preserving their patronage networks rather than working for the good of Iraq. He clearly has to navigate skilfully between blocs and among factions to govern at a time of pandemic, economic and social collapse, and the revival of Daesh and its affiliates in both Iraq and Syria.

Kadhimi faces a host of challenges in addition to the coronavirus. Due to the dramatic fall in the price of oil, Iraq is suffering its worst economic crisis since the 2003 US invasion and occupation. Iraqis encounter increasing deprivation and never-ending electricity outages, as well as shortages of potable water. Simmering summer is on the way. The country’s healthcare facilities, once the pride of Iraq, have been eroded by sanctions and destroyed by warfare. If Covid-19 breaks out in Iraq, it will be difficult to contain infection and thousands of Iraqis could contract the virus, sicken and die.

As he has the for-now support of the erratic Trump administration as well as Iran, Kadhimi needs to maintain Washington’s backing without upsetting Tehran, which is Iraq’s main trading partner and supplier of 20 per cent of Iraq’s electricity. Despite its campaign of “maximum pressure” – i.e., economic war – on Iran, the administration has granted Baghdad a new 120 day waiver allowing Iraq to continue its purchases from Iran of electricity and fuel for power plants.

By reiterating Baghdad’s refusal to allow its territory to be used for attacks on neighbouring countries, Kadhimi has tried to assuage Iran’s concerns over strikes on Iranian assets by US forces in Iraq. These include the assassination near Baghdad of General Qassem Soleimani, commander of Iran’s Quds force, and strikes on pro-Iranian Iraqi militias. When negotiating a new status of forces deal between Iraq and the US, Kadhimi will have to steer adroitly between politicians who demand the full withdrawal of US forces from Iraq and those who are prepared to accept the presence of US forces. Kadhimi will also have to deal carefully with the Trump administration which makes policy shifts without rhyme or reason from time to time and day to day, even within a single day.

While threatened by the coronavirus, weakened economically, and tied in knots politically, Iraq also has to renew its fight against Daesh which has regrouped and is stepping up attacks on Iraqi military and civilian targets. The movement’s leadership has launched a “Ramadan offensive” and urged fighters to mount fresh operations in both Iraq and Syria while their governments have deployed the army and security forces to impose lockdown in urban areas and curbed country-wide traffic. Covid-19 has, therefore, given Daesh fighters increased freedom of movement to operate from inaccessible Iraqi mountain ranges in Dyala and Kirkuk provinces, cross into Syria and make common cause with Daesh survivors based in that country’s eastern desert. In Iraq, Daesh has struck hyper-sensitive targets near the cities of Kirkuk and Baghdad.

Daesh has managed to revive due to Baghdad’s failure to secure control of the north following the defeat of the false “caliphate”, which was established in 2014. The attacks by Daesh remnants have followed the pattern set before then. Daesh fighters ambush military convoys and patrols and hit checkpoints. They finance their activities by kidnapping for ransom and other criminal activities. If Kadhimi is to halt Daesh’s depredations, he will have to redeploy the army and resume the campaign to eradicate this poisonous movement. He will need the help of the Syrian government in this effort. Neither Iraq nor Syria can afford to allow Daesh to return as a major challenge.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neither Iraq, nor Syria can afford to allow Daesh to Return as Major Challenge.

 The total amount of people who are unemployed right now seems to something of a closely guarded secret as is the amount of financial support that is really being dished out by the government. I suspect this has something to do with the appalling global ranking of Britain place in the COVID-19 death toll.

In 2019, an employment record was reached when the ONS published its report and declared that 32.54 million were in employment in Britain.

ONS head of labour market David Freeman said: “The number of people working grew again, with the share of the population in work now the highest on record. Meanwhile, the share of the workforce looking for work and unable to find it remains at its lowest for over 40 years, helped by a record number of job vacancies.”

The number of ‘economically inactive’ people ie long-term sick leave, students, and people who had given up looking for a job also rose to a new record of 8.6 million.

Of course, this 32.5 million included everyone in part-time jobs which was recorded as more than one hour per week, nearly a million on zero-hours contracts and we simply don’t know how many are self-employed because they were unable to find meaningful full-time work.

According to Rishi Sunak’s announcement on furloughed employees two days ago, there are around 7.5 million jobs on the scheme already. This also represents nearly one million companies.

It is sad to say, we have no idea how many will keep their jobs – and on what terms or how many will remain unemployed.

The Federation of Self-Employed and Small Business (FSB)  has calculated through a survey of 5000 members that one-third of businesses may never open their doors for business again. The average size of their membership in terms of employees for this survey was not disclosed.

COVID-19: How many are really unemployed and how many companies are going bust

Prior to the COVID-19 crisis we know that around one million people were unemployed and claiming benefits. We also know that a further 1.6 million have applied for benefits and claiming unemployment with an additional 7.5 million on the furlough scheme.

Right now, we know there are over 10 million people – around one-third of the entire workforce are out of work due largely to the COVID-19 crisis. It is hard to come up with any conclusion, for when the crisis is over, that at least three million will be registered unemployed. What a catastrophe for those people and well over one million British households.

The cost to the state this year alone is calculated by the treasury to be something in the order of £330billion – but that assumes a best-case scenario. Looking at these figures, which would include losses of revenue to the treasury, it is difficult to be that optimistic. The sum is far more likely to reach half a trillion in this tax year alone.

A leaked document published in The Telegraph (May 12th) –

estimates that it will cost the Exchequer almost £300 billion this year and could require measures including an increase in income tax, the end of the triple lock on state pension increases and a two-year public sector pay freeze. The Telegraph can reveal that a Treasury document drawn up for Rishi Sunak, the Chancellor, sets out a proposed “policy package” of tax increases and spending reductions which may have to be announced within weeks in order to “enhance credibility and boost investor confidence” in the British economy.”

I doubt this is a ‘leaked’ document but more a purposeful media stunt to test the public appetite for what the Tories have in mind. It’s ironic that key workers will be targeted once again, just as they were after the bank-led financial crisis of 2008.

A debt of nearly £1.2 trillion over ten years is anticipated in this report. This confirms that there will be no ‘V’ shaped return to the economy and the best we could expect is somewhere between an ‘L’ (which would be truly awful) and a ‘U’ shaped return. One can only hope that ‘U’ doesn’t take too long.

Tax rises of £30bn a year are being considered but that will never bring the national debt down. Only inflation over the decades will be able to do that.

When all said and done, it is challenging to look at these numbers and not conclude that Britain’s finances, like many other countries, will resemble something like emerging from the rubble of 1945 when drastic austerity measures were imposed. In those days, people’s expectations of government was not so high and the government knew they had no choice but allow extreme capitalism to make way for social democracy where health, education and housing were put in the front lines of rebuilding the nation, which worked. That debt was largely repaid by inflation in the 40s and 50s and especially in the 1970s to the early 1990s when inflation reached nearly 25 per cent.

In 1976 the UK was forced to go to the IMF for a bailout as many investors feared the effects of inflation. The reason – unsustainable public sector borrowing.

The stakes are now very high.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on COVID-19: How Many are Really Unemployed and how Many British Companies are Going Bust

 

Big Pharma is poised to cash in big from mass COVID-19 vaxxing — at the expense of human health and welfare.

Author of “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America” Gerald Posner explained that drug companies “view Covid-19 as a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity,” adding:

It’ll be “a blockbuster for the industry in terms of sales and profits. The worse the pandemic gets, the higher their eventual profit.”

In the US, taxpayers are funding COVID-19 vaccine research. According to federal procurement data, the US Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) gave Johnson & Johnson’s pharmaceutical subsidiary Janssen $604 million in free money for COVID-19 vaccine and antivirals development.

Regeneron got $92 million in largely taxpayer provided free money for monoclonal antibody research and development.

Genentech got $25 million for Actemra development, a potential COVID-19 treatment.

Congress appropriated around $3.5 billion to hand Big Pharma for drug development, much of it COVID-19 related.

These companies rely on large-scale government handouts to fund research and development, likely much more coming for COVID-19 related work alone — courtesy of US taxpayers without their knowledge or consent.

The Trump regime appointed four-star General Gustave Perna to head Operation Warp Speed.

Since 2016, he served as commander of the US Army Material Command — responsible for its worldwide supply chain.

Former chairman of Big Pharma firm GlaxoSmithKline’s vaccines division/current vulture capitalist Moncef Slaoui was appointed as his chief advisor.

On Wednesday, Bloomberg News first reported on their appointments, adding:

The Trump regime project “seeks to produce 300 million doses of a Covid-19 vaccine (for mass vaxxing) by the end of the year, hastening development by simultaneously testing many different candidates and beginning production before they’ve completed clinical trials.”

The Trump regime aims to begin mass vaxxing Americans by yearend or early 2021 — DJT saying, “we’re going to fast-track (development) like you’ve never seen before,” failing to add:

COVID-19 vaccinated individuals will risk potentially serious health hazards.

All vaccines are toxic and hazardous to human health. Development usually takes years.

Anything rushed to market at “warp speed” will likely be especially dangerous.

Among other dangers, inoculated individuals will risk becoming ill from the coronavirus instead of being protected from infection by being vaxxed.

Both right wings of the US one-party state are in cahoots with Wall Street and other corporate favorites, notably Big Pharma.

A bonanza awaits firms that develop and market Big Pharma-controlled/FDA approved COVID-19 vaccines, their potential serious human health hazards to go unreported.

A previous article explained that all vaccines include toxic mercury, aluminum, formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), and squalene adjuvants that weaken and can destroy the human immune system, making it vulnerable to many annoying to life-threatening illnesses.

It’s why vaccines can be more hazardous than diseases they’re supposed to protect against.

They cause thousands of unreported adverse reactions, including permanent disabilities and deaths.

Their promoted effectiveness is greatly exaggerated. They often prove an unreliable and dangerous way to prevent illness and disease.

Far more important is following proven good health and fitness practices, notably a healthy diet, proper hygiene, no smoking, limited or no alcohol use, daily exercise of the body and mind, along with other good health practices.

Vaccine effectiveness remains scientifically unproven because no double blind studies have been conducted to provide convincing evidence.

Plenty of documented evidence shows their toxicity and hazards to human health. Many promoted benefits about vaccines were later proved false.

Most infectious diseases are effectively treated without vaccines.

Most polio cases were caused by vaccines developed to prevent the disease.

The Salk vaccine was extremely dangerous. He later admitted that mass inoculations caused most polio cases since 1961.

Information about its hazards was suppressed. Declines in the disease were well underway when mass-inoculations began.

Health hazards from vaccines can develop quickly or later in life.

They include arthritis, diabetes, chronic headaches, rashes, anaphylaxis, non-healing skin lesions, seizures, autism, anemia, multiple sclerosis, hepatitis, ALS, cancer, lupus, polio, osteoporosis, Addison’s disease, and many others.

Is getting vaxxed worth the risk?

Inoculation with a rushed to market, untested for safety, COVID-19 vaccine will enrich Big Pharma at the risk of straightaway or later in life onset of degenerative other diseases — including damage to internal organs, disability and pain.

When available, COVID-19 vaccines will likely be hazardous to human life and welfare.

It’s why they should be shunned to avoid their potentially catastrophic side effects.

When available, they’ll be heavily promoted by federal, state, and local governments, establishment media, and Big Pharma with deceptive television ads.

Ignore the deception to preserve and protect your health and welfare by avoiding coronavirus vaccines virtually sure to be hazardous.

VISIT MY WEBSITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My two Wall Street books are timely reading:

“How Wall Street Fleeces America: Privatized Banking, Government Collusion, and Class War”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/how-wall-street-fleeces-america/

 

“Banker Occupation: Waging Financial War on Humanity”

https://www.claritypress.com/product/banker-occupation-waging-financial-war-on-humanity/

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s “Operation Warp Speed” for Mass Vaxxing. “Big Bucks for Big Pharma”

Even supporters of increased US defense budgets expect that, because the US government will likely spend trillions of dollars trying to rescue the economy from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, military spending in the United States is likely to decline significantly over the next couple of years. Those predicting such a decline include experts at the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the Center for Strategic and International Studies, (CSIS), American Enterprise Institute (AEI), the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Analysis, the RAND Corporation, and retired generals like David Barno and Hawk Carlisle.

According to SIPRI’s latest report, global defense spending has grown for five straight years and in 2019 amounted to almost $2 trillion. US defense spending has also grown significantly over this period. Since President Trump took office, the annual defense budget—which, at $740 billion, consumes more than half of federal discretionary spending—has increased by almost $100 billion compared to Obama’s last budget, and during the Trump presidency, total US defense spending has amounted to almost $3 trillion. As a result, the US alone now accounts for about 40 percent of the world’s total military expenditures and spends more than the next 10 highest defense spenders combined (seven of whom are our allies). In real terms—that is, taking inflation into account—the US defense budget is higher than it was during the Reagan military buildup or the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

In 2019, the combined budget of our two primary strategic competitors, Russia and China, was $326 billion—less than half of the Pentagon’s annual spending. Moreover, these countries will also likely have to reduce spending on defense to cope with the damage caused by COVID-19.

The primary reason that many experts foresee a drop in defense spending involves the massive US deficit. Since Trump came into office, the federal debt has grown by more than $3 trillion, and the deficit for 2020 was projected to reach $1 trillion, even before the pandemic. The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had already predicted that the federal deficit would reach 98 percent of the United States’ total gross domestic product within a decade. The three stimulus packages already passed will increase the deficit for 2020 to almost $4 trillion.

But beyond the massive deficits, as retired Lt. Gen. David Barno and his colleague Nora Bensahel pointed out in a recent article in War On The Rocks, COVID-19 will also profoundly change the military’s role in defending the United States—something the Pentagon’s leaders apparently have not yet realized. Barno and Bensahel believe this will happen because many Americans will look at the immeasurable damage caused by the pandemic and correctly conclude that defending the homeland from catastrophic threats is more urgent than defending against foreign threats far from America’s shores. Barno and Bensahel offer specific areas—including personnel and some conventional programs like the F-35—that can and should be cut because of the vast cost of the pandemic. But they do not mention nuclear programs.

This omission is not surprising. Nuclear programs are often overlooked when it comes to budget reductions because many officials and analysts believe that those programs consume only a small part of the overall military budget. A closer analysis demonstrates that this is not the case.

In the proposed fiscal 2021 budget (which actually declines in real terms compared to fiscal 2020 and is now being considered by the House and Senate armed services committees), the Pentagon not only will spend significant amounts on nuclear programs but will increase that spending substantially. The 2021 budget proposal seeks to spend $29 billion—a $4 billion or 16 percent increase—on modernizing the weapons in its massive nuclear arsenal.

The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), the part of the Energy Department that develops nuclear technology, wants to spend another $20 billion, which represents a $3 billion or 19 percent budget increase. If one adds in the $5 billion the government will spend on cleaning up nuclear sites and the $20 billion it proposes for missile defense, the cost of our nuclear programs climbs to approximately $75 billion.  Some will argue that even this total amounts to a little more than 10 percent of the overall defense budget. And if one ignores environmental and missile defense costs and counts only the cost of NNSA weapons development and Defense Department delivery systems, that $50 billion amounts to only about 7 percent of the total budget.

But these claims underestimate the real impact of nuclear programs on the size of the defense budget. The nuclear programs include only the cost of developing and procuring nuclear weapons. They do not include support and operations for nuclear weapons and delivery systems like the Columbia Class ICBM submarine or the B-21 bomber.

To get a realistic handle on the cost of the nuclear program, it should be compared to the modernization (research and development and procurement) portion of the Defense Department budget. For  fiscal 2021, Defense plans to spend about $244 billion on this area. Developing nuclear weapons amounts to 20 percent of the modernization portion of the budget, and total nuclear spending consumes about 30 percent. These percentages are not trivial, and neither is the absolute amount being spent.

Even the low-end calculation of nuclear spending—$50 billion—is more than we spend on the entire State Department, or on ship building, or on aircraft or tank procurement. In fact, to increase the NNSA budget this year, the Pentagon had to cancel a nuclear-powered attack submarine over the objections of the Office of Management and Budget. And nuclear spending is projected to rise.

Over the next five years, the Pentagon plans to spend increasing amounts on modernizing nuclear weapons and nuclear technology. If no changes are made, these two items will consume at least $170 billion between fiscal 2021 and fiscal 2025 on just the Defense Department portion of the modernization budget, and they will draw another $100 billion the NNSA budget.

To reduce spending on nuclear weapons safely over the next decade, the United States needs to do two things:

First, take up Russian President Vladimir Putin’s offer to extend New START, which can be done without Senate approval, and begin negotiations to reduce the deployed nuclear weapons on both sides to no more than 1,000 from their current level of 1,550. This will allow us to cancel the land-based portion of our nuclear modernization program and the Long Range Standoff Weapon (LRSO). Stopping these programs will save $2 billion in fiscal 2021and at least $100 billion over the next five years.

Second, the Trump administration needs to begin talks with the Russians aimed at resolving our differences over the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). The Trump administration announced it would pull out of the treaty in October 2018 because it argued that the Russians were testing missiles that violated the treaty’s terms; the US exit became final in the summer of 2019. The Russians, for their part, argued that the missile defense systems the United States has deployed in Poland and Romania could be retrofitted to launch intermediate range missiles, also in violation of the treaty. If talks on somehow reinvigorating the INF are begun, the United States could halt its programs to deploy intermediate range missiles on Navy ships and submarines. Spending on nuclear warheads in fiscal 2021 is projected to be more than $2 billion.  Not only is this a waste of money; it also increases the likelihood of nuclear war.

Since the Russian defense budget will also have to decrease as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, Moscow should be open to discussions that lead to reduced nuclear costs. The Chinese also will find it difficult to keep increasing their defense budget at the pace they have maintained over the past decade. Therefore, they should be willing to join talks, particularly on intermediate-range weapons.

The pandemic has had and will continue to have a disastrous impact on the global community. But, if the United States uses this health and economic disaster as an opportunity to take the lead in limiting the danger of nuclear weapons, some good may come of it. As bad as this pandemic is, a nuclear war would be much worse.

*

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.

Lawrence J. Korb is a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress. He is also an adjunct professor of security studies at Georgetown University.

This article was originally published in 2018.

Among the top ten investors in nuclear weapons are banks which stand to benefit from the de-regulatory bill S.2155 in Washington, including JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, State Street and Goldman Sachs. This is according to a just released study by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), here. Should this move them out of the UN Global Compact, administered by Secretary General Antonio Guterres?

On March 7 Inner City Press asked Guterres’ deputy spokesman Farhan Haq, UN transcript here:

Inner City Press: The ICAN, the Nobel Prize-winning group on nuclear weapons, has put out a list of companies that are… that they say are profiting from the nuclear weapons manufacturing industry.  So, I guess it made me wonder, in connection with the oil company question  that Stéphane [Dujarric] responded to yesterday, whether the UN Global Compact views… how it views funding and profiting from nuclear weapons production.  These are, like, major American banks — Citi, Chase, Goldman Sachs, State Street.  And… and, given that the Secretary-General… I know that, when he was in Europe, he said, this is going to be a big drive for nuclear disarmament.  Does he think this should be a criterion?  Do you think that companies should have to come up with some kind of plan to divest?

Deputy Spokesman:  The criteria for the Global Compact and what it is intended to achieve are very clear on their website, and so I would just refer you to what they, themselves, state as both their mandate and the criteria for inclusion.  So that’s about that.  Of course, we do encourage all companies to act in as socially responsible way as possible, and we hope that they will do so in questions of disarmament, as well.

Inner City Press: Right.  Okay.  I mean, I guess I’m just wondering if he has a view since this is an issue that he says is important to him and he seems to have some input into those criteria.  They’re not voted by Member States.  They’re a UN Secretariat…

Deputy Spokesman:  Yes.  I mean, well, it’s clear what the criteria are, but the Secretary-General has made it clear that he wants all parties, including big business, to behave with a… an attitude of social responsibility, and that includes when it comes to nuclear disarmament.”

*

So will anyone be kicked out or suspended, as CEFC belatedly was?  Back on 9 October 2017 when ICAN held a press conference at the UN on October 9, Inner City Press asked the ICAN representatives about two prior Nobel winners. On nuclear weapons, the Pugwash Conferences have raised the issue of state which hold nuclear weapons for others: in Europe, Italy, the Netherlands, Germany, Belgium and Turkey. And, as another elephant in the room, Inner City Press asked for ICAN’s view of if Aung San Suu Ki should have to return her Nobel, given the mass killings and displacement of the Rohingya in Myanmar’s Rakhine State.  ICAN’s Asia-Pacific director Tim Wright replied,

“There are five countries in Europe that currently host US nuclear weapons on their soil: Belgium, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Turkey. The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons offers a very clear pathway for those nations to accede. They would be required to remove the weapons within a particular time line and according to particular conditions to be agreed. We have very strong campaigns in most of those countries. We have many parliamentarians who have pledged to work for the signature and ratification of this treaty by those countries. So we are confident in the reasonably near future a number of those current nations hosting nuclear weapons join this treaty.”

Then ICAN’s overall executive director Beatrice Fihn (image on the right) said,

“Just quickly on the issue of Myanmar. ICAN is a campaign focusing on nuclear weapons, so we’ve never really made statements on other issues, and I think it’s a bit early for us to reflect on what it means to be a Nobel prize winner. But obviously we’re a campaign that is fully committed to humanitarian law, and international law. That’s all I can say about that issue.”

We’ll have more on this. In other statements, as fast transcribed by InnerCityPro.com:

Tim Wright: We take this opportunity to renew our call to the Japanese government to sign and ratify the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Its failure to do so is a betrayal of the Hibakusha, who for more than 70 years have worked tirelessly to eliminate nuclear weapons. They have issued a dire warning to humanity and we must listen to their testimony and hear their call. Thank you.

[Set aside first question] I asked the US ambassador about this win, and about the nuclear disarmament treaty, and she said there would be no possible impact on disarmament. How do you counteract this argument? How will you convince the P5 to disarm? What will you do about umbrella nations like Japan?

A: It’s quite expected that they would say that. This is something we’ve heard from the beginning: the humanitarian consequence doesn’t matter; the work of all these other states doesn’t matter; the work of civil society doesn’t matter. Clearly it matters. And I think the protests against this shows that it does have an impact on them. But frankly, of course a Nobel peace prize isn’t going to make Trump give up nuclear weapons. But I don’t think that’s really what we’re doing here. What we’re trying to do is make nuclear weapons unacceptable in the mindsets of people. And that is where civil society has the power. That’s what’s changing things. And in the end, governments have to do what their people say. And in the end, that gives us an enormous opportunity to reach out to new audiences and to mobilize people once again.

For a long time, nuclear weapons have been seen as an issue of the past, something that is no longer relevant. And developments recently, that started a few years ago with the potential new nuclear arms race, all the nuclear arms states modernizing, and these direct threats of using nuclear weapons, slaughtering hundreds of thousands of civilians, makes this an issue once again. And I think this Nobel peace prize can really bring about a much bigger movement against nuclear weapons. I think we also have to remember that in times  of big crisis, before, we have always made the most progress. It was after the Cuban missile crisis that the Tlateloco treaty was negotiated, and also the NPT. It was during the 80s, during the huge tensions between the US and the Soviet Union, that the Reykjavik meeting happened, and the whole nuclear freeze movement. So I think these great crises also bring about public mobilization. I think that’s where this peace process is extremely timely and urgently needed attention on this issues.

Ray Acheson: Just to add quickly to what Beatrice said, I think in the beginning when we approached the treaty with our government partners, the idea was also that it would have a normative effect, a legal effect, a political effect, and an economic effect. And we’re going to see that happen over time. Of course, nothing will happen immediately. Nuclear weapons aren’t just going to magically disappear. But what’s going to happen over time is what we’ve seen happen with cluster munitions, which have been banned now for some time. Even countries which initially objected to the treaties have joined, and even those that haven’t are still more or less abiding by their provisions, and coming every year more or less in compliance, even if they haven’t joined onto them officially. So I think we will see those types of impacts happen over the years. And I think the economic side of this is going to be very significant. There’s already divestment campaigns underway, where banks and other financial institutions are withdrawing money from nuclear weapons producers. And I think that the Nobel peace prize going to ICAN is going to really get the word out about campaigns like that and other initiatives that people around the world can do to contribute.

Austria PR: From a member state’s perspective, we didn’t have any illusion that the nuclear weapon states would join, from day one. But we believe this treaty is filling a legal gap and is able to delegitimize and even stigmatize the last weapon of mass destruction which is still on earth not outlawed. No one of these prohibition treaties was universal from the very beginning.  Not even the non-proliferation treaty was universal. And I always like to remind nuclear weapons states who now say the NPT is the only agreement which should be around, that even nuclear weapon states, it took them over two decades to join this treaty. So we are patient, we wait for them to join us.

Q: Does ICAN have any North Korean members? Have you reached out to the government? What have you done, and what are you planning to do?

A: In terms of North Korea, no. We do not have members in North Korea, they are not a country where civil society can engage, which makes that difficult. I think these kinds of treaties still impact that kind of state. No one is really immune towards international norms. It does – we hear NK here at the UN needing to defend themselves, needing to argue why they’re doing what they’re doing. And they’re doing that because there’s a certain expectation that you don’t do that. We see in other issues, countries that perhaps aren’t recognizing certain norms still have to engage in a discussion about them. So I think it does have an impact, anyway. And what we do know is that it will be impossible to get NK to disarm as long as we think that nuclear weapons are acceptable. When we say that nuclear weapons are acceptable and absolutely necessary, like the nuclear states and many of the umbrella states say, for security, North Korea is always going to want them, and see them as legitimate and justified. And I think that’s what this treaty is about. Stop allowing them to justify having weapons of mass destruction that are only meant to indiscriminately slaughter hundreds of thousands of civilians.

Q: We have a nuclear deal with Iran that is in peril right now. What can ICAN do?

A: That’s exactly the problem with only focusing on proliferation. Because if you don’t address the underlying problem with nuclear weapons, if some countries still have it, you are going to be unable to prevent every single state in the world forever from developing nuclear weapons. We can’t force any one country to disarm. Countries will disarm when they think it’s in their interest. What we’re trying to do with this treaty is make it in their interest to disarm. You’ve seen over time chemical and biological weapons, landmines, cluster munitions were once seen as okay weapons to have. Countries were happy to have them, proud to have them. And suddenly they were prohibited by treaties. And it became difficult. They started making other choices. Some of them because of the treaty, answered it straightforwardly, signed it. Some of them don’t sign it but still make changes. So I think this is also how we approach it in the middle east. We can’t prevent states from wanting nuclear weapons forever. We have to make nuclear weapons unwanted.

The Middle East zone free of weapons of mass destruction is part of the NPT action plan of 2010. And one of the failures of the 2015 review conference is that there was no progress on this issue, and no progress on article 6 of the NPT, meaning that nuclear weapon states took it upon themselves to disarm . We haven’t seen this. And this frustration has also led to this ban treaty. And since you mentioned it, the JCPOA on Iran, we Europeans are very clear, we think there is no justification to decertify, and it will also be harmful and self-defeating. If you want to control non-proliferation, this will send the totally wrong message.

Q: The Nobel Committee themselves said that the international prohibition will not, in itself, eliminate a single nuclear weapon. What’s your response? And, have you seen any pressure on states that participated in the negotiations from nuclear weapon states?

A: Tim Wright: The treaty provides a pathway for accession for nuclear armed nations. If a nuclear nation were to join, which we expect them to do at some point in the futre, an additional agreement would need to be negotiated setting out the parameters within which they’d pursue the disarmament of their nuclear arsenal. In that sense, the weapons would be eliminated under the treaty or the associated protocols. I think we wouldn’t agree fully with the comment made by the Norwegian nobel committee in that regard.

Austria PR: “Yes, there is pressure on states, even Austria, which is known to be very stubborn in this respect. There is pressure on states not to sign. There was pressure not to participate. And there are even veiled, or not so much veiled, threats. But I hope this Nobel prize will give an encouragement to these countries to say, okay, this is the right thing to do and they will join us.”

Back in July 2017, days after the then most recent North Korea missile launch, a “Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear Weapons, Leading towards Their Total Elimination” was adopted 122-1-1, with Singapore abstaining and the Netherlands voting No. Inner City Press asked the President of the Conference, Costa Rican Ambassador Elayne Whyte Gómez about the Netherlands’ complaint that the treaty is not verifiable; she replied that there is more work to be done, through protocols.

Periscope video here. Now on September 20, a tired looking Antonio Guterres gave a short speech opening the treaty for signature without mentioning Kim Jong Un, dubbed “Rocket Man” by Donald Trump just the day before. Here’s from what Guterres said:

“It is an honor to oversee this historic treaty’s opening for signature, the first multilateral disarmament treaty in more than 2 decades.

Civil society played a vital role in bringing the treaty to fruition. There are survivors of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Hibakusha, continue to remind us of the devastating consequences of nuclear weapons. [ICP: Most NGOs are banned from the UN for UNGA week.] The treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons is the product of increasing concerns about the risk posed by the continued existence of nuclear weapons, including the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental consequences of their use. Today, we rightfully celebrate a milestone. Now we must continue along the hard road towards elimination of nuclear arsenals… I now declare the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons open for signature.”

On July 6 Inner City Press asked Elayne Whyte Gómez how the North Korean launch had impacted talks, and what the treaty would do about the issue. She said that an international norm could help improve things. Video here. Inner City Press also asked about the provisions for withdrawal. She said that right is mandated by the law of treaties but the notice period is extended, particularly for parties to a conflict. She said Antonio Guterres presumably supports it since it’s mandated by the General Assembly. It’s classic UN – as is a list of countries proposed changes which Inner City Press obtained and puts online on Patreon, here. US Ambasssador Nikki Haley, along with the UK’s Matthew Rycroft and France’s Francois Delattre, said they had “not taken part in the negotiation of the treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons. We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons.” Full statement here.

After North Korea fired another missile, on June 3-4, UN Secretary General was in his stomping ground of Lisbon, Portugal, after days of his spokesman not disclosing where he was. The Spokesman, Stephane Dujarric, later put out a statement from New York, below. The US Mission spokesman announced that Ambassador Nikki Haley “requested an urgent UN Security Council meeting on North Korea in response to ballistic missile launch. Session [July 5] afternoon.” By evening Inner City Press was reliably informed the meeting would be open. And it was, ending with a back and forth between Nikki Haley and Russian charge d’affaires Vladimir Safonkov, who said sanctions are not a panacea while Haley spoke, if necessary, of proceeding anyway. Haley said,

“One of our capabilities lies with our considerable military forces. We will use them if we must, but we prefer not to have to go in that direction. We have other methods of addressing those who threaten us and of addressing those who supply the threats. In the coming days, we will bring before the Security Council a resolution that raises the international response in a way that is proportionate to North Korea’s new escalation.”

Periscope from Council stakeout here and here. The launch, now said to be intercontinental, was also expected to be discussed at the upcoming G20 meeting in Germany. Meanwhile the UN system continues to recruit internationally for “Junior Professional Officers” to work for it in Pyongyang, here – Inner City Press on July 5 asked UN Spokesman Dujarric about that, and for all details on any North Korean participation in or agreements with the UN JPO program. He should answer, today, after once again vague defending WIPO’s work on cyanide patents for North Korea (see below). The UN Security Council president for July, China, had only hours before reiterated its suspension for suspension proposal, while UN DESA chief Wu Hong Bo had said of course North Korea would have the right to place a Junior Professional Officer in the UN. The UN’s World Intellectual Property Organization had defended working on cyanide patents for North Korea, and Guterres’ spokespeople had defended it. But on July 4 the UN issued this:

“The Secretary-General strongly condemns the launch of a ballistic missile of possible intercontinental range conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) on 4 July 2017. This action is yet another brazen violation of Security Council resolutions and constitutes a dangerous escalation of the situation. The DPRK leadership must cease further provocative actions and comply fully with its international obligations. The Secretary-General underlines the importance of maintaining the unity of the international community in addressing this serious challenge.”

The US Mission’s subsequent press release said,

“A short time ago, Ambassador Nikki Haley and her counterparts from Japan and the Republic of Korea requested an emergency UN Security Council meeting to be held in the open chamber in response to North Korea’s intercontinental ballistic missile launch. The Security Council session will be held tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 p.m. EDT.”

After the last launch, the UN Security Council added to its sanctions list 14 individuals and four companies. Inner City Press put the resolution online here. This as some on the UN Security Council, and UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres or at least his spokesman Stephane Dujarric have no problem with or comment on the UN’s own World Intellectual Property Organization helps North Korea with a patent application for social cyanide (WIPO site here). 

On Capitol Hill on June 28, Rep. Chris Smith (R-NJ) urged US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley to act on WIPO, including its retaliation against whistleblowers. Haley spoke about reviewing peacekeeping missions, which is needed – as is a review and reversal of the UN’s lack of protections for free press, and continued restrictions on investigative Press. At the day’s UN noon briefing Inner City Press asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, UN Transcript here:

Inner City Press: down in Washington this morning, there’s a hearing in the committee… House Committee on Foreign Affairs, and the issue of the… the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), not only its dealings with patents for North Korea, but its retaliation against its own staff, you know, has been raised.  So, I’ve asked you about it before.  I just wanted to know, what does the Secretary-General… given there’s even some provisions of US law about failure to protect whistle-blowers, has he taken any action on the… the numerous cases within WIPO of…?

Spokesman:  The Sec… WIPO is an independent agency, specialized agency.  It has its own governing body, on which the United States is represented.  I expect those discussions are going on between the US and WIPO… the WIPO leadership, and I really have nothing else to add than what I’ve previously said on the issue.

Inner City Press: Right, but given that they’re a part of the Chief Executives Board (CEB) and there are certain, I guess, minimum standards in the UN system, such as not using criminal defamation against the press, I would assume…?

Spokesman:  As a matter of principle, the Sec… and this goes across the board for every organization.  The Secretary-General expects all UN agencies, whether specialized or not, to… to uphold standards… minimum standards.  But, I’m not going to go into the details of WIPO management, which is an issue that WIPO management will… dealing with, with its own governing body.

The UN Secretariat alsobacked up WIPO on May 26 when Inner City Press asked, transcript here and below. Inner City Press on May 16 began to ask US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley about it (video here).

On May 17, Nikki Haley replied to Inner City Press’ question:

“All parts of the UN system need to support the Security Council in its efforts to respond to the grave threat of North Korea’s weapons of mass destruction programs. Sodium cyanide is banned for export to North Korea by the Security Council. A common sense reaction would be for WIPO to inform the Council of such patent applications. Its failure to do so may have dangerous consequences.”

The UN through spokesman Stephane Dujarric told Inner City Press it supports WIPO, video here. On May 19, Inner City Press asked North Korea’s Ambassador Kim In Ryong about it, without answer. Video here.  Then the US Mission to the UN issued a longer press release, here.

On May 26, Inner City Press asked the UN’s deputy spokesperson Farhan Haq to respond. UN transcript:

Inner City Press: since, since I last asked, the US Mission has put out a second, more-detailed statement about the World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO) work on the sodium cyanide patent for either a North Korean individual or the Government.  They seem to insist that there was no need for them to inform the Sanctions Committee that everything is fine with that.  And I wanted to know, what does the Secretary-General think, given his calls and his own statements that all Member States take this very seriously both, implementing… does he think that WIPO has met all of its obligations and that it should continue in the future to do patent work in North Korea on cyanide without informing the Committee?

Deputy Spokesman:  Well, as you’re aware, the World Intellectual Property Organization has, twice now, on its website, put explanations of its actions, and we would refer you to what they have said on this.  Of course, the Secretary-General does want all Member States, and, indeed, all parts of the UN, to abide by Security Council resolutions, but you can see what the explanation is provided by WIPO itself.

Question:  But, what does he think of their explanation?  I guess that’s my question.  He’s the head of the UN System.  Does he think… obviously, there are some that think that the…   what they’re saying is asinine, and they think that it’s fine.  So, I’m asking what does he think of it?

Deputy Spokesman:  We’re aware of what their explanation is, and we refer you back over to them.

That is not leadership. Inner City Press adds: condemnation should also include the UN Federal Credit Union, which is soliciting the funds of the North Korean mission and its employees, as well as UNA-USA members. Inner City Press on the morning of May 18 asked the chair of the UN Security Council’s North Korea sanctions committee, the Italian Mission to the UN under Sebastiano Cardi, “Does your Mission, which holds the chair of the 1718 Committee, agree that WIPO should have informed the Security Council of this work with North Korea? I recently asked Ambassador Cardi about a DPRK sanctions violation in Germany, without yet much of a response. I notice that the Italian mission stopped sending Inner City Press any information at all in February 2017. Please explain.” In the afternoon, the Italian Mission’s spokesperson Giovanni Davoli replied, “the Panel of Experts was not aware of this matter. Therefore the Committee could not be. The Panel announced they are going to open an investigation. Once the Committee will receive the report of the panel, we might be able to comment further.” We await that, and another answer.

Inner City Press also on May 18 asked UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric about Ambassador Haley’s response – but all Dujarric would do was refer, positively, to a WIPO press release. In its press release, WIPO says “a DPRK individual citizen applicant filed an international patent application under WIPO’s PCT system in respect of a process for production of sodium cyanide.” Are there really “individual applicants” in today’s North Korea? Isn’t the import of sodium cyanide into North Korea a violation of UN sanctions? Dujarric called this WIPO’s “very clear explanation.” Inner City Press repeatedly asked Dujarric to state if the Secretariat finds WIPO’s statement on May 16 — before Ambassador Haley’s response — sufficient. Apparently yes. We’ll have more on this:

Inner City Press has asked other UN Security Council members. In an earlier exchange with UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric, the UN itself acknowledged that the Security Council’s Panel of Experts is belatedly looking into it as a possible sanctions violation. Video here, transcript below.

Later to May’s President of the UN Security Council, Uruguay’s Elbio Rosselli, Inner City Press asked about UN WIPO’s (non) compliance with UN sanctions, working on a patent for North Korea’s production of sodium cyanide. Periscope video here.

Ambassador Rosselli said he had not heard of the issue. At the UN’s May 16 noon briefing, Inner City Press had asked the UN about that and its reporting that the UN Federal Credit Union, regulated by the US National Credit Union Administration, openly solicits the business of both North Korean employees of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s mission to the UN and the members of the UN Association of the USA (UNA-USA), amid questions of immunity and a previous UNFCU settlement for sanctions violations.  UN briefing video here, from Min 10:20.

UN Spokesman Stephane Dujarric dodged on whether Secretary General Antonio Guterres would this time talk to WIPO chief Francis Gurry, as he did not as Gurry deployed criminal defamation law against the press; he also wouldn’t answer on UNFCU. UN transcript:

Inner City Press:  About WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] doing a patent application for North Korea for the production of sodium cyanide, which is banned to be brought into the country.  Before, it wasn’t clear to me if the Secretary-General had communicated with WIPO about their use of criminal defamation against journalists.  But, is this something that concerns him?  I also want to ask you about the UN Federal Credit Union (UNFCU) openly soliciting deposits from… from the Mission of North Korea, as well as the employees of the Mission despite having previously settled sanctions charges for just such activity on another sanctioned country.  Do you think that this is consistent with this whole idea of tightening up?

Spokesman Dujarric:  I don’t speak for the Credit Union.  They’re an independent body.  I would agree… I would urge you to question them.  On the [Democratic People’s Republic of Korea] and the Fox News report, obviously, I think what’s contained in the report is disturbing and demands looking into.  The Panel of Experts… the Security Council Panel of Experts, as you know, is an independent team reporting to the Council.  And they have the prerogative to look into all alleged violations of DPRK sanctions and report to the Council accordingly.   I think, as noted in the article, the Panel’s coordinator said the Panel will look into the issue.  And I think we’ll need… the Panel will do its work and report back.  And if… we will obviously look more directly into the issue, as well from our end.

Inner City Press:  Given that there have been previous allegations and reported retaliation at WIPO concerning activities with North Korea, do you or the Secretary-General think it’s something that at the CEB [Chief Executives Board] or some kind of system-wide, does it need to be reiterated to the UN agencies that these sanctions are reported?

Spokesman:  I think the need… the absolute need to respect the sanctions regime, both whether it’s from Member States or within the UN, I think, is clear and should be clear to everyone.

UNFCU’s website lists under “Missions to the UN in New York eligible to join UNFCU” that of “North Korea (DPRK”). Inner City Press asked UNFCU’s Senior Manager of Media Relations Elisabeth Philippe questions including “why some UN member states’ missions to the UN are eligible to join UNFCU, including the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, and others are not, why members of UNA-USA became eligible to join UNFCU, what regulatory filings in any UNFCU made for this change in field of membership, and any restrictions on the use of these UNA-USA members’ funds, and what services UNFCU offers to UN agencies and country teams, in which countries, and if there are any restrictions or safeguards.”

On deeming the North Korean mission and all of its employees eligible, UNFCU’s Ms. Philippe told Inner City Press,

“The employees of any mission to the United Nations based in New York are eligible to apply for UNFCU membership. The employees of all missions are eligible to join once their mission has submitted an application and been approved.”

The website says the mission itself can join UNFCU. On May 10, Inner City Press asked the chairman of the UN Security Council’s North Korea Sanctions Committee Sebastiano Cardi about North Korea’s embassy in Berlin renting out space as a hostel, video here. What safeguards does UNFCU, with UNA-USA’s members in its field of membership, have?

On UNFCU expanding its field of membership to including anyone who joins UNA-USA, Ms. Philippe told Inner City Press,

“UNA-USA is the largest UN advocacy organization in the United States. UNFCU is a financial organization providing retail banking for the UN community. Members of UNA-USA, who are US citizens or permanent residents of the US, are eligible to become members of UNFCU. In December 2013, the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA), the US regulatory body which oversees US federal credit unions, approved the expansion of UNFCU membership to include UNA-USA based on a shared mission and values in support of the United Nations. UNA-USA members who become members of UNFCU are eligible for the full suite of products and services available to UNFCU’s field of membership.”

But what is in the “full suit of products and services” available from UNFCU? The US Office of Financial Asset Control or OFAC settled charges against UNFCU for, in connection with Mission employees, violating sanctions. And Inner City Press’ third question, about precisely what services “UNFCU offers to UN agencies and country teams” – including for example in North Korea – remained at publication time unanswered. Now this:

“As a member-owned financial institution that serves the UN community globally, UNFCU provides bank account services to UN/agency staff, and consultants subject to payroll requirements of the various UN agencies and subject to the rules and regulations governing all US Financial Institutions. Accounts are maintained in US dollars and are protected by federal share insurance through the National Credit Union Administration. UNFCU complies with US regulations, including those governing US economic sanctions.”

But why then did UNFCU settle charges of sanctions violations? We’ll have more on this. Inner City Press previously exclusively reported for example that

“Sudanese nationals working for the UN have had part of their salaries paid into UN Federal Credit Union accounts, in U.S. dollars. Then they were told that these dollar accounts were frozen, and could only be transferred to the Bank of Khartoum.”

*

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.

Corona-Crisis and Two Models of Capitalism

May 14th, 2020 by Dimitris Konstantakopoulos

It is clear that we are entering worldwide an era of very grave social, political and international conflicts and we cannot exclude new wars, writes Dimitris Konstantakopoulos, former adviser to the Greek Prime Minister Andreas Papandreou and former Member of Secretariat of the Central Committee of the SYRIZA Party. We cannot say what the world of tomorrow will be or what will be the place of capitalism in it. What we can say with almost certainty is that the future world will be very different from the one we know.

***

What has begun as a Chinese and then as a global health crisis is already catalyzing a global, very deep economic crisis, while it threatens to catalyze also open geopolitical conflicts. The economic crisis is interacting also strongly with the effort of western capitalism to check the rise of China, Russia and other international powers. Simultaneously, the crisis reflects the many, “life or death” problems, the development of productive forces and new technologies are putting in front of humanity.

We know very well from the history of capitalism that so deep crises as the one we are facing now – in reality already since 2008 – comparable with the 1873 and 1929 economic crises, have the potential of provoking “regime change” ruptures. The previous two crises of such depth (1873, 1929) produced two world wars, revolutions (the Russian and Chinese), “counter-revolutions” (Fascism and Nazism) and huge reform projects (New Deal, the post-war social-democratic European capitalist model, till 1980).

If it is impossible to make now certain and safe predictions for the future, it is already clear we are entering worldwide an era of very grave social, political and international conflicts and we cannot exclude new wars. We cannot say what the world of tomorrow will be or what will be the place of capitalism in it. What we can say with almost certainty is that the future world will be very different from the one we know.

A radical situation asks for radical answers

If such a prediction comes true, it means western Left, China or Russia must shift away from their usual, essentially “conservative” strategies and their efforts to defend the acquis of the previous situation and find a way to “accommodate” the most aggressive forces of the “Empire of Finance” and of Western Capitalism.

If you are conservative in radical times, times of huge changes and upheavals, you are doomed to lose.

(The same is also true if you are radical in “conservative” times.)

Of course, we don’t mean that Russia or China should launch some kind of war on America and the West. What we mean is they have to find the force and the inspiration to propose and fight for a new, radically different world order. As for the western Left, if such a thing exists, and in order to exist, it must also challenge the established order in a fundamental way. If they don’t do it all of them run the risk of huge defeats, of helping, inadvertently, the most radical forces of international finance and western capitalism, thus augmenting also the probability of catastrophic wars or other world disasters.

As they usually do in times of crisis, the “Markets’ Leninists” will, most probably, try to use the crisis and the associated shock to advance their agenda. They know western capitalism, as we know it, is no more sustainable. They will try to exploit the crisis in order to replace it with a much worse, totalitarian – surveillance system of techno-feudalism and permanent war to keep their domination. They are already doing it by launching cold wars and sanctions wars against China, Iran, Cuba and Russia, or by blowing up the international system (WHO).

Some people write articles describing the end of capitalism as a result of this crisis. This is an illusion. Capitalism will find always a way to survive. It is even able to take all of us into its graveyard as it is struggling to survive. Capitalism will not die automatically, because of its internal contradictions. It will disappear and replaced as a social system only if people make it disappear.

A crisis from the past, but also a crisis from the future

Nothing of what we have already exposed is really new in human history and, in particular, the history of world capitalism. What is fundamentally new and makes this crisis, potentially, the most dangerous in the whole history of humanity, is the fact that it is taking place in the environment of the new productive forces and technologies we developed and continue to do, in an exponential rhythm, since 1945.

Those productive forces and technologies, if unchecked, not only are able to destroy life on earth, they will do it for sure, most probably during this century. To check them we need a radically different social, economic, international relations system, we need indeed a different civilization. You will probably object that this seems unrealistic and utopian. I will answer to you that it is much more utopian and unrealistic to hope the world will survive as it is organized now. It is not only unrealistic, it is clearly impossible and we must begin by this element of reality in order to build politics. If this idea becomes common in the minds of people, then probably it will acquire the power to alter fundamentally the situation, making another world possible. In that sense, the corona-crisis is not only a tragedy, it is also an opportunity, probably the last one we will have.

It is an opportunity because even now, with all this crisis and catastrophes unfolding, all over the world, is nothing compared to what will come if we let unchecked production, technology, interconnectivity, urbanization, climatic change, generalized pollution of our environment, minds, bodies and DNA.

While it is too early to make specific predictions, the first indications we have concerning the response of the Empire of Finance and the western establishment to the crisis provides us with precious hints of the direction things will follow. They give us also ample reason for grave concern.

There are nowadays two factions competing for power inside the western establishment and the “Empire of Finance”, of the international financial capital, which is ruling or aspiring to rule the world. Both of those factions, those parties agree on the strategic goal, which is no else than the eternal world domination of finance. Still they strongly disagree on methods, ideologies, strategies to attain this goal.

One group consists of the classical neoliberal – globalization elites (Soros, Fukuyama, Obama, Merkel). They promote the “dissolution” of nations into a huge world “market” of capitalist globalization. The prototype of the coming world organization, according to the “globalist” wing of western establishment, is the European Union, a post-modern, meta-national, sui generis power structure, controlled, in final analysis, through a system of labyrinthic procedures, by the Empire of Finance, the oligopoly of the big international banks and of a handful of multinationals (and NATO, as far as geopolitics is concerned).

The second camp consists of the “neocon-nationalist” wing (Huntington, Pompeo, Bannon, Netanyahu, Thiel with Trump). This second tendency is not hostile to nationalisms as such. On the contrary, it wants to use opposing nationalisms to dominate through “War of Civilizations”, “divide and rule” and chaos strategies.

The second faction is governing now the US, the first Europe. Their reactions to the corona-crisis are quite different in the sense the second faction is tempted to launch wars as an answer to its problems. The first is not doing that but, unable to produce any comprehensive answer to the crisis and deeply divided itself, it is provoking now a kind of civil war inside Europe!

The Pompeo – Netanyahu – Bannon – Trump group is answering to the crisis by imposing sanctions in the midst of the pandemic, threatening with military intervention Venezuela and Iran, not permitting the delivery of medical help to Cuba, pressing countries not to accept medical aid from Cuba, launching an extended Cold War against China and preparing in reality a Hot War and attacking all elements of international cooperation, included in medicine (WHO). Washington is even stealing masks and medical equipment from its allies.

Those reactions confirm the fact that, under Trump and Pompeo, the US stopped trying to safeguard its domination through “soft”, political and economic power. Under Trump it is reacting mainly to the challenges either by financial terrorism (sanctions) – using its special position in the international financial architecture – or by resorting to military power or the threat of using it. It is a reflection of weakness in reality, but a very dangerous one. US policy becomes more and more a kind of “gangster”, criminal policy.

The reactions of both factions inside the West – the one governing the US, the other Europe – reflect in reality the impasses of Late Capitalism and its temptation to resort to catastrophic policies and totalitarian choices. The totalitarian choice is much more clear and pronounced in the policy of the Pompeo – Trump – Netanyahu wing (the one who was also responsible beforehand for the campaigns against Iran, Korea and Venezuela, the generalized sanctions and the return of nuclear threats as a diplomatic tool). The US has become nowadays, the main revisionist force, threatening the world peace.

Unfortunately, the opposite faction also, the old “globalist – neoliberal” elites, which rule Europe, the other pillar of western capitalism, if it avoids to opt for war solutions, it is also inclined to use totalitarian methods, albeit more “peaceful” and less “violent”. It remains unable to produce any positive alternative, a huge difference compared with capitalism in the past. Today we do not discern anything comparable to Roosevelt, Keynes, Kennedy, De Gaulle, Social Democracy, the German post-war model etc. That’s why the Corona-crisis is already provoking the biggest crisis in the history of the European Union and we should think what are the dangers and the possibilities as a result of this crisis.

Author’s Note: In the above article we made a reference to Trump’s decision to stop financing the W.H.O. It is not our intention to defend the W.H.O. which seems to need a serious reform and, in particular, to secure its independence from all private interests. But we need more than ever international medical cooperation. The policy of just destroying all institutions of international cooperation and replace them by the Gangster concept of “America First” is a guarantee for a global Disaster of unprecedented proportions.

*

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 Pixabay