Global Research: Keeping You up to Date on Important World Topics

March 16th, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

We have seen a massive surge in traffic to the website over the last few days and we will, as always, keep you updated as things develop. As we all take stock of the rapidly changing situation unfolding around us, we encourage our readers to examine the complexities of the current situation carefully.

We thank our new readers and our returning readers for visiting our website and ask you to please consider becoming a member or making a donation by clicking below. Your support is essential to our activities, as reader contributions are our main source of revenue.

Click to donate:

Click to make a one-time or a recurring donation


Click to become a member (receive free books!):

Click to view our membership plans

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Research: Keeping You up to Date on Important World Topics

As coronavirus panic grips the world, concern over government overreach is growing given the involvement of US intelligence agencies in classified meetings for planning the U.S.’ coronavirus response.

***

As the COVID-19 coronavirus crisis comes to dominate headlines, little media attention has been given to the federal government’s decision to classify top-level meetings on domestic coronavirus response and lean heavily “behind the scenes” on U.S. intelligence and the Pentagon in planning for an allegedly imminent explosion of cases.

The classification of coronavirus planning meetings was first covered by Reuters, which noted that the decision to classify was “an unusual step that has restricted information and hampered the U.S. government’s response to the contagion.” Reuters further noted that the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Alex Azar, and his chief of staff had “resisted” the classification order, which was made in mid-January by the National Security Council (NSC), led by Robert O’Brien — a longtime friend and colleague of his predecessor John Bolton.

Following this order, HHS officials with the appropriate security clearances held meetings on coronavirus response at the department’s Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF), which are facilities “usually reserved for intelligence and military operations” and — in HHS’ case — for responses to “biowarfare or chemical attacks.” Several officials who spoke to Reuters noted that the classification decision prevented key experts from participating in meetings and slowed down the ability of HHS and the agencies it oversees, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), to respond to the crisis by limiting participation and information sharing.

It has since been speculated that the decision was made to prevent potential leaks of information by stifling participation and that aspects of the planned response would cause controversy if made public, especially given that the decision to classify government meetings on coronavirus response negatively impacted HHS’ ability to respond to the crisis.

After the classification decision was made public, a subsequent report in Politico revealed that not only is the National Security Council managing the federal government’s overall response but that they are doing so in close coordination with the U.S. intelligence community and the U.S. military. It states specifically that “NSC officials have been coordinating behind the scenes with the intelligence and defense communities to gauge the threat and prepare for the possibility that the U.S. government will have to respond to much bigger numbers—and soon.”

Little attention was given to the fact that the response to this apparently imminent jump in cases was being coordinated largely between elements of the national security state (i.e. the NSC, Pentagon, and intelligence), as opposed to civilian agencies or those focused on public health issues, and in a classified manner.

The Politico article also noted that the intelligence community is set to play a “key role” in a pandemic situation, but did not specify what the role would specifically entail. However, it did note that intelligence agencies would “almost certainly see an opportunity to exploit the crisis” given that international “epicenters of coronavirus [are] in high-priority counterintelligence targets like China and Iran.” It further added, citing former intelligence officials, that efforts would be made to recruit new human sources in those countries.

Politico cited the official explanation for intelligence’s interest in “exploiting the crisis” as merely being aimed at determining accurate statistics of coronavirus cases in “closed societies,” i.e. nations that do not readily cooperate or share intelligence with the U.S. government. Yet, Politico fails to note that Iran has long been targeted for CIA-driven U.S. regime change, specifically under the Trump administration, and that China had been fingered as the top threat to U.S. global hegemony by military officials well before the coronavirus outbreak.

A potential  “9/11-like” response

The decision to classify government coronavirus preparations in mid-January, followed by the decision to coordinate the domestic response with the military and with intelligence deserves considerable scrutiny, particularly given that at least one federal agency, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), will be given broad, sweeping powers and will work closely with unspecified intelligence “partners” as part of its response to a pandemics like COVID-19.

The CBP’s pandemic response document, obtained by The Nation, reveals that the CBP’s pandemic directive “allows the agency to actively surveil and detain individuals suspected of carrying the illness indefinitely.” The Nation further notes that the plan was drafted during the George W. Bush administration, but is the agency’s most recent pandemic response plan and remains in effect.

Though only CBP’s pandemic response plan has now been made public, those of other agencies are likely to be similar, particularly on their emphasis on surveillance, given past precedent following the September 11 attacks and other times of national panic. Notably, several recent media reports have likened coronavirus to 9/11 and broached the possibility of a “9/11-like” response to coronavirus, suggestions that should concern critics of the post-9/11 “Patriot Act” and other controversial laws, executive orders and policies that followed.

While the plans of the federal government remain classified, recent reports have revealed that the military and intelligence communities — now working with the NSC to develop the government’s coronavirus response — have anticipated a massive explosion in cases for weeks. U.S. military intelligence came to the conclusion over a month ago that coronavirus cases would reach “pandemic proportions” domestically by the end of March. That military intelligence agency, known as the National Center for Medical Intelligence (NCMI), coordinates closely with the National Security Agency (NSA) to conduct “medical SIGINT [signals intelligence].”

The coming government response, the agencies largely responsible for crafting it and its classified nature deserve public scrutiny now, particularly given the federal government’s tendency to not let “a serious crisis to go to waste,” as former President Obama’s then-chief of staff Rahm Emanuel infamously said during the 2008 financial crisis.

Indeed, during a time of panic — over a pandemic and over a simultaneous major economic downturn — concern over government overreach is warranted, particularly now given the involvement of intelligence agencies and the classification of planning for an explosion of domestic cases that the government believes is only weeks away.

*

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.

Whitney Webb is a MintPress News journalist based in Chile. She has contributed to several independent media outlets including Global Research, EcoWatch, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has made several radio and television appearances and is the 2019 winner of the Serena Shim Award for Uncompromised Integrity in Journalism.

Featured image is from Nathaniel St. Clair

Trump Bombs Shiite Militia in Shiite-Ruled Iraq

March 16th, 2020 by Prof. Juan Cole

US fighter jets bombed bases of the Kata’ib Hizbullah (“Brigades of the Party of God”) militia in Iraq on Thursday in retaliation for a deadly attack on US troops that left two dead and killed a British soldier as well. Secretary of Defense Mark Esper said that Trump had greenlighted the action, which he called a “proportional” response. One of the bases the US bombed was at Jurf Sakhr in Babel Province.

The Shiite militias are local heroes at Jurf Sakhr for having defeated genocidal ISIL fighters there in 2014.

The US also struck at bases in the north, where Kata’ib Hizbullah is still fighting ISIL remnants.

Some 26 Shiite militiamen were reported killed. The Iraqi parliament made these militias a national guard and recognized them as part of the Iraqi armed forces, so that the US is technically bombing elements of the Iraqi military.

Karim Alawi, the spokesman in the Iraqi parliament for the Fath bloc of Shiite party-militias of the Popular Mobilization Forces, condemned Trump’s airstrikes as seeking a pretext for the US to turn Iraq into a base from which to attack its neighbors (he meant Iran). Allawi said that “all the divisions” in Iraqi politics are sown by the US embassy in Baghdad to allow Washington to divide and rule. Alawi was blaming the youth protest movement that brought down the government of Adel Abdulhmahdi on the United States, seeing it as a bought crowd. This allegation is untrue.

The Nujaba’ (Party of God’s Chosen) Shiite militia accused any Iraqi who did not absolutely celebrate the attack on al-Taji base of being a foreign agent.

On Wednesday, katyusha rockets were fired at al-Taji Base north of Baghdad, killing 3 and wounding 14 other members of the Coalition forces. These troops are in Iraq to train the Iraqi Army and to help mop up the remnants of ISIL, the terrorist state that at one point gobbled up 40 percent of Iraqi territory.

The attacks were likely by Kata’ib Hizbullah elements seeking revenge for Trump’s January 3 assassination of their leader, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, along with Iranian general Qasem Soleimani, at Baghdad International Airport. Although Trump blamed them for rocket attacks on a base in the far north, at Kirkuk, the Iraqi military says that these attacks were likely actually by ISIL.

Trump’s rush to judgment, petulance, and obsession with macho posturing led to his killing the wrong people, and setting off a feud with an important part of the Iraqi military among whom the US troops are embedded. The Iraqi parliament voted to require the prime minister to expel US troops from Iraq, but Trump refuses to leave.

Meanwhile, the Iraqi militias warned that if the Iraqi government did not act to make the US military leave, they would take matters into their own hands.

The Trump administration is now more or less forcibly occupying Iraq against the will of its elected representatives, and is waging a low intensity war on a section of the Iraqi military with which the US is supposed to be allied.

*

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

A long-awaited court trial of four suspects implicated in the July 2014 downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 began today (March 9) at The Hague in the Netherlands. 

Three Russian nationals and one Ukrainian have been indicted for the murder of all 298 passengers aboard the ill-fated flight, which was shot down over eastern Ukraine more than five years ago.

“This is a significant milestone toward finding the truth and establishing justice for the victims of the flight MH17 tragedy,” read a March 7 statement issued by Malaysia’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

“For justice to prevail,” the statement said, will require a “credible and transparent process based on the rule of law.”

Image result for Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin

The statement is one of the first issued by Malaysia since Prime Minister Muhyiddin Yassin (image on the right) was sworn-in on March 1, and signals a distinct new tone from outgoing premier Mahathir Mohamad’s outlier position on the proceedings.

During his nearly two-year tenure, Mahathir alleged that the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team (JIT) leading a probe into the disaster had been biased and politicized against Russia.

Though economic ties between Moscow and Putrajaya are modest, the two countries forged closer strategic links during Mahathir’s first and second premierships.

Malaysia’s perceived closeness to Russia, according to various Malaysian officials and reports, led to the Southeast Asian nation being stonewalled as the MH17 investigation unfolded.

While Muhyiddin’s days-old premiership is still taking shape, observers are closely watching whether or not his administration will echo past skepticism of the multinational probe.

Though Mahathir’s government did not oppose a trial, as a small number of civil society groups in Malaysia did, he claimed that evidence against the four accused was lacking and amounted to “hearsay.”

The then-premier’s remarks sparked diplomatic controversy and upset many of the victims’ next-of-kin. Mahathir’s positions, however, continue to be shared by some Malaysian officials who dealt firsthand with the disaster.

Fauziah Mohd Taib, Malaysia’s Ambassador to the Netherlands when the MH17 plane was shot down, is among them.

Image on the left: Former Malaysian Ambassador to the Netherlands Fauziah Mohd Taib, February 7, 2020. Photo: Nile Bowie

“From the beginning, I sensed it already. They were trying to keep me away, trying to keep Malaysia away [from the investigation],” the 64-year-old ex-diplomat said in an interview with Asia Times.

The retired envoy claimed that mutual distrust among countries in the JIT led to Malaysia being initially sidelined from the probe.

While Malaysia is part of the multinational JIT, along with Australia, Belgium, the Netherlands and Ukraine, the grouping’s investigation began without its participation, a sore point that influenced Mahathir’s stance.

As owner of the fallen aircraft, Malaysia was entitled to appoint observers to the probe and be briefed on its findings, according to International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) protocols.

But it was only invited to join the criminal probe as an equal member in late November 2014, over four months after MH17 was brought down on July 17.

Fauziah, however, said her country’s prosecutorial representative was only allowed to attend meetings related to the criminal probe in March 2015.

“This is our airplane, our people were also there, all the crew members were Malaysian. Why are we not in the investigation? I found the Dutch to be pulling back when we talk about it,” she said.

“We wanted to join in the JIT from the beginning. We could join the Dutch Safety Board (DSB) daily briefings, which I attended,” she said in reference to the board’s civilian investigation tasked with determining the cause of the crash.

Malaysia, she said, was initially kept out of legal deliberations to apportion blame and criminal charges against suspects.

“They only wanted people from the prosecutor’s office. So, if you are not a lawyer, not a prosecutor, you cannot come in. Even then, there was no official invitation for us. There was no clearance, yet we insisted on being equal partners,” she said.

The veteran diplomat claimed Malaysia’s cordial ties with Russia were cause for it to be isolated from the process.

“I received some information from my colleagues in the Netherlands that it was Ukraine who didn’t want us in because they think we are quite inclined to Russia,” Fauziah said. “But we never made any statement to say that we are pro-Russia or anti-Ukraine. There were no statements, official statements or even implied statements.”

In 2016, investigators concluded that the Malaysian aircraft was hit by a Russian-made Buk-9M38 series missile fired from rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine, where Russian-backed separatist militias and government forces were engaged in fierce combat. Moscow denies charges that it supplied the missile system which brought down the plane.

The Netherlands and Australia announced in May 2018 that they would hold the Russian state legally responsible for the downing of MH17. Dutch media later reported that Malaysia was only notified of the politically sensitive move just prior to its announcement over fears that it would relay those intentions to Moscow through diplomatic backchannels.

Fauziah claimed that the JIT’s practice of keeping Malaysia at a diplomatic arm’s length helped to validate perceptions of Russia being politically scapegoated by the probe, a position that Mahathir repeatedly affirmed to the bewilderment of public opinion in the Netherlands, which lost 198 of its citizens in the disaster, and elsewhere.

The former Malaysian envoy did not dispute Russia’s support for the rebels in eastern Ukraine, though she claimed Moscow’s own version of events were not examined by the probe. “Because [the JIT] were apportioning blame from the beginning, I think the Russian side should have been given the opportunity to explain themselves,” she said.

“You’ve already blamed Russia and you have already started to enforce sanctions. Why are you doing this when you don’t know yet? That was what I told them,” Fauziah said in reference to economic sanctions levelled against Moscow by the United States and the European Union on July 29, 2014 over its role in the MH17 incident.

“From there I noticed there was this ‘you are not my friend’ kind of feeling. You can see it’s a geopolitical game already. Immediately, you have all finger-pointing to Russia. They were taking advantage of the victims of the incident to come up with something they’ve been waiting for, an opportunity,” she claimed.

It is unlikely that those sentiments will inform the Muhyiddin administration’s stance toward the trial, which is expected to continue throughout 2020. Despite Mahathir’s contrarian position, his government had formally endorsed the JIT’s findings while calling for transparent scrutiny of existing evidence and the gathering of additional data.

There is at least one indication that the new Malaysian government seeks to quiet internal critics.

Colonel Mohd Sakri Hussin, the chief negotiator of a Malaysian team that covertly entered rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine to retrieve MH17’s flight data recorders and victim remains, had been due to speak at a documentary screening in London on March 3.

Sakri and Mahathir appeared in the online investigative documentary MH17 – Call for Justice and the former had travelled to the United Kingdom to take part in the event’s panel discussion.

Event co-organizer Bonanza Media confirmed to Asia Times that Muhyiddin’s newly-appointed government requested the colonel not to address the gathering, to which he complied.

At present, Dutch prosecutors hold four individuals responsible for the downing of MH17: Russian nationals Sergey Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov and Igor Girkin, and Ukrainian, Leonid Kharchenko.

None of the four suspects were crew members of the vehicle that fired the missile, but are believed to have colluded with those who carried out the attack.

Clockwise from top left: MH17 suspects Igor Girkin, Sergey Dubinsky, Oleg Pulatov and Leonid Kharchenko. Source: Bellingcat

Girkin, a former Russian FSB security service colonel, is the most prominent figure named and served as minister of defense of the self-declared breakaway republic of Donetsk at the time of the Malaysian aircraft’s downing. Kharchenko is believed to have commanded a pro-Russian separatist combat unit.

Prosecutors claim Dubinsky was employed by Russia’s military intelligence agency (GRU) and was in regular contact with top Russian officials as head of Donetsk’s intelligence service. Pulatov is said to have been a GRU special forces former soldier and deputy head of the same intelligence agency.

None of the defendants, whom are all at large, are expected to present themselves for hearings at The Hague. It is not clear whether the accused will send lawyers to represent them or if they intend to participate in the hearings by video link. Both Russia and Ukraine do not permit the extradition of their own citizens.

The proceedings are nonetheless expected to shine light on hitherto unreleased findings compiled by the largest criminal investigation in Dutch history. Court files collected by police and prosecutors reportedly contain tens of thousands of pieces of evidence, including videos, communication tapes, satellite imagery, photos and social media posts.

Fauziah told Asia Times that she considers evidence brought against the four fugitive suspects so far to be inadequate, and has doubts about the veracity of intercepted phone calls released by Ukraine’s SBU security service that purportedly incriminates them. The former envoy also questions Kiev’s culpability in the incident.

“I was taught as a foreign service officer to be very non-aligned. Non-aligned means not on the side of Russia, but on the side of the truth. Show us proof that the Russians did it. If they can prove it, then so be it,” she said. “Now that the trial has started, we look forward to it being done fairly as many are watching.”

*

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.

“Time is out of joint…” – “Something is Rotten in the State of Denmark”. These two sentences by the English dramatist William Shakespeare from his tragedy Hamlet (Act I, Scene V and IV) come to mind when you look at current events and do not lose your nerve.

The worldwide fear of a hitherto unknown but supposedly highly contagious and weapons-grade virus means that many people feel paralysed, public life in several states is crippled by governments, at the same time fundamental civil liberties are “honed” or severely restricted and also the military is brought into readiness. What is going on here?

The former Soviet head of state Mikhail Gorbachev recently described the current political situation as extremely worrying. According to “Sputnik News” of 12.03.20 he wrote: “War is in the air.”

On 11th March 2020 the “Neue Rheinische Zeitung NRhZ” drew attention (in the article “Two Corona Mosaic Stones“) to a publication by the German government in January 2013: the “Information from the German government – Report on risk analysis in civil protection 2012” (printed matter 17/12051 of 3rd January 2013). In it, frightening similarities with what is currently happening can be seen – in particular by explicitly mentioning the “SARS coronavirus (CoV)”. The scenario presented, in which the spread, course, duration, mortality etc. are described, goes as far as to make a drastic restriction of fundamental rights necessary.

The scenario states in this respect:

“The competent authorities, first of all the public health authorities and  primarily the public health officers, must take measures to prevent communicable diseases. The IfSG [Infektionsschutzgesetz] allows, among other things, restrictions of basic rights (§16 IfSG), such as the right to inviolability of the home (Article 13 (1) GG). Within the framework of necessary protective measures, the fundamental right of personal freedom (Article 2 (2) sentence 2 GG) and the freedom of assembly (Article 8 GG) can also be restricted (§ 16 (5) to (8) and § 28 IfSG). In addition to these measures to be ordered directly by the public health officer, the Federal Ministry of Health can order by statutory order that threatened sections of the population have to take part in protective vaccinations or other measures of specific prophylaxis (Article 20 (6) IfSG), whereby the right to physical integrity (Article 2 (2) sentence 1 GG) can be restricted”.

A further report from 9 March makes one sit up and take notice: Two months before the outbreak of the coronavirus in the Chinese city of Wuhan, a group of experts conducted the pandemic simulation “Event 201”, which was organized by John Hopkins University in the US and came to alarming results. The aim was to test how governments and authorities would behave in the event of a global pandemic with “potentially catastrophic consequences” and what effects it could have. The virus used to do this was called CAPS: Coronavirus Associated Pulmonary Syndrome. It was estimated that 65 million people would die. (See this)

Has the ruling “elite” agreed to conduct a long-planned laboratory experiment with the civil society of the countries worldwide at the beginning of 2020? Which states and institutions are responsible for participating in this “sinister coup”? What role do the superpowers China, USA and Russia play?

Interestingly enough, China is now experiencing a decline in the number of infections and deaths. What is the role of the United Nations (UN), which has long had the NWO in mind? And what role in this dirty “game” has been assigned to the by no means independent World Health Organization (WHO)? Do we want to “drag” the current political system, seize power in the world and distract some of the world’s citizens from this geopolitical event? What is their aim?

Questions upon questions, to which we citizens and current “guinea pigs” demand an answer, in order to know what form of government or dictatorship is coming up in the near future and how we can react to it and how we have to arrange our lives.

In any case, we must not lose our thoughts and our heads in the present extremely difficult situation. That is what these dark forces want. It is urgent to think beyond the day and look ahead. Our thoughts are free (Cicero). Since many of us do not trust politicians and corporate media as well as certain social institutions, friendship with trustworthy fellow human beings and the practised mutual help becomes of ever greater and vital importance for each of us.

“Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur.” – “Sine amicitia vitam esse nullam.” Two quotations from Marcus Tullius Cicero (106 to 43 B.C.), politician, lawyer, writer and philosopher of Roman antiquity: “A safe friend is recognized in an uncertain situation.” – “Without friendship, life is nothing.”

*

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. Rudolf Hänsel is a graduate psychologist and educationalist.

China on Friday issued a report on the human rights violations in the United States.

Titled “The Record of Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2019,” the report said the facts detailed in the document show that “in recent years, especially since 2019, the human rights situation in the United States has been poor and deteriorating”.

The report was released by the State Council Information Office based on published data, media reports and research findings.

Consisting of foreword and seven chapters, it detailed facts on human rights violations in the United States relevant to civil and political rights, social and economic rights, discrimination suffered by ethnic minorities, discrimination and violence against women, living conditions of vulnerable groups, and abuses suffered by migrants, as well as US violations of human rights in other countries.

US women face severe discrimination, violence

Women in the United States still face systematic, broad and institutional discrimination, with shocking overt and covert gender discrimination in various forms, the report said.

Women in the United States were 21 times more likely to die by firearm homicide than women in peer nations, it noted, adding that sexual assault cases against women kept increasing.

Wealth polarization in US hits 50-year high

The gap between rich and poor in the United States hit a 50-year high in 2018 as the Gini Index of the country grew to 0.485.

Citing various media reports and public records, the Record of Human Rights Violations in the United States in 2019 said the increasing consolidation of wealth in the hands of a few has gone beyond what many Americans deem to be justified or morally acceptable.

In 2018, the richest 10 percent held 70 percent of total household wealth. The bottom 50 percent saw essentially zero net gains in wealth over the past 30 years, driving their already meager share of total wealth down to just 1 percent from 4 percent, who are literally getting crushed by the weight of rising inequalities, according to the document.

The basic trend of widening income gap in the United States is casting negative influences on the enjoyment and realization of human rights, said the report.

The main reason for this trend is structural, which is determined by the political system of the United States and the capital interests, adding that the US government not only lacks the political will to eliminate these structural causes, but also continuously introduces policies and measures to strengthen them.

In the United States, “the persistence of extreme poverty is a political choice made by those in power,” said the report, citing Philip G. Alston, United Nation special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights.

While some 39.7 million people living in poverty in 2018, the US Congress has refused to raise the federal minimum wage of 7.25 US dollars per hour for a decade.

In the meantime, the health gap between the United States and countries with the same level of development continues to widen, as 13.7 percent of US adults were uninsured at the end of 2018, up from 10.9 percent at the end of 2016, said the report.

Gun violence rampant in US

The lack of restraint in the right to hold guns has led to rampant gun violence, posing a serious threat to citizens’ life and property safety in the United States.

“The United States is a country with the worst gun violence in the world,” read the report, which was released by the State Council Information Office, based on data, media reports and research findings.

The number of mass killings in the United States hit a record high of 415 in 2019, with more than one happening for every day of the year, the report noted.

In total, 39,052 people died from gun-related violence in the United States in 2019 and a person is killed with a gun in the United States every 15 minutes, it said.

“Politics has led to a proliferation of guns,” the report said, noting that the manufacture, sale and use of guns in the United States is a huge industrial chain, forming a huge interest group. Interest groups such as the National Rifle Association made large political donations for presidential and congressional elections.

The intertwined drawbacks of party politics, election politics and money politics make it difficult for the legislative and executive authorities in the United States to do anything about gun control, only allowing the situation to deteriorate, according to the report.

Citing figures from US media, the report noted that the United States has far more guns than any other country and in 2017 the estimated number of civilian-owned firearms in the United States was 120.5 guns per 100 residents, meaning there were more firearms than people.

Immigrants suffer inhumane treatment in US

Decades of US intervention in its “backyard” Latin America directly led to the worsening of the immigration problems in the Americas.

In recent years, the US government had adopted increasingly strict and inhumane measures against immigrants, in particular the “zero-tolerance” policy which caused the separations of many immigrant families, the report read.

Many unaccompanied immigrant children were held in overcrowded facilities, without access to adequate healthcare or food, and with poor sanitation conditions, the report said.

It noted grave abuses at detention facilities for immigrants, including injecting them with sedatives, keeping them in handcuffs and depriving them of clothing and mattresses.

The frequent human rights violations of immigrants by the United States have been severely condemned by the international community, the report added.

US vulnerable groups living in difficulties

Tens of millions of US children, elder people, and disabled people live without enough food or clothing, and face threats of violence, bullying, abusing and drugs.

The US government not only has insufficient political will to improve the conditions for vulnerable groups, but also keeps cutting relevant funding projects.

While levels of extreme poverty worldwide had dropped dramatically, the poverty ratio of US children was about the same rate as 30 years ago, according to the report.

It also noted that one in four Americans with disabilities faced unique challenges in securing employment and establishing financial security.

Barrier-free environment in the United States is under poor construction, it added.

Ethnic minorities suffer from bullying in US

The political structure and ideology of white supremacy in the United States have caused ethnic minorities to suffer all-round discrimination in various fields such as politics, economy, culture and social life.

In essence, the United States is still a country of white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, where all other races, ethnic groups, and religious and cultural communities endure various levels of discrimination.

Since 2016, white supremacy in the United States has shown a resurgence trend, leading to racial opposition and hatred, said the report.

As a vestige of slavery and racial segregation, African American adults are 5.9 times more likely to be incarcerated than white adults, said the report, adding that racial inequality in the workplace and people’s livelihood have not improved.

The report said that occupational segregation and the persistent devaluation of workers of color are a direct result of intentional government policy.

In the meantime, race-related and anti-religious hate crime climbs to a higher level in the United States in recent years, said the report.

It also highlighted the infringement on the rights of Native Americans, who usually experience more deaths, poverty and higher unemployment rates.

US tramples on human rights in other countries

The United States was responsible for many humanitarian disasters around the world.

The United States had been engaged in wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria and Yemen, causing enormous civilian casualties and property losses.

The United States hindered the International Criminal Court (ICC) from carrying out its duties to investigate the alleged war crimes committed by the United States, threatening the ICC staff with fund freeze and economic sanctions.

The economic embargo against Cuba and the unilateral sanctions against Venezuela imposed by the United States had been a massive and flagrant violation of the human rights of people in these countries.

The United States withdrew from several multilateral mechanisms, including the UN Human Rights Council and the UN Global Compact on Migration, shirking off its international obligations and making troubles to the international governance system.

*

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

COVID-19 and the CIA’s Biological Warfare on Cuba

March 16th, 2020 by Timothy Alexander Guzman

Maybe it was a plan that went horribly wrong, something they could no longer control. Was the Corona virus or COVID-19 spread intentionally? What if this virus was used against China as a weapon of choice to destabilize China’s economy and push back against China’s growing influence? We don’t know for sure, but it is possible. Investigations are ongoing. Nothing has not been confirmed.

But what has been confirmed is what history has taught us given the facts on how the use of biological warfare for various purposes, against many peoples and nations has been happening for some time. One of the most well-known incidents of biological warfare occurred in 1763, the British Empire had planned and successfully managed to spread smallpox virus to the Native Americans during the Pontiac Rebellion in Pennsylvania. Chief Pontiac of the Ottawa launched an attack on Fort Detroit, a British military base.

Other nations joined the rebellion including the Senecas, the Hurons, Delawares, and Miamis. As the war raged, an Indian delegation asked the British to surrender, but they refused, however, the British offered gifts including food, alcohol and material items that included two blankets and a handkerchief from people who had smallpox. Although the American Indians had experienced the disease in the past, the idea was to spread the disease among the Native American populations in an attempt to push back the rebellion or to defeat it once and for all.

Another example of biological warfare was when Imperial Japan before and during World War II had a bio-weapons program that managed to drop numerous bombs on a number of Chinese cities from airplanes killing an estimated 580,000 Chinese people with bombs that were made of infected fleas, some even contained cholera and shigella during the Sino-Japanese war between the 1930′s and 1940′s.

In 1981, the CIA with help from U.S. military had launched an operation against Cuba by unleashing a strain of Dengue Fever also known as “hemorrhagic fever’ effecting more than 273,000 people killing 158 including 101 children. On September 6, 1981, The New York Times reported on Fidel Castro’s comments regarding the U.S. government in particularly, blaming the CIA for the outbreak when he said that

”we urge the United States Government to define its policy in this field, to say whether the C.I.A. will or will not be authorized again- or has already been authorized – to organize attacks against leaders of the revolution and to use plagues against our plants, our animals and our people.”

The report said that the“epidemic of dengue fever that has made 340,000 people ill and has killed about 150″ but the State Department under-then President Ronald Reagan stated that “Mr. Castro’s charges of possible United States involvement in the epidemic were ”totally without foundation.” The State department quickly blamed the Castro’s revolution as a failure:

The Cuban Government has always tried to blame the United States for its failures and its internal problems,” the department said. ”The Cuban revolution is a failure, and it is obviously easier to blame external forces like the United States than to admit those failures”.

Dr, Ronald St. John, chief of communicable diseases for the Pan American Health Organization was interviewed by the New York Times said that “for the first time, so-called dengue-2 spread to Cuba.” Dr. St. John claimed that it is common in Southeast Asia and that it produces

“the same symptoms as the other three” and that ”if you get a wave of dengue-1, dengue-3 or dengue-4 and then another wave of type 2, this is a bad combination.”

Dengue-2 causes you too loose body fluids causing shocks that can lead to eventually death. Convenient for the CIA who saw it as an opportunity to cause panic on Cuba which is located in one of the most hot and humid regions in the world. However, The New York Times managed to downplay Cuba’s accusation’s by ending the story by blaming the spread of the disease on returning Cuban troops from Africa and other people from other parts of the Caribbean who might have brought Dengue fever into Cuba:

Some State Department officials believe the introduction of dengue-2 into Cuba is a result of the return to Cuba of troops who had been stationed in Angola or elsewhere in Africa, where the strain is found. But Dr. St. John said dengue-2 had been found in other parts of the Caribbean and might have been carried to Cuba from there or elsewhere overseas

Reports suggested that Cuba had a very small number of cases in 1944, and again in 1977. The 1981 outbreak was blamed on covert flyover operations conducted by the CIA with military owned airplanes, you know, the same airplanes that were most probably used against Nicaragua’s Sandinistas to transport weapons and other materials to the Contras around the same time.

Since the 20th century, the U.S. has been the leader in developing various biological and chemical weapons through the U.S. Army’s Biological Warfare Laboratories based at Fort Detrick, Maryland since the late 1940′s, around the start of the Cold War.

The U.S. biological warfare program that supposedly ended in 1969 developed a handful of biological weapons ready for use including anthrax, Q-fever and botulism and conducted research in hopes of weaponizing diseases including smallpox, Hantavirus, Lassa fever, yellow fever, typhus, dengue fever and the bird flu among them.

An article from August 6, 2019 on Fort Detrick from the UK’s ‘The Independent’ titled ‘Research into deadly viruses and biological weapons at US army lab shut down over fears they could escape’ last August. Ironically, Secretary of State and Neocon Mike Pompeo called it the “Wuhan virus” since they blame China for the outbreak, but it seems that the U.S. had its own problems when it comes to their own labs who conduct research with the most deadly viruses:

America’s main biological warfare lab has been ordered to stop all research into the deadliest viruses and pathogens over fears contaminated waste could leak out of the facility. Fort Detrick, in Maryland, has been the epicentre of the US Army’s bioweapons research since the beginning of the Cold War. But last month the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) – the government’s public health body – stripped the base of its license to handle highly restricted “select agents”, which includes Ebola, smallpox and anthrax

The story was basically about the CDC who inspected Fort Detrick and found problems with new procedures used to decontaminate waste water. The article says that Fort Detrick continued its research for defensive purposes to “protect the warfighter from biological threats” although the U.S. declared that it abandoned their biological weapons program since 1969:

Although the United States officially abandoned its biological weapons programme in 1969, Fort Detrick has continued defensive research into deadly pathogens on the list of “select agents”, including the Ebola virus, the organisms that cause the plague, and the highly toxic poison ricin. The army’s Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases, based at Fort Detrick, says its primary mission today is to “protect the warfighter from biological threats” but its scientists also investigate outbreaks of disease among civilians and other threats to public health. In recent years it has been involved in testing possible vaccines for Ebola, after several epidemics of the deadly virus in Africa

Sooner or later, the truth will come out. I believe that the U.S. government knows how COVID-19 began and where it was going. The U.S. government and major corporate arms manufacturers and the rest of the Military-Industrial Complex is no stranger to biological weapons adding to their arsenal of nuclear and chemical weapons at their disposal which makes them, much more dangerous. The truth about COVID-19 will eventually come out. In the meantime, as the COVID-19 pandemic continues, a war against Russia, China, Iran or Venezuela is in the works and a coming economic crisis with an election coming this November seems like 2020 will be the year of a perfect storm.

*

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

This article was originally published on Silent Crow News.

Timothy Alexander Guzman is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Our Vanishing World: Oceans

March 16th, 2020 by Robert J. Burrowes

As the human onslaught against life on Earth accelerates, no part of the biosphere is left pristine. The simple act of consuming more than we actually need drives the world’s governments and corporations to endlessly destroy more and more of the Earth to extract the resources necessary to satisfy our insatiable desires. In fact, an initiative of the World Economic Forum has just reported that ‘For the first time in history, more than 100 billion tonnes of materials are entering the global economy every year’ – see ‘The Circularity Gap Report 2020’– which means that, on average, every person on Earth uses more than 13 tonnes of materials each year extracted from the Earth.

As I have explained elsewhere, however, the psychological damage we have all suffered, which leaves us with unmet but critically important emotional needs (and, in many cases, the sense that our lives are meaningless), cannot be rectified by material consumption. Despite this, most of us will spend our lives engaged in a futile attempt to fill the aching void in our psyche by consuming and accumulating, at staggering cost to the Earth. Identifying when we have ‘enough’ is a capacity that most modern humans have never acquired for reasons that can be easily explained. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

Hence, our world continues to vanish, as has been extensively documented. For a summary, see ‘Human Extinction Now Imminent and Inevitable? A Report on the State of Planet Earth’.

And nowhere is this more evident than in the planet’s oceans, which are being systematically destroyed and where life is being progressively extinguished.

In fact, our destruction of the oceans is now so advanced that the fish, mammals (including seals, whales, manatees, sea otters and polar bears), crustaceans (including crabs, lobsters, crayfish, shrimps, prawns, krill and barnacles), coral reefs (made up of coral polyps, marine invertebrate animals that live in colonies) and the millions of species that live in and around them (including sponges, mollusks, sea anemones, seahorses, sea turtles as well as crustaceans and an enormous variety of fish), plants (such as algae, seaweed and seagrass), microscopic organisms (residing in the ocean and on the ocean floor), invertebrates (such as sea urchins and sea slugs), birds (including better known ones such as penguins, auks, murres, razorbills, puffins, tubenoses – such as the albatross and petrels – pelicans and gulls and a great many species that are less well known), and the other lifeforms that live in and on the ocean are vanishing rapidly.

Starkly illustrating the catastrophic nature of what is taking place, one recent incident alone killed 100 million Pacific cod. See ‘Ocean heat waves like the Pacific’s deadly “Blob” could become the new normal’. But, tragically, such incidents are no longer unusual and, of course, they generate cascading impacts. See, for example, ‘Fish all gone!… Millions of small sea birds died since 2015’.

‘How can we destroy the oceans?’ you might ask. Unfortunately, far too easily when you consider the range of assaults to which they are being subjected.

So let me give you a brief 18-point outline of what we are doing that is destroying the oceans – where life on Earth originated and which remains the planet’s main life support system by dominating the processes that keep our planet habitable such as regulating the climate by absorbing excess carbon dioxide and heat – while also giving you some idea of the impacts of this on the creatures that live in and on the oceans.

As a result of human activities that generate carbon emissions, we are dumping ever-increasing amounts of carbon dioxide into the oceans which have absorbed 20–30% of total anthropogenic emissions in the last two decades. This is causing the oceans to warm, acidify and lose oxygen, among several other adverse outcomes. See ‘The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. p. 450. These adverse changes, in turn, generate a range of ‘downstream’ negative impacts. However, there are other human activities unrelated to carbon emissions that are destroying the oceans too.

So here is the summary.

1. The oceans are warming.

In relation to warming, the oceans have been heating up for several decades and, since 2005, the increase has been unchecked. Moreover, it is occurring at all ocean depths, including in the deep ocean (below 2,000 metres). In addition, the rate of warming has been increasing and the rate of ocean uptake of atmospheric CO2 has continued to strengthen in the last two decades in response to the increasing concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. This is causing the upper ocean to stratify making the surface ocean less dense over time, compared to the deeper ocean, and inhibiting the exchange between surface and deep waters.

As one result of this ocean warming, the range of some species has expanded and, in the case of tropical species that have expanded into higher latitudes, it has led to increased grazing on some coral reefs, rocky reefs, seagrass meadows and epipelagic (near-surface) ecosystems, leading to altered ecosystem structure.

Ocean warming has also contributed to changes in the biogeography of organisms ranging from phytoplankton to marine mammals, consequently changing community composition, and in some cases, altering interactions between organisms. The net outcome is an adverse impact on marine organisms and fisheries with serious implications for human communities and food production.

Ocean warming is also manifesting in a range of diverse and unpredicted ways with one of the more catastrophic aberrations, touched on above, being the occurrence of ‘blobs’: huge patches of unusually warm ocean water that can be millions of square kilometres in size. These ‘marine heatwaves’ wreak havoc, sometimes killing millions of ocean creatures in a single incident (including by disturbing food chains), forcing others to relocate, and perhaps generating unusual blooms of toxic algae. See ‘Ocean heat waves like the Pacific’s deadly “Blob” could become the new normal’.

Among its other impacts, the warming oceans mean there is more available energy that can be converted into cyclonic winds. Research on this subject indicates that there has been ‘an increase in intense hurricane activity over the past 40 years’. See ‘Hurricanes and Climate Change’ and Changes in Tropical Cyclone Number, Duration, and Intensity in a Warming Environment. These events cause landslides, collapses in fisheries, and damage to reefs and shallow-water habitats. When they impact on coastal communities, they kill people and destroy properties, among other outcomes. See ‘The state of our oceans – The damaging effects of ocean pollution’.

Warming oceans also cause coral bleaching. This is because corals have algae that live in their tissues and these algae provide the coral with essential nutrients and give them their color. The warming oceans cause this relationship to become stressed, forcing the algae out of the coral. As a result, the coral becomes white, loses its main food source, and becomes more vulnerable to disease. See ‘Coral Bleaching’.

Warmer ocean water causes sea level rise too because warmer water has a greater volume than colder water. Of course, sea level rise also occurs because of the additional water from melting land ice and a devastating level of rise from this cause is already ‘locked in’ because of past emissions. See ‘Sea Level Rise!’

Ocean warming and increased stratification disturb ocean nutrient cycles and this is having a regionally variable (but usually adverse) impact on many species too.

And finally, ocean warming – most likely from ice loss in the Arctic – is weakening the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) which is one of the key drivers of global ocean circulation; it includes the Gulf Stream that transports warm and salty tropical waters north to the western coasts of Europe where the warm water releases heat to the atmosphere, playing a key role in the warming of western Europe and thus its functional habitability. Once the tropical water reaches the south and east of Greenland, it cools before sinking to the base of the North Atlantic Ocean because it is saltier and thus denser than the surrounding fresh water. The water is then pushed south along the abyss of the Atlantic Ocean completing what has been, from a human viewpoint, a perpetual cycle. See Arctic sea-ice decline weakens the Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation and Global Ocean Circulation Appears To Be Collapsing Due To A Warming Planet’. How much longer it will be so appears to defy reliable scientific assessment. But as it breaks down, the adverse outcomes multiply rapidly.

In fact, ocean circulation generally is being impacted by the warming climate, as established by a recently concluded study:

Ocean circulation plays a vital role in regulating the weather and climate and supporting marine life…. Here, we show for the first time, independent satellite observational evidence demonstrating that the large-scale ocean gyres are moving poleward during the past four decades. Further analysis based on climate models and various other data sets reveal that the poleward shifting of the ocean gyre circulation is most likely to be a consequence of global warming, which so far has not been well recognized by the public and the scientific community…. Such changes have had disastrous consequences…. See Poleward shift of the major ocean gyres detected in a warming climate.

2. The oceans are becoming more acidic.

In response to the increasing carbon uptake the oceans are also becoming more acidic. This has probably been the case for three-quarters of the near-surface open ocean since prior to 1950 and it is very likely that over 95% of the near surface open ocean has now been affected. See ‘The Ocean and Cryosphere in a Changing Climate: A Special Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’. p. 450.

In a stark warning issued by the International Programme on the State of the Ocean (IPSO) in 2013, scientists had already noted that the oceans are becoming more acidic at the fastest rate in 300m years. Why? Because of carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels. ‘This [acidification] is unprecedented in the Earth’s known history. We are entering an unknown territory of marine ecosystem change, and exposing organisms to intolerable evolutionary pressure. The next mass extinction may have already begun.’ See ‘Rate of ocean acidification due to carbon emissions is at highest for 300m years’.

In its latest report, issued in 2018, IPSO declared the following: ‘The ocean, by its breadth and depth, occupies more than 97% of the living space on Earth. It dominates the processes that keep our planet habitable…. But this protection comes at a cost as the ocean is now becoming more acidic…. For too long we have mistaken the immensity of the ocean for inviolability, but those days are gone, and we stand at a critical juncture. Cutting emissions, while essential, will not alone solve the environmental problems we face.’ See ‘Eight urgent fundamental and simultaneous steps needed to restore ocean health, and the consequences for humanity and the planet of inaction or delay’.

3. The oceans are deoxygenating.

Oxygen in the air or water is of paramount importance to most living organisms. Unfortunately, as a recent report documents in considerable detail (and which confirms earlier research), oxygen levels are currently declining across the ocean (and not just in the more widely known ocean ‘dead zones’: see below). See ‘Ocean deoxygenation: Everyone’s problem. Causes, impacts, consequences and solutions’.

Deoxygenation of the ocean is the result of two overlying causes – eutrophication (the process by which a body of water becomes overly enriched with minerals and nutrients thus inducing excessive growth of algae which absorb the oxygen at the expense of the water body) as a result of nutrient run-off from land and deposition of nitrogen from the burning of fossil fuels, as well as the heating of ocean waters as another outcome of burning fossil fuels, primarily causing a change in ventilation with the overlying atmosphere so that the oceans hold less soluble oxygen (and which is compounded by reduced ocean mixing and changes in currents and wind patterns). Ocean deoxygenation is but the latest consequence of our activities on the ocean to be recognized and is yet another ‘major stressor’ on marine systems.

Eutrophication has been identified as a problem in 900 separate areas of the ocean, with 700 of these suffering hypoxia (low oxygen) as a result. But because ocean warming lowers oxygen directly, it is now impacting vast areas of the ocean as well. As a result, ‘the ocean has now become a source of oxygen for the atmosphere even though its oxygen inventory is only about 0.6% of that of the atmosphere’. Moreover, different analyses have concluded that global ocean oxygen content has decreased by 1-2 % since the middle of the 20th century. Given existing trends in the factors driving this change, the rate of loss must accelerate.

Obviously, the future intensification and expansion of low oxygen zones will have further adverse ecosystem and biogeochemical consequences, particularly in combination with, and sometimes synergistically with, other threats. For example, ‘ocean warming accompanied by deoxygenation will drive habitat contraction and fragmentation in regions where oxygen levels decline below metabolic requirements’.

4. The oceans are being contaminated with nuclear radiation.

Greenpeace activists protest outside the Tokyo Electric Power Company (TEPCO) shareholder’s meeting held at The Prince Park Tower in Tokyo. They hold a banner which reads: “TEPCO: The worst Ever Polluting Company.”  TEPCO is the operator of the crisis-stricken Fukushima Nuclear Power Plant which has been emitting radion since it was struck by an earthquake and tsunami on March 2011. The activists also raised a banner reading “No more nuclear” in Japanese, asking TEPCO to disengage from the nuclear industry.

Despite an extensive and ongoing coverup by the Japanese government and nuclear corporations as well as the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), vast amounts of radioactive waste are being dumped into the biosphere from the TEPCO nuclear power plant at Fukushima in Japan including by discharge into the Pacific Ocean. This is killing an incalculable number of fish and other marine organisms and indefinitely contaminating expanding areas of that ocean. See ‘Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation’, ‘2019 Annual Report – Fukushima 8th Anniversary’, ‘Eight years after triple nuclear meltdown, Fukushima No. 1’s water woes show no signs of ebbing’ and ‘Fukushima’s Three Nuclear Meltdowns Are “Under Control” – That’s a Lie’.

In addition, one critical legacy of the US military’s 67 secretive and lethal nuclear weapons tests on the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958 is the ‘eternally’ radioactive garbage left behind and now leaking into the Pacific Ocean. See ‘The Pentagon’s Disastrous Radioactive Waste Dump in the Drowning Marshall Islands is Leaking into the Pacific Ocean’.

And, of course, there are up to 70 ‘still functional’ nuclear weapons as well as nine nuclear reactors lying on the ocean floor as a result of accidents involving nuclear warships and submarines. These are leaking an unknown amount of radiation into the oceans. See ‘Naval Nuclear Accidents: The Secret Story’, ‘A Nuclear Needle in a Haystack: The Cold War’s Missing Atom Bombs’ and, for one specific example (the former Soviet submarine Komsomolets), see ‘Soviet nuclear submarine emitting radiation “100,000 times normal level” into sea, scientists find’.

5. The oceans are being contaminated as a result of offshore oil and gas drilling, as well as oil spills.

The complex but far-from-perfect technologies and the many environmental challenges associated with oil and gas drilling in the ocean have ensured the near-routine occurrence of often disastrous accidents which invariably lead to fossil fuels and other contaminants being discharged into the ocean, sometimes on a vast scale.

The classic case, of course, was the BP-leased Deepwater Horizon rig which had drilled a well to 35,055 feet (10 kilometers) while operating in 4,130 feet (1 kilometer) of water. The oil rig exploded and sank in the Gulf of Mexico on 20 April 2010 releasing 5 million barrels of oil into the ocean making it the worst environmental disaster in US history. It caused extensive damage to the ocean, corals and beaches and killed millions of fish, birds and marine mammals in and on the ocean. Despite a ‘clean up’, only one quarter of the oil was ever removed from the ocean. See ‘The Dangers of Offshore Drilling’.

The simple reality is that despite the industry’s safety claims, oil rig fires are commonplace. See ‘Why Is Offshore Drilling So Dangerous?’

And so are oil spills into the ocean for other reasons, including from tankers – see ‘Top 10 Worst Oil Spills’ – as the Exxon Valdez disaster in 1989 demonstrated all too graphically. See ‘The Complete Story of the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill’.

Often enough as well, oil is discharged into the ocean as a result of military activities and war. During the Gulf War in 1991, for example, vast quantities of oil were released into the Persian Gulf as a military tactic. See ‘The World’s Largest Oil Spill: The Gulf War Kuwait, 1991’ and Gulf War Oil Disaster: A Brief History’.

6. The oceans are being damaged by deep sea mining.

Recent technological advances spurred by growing demand for minerals used in consumer electronics has led to increased interest in deep sea mining as the next frontier in resource extraction. Hailed as the new ‘global gold rush’, deep sea mining entails extracting minerals from deposits in the deep sea (approximately 400 to 6,000 meters below sea level) for use in emerging and high technology, among other sectors. Predictably, deep sea mining shares many features with past resource scrambles, including a general disregard for environmental and social impacts, and the marginalization of indigenous peoples and their rights. See ‘Broadening Common Heritage: Addressing Gaps in the Deep Sea Mining Regulatory Regime’ and ‘Deep-sea mining possibly as damaging as land mining, lawyers say’.

Beyond these adverse impacts, however, recent research makes it increasingly clear that deep sea mining poses a grave threat to vital seabed functions, including those played by hydrothermal vents and cold seeps, for example, which support remarkable biodiversity and sequester disproportionate amounts of carbon. Moreover, recent scientific breakthroughs have further revealed that most of the excess heat resulting from increased atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases has been absorbed by the deep ocean, thereby significantly limiting the climate catastrophe’s impacts on the ocean’s surface and on land. See ‘Deep sea ecology: hydrothermal vents and cold seeps’ and ‘Broadening Common Heritage: Addressing Gaps in the Deep Sea Mining Regulatory Regime’.

In essence, deep sea mining threatens the ‘common heritage’ the seabed provides through its substantial contributions to biodiversity, climate regulation and heat storage.

7. The oceans are being polluted with industrial (including chemical) and farming wastes including pesticides and fertilizers which are generating ‘dead zones’, regions of the oceans that are devoid of life.

Despite the existence of the ‘Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and other Matter’ (otherwise known as the London Dumping Convention, 1972), an international treaty ‘that created a global system to protect the marine environment from pollution caused by ocean dumping’ – and certainly including radioactive wastes, fossil fuels, some toxic wastes, biological and chemical warfare agents, and persistent synthetic materials such as plastic – and supposedly ‘ensures that the few materials that are permitted for ocean disposal are carefully evaluated to make sure that they will not pose a danger to human health or the environment’ – see ‘1972 Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (London Convention)’ – the Convention must be one of the least comprehensive and most violated in international law. In any case, there is no evidence that it has any restraining impact on the actions of states or corporations as the evidence above and below demonstrates.

For example, a vast runoff of industrial wastes (including heavy metals), agricultural poisons, fossil fuels and other wastes is discharged into the ocean, adversely impacting life at all ocean depths – see ‘Staggering level of toxic chemicals found in creatures at the bottom of the sea, scientists say’ – and, as noted above, generating ocean ‘dead zones’ (of which there are many hundred): regions that have too little oxygen to support marine organisms. See ‘Ocean Dead Zones Are Getting Worse Globally Due to Climate Change’ and ‘Ocean “dead zones” are spreading – and that spells disaster for fish’.

8. The oceans are being polluted by nitrogen.

While nitrogen is vital to the health of the ocean, like everything else that makes up the ocean, it must be in balance, not fluctuating beyond very narrow parameters. See ‘Understanding nitrogen’s role in the ocean’.

But it is now well past the point when this state has been the case.

This is because nitrogen is one important element of the industrial and agricultural pollution just mentioned. It is the nitrogen component in the runoffs of these wastes (such as fertilizers and sewage) into the ocean that causes harmful algal blooms, eutrophication and ocean dead zones (hypoxia) while making marine life more vulnerable to disease, reducing biodiversity in shallow estuarine waters, degrading ocean ecosystems and contributing to global warming. ‘Algal blooms deplete dissolved oxygen, causing marine wildlife to suffer and become more vulnerable to toxins and disease. Nitrogen in the blooms also produces nitrous oxide (N20), a greenhouse gas far more potent than carbon dioxide. This contributes to global warming, which further degrades oceans by increasing acidity in the water as the oceans absorb more and more carbon.’ See ‘Stop Nitrogen Pollution of Oceans – Green Algal Slime Busters’.

9. The oceans are being polluted with discharges from warships, commercial shipping and cruise ships: bilge water, ballast water, sewage, graywater and general rubbish.

Despite the 1973 International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as the MARPOL Convention, which has been routinely added to over subsequent years and gives the impression of being comprehensive, there is obviously little interest in abiding by the terms of the Convention and little evidence that most ship crews do so. Moreover, given that many provisions of the Convention focus on minimizing discharges within 12 nautical miles of land, that leaves a great deal of ocean into which such discharges can be done legally even if disposal of plastics beyond the 12 mile limit remains illegal.

In addition, while the MARPOL Convention was theoretically designed to minimize releases by both operational and accidental causes, laws do not prevent accidents as the long list of oil tanker accidents, touched on above, such as that of the Odyssey in 1988, the Exxon Valdez in 1989 and the Haven in 1991, resulting in massive oil discharges into the ocean reminds us. See, for example, ‘Top 10 Worst Oil Spills’.

But the law is violated deliberately in any case. Bilge water – a filthy, oily mess of fresh water, seawater, chemicals, oil, sludge, and other fluids from a ship – is found at the very bottom of the ship where the two sides of the hull meet. Seawater is pumped into large ships to cool their engines and as the water moves through the cooling system it picks up loose oil and waste from the engine and this, together with oil drips from the pipes and machinery fittings, ends up in the bilge well of the ship. See ‘What is Bilge Water?’

However, despite the MARPOL Convention, across the world many oceangoing vessels break these international laws and empty their untreated bilge water into the ocean. For example, in 2016 Princess Cruises, one of 10 brands owned by Carnival Corporation, the world’s largest cruise holiday company, was fined £32million for bypassing oil treatment systems on their vessels, deliberately and illegally dumping thousands of gallons of oil and waste off the UK coast. See ‘Cruise line fined £32m for using “magic pipe” to dump oily waste into UK waters’.

And while we are on cruise ships, of which there are more than 300 carrying half a million passengers annually – see ‘2018 Worldwide Cruise Line Passenger Capacity’ – the glossy advertising brochures do not tell you the extraordinary downside of this holiday/travel option which, among many other problems, are an ecological nightmare for our oceans. Altogether, the 16 major cruise lines generate over one billion gallons of sewage each year, much of it raw or poorly treated and simply discharged into the ocean. And apart from the carbon emissions (with one cruise ship producing 13 million cars worth of CO2 each day) and the oily bilge water, grey water and various other pollutants are a concern both while at sea and docked in port. See ‘16 Things Cruise Lines Never Tell You’.

And while some shipwrecks are a source of fascination for scuba divers and treasure hunters, the vast bulk of the estimated 3 million shipwrecks, particularly more recent ones, are just more junk (or even sources of contamination) in the ocean. See ‘How Many Shipwrecks Are There?’

10. The oceans are being used as a vast rubbish dump, resulting in such phenomena as the Great Pacific Garbage Patch.

We are making the oceans a rubbish dump for vast quantities of pollutants and contaminants, ranging from plastic, microplastics, microbeads and microfibers to toxic and radioactive wastes.

In relation to plastic, a major scientific study involving 24 expeditions conducted between 2007 and 2013, which was designed to estimate ‘the total number of plastic particles and their weight floating in the world’s oceans’ the team of scientists estimated that there was ‘a minimum of 5.25 trillion particles weighing 268,940 tons’. See ‘Plastic Pollution in the World’s Oceans: More than 5 Trillion Plastic Pieces Weighing over 250,000 Tons Afloat at Sea’ and ‘Full scale of plastic in the world’s oceans revealed for first time’.

Since then, of course, the problem has become progressively worse with vast quantities of plastic (entangled in other garbage) forming into floating garbage patches that are vast in size. See ‘Plastic Garbage Patch Bigger Than Mexico Found in Pacific’ and ‘Plastic Chokes the Seas’.

Furthermore, a recent UN report documenting marine debris – that is, rubbish in the ocean – noted the increasing number of marine species impacted by debris through ingestion and entanglement and provided further information on the types of impacts occurring, particularly with respect to microplastics and their physical and chemical effects. The report paid particular attention to ‘persistent, bio-accumulative and toxic substances’ (PBTs), noting the recent studies of the presence of toxic chemicals derived from plastics in marine taxa in a separate appendix. See ‘Marine Debris: Understanding, Preventing and Mitigating the Significant Adverse Impacts on Marine and Coastal Biodiversity’.

Another article highlights the now ubiquitous nature of the ocean garbage problem: There is rubbish everywhere, literally. See ‘How an Uninhabited Island Got the World’s Highest Density of Trash’.

‘Does it matter?’ you might ask. According to a UN report, it matters a great deal: marine debris is harming an increasing number of species, now more than 800, and previous research places the cost of pollution caused by marine debris at $13 billion annually. See ‘New UN report finds marine debris harming more than 800 species, costing countries millions’.

11. The oceans are being overfished and illegally fished.

Apart from the destruction wrought by aquaculture, considered in the next section, the world’s oceans are being plundered mercilessly for remaining fish stocks. In 2017, a report from the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) noted that ‘The international community is harvesting fish at unsustainable biological levels. The Mediterranean Sea is about 70 per cent exploited; the Black Sea 90 per cent.’ Of course, the fact that the fishing industry is subsidized to the tune of $US 35 billion annually (more than one-fifth of the annual fish market of $US150billion) adds enormous additional incentive to fish the world’s oceans. Needless to say, these subsidies facilitate ‘a race to the bottom’ as fishing fleets compete to harvest increasing amounts of fish ‘at a time when seafood is already a scarce resource’. See ‘Next month’s ocean conference eyes cutting $35 billion in fisheries subsidies – UN trade officials’.

Unfortunately too, despite supposed ambitions to end illegal, unreported and unregulated (IUU) fishing methods, the annual value of fish caught these ways is estimated at $US23billion. See ‘More Plastic than Fish or How Politicians Help Ocean Destruction’.

In essence, with a global fishing fleet of 4.6 million vessels, massive government subsidies to encourage over-fishing, virtually nothing done to prevent illegal and unregulated fishing, and almost half the human population relying on fish for an adequate diet, the increasing biological unsustainability of fishing is destined, particularly when considered in conjunction with other threats mentioned above and below, to wreak ongoing havoc on fish populations (as well as species caught incidentally as ‘bycatch’) until the oceans are emptied of fish.

Moreover, given the ever-neglected synergistic impacts of the many threats discussed in this article, as well as the inevitably increasing number of incidents – such as the ‘blob’ that suddenly killed 100 million Pacific cod mentioned above – this can now happen very quickly.

Of course, it is not just fish that are being taken from the ocean. Many other species are heavily impacted too.

Whales have been hunted mercilessly for a very long time with the total number in the ocean reduced from about 5 million 500 years ago to about 1 million now. This has caused enormous damage to the ocean but also the biosphere as a whole given the prodigious capacity of whales to sequester carbon, for example. See ‘How Whales Sequester Tonnes of CO2: Our Secret Weapon against Climate Change’. Apart from the ongoing hunting – see ‘Iceland is killing fin whales for Japanese pet treats’ – whales are now killed by many other human activities ranging from entanglement in discarded fishing gear and consumption of plastic – see ‘Plastic Waste Kills Six-Ton Whale’– to seismic airguns which are a probable cause of beach strandings – see ‘337 Dead Whales In Chile Is Worst Case Of Mass Deaths So Far’– as explained below.

And sea otters – which play a vital role in maintaining the health of the ocean’s kelp forests by eating the sea urchins that eat the kelp – have also been mercilessly slaughtered in vast numbers for their fur pelts in the past. More recently, however, they are being hunted by killer whales which have changed their diet to include otters because their main food source, the great whale, has been almost entirely wiped out by commercial hunting. See ‘Sea Otters as Habitat Protectors’.

12. The oceans are being subjected to destructive fishing practices, such as bottom trawling, blast fishing, cyanide fishing, ghost fishing and aquaculture.

Some fishing methods are so destructive that they cause harm to the ocean environments where fish are caught. ‘Bottom trawling’ is one such practice: it involves fishing boats dragging large, heavy nets along the ocean floor and it is practiced on a huge scale all around the world. Blast fishing involves the use of explosives and cyanide fishing uses poison.

Damage to the surrounding ocean – including corals, sponges, and other organisms living on the seabed – is inevitable ‘collateral damage’ to these types of fishing. See ‘The state of our oceans – The damaging effects of ocean pollution’.

But if you think the above fishing practices are bad, consider ‘ghost fishing’: the damage done by the (at least) 640,000 tonnes of fishing gear that is lost or abandoned in the oceans each year. Official estimates indicate that ‘ghost gear’ makes up 10% of waste in the oceans. Moreover, while it has an enormous adverse impact on ocean life, derelict gear also detrimentally alters seabed and marine environments. See ‘Our oceans are haunted: How “ghost fishing” is devastating our marine environments’ and ‘Ghost Fishing? 640,000 Tonnes of Fishing Gear Dumped in Oceans Every Year’.

And if the existing overfishing and illegal fishing are not doing enough damage to Earth’s oceans, every year 80 million tons – almost half of annual seafood consumption – is produced by ‘aquaculture’: an industry that builds floating cages for salmon, artificial ponds for prawns on the coasts, and tanks for seafood in factory buildings – that is, aquatic factory farms. Of course, aquaculture is not the solution to overfishing: it is worsening the problem. ‘Trawler fleets sweep up vast quantities of wild fish and grind them into fishmeal and fish oil to feed farmed fish. Far from being “sustainable”, this is an incredibly inefficient and wasteful process: it takes up to five kilos of edible fish such as anchovies, mackerels or sardines, for example, to produce a single kilo of salmon.’

Moreover, as traditional stocks of species used to make fishmeal and fish oil collapse, the industry becomes less discriminating in its selection of targeted species and frequently includes juveniles as well as rare and endangered species, including turtles, stingrays and sharks. Predictably investigators researching the problem ‘did not have to dig deep to uncover shocking evidence of how this industry is trashing the oceans, but the full scale of its impacts is concealed from public view’. See ‘Fishing for Catastrophe: How global aquaculture supply chains are leading to the destruction of wild fish stocks and depriving people of food in India, Vietnam and The Gambia’, ‘Stop plundering the oceans for industrial aquaculture!’ and ‘Until the Seas Run Dry: How industrial aquaculture is plundering the oceans’.

Another problem with aquaculture is the way in which disease and parasites can spread among the intensively-farmed fish with, for example, the sea louse causing enormous problems among farmed salmon in Scotland, Norway, and Canada reducing the amount of fish produced by tens of thousands of tons per year and causing increasingly drastic – that is, inhumane and environmentally harmful – responses to be attempted. See ‘Salmon farming in crisis: “We are seeing a chemical arms race in the seas”’.

But disease and parasites can spread from the intensively farmed fish to wild populations too and, for example, this is causing populations of wild salmon and trout to decrease. See ‘The state of our oceans – The damaging effects of ocean pollution’.

13. The oceans are being damaged by sand mining.

The largest mining endeavour on Earth, accounting for 85% of all mineral extraction, is sand mining. See ‘The Hidden Environmental Toll of Mining the World’s Sand’. However, one study has suggested that existing figures ‘grossly underestimate global sand extraction and use’ because official statistics widely under-report sand use and typically ‘do not include nonconstruction purposes such as hydraulic fracturing and beach nourishment’. See ‘Global Patterns and Trends for Non‐Metallic Minerals used for Construction’ and ‘The world is facing a global sand crisis’.

More problematically than inaccurate official statistics, however, is that sand mining, of all mining activity, is ‘the least regulated, and quite possibly the most corrupt and environmentally destructive.’ See ‘The Hidden Environmental Toll of Mining the World’s Sand’.

Why is sand mined? Sand is mainly used for the concrete that goes into building but it is also a key ingredient for roads, glass and electronics. In addition, massive amounts of sand are mined for land reclamation projects, shale gas extraction and beach renourishment programs. See ‘A looming tragedy of the sand commons’ and ‘The world is facing a global sand crisis’.

Of course, not all of this sand comes from the oceans but plenty of it does. Moreover: ‘As land quarries and riverbeds become tapped out, sand miners are turning to the seas, where thousands of ships now vacuum up huge amounts of the stuff from the ocean floor.’ See ‘The Deadly Global War for Sand’.

For example, Britain now gets up to a quarter of its sand from sand banks off East Anglia in the North Sea, dredging up to 10 million tons from a region where there has been concern that the loss of sediment accelerates rampant coastal erosion, as well as damaging sea-bed communities such as crabs and starfish. See ‘A new sand and gravel map for the UK Continental Shelf to support sustainable planning’ and ‘The Hidden Environmental Toll of Mining the World’s Sand’.

But much of the sand dredged from the ocean is used for land reclamation projects, particularly in Asia. Most notoriously, Singapore has created an extra 50 square miles of land, expanding its area by 20 percent. How? It imported more than half-a-billion tons of sand, most of it from Indonesia, where at least 24 small islands have reportedly been removed from the map. But countries like the Philippines, Malaysia and China are also reclaiming vast quantities of sand, usually to expand or build coastal cities and, in China’s case, to dump on reefs and make islands to consolidate its territorial claims to the South China Sea. See ‘The Hidden Environmental Toll of Mining the World’s Sand’.

Does this cause much damage to the ocean floor? According to a United Nations Environment Program report: ‘Dredging and extraction… from the benthic (sea bottom) zone destroys organisms, habitats and ecosystems and deeply affects the composition of biodiversity, usually leading to a net decline in faunal biomass and abundance’. See ‘Sand, rarer than one thinks’.

14. The oceans are being damaged by port and harbour dredging.

There is growing economic and social demand for the development of coastal regions all over the world. Virtually all of these activities, such as coastal construction, land reclamation, beach reclamation and port construction/maintenance, involve dredging: the ‘excavation, transportation and disposal of soft-bottom material’ such as sand and debris from the bottom of ports, harbors, and marinas usually so that facilities are kept deep enough for ships to use. Dredging is also carried out where a river or ocean currents drop lots of sediment onto the seabed, to improve water drainage from a river so that flood risk is reduced and to remove sediments on the seabed if they are contaminated with environmental pollutants.

But, of course, all of this comes at a cost to the local ecology. Notably, in many cases, dredging has contributed to the loss of coral reef habitats. This can occur directly, due to the removal or burial of reefs, or indirectly, as a consequence of stress to corals caused by elevated turbidity and sedimentation. Dredging can also affect surrounding areas in a number of ways including turbid plumes, sedimentation and the release of contaminants. See ‘Environmental impacts of dredging and other sediment disturbances on corals: A review’.

Dredging does not only adversely impact coral reefs, however. Dredging also kicks up a lot of debris into the water disturbing the resident plants and animals. And when the collected sediment is dumped at sea, it again disturbs the resident organisms.

15. The oceans are being damaged by the increasing spread of invasive species.

Invasive species are those animals or plants from another region of the world that arrive in a new environment where they do not belong. They can be introduced to an area by ship ballast water, accidental release, ocean temperature rises allowing them to migrate, attachment to ship hulls or floating plastic, and most often, by people. Invasive species usually do not have natural predators in their new environment which means their populations can increase rapidly. They often compete with indigenous species for local resources, can permanently alter habitats, destroy biodiversity and lead to the extinction of plants and animals. See ‘What is an invasive species?’

The lionfish is an excellent example. A carnivorous fish native to the Indo-Pacific, it is now an invasive species in the Atlantic, notably the U.S. southeast and Caribbean coastal waters. Because the lionfish is a top predator, it has the capacity to harm reef ecosystems by competing for food and space with overfished native stocks such as snapper and grouper. Scientists fear that lionfish will also kill off species, such as algae-eating parrotfish, that will allow seaweed to overtake the reefs. The lionfish population is continuing to grow – a mature female releases roughly two million eggs a year – and to expand its range. With no known predators, this invasive species is causing enormous damage in its new home. See ‘What is a lionfish?’

You can read more examples of invasive species in the article ‘5 Invasive Species You Should Know’.

16. The oceans are being damaged by the live trade in fish and coral for the aquarium industry.

Because it is difficult to breed marine fish in aquariums, they must be captured from the wild. The tropical seas around Indonesia, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, the Maldives, and the central Pacific Islands including Hawaii are particularly popular as sources for these fish but there are other sources too. Because ornamental fish are in high demand and can have a very high market value, they are being caught in ever larger numbers threatening the sustainability of the fishery and the habitat in which they are caught. For example, the Yellow Tang, which cannot be bred in captivity, is one of Hawaii’s most targeted fish with fishers taking somewhere between 2 and 10 million Yellow Tangs every year. As a result, its population has plunged in recent years. See ‘The state of our oceans – The damaging effects of ocean pollution’ and ‘The Hawaii Legislature wants to stop the aquarium fish trade. The governor has other ideas’.

Not content with reef fish alone, however, since 1990 the aquarium trade has seen a shift in consumer preference from fish-only aquariums to miniature reef ecosystems. As a result, the most recent estimates suggest that the trade targets over 150 species of stony corals, hundreds of species of non-coral invertebrates, and at least 1,472 reef fish species from 50 families.

Hence, with about 1,800 species of fish traded internationally for some 2,000,000 (private and public) aquariums worldwide – see ‘Revealing the Appetite of the Marine Aquarium Fish Trade: The Volume and Biodiversity of Fish Imported into the United States’ – and the industry worth about $5billion annually – see ‘The Hawaii Legislature wants to stop the aquarium fish trade. The governor has other ideas’ – the trade in fish and coral is now a major global enterprise.

Little, if any of it, however, is sustainable. Even worse, virtually all of the saltwater fish that are captured for aquariums are caught illegally using cyanide. This also kills non-targeted fish and coral (at the rate of one square meter per fish captured) as collateral damage. As the coral on the reef is progressively killed, reef fish, crustaceans, plants, and other animals no longer have food, shelter, and breeding grounds and these impacts ripple up the food chain affecting thousands of species. Given that reef habitats provide food for tens of millions of people and contribute to the livelihoods, through commercial fishing and tourism, of many more, capturing fish using cyanide is utterly destructive. See ‘The Horrific Way Fish Are Caught for Your Aquarium – With Cyanide’.

17. The oceans are being damaged by the increasing level of noise pollution.

Several studies have revealed the nature and extent of the damage caused to ocean life by human activities that generate noise in the oceans. And there have been calls by scientists to protect marine life from such noise. See, for example, ‘Marine Life Needs Protection from Noise Pollution’.

The main noises are generated by nuclear explosions, ship-shock trials (explosions used by the Navy to test the structural integrity of their ships), seismic airgun arrays, military sonars, supertankers, warships, merchant vessels (of which there are now more than 53,000 in the world: see ‘Number of ships in the world merchant fleet’), fishing vessels and pleasure craft (such as speed boats and jet skis). For example, seismic airgun surveys to discover oil and gas deposits are loud enough ‘to penetrate hundreds of kilometers into the ocean floor, even after going through thousands of meters of ocean’. See ‘A Review of the Impacts of Seismic Airgun Surveys on Marine Life’.

The damage these noises cause to marine mammals include disruption of feeding and breeding habitats – see ‘Fin whale (Balaenoptera physalus) population identity in the western Mediterranean Sea’ – hearing loss – see ‘Marine seismic surveys and ocean noise: time for coordinated and prudent planning’– physiological changes such as stress responses to trauma and a weakened immune system; behavioral alterations such as avoidance responses; a change in vocalizations or through masking (obliterating sounds of interest); interference with communications, particularly among species, such as humpback and fin whales, that communicate over distances of at least tens of kilometers; and through impacts on prey. Seismic airguns are a probable cause of whale strandings (‘beachings’) and deaths as well. See ‘A Review of the Impacts of Seismic Airgun Surveys on Marine Life’.

But studies of fish, turtles and invertebrates such as squid also reveal a range of adverse impacts to anthropogenic noise including seismic air guns. Fish have exhibited damaged ears, decreased egg viability, increased embryonic mortality and damage to brain cells. Turtles have exhibited behavioural change and hearing loss with squid suffering internal injuries with organs and ears badly damaged. See ‘A Review of the Impacts of Seismic Airgun Surveys on Marine Life’.

18. The oceans are being damaged by wildfires.

Just because the oceans cannot burn, it does not mean that they are not adversely impacted by wildfires. Apart from the people and wildlife they kill, wildfires leave vast amounts of charred plants and ash behind which subsequent rains wash into creeks and rivers where it flows into coastal lakes, estuaries, and seagrass and seaweed beds with a range of adverse impacts on the ocean and life that occupies these areas. For a fuller explanation in one recent context, see ‘Australia’s Marine Animals Are the Fires’ Unseen Victims’.

Summary

As can be seen from the evidence presented above, the oceans are under siege on a vast range of fronts. They are being stripped of everything of value to humans (ranging from its many creatures, such as fish and whales, to products such as sand, oil and minerals) while having a monumental range and quantity of garbage and pollutants (ranging from household to radioactive waste) dumped into them.

Is anything being done? Not really. There are some tokenistic efforts to tackle the plastics problem by cleaning the occasional beach and ongoing calls to limit certain forms of resource exploitation or waste dumping but all international laws in relation to this are largely ignored with impunity. Other efforts have less than marginal impact. Of course, there is also plenty of talk, including that which will take place at the forthcoming UN Ocean Conference in June 2020 when powerful corporate interests will again ensure that nothing profound happens.

So while there is considerable but still utterly inadequate attention given to the climate catastrophe and some activists draw attention to other threats to human survival (such as the nuclear threat, the biodiversity crisis, the dangers of electromagnetic radiation and especially 5G, geoengineering, and destruction of the rainforests), the ongoing threat to the biosphere as a whole, including the oceans, attract only marginal attention and, sometimes, tokenistic responses.

And because human beings are so psychologically dysfunctional and, so far at least, incapable of responding strategically to our multifaceted crisis, the urge to consume and accumulate will continue to overwhelm serious efforts to avert our own extinction.

Saving the Earth’s Oceans

If you wish to fight powerfully to save Earth’s biosphere, including the oceans, consider joining those participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which outlines a simple program to systematically reduce your consumption and increase your self-reliance over a period of years.

Given the fear-driven violence in our world which also generates the addiction of most people in industrialized countries to the over-consumption that is destroying Earth’s biosphere – see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ – consider addressing this directly starting with yourself – see ‘Putting Feelings First’ – and by reviewing your relationship with children. See ‘My Promise to Children’ and ‘Nisteling: The Art of Deep Listening’. For fuller explanations, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

If you wish to campaign strategically to defend the oceans then consider joining those working to halt the climate catastrophe, end military activities of all kinds including war, and halt all forms of resource extraction from the oceans as well. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy which already includes a comprehensive list of the strategic goals necessary to achieve two of these outcomes in ‘Strategic Aims’.

In those cases where corrupt or even electorally unresponsive governments are leading the destruction of the oceans – by supporting, sponsoring and/or engaging in environmentally destructive practices – it might be necessary to remove these governments as part of the effort. See Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

You might also consider joining the global network of people resisting violence in all contexts, including against the biosphere, by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Or, if none of the above options appeal or they seem too complicated, consider committing to:

The Earth Pledge

Out of love for the Earth and all of its creatures, and my respect for their needs, from this day onwards I pledge that:

  1. I will listen deeply to children (see explanation above)
  2. I will not travel by plane
  3. I will not travel by car
  4. I will not eat meat and fish
  5. I will only eat organically/biodynamically grown food
  6. I will minimize the amount of fresh water I use, including by minimizing my ownership and use of electronic devices
  7. I will not buy rainforest timber
  8. I will not buy or use single-use plastic, such as bags, bottles, containers, cups and straws
  9. I will not use banks, superannuation (pension) funds or insurance companies that provide any service to corporations involved in fossil fuels, nuclear power and/or weapons
  10. I will not accept employment from, or invest in, any organization that supports or participates in the exploitation of fellow human beings or profits from killing and/or destruction of the biosphere
  11. I will not get news from the corporate media (mainstream newspapers, television, radio, Google, Facebook, Twitter…)
  12. I will make the effort to learn a skill, such as food gardening or sewing, that makes me more self-reliant
  13. I will gently encourage my family and friends to consider signing this pledge.

Do all these options sound unpalatable? Prefer something requiring less commitment? You can, if you like, do as most sources suggest: nothing (or its many tokenistic equivalents). I admit that the options I offer are for those powerful enough to comprehend and act on the truth. Why? Because there is so little time left and I have no interest in deceiving people or treating them as unintelligent and powerless. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

Conclusion

Every person on Earth depends directly on the ocean. It covers 71% of the Earth’s surface and contains about 97% of the Earth’s water. It generates 50 percent of the oxygen we need and is home to up to 80 percent of all life.

Yet human activity is destroying it. You can make choices that make a difference. Or leave it to others.

*

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

Robert J. Burrowes has a lifetime commitment to understanding and ending human violence. He has done extensive research since 1966 in an effort to understand why human beings are violent and has been a nonviolent activist since 1981. He is the author of ‘Why Violence?’ His email address is [email protected] and his website is here. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

COVID-19: Panic Will End but Tyranny Will Not

March 16th, 2020 by Gary D. Barnett

“Our contemporaries are constantly excited by two conflicting passions; they want to be led, and they wish to remain free: as they cannot destroy either one or the other of these contrary propensities, they strive to satisfy them both at once. They devise a sole, tutelary, and all-powerful form of government, but elected by the people. They combine the principle of centralization and that of popular sovereignty; this gives them a respite: they console themselves for being in tutelage by the reflection that they have chosen their own guardians. Every man allows himself to be put in leading-strings, because he sees that it is not a person or a class of persons, but the people at large that holds the end of his chain.

By this system the people shake off their state of dependence just long enough to select their master, and then relapse into it again. A great many persons at the present day are quite contented with this sort of compromise between administrative despotism and the sovereignty of the people; and they think they have done enough for the protection of individual freedom when they have surrendered it to the power of the nation at large. This does not satisfy me: the nature of him I am to obey signifies less to me than the fact of extorted obedience.”  ~ Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America

***

Any real state of fear will bring panic, and once panic is the prevailing attitude of society at large, the herd seeks safety at all cost. Seeking safety under these circumstances allows for tyranny by the ruling class, and when the restrictive consequences of that tyranny are in place, escape from mass servitude is almost impossible to achieve. It must be understood that decisions made under stress due to fear end with a loss of freedom, and when freedom is compromised, what is left is slavery.

We have been told that a pandemic is upon us, and that we must sacrifice for the good of all, and for the sake of the nation. If the people at large accept this premise, individual sovereignty is not only compromised, but also permanently damaged. When the masses as a group seek shelter from harm, and agree to temporarily relinquish some or all of their freedoms, oppression is the result. That is why panic is so perilous, and why hasty decisions should never be made during a real or supposed crisis.

As I write this, it is obvious that none of these suggestions have been followed, and the herd has acquiesced to most all commands from on high in order to gain what will most likely turn out to be false hope at the expense of accepted domination. At this point, it is not too late to reverse part of the damage, but any continuation of mass subservience will only end in oppressive misery.

There is no certainty that this new coronavirus called COVID-19 is any more dangerous than any other virus in the past, but the ruling class and their minions in the mainstream media and beyond, are screaming at the top of their lungs that this is the scourge of mankind, and that tens of millions of Americans will become infected, and that millions might die.

This is being promulgated by government at every level, by so-called national and world health organizations, and by a complicit media that seemingly does as it is told by those holding political power. This is being done regardless of the fact that no one knows much about this so-called virus, knows little or nothing about its true origin, and knows little about its mutations. Also, politicians, claimed authorities, and alleged experts are in the dark as to how particular cultures have been more susceptible than others, and are unwilling to discuss that the probable cause of this is due to a man-made strain created in a bio-weapons lab, even though a preponderance of evidence points in that direction. All possibilities should be discussed.

*

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.

Selected Articles: The Release of Chelsea Manning

March 16th, 2020 by Global Research News

Online independent analysis of US-led wars, rampant corruption, corporate greed, civil rights and fraudulent monetary transactions is invariably relegated to the bottom rung of search engine results.

As a result we presently do not cover our monthly running costs which could eventually jeopardize our activities.

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis provided by Global Research on a daily basis?

Click to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

*     *     *

Court Finally Releases Chelsea Manning After Suicide Attempt

By Jonathan Turley, March 16, 2020

In a 2019 letter to the judge, Manning objected to the grand jury probe as “an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a public good.” Given her long prior sentence and the presidential commutation, Manning refused to testify under a guarantee to immunity because she viewed the effort as an attack on press freedom.

COVID-19: Is the United States Committing Economic Suicide?

By Michael Zitterman, March 16, 2020

Houston, we have a problem.  That problem is Covid-19 (named for Coronavirus disease 2019), first identified in Wuhan City, China.

Our government is taking actions which appear to be excessive and misguided, based on the concept of “cost versus benefits”.

These actions, at the minimum, are shutting down portions of our economy.  The ambiguities of the unintended consequences are extremely problematic in that the costs of these actions are massive and may become severe enough to cause a recession or even a depression.

Dependency, Distress and No Durable Agronomic Benefits: The Story of Bt Cotton in India

By Colin Todhunter, March 16, 2020

Supporters of Bt cotton have wasted little time in claiming that GM technology has increased cotton yields, reduced pesticide use and has been of enormous benefit to farmers due to increased crop profitability. If we consider Prof Glenn Stone’s 2012 paper ‘Constructing Facts: Bt Cotton Narratives in India’, however, it becomes clear that such claims are too often weaved from flawed data and studies and merely serve to bolster vested interests.

The Release of Chelsea Manning

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 16, 2020

Chelsea Manning’s release last Thursday by order of Virginia District Court judge Anthony Trenga had an air of oddness to it.  “The court finds Ms. Manning’s appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose.”

Her detention had never served any coercive purpose as such – she remained unwilling to testify before an institution she questions as dangerous, secretive and oppressive.  She steadfastly refused to answer any questions relating to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  What her detention has done is disturb her health and constitute an act of State harassment that ranks high in the annals of abuses of power.

China Sends Medical Experts to Support Italy and Spain’s Fight Against Coronavirus

By Steve Sweeney, March 16, 2020

China has sent a team of medical experts and aid to support Italy and Spain in their fight against coronavirus after Rome blasted the European Union for ignoring its pleas for help.

A charter flight with a nine-member Chinese medical-aid team and tons of supplies arrived in Rome last night.

The Battle of Idlib Is Far From Over

By Elijah J. Magnier, March 16, 2020

The opening of the Saraqeb-Latakia road, known as the M4, is scheduled for this Sunday the 15th of March as established during the memorandum protocol signed in Moscow between the two presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan following the battle of Saraqeb.

The Turkish-Russian patrols are supposed to secure the M4  following a three-day meeting in Ankara between Russian and Turkish military to coordinate the joint patrols and to prevent any attacks from Jihadists. Many jihadists groups reject the Russian-Turkish deal and will likely shell the road or try to kidnap drivers. Everything depends on how decisive the Turkish army and its allies in the Idlib area will be in adhering to the ceasefire, and how convincing Russia’s response will be if the ceasefire is violated.

Big Pharma’s Role: Destruction of Basic Health Care Worldwide, U.S. Sanctions Lead to Global Rise in Coronavirus

By Sara Flounders, March 16, 2020

The responsibility of U.S. corporate power, especially the medical-industrial complex, in the calculated destruction of basic health care capacity in the U.S. and worldwide must be challenged. On a global scale, the connection of the largest U.S. pharmaceutical corporations to U.S. sanctions policies — whether signed by executive order, voted for in the U.S. Congress or pushed by U.S. ambassadors through the United Nations Security Council —  demands careful scrutiny by investigative journalists, human rights organizations and working-class organizations.

*

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: The Release of Chelsea Manning

There’s much more to fear about crashing markets on 401(k) retirement plans, protracted economic recession, perhaps a looming depression, than a global COVID-19 pandemic that doesn’t exist.

Public health reality distorted by fear-mongering is radically changing how most people are going about their daily lives.

In the US, there are only around 3,700 confirmed COVID-19 cases, around 65 deaths in 12 US states.[March 15 data]

These are far short of numbers warranting panic at a time when calm, good personal hygiene practices (important always for good health), and governance serving everyone equitably is needed.

The latter is sorely lacking, just cause for public angst, anger, and motivation for positive change, not panic.

Ahead of its scheduled March 17 meeting, the Fed cut interest rates by 1% to near-zero at a time when large-scale fiscal, not monetary, policy is needed.

In a weekend update, Shadowstats economist John Williams noted Fed panic at a time when “market, economic, social, and political turmoil are just beginning” because of years of unprecedented excess.

COVID-19 is the pin that popped grossly inflated markets from over a decade of overly accommodative Fed policy for investors and profit-making at the expense sound economic policy.

Williams noted that Fed “loss of systemic control (was) brought to a head by the coronavirus crisis, exacerbated by collapsing oil prices.”

The latest data from China’s bellwether economy are a shot across the bow for what’s likely coming ahead globally.

Its year-to-date retail sales crashed an unprecedented 20.5% in modern times, far exceeding a projected 4% drop.

Industrial production collapsed 13.5%, its first ever reported decline.

Fixed asset investment plunged nearly 25%, another first ever drop. Property investment is down over 16% year-to-date, unemployment at a reported 6.2%, a record high in modern-day China.

Much more pain is likely ahead before recovery and a return to growth occurs — what’s happening in China already spreading worldwide.

Commenting on the latest data, the South China Morning Post (SCMP) said the nation’s economy “suffer(ed) (a) dramatic collapse in January (and) February, (a) warning to (the) rest of the world” about economic hard times ahead.

Williams believes the US already is in recession that’s “deepening.” He expects downside revisions to earlier economic data, including GDP, retail sales, and other major indexes.

February producer prices “plunged at its steepest monthly pace in five years.”

Unemployment will likely rise significantly as companies begin laying off workers in light of growing economic weakness.

Real unemployment currently is 21.1% — based on how it was calculated pre-1990, including millions of discouraged workers considered nonpersons in the US today and not counted.

Williams: It’s “increasingly obvious that the Federal Reserve has lost control of the US banking and financial system.”

“A great financial crisis and recession are unfolding.”

COVID-19 “exacerbated an already deepening recession, based on significant anecdotal evidence.”

It’ll show up to some extent in Q I data, much more dramatically in Q II and beyond most likely.

Despite US equities sharply off their February highs, they remain greatly overvalued and vulnerable to further valuation declines, monetary policy unable to reverse what’s going on when substantial fiscal stimulus is needed.

Williams and other economists believe economic and financial disruptions are in their early stages, much more to come.

The message of the markets is that the chickens are coming home to roost after over a decade of monetary excess. It was just a matter of time.

At the same time, fiscal stimulus putting money in people’s pockets for spending to create economic growth has been and continues to be lacking — because of bipartisan indifference to public health and welfare.

Focus in Washington is on markets, investors, corporate profits, and transferring wealth from ordinary people to business and high-net worth individuals while protracted main street depression conditions go unaddressed.

Since the neoliberal 90s, poverty, unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, food insecurity, hunger, overall deprivation, and human suffering have been growth industries.

Countless trillions of dollars are spent on militarism, endless imperial wars, the Pentagon’s global empire of bases, and corporate handouts to Wall Street and other business favorites.

At the same time, popular needs increasingly go begging, social justice on the chopping block for elimination.

The world’s richest country USA was thirdworldized to benefit privileged interests exclusively at the expense of beneficial social change — control maintained by police state harshness.

Monetary policy by Wall Street’s owned and controlled Fed produced earlier systemic crises, perhaps economic collapse ahead after decades of unprecedented mismanagement and excess.

The late Bob Chapman, founder and editor of the International Forecaster, predicted an eventual economic train wreck, only its timing, depth and duration unknown, saying:

“Untenable political and financial decisions put US and European economies on a collision course with disaster.”

“Bailouts and market manipulation delay(ed) the inevitable.” A tipping point approaches. Unprecedented debt accumulated is “unrepayable.”

“How can anyone have confidence in a broken system? Unsustainable is the operative word.”

Republicans and undemocratic Dems serve monied interests exclusively at the expense of world peace, equity, justice, and times like now when vital federal aid to public health and welfare are needed.

In December 1963, weeks after JFK’s state-sponsored assassination, Malcolm X delivered what’s called his chickens coming home address, saying:

Chattel and now wage “enslavement of millions of Black people in…White America” brings the nation closer to its “hour of judgment, (its) downfall as a respected nation,” adding:

“(E)ven those Americans who are blinded by childlike patriotism can see that it is only a matter of time before White America too will be utterly destroyed by her own sins, and all traces of her former glory will be removed from this planet forever (because it) refuses to study, reflect…learn from history” and change its destructive policies.

Malcolm warned that sooner or later chickens would come home to roost.

While only hindsight will explain what’s unknown at the present time, excesses can’t go on forever and won’t.

*

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 Just a Virus

March 16th, 2020 by Renee Parsons

If we have learned anything since 1963, it is to question everything that Big Government, Big Media and Big Money tell us as there is always more than the ‘official’ story. With too many unknowns still to be answered, there is no doubt that a bio-critter of uncertain nefarious origins, perhaps electro magnetic 5G oriented, is loose within Earth’s atmosphere.  

As we are all collectively, as One Universe, experiencing the potential of a coronavirus infection, we have been assured that the outbreak originated in a fish market in Wuhan, China’s eighth largest city with a population of 11 million.  That is the largely unchallenged conclusion since China is well known for its extensive network of high tech labs and since the SARS virus began in China last year.

At first glance, it seems a passing curiosity that the next two most extensively affected countries with corona infections, each disparate from China and each other, have extensive trade relations with China.  In defiance of science, why would Italy be the most infected country outside of China?

Italy was the only G7 country to sign on to the Belt and Road initiative with Sister-City Agreements throughout Italy.  Some of those sister cities have been the hardest hit by corona.  Iran has also suffered with increased infections as government officials have been especially affected, as if they were specifically targeted.  Iran has had a comprehensive strategic partnership with China since 2016 and in defiance of US sanctions, Iran has continued to import embargoed products from China while selling its oil to China.

The question arises why, out of 175 countries in the world, that those two countries, in particular, have specifically experienced the strongest coronavirus presence than any other. It can be expected that the ‘coincidence’ has not escaped the notice of the Chinese, Iranian or Italian governments.

With the complexity and uncertainty of the coronavirus. it would not be the first crisis where TPTB have misled a trusting public. It would, however, be wise to treat the virus with respect as a potent pathogen of consequence.  In case you had not noticed prior to the corona, there has been a titanic struggle for global dominance underway with the US, Israel, Russia and China as its sovereign representatives.  The most current manifestation of that struggle, through happenstance or not, being the coronavirus outbreak.

While there are references to the virus spreading considerably through increased exposure, getting worse before it gets better, it is another curiosity that there is no optimism as the US flu season  (December – February), peaks and  winds down in March.  So why the panic? If the coronavirus is a ‘normal’ virus, it should already be peaking just as it is in China and South Korea. If it is not a ‘normal’ virus, if it is mutated to reappear in the future or if it is man made or a bio-weapon, then we have a different problem.  All of which begs the question which Federal agency is currently testing the virus to determine its origin, when will we know the results of that test and when will the virus peak?

China’s National Health Commissioner reports that the coronavirus has ‘peaked’ in Wuhan with only single digit new cases and no new cases in the Hubei province.  The World Health Organization (WHO) agrees with that assessment.  While South Korea closed its borders in early February, it also believes that the Covid-19 has peaked.  Russia closed its borders in January and has reported 28 cases with no fatalities.

Big Media is portraying the Covid-19 as if it is  here to stay in perpetuity rather than a flu that will run its natural course.  Before the virus peaks, TPTB must move quickly if it is intent on institutionalizing those initiatives to tighten control and censorship; to destabilize what remains as a ‘normal’ environment withmandatory medical martial law and mandatory vaccinations.  In other words, not unlike 911, any crisis can be used to create a new collectivization of society with a centralized global control as the new reality,

The Governor of California has suggested a  ban on public gatherings of 250 people with the CDC Director suggests a 50 person ban.  The real possibility is that, once adopted, the ban will never be lifted.  The NY Fed Bank moved quickly to approve a $1.5 Trillion in ‘short-term loan’ to the banks for ‘unusual’ disruption of services during the corona virus smells more like a backdoor bailout for Wall Street during the recent downtown

WHO and CDC and Mandatory Vaccines

An out-of-control pandemic encourages the public to rely on the  CDC or  WHO (World Health Organization) as  definitive ‘medical experts’’ on public health concerns. While both are thoroughly unscrupulous in their compromises to Big Pharma’s dominance, the CDC has no reliable test kits for coronavirus and is conducting no tests to determine the source of the virus.  True medical agencies would be encouraging the public to strengthen their immune system and natural antibodies with doses of Vitamin C to ward off a head cold or respiratory infection.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in a recent video revealed massive corruption at the CDC and WHO with both in the vaccine business rather than as regulatory agencies conducting oversight on Big Pharma and protecting the public health.  Kennedy reported that with an $11 billion annual budget and a revolving door with industry, the CDC owns its own vaccine patents and collects millions in profits each year.  Identifying the WHO  as a ‘sock puppet’ for Big Pharma and Big Money, Kennedy said the WHO  is controlled top to bottom by the pharmaceutical industry which provides half of the WHO’s budget.

Dr. Judy Mikovits, PhD, molecular biologist and former researcher with the National Cancer Institute, blew the whistle on contaminated virus being used in human vaccines.  When she refused to renounce her study, she was fired and arrested  in 2011.  Here are her comments on the efficacy of the coronavirus as “part of the plague of corruption.

Regarded as the UN’s public health leader, the WHO director general Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said, “We have made the assessment that #COVID19 can be characterized as a pandemic” without providing convincing infection or death rate statistics,  More recently, Ghebreyesus  refused to consider when  the virus might peak with “this outbreak could still go in any direction” – whatever that means.

Man Made or Mother Natural

While the origin of coronavirus is yet to be definitively nailed down, whether it might be a military bio-weapon, whether the virus leaked out of a lab through human error or whether, it was deliberately released into the public realm.  Two experienced scientists (including a former NSA counterterror analyst) are suggesting that the Covid-19 appears to be man made while their research paper, which has been withdrawn from internet circulation, concluded that

In summary, somebody was entangled with the evolution of 2019-nCoV coronavirus. In addition to origins of natural recombination and intermediate host, the killer coronavirus probably originated from a laboratory in Wuhan.”

in addition, the Biondt.org published a paper with the findings that the coronavirus was engineered with ‘key structural proteins” identifying “four inserts of amino acid sequences homologous to amino acid sequences in HIV 1.” This paper was also withdrawn with the publisher warning that its conclusions should not be regarded as ‘conclusive.’

The Gates Foundation, the WHO and the European Commission are benefactors of the Pirbright Institute which owns the  bio-safety lab-level 4 lab (BSL-4) in China which owns the coronavirus patent. The US patent application was filed in 2015 and granted in 2018. It is worth noting that the Fort Detrick bio weapons lab in Maryland with a history of violations, was shut down in August, 2019 due to ‘safety concerns related to a ”loss of pathogens.”

The BSL Lab standard is of the highest bio-hazard level and is qualified to handle theworld’s most dangerous pathogens.   It is the first of its kind in China and is located twenty miles from where the coronavirus is said to have originated. However, it has also been determined that the US is the only country known to have all five strains of coronavirus from which all others are descended thereby suggesting more of a US role in the pandemic.  

Infection Death Rate Numbers

The numbers have yet to reach a pandemic level with a 3% death rate. The CDC says that there were 34,000 flu/influenza related deaths during the 2018-2019 flu season and yet there was no pandemic declared.  Currently, the CDC estimates that 14,000 Americans deaths from the current flu/influenza season with no certainty how many of those were misdiagnosed before the existence of the coronavirus became known.

With an estimated 250,000 Americans hospitalized with the flu/influenza since December,  how many of those were misdiagnosed?   How many sick people believe they have the coronavirus when they are only diagnosed with the flu?  With no testing in the US, how accurate are any of the statistics, globally or domestically, confirming the number of infections or deaths attributed to corona or the flu/influenza? 

Event 201

In what might be considered another coincidence, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation partnered with the John Hopkins Center for Health Security and the World Economic Forum to conduct a five-hour simulated exercise specific to a coronavirus pandemic. The simulation was held in NYC on October 18thand was referred to as Event 201.   The event, which included American business, public health, government leaders and military officials, occurred  six weeks before the outbreak occurred in Wuhan although there are now unconfirmed reports of earlier exposures elsewhere. 

In another coincidence, the 2019 Military World Games began in Wuhan on October 19th with 300 American military athletes in attendance.  It has been reported that five unnamed athletes were hospitalized during the game with an unidentified infection.

As if on a dry run, Event 201 addressed how the world should respond to an coronavirus outbreak – with a special focus on how to control ‘conspiracy’ news with  a Pandemic Emergency Board formed to manage the pandemic. The Chinese government was not invited to participate in the simulation.

Possible Covid-19 – 5G Connection

Dr. Dietrich Klinghardt, MD and Ph D, founder of Sophia Health Institute has specialized in auto immune disorders and the sequence of toxicity especially as it relates to electromagnetic fields. He recently described how the mortality rate for SARS was 10% and that the current coronavirus death rate was .5 – 2%; with the highest mortality rate in the country located at EvergreenHealth in Kirkland, Washington.

Klinghardt explained that ten patients were diagnosed with the virus with six dying for a mortality rate of 60%, speculating about a possible 5G interaction activating the electromagnetic field. Kirkland is one of five cities in the country “firmly wired” for 5G as EvergreenHealth is the only hospital in country wired and broadcasting for 5G.

*

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 also a student of the Quantum Field. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Julian in the Dock. “A Secret Trial”

March 16th, 2020 by Israel Shamir

Julian Assange’s extradition hearing has had very little media coverage. Even The Guardian and The New York Times barely mentioned it, though these newspapers made a fortune publishing Assange-provided cables. Unless you had been looking for it, you wouldn’t even know that on February 24 to 27, the first stage of Assange’s extradition hearing was being adjudicated in the secretive Woolwich Crown Court embedded within the huge Belmarsh Prison nicknamed “British Gitmo”.

Luckily for us, Ambassador Craig Murray, the indomitable truth fighter, went there, waited in line for hours in the rain, underwent searches and discomfort, and wrote an extensive report (12,000 words) on this travesty of justice that went under the name of a ‘trial’. His reports leave nothing out, from the threatening atmosphere to the sinister legal arguments. He captured the menace and the abuse bordering with public torture, and delivered it to the world, something that none of the journalists on the payroll of the mass media had been allowed to do. Here are some insights from his report in my free rendering augmented with other sources.

The Court is designed with no other purpose than to exclude the public, on an island accessible only through navigating a maze of dual carriageways, the entire location and architecture of the building is predicated on preventing public access. It is in truth just the sentencing wing of Belmarsh prison.

The judge, the Magistrate (or District Judge) Vanessa Baraitser is a modern version of the Hanging Judge George Jeffreys, a female Judge Dredd. She is the chief villain by all descriptions of the trial, not just tolerating but exceeding the demands of the prosecution. The lawyers acting for the prosecution did request some niceties if only for the trial to appear fair. Baraitser had no such pretensions. She went straight for the jugular. If she could, she would hang Assange right away.

Judge Dredd is surrounded by mystery: she has left no trace upon the Internet. A newly born child has more Internet presence than this middle-aged woman. I doubt such a blank slate could be achieved nowadays without the active assistance of the Secret Services.

Ambassador Murray writes:

“Ms Baraitser is not fond of photography – she appears to be the only public figure in Western Europe with no photo on the internet. Indeed the average proprietor of a rural car wash has left more evidence of their existence and life history on the Internet than Vanessa Baraitser. Which is no crime on her part, but I suspect the expunging is not achieved without considerable effort. Somebody suggested to me she might be a hologram, but I think not. Holograms have more empathy.”

John Pilger saw Baraitser in action during the previous round of Assange hearings in October 2019. He wrote: “I have sat in many courtrooms and seen judges abuse their positions. This judge, Vanessa Baraitser shocked all of us who were there. Her face was a progression of sneers and imperious indifference; she addressed Julian with cruel arrogance. When Assange spoke, Baraitser contrived boredom; when the prosecuting barrister spoke, she was attentive. When Julian’s barrister described the CIA spying on him, she didn’t yawn, but her disinterest was as expressive. Her knee in the groin was to announce that the next court hearing would be at remote Woolwich, which adjoins Belmarsh Prison and has few seats for the public. This will ensure isolation and be as close to a secret trial as it’s possible to get.”

It turned out to be practically a secret trial. There were MSM journalists, but “not a single one of the most important facts and arguments today has been reported anywhere in the mainstream media.”

On the first day, James Lewis QC for the prosecution tried to drive a wedge between Assange and the media. He claimed that in no way are mainstream outlets like The Guardian and The New York Times threatened by this trial, because Assange was not charged with publishing the cables but only with publishing the names of informants, cultivating Manning and assisting him to attempt computer hacking. The mainstream outlets are not guilty of any crimes, having only published sanitised cables.

But Judge Baraitser didn’t accept this vegetarian approach. She thirsted for blood. She referred to the Official Secrets Act 1989, which declares that merely obtaining and publishing any government secret is an offence. Surely, Baraitser suggested, that meant that newspapers publishing the Manning leaks would be guilty of a serious offence?

Lewis agreed with the judge and admitted that indeed, the mainstream journalists also are guilty, fully denying what he said in his opening statement. In the end, none of this role-play mattered since none of the media reported on this exchange, as it wasn’t inserted into the daily press release. The MSM journalists used only these prepared texts, so convenient for copying and pasting into their own reports.

The main argument of the defence was that the motive for the prosecution was entirely political, and that political offences were specifically excluded under the UK/US extradition treaty. For a normal human judge, that would suffice to dismiss the case. But Baraitser had a trick up her sleeve. Although the US/UK Extradition Treaty forbade political extraditions, this was only the Treaty, and this is not an international court, she said. That exemption does not appear in the UK Extradition Act. Therefore political extradition is not illegal in the UK, as the Treaty has no legal force on her Court. With such a judge, who needs the prosecution?

The defence quickly demolished the judge’s devious rationalisations by pointing out that every extradition must satisfy two standards: (1) that of the UK Extradition Act, and (2) the specific Extradition Treaty with the country in question. Both are necessary; no man can be extradited to a specific country without consulting the specific treaty. The UK Extradition Act sets the ground rules. It is the relevant extradition treaty that sets out the conditions by which a prisoner might be extradited to a specific country. The Act allowed for a political extradition, and if the specific extradition treaty allowed it, the prisoner could be extradited. But this specific, namely US/UK extradition treaty does not permit political extraditions. Ergo, Assange could not be extradited by law.

Indeed a sixth-grade student could follow this simple logic. However, the dastardly Ms Baraitser kept repeating her claim that the Act does not forbid political extradition. We do not know what black spots hidden in the murky past of Judge Baraitser required that her history be blotted out by MI5’s dark adepts, but I harbour a suspicion that this Jewish lady has had some field practice in the Jewish state, where judges invariably find the accused goy liable and guilty, and every torture is tolerated or even encouraged.

Her main thrust seemed to be in disheartening Julian Assange to the point of inciting suicide. He certainly seemed to be dispirited. The distinguished psychiatrist Professor Michael Kopelman provided a psychiatric assessment of Assange to the court:

“Mr Assange shows virtually all the risk factors which researchers from Oxford have described in prisoners who either suicide or make lethal attempts. … I am as confident as a psychiatrist can ever be that, if extradition to the United States were to become imminent, Mr Assange would find a way of suiciding.”

These words are especially poignant today, as it was reported that Manning attempted to commit suicide being locked up since last May at a detention centre in Alexandria, Va for steadfast refusal to bring evidence against Assange. The US/UK Deep State is a vengeful vicious beast that wants to punish Assange and Manning for revealing its nasty secrets. It is only the “whistle-blowers” who accused Trump and exonerated the Thief of Ukraine Biden that are protected.

In order to push Assange deeper into black despair, Baraitser enforced the regime of strict isolation on the prisoner. Assange had been kept in a bulletproof glass cage, unable to hear or to exchange notes with his lawyers. “I believe – wrote Craig Murray, – that the Hannibal Lecter style confinement of Assange, this intellectual computer geek, is a deliberate attempt to drive Julian to suicide.”

Julian is cruelly mistreated. When his Spanish lawyer left court to return home, on the way out he naturally stopped to shake hands with his client, proffering his fingers through the narrow slit in the glass cage. Assange half stood to take his lawyer’s hand. The two security guards in the cage with Assange immediately sprang up, putting hands on Julian and forcing him to sit down, preventing the handshake.

On the first day of trial, Julian had twice been stripped naked and searched, eleven times been handcuffed, and five times been locked up in different holding cells. The lawyer for the defence, Fitzgerald, asked the judge to interfere and save Julian from this rough mistreatment.

The Baraitser stared down Fitzgerald and stated, in a voice laced with disdain, that he had raised such matters before and she had always replied that she had no jurisdiction over the prison estate. You might make a recommendation, suggested Fitzgerald, they usually listen to judge’s remarks. Even the prosecution counsel James Lewis stood up to say the prosecution would also like Assange to have a fair hearing, and that he could confirm that what the defence were suggesting was normal practice. But bloodthirsty Baraitser flatly refused.

Edward Fitzgerald made a formal application for Julian to be allowed to sit beside his lawyers in the court. Julian was “a gentle, intellectual man” and not a terrorist. Baraitser replied that releasing Assange from the dock into the body of the court would mean he was released from custody. That is obviously nonsense. Again, the prosecution counsel James Lewis intervened on the side of the defence, for Baraitser’s notion of law would not work anywhere outside Israeli courts in the occupied West Bank. Lewis said that prisoners, even the most dangerous of terrorists, gave evidence from the witness box in the body of the court next to the lawyers and magistrate. In the High Court prisoners frequently sat with their lawyers in extradition hearings, in extreme cases of violent criminals handcuffed to a security officer.

Baraitser replied that Assange might pose a danger to the public. It was a question of health and safety. Health and safety, forsooth! Such cynicism may be unprecedented in British justice, and it should reserve a special place in hell for Ms Baraitser.

Why should she keep Assange in that box, unable to hear proceedings or instruct his lawyers, when even counsel for the US Government does not object to Assange openly sitting in the court? He is brought handcuffed and under heavy escort to and from his solitary cell to the armoured dock via an underground tunnel. In these circumstances, what possible need is there for him to be repeatedly strip- and cavity-searched? Why is he not permitted to shake hands or touch his lawyers through the slit in the armoured glass box?

It is a torture session, not a hearing. And the hearing, or rather the torture will continue in May, – if Julian is still alive.

*

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.

Israel Shamir can be reached at [email protected].

Helms-Burton Law, Internationalization Weapon to Blockade Cuba

March 16th, 2020 by Elizabeth Borrego Rodriguez

The Helms-Burton Act, the main tool for the internationalization of the blockade against Cuba, arrived today 24 years after it was signed by the then President of the United States, William Clinton.

Officially named as the Cuban Freedom and Democratic Solidarity Law, this instrument contemplates the denial of credits and financial aid to countries and organizations that favor or promote cooperation with the island.

Since its entry into force, the Department of State notifies by investor letters to companies investing in the so-called confiscated properties, a result of the recovery of companies and private land to state property after January 1, 1959.

Washington insists on that excuse despite the legality established during the nationalizations in Cuba, confirmed in the compensation agreements then proposed by Havana and denied by the White House.

In contradiction with international law, the law establishes among its articles the deprivation of foreign investment in the largest of the Antilles, while granting authority to owners or relatives of owners of said assets before 1959.

On July 16, 1996, the controversial Title III of the Helms-Burton came into force; however, Clinton himself simultaneously issued an order for temporary suspension for six months of part of the section.

After the succession of presidents who postponed it, Donald Trump opened in 2019 for the first time the possibility of lawsuits in the United States courts against Cuban companies included in a list drawn up by the State Department.

In this way, it established the permission for US nationals to sue Cuban people and companies or third-country companies that ‘traffic in US property’ nationalized on the island.

The activation of Title III was described by the Cuban authorities as’blackmail to the world’, for codifying the economic, financial and commercial blockade against Cuba, now with an international character.

To date, several North American companies have been the target of lawsuits, among which stand out the technological giant Amazon, the North American airline American Airlines and the cruise company Carnival Cruise Lines.

*

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.

Panic is counterproductive, it oftentimes results in short-sighted selfish decisions that could potentially cause harm. Panic causes people to buy and hoard all of the toilet paper, leaving nothing for others. Panic births chaos, chaos creates stress, stress interferes with our body’s defense systems and immunity, therefore panic puts us at a higher risk of becoming susceptible to the very concern we are panicking about.

Leaders have a responsibility to assure the public that they are engaged in decisive measures to fix the problem, merely saying things will be okay is never helpful.

Unsurprisingly, American’s are divided when it comes to their support or lack thereof of the Trump administration’s response to the coronavirus. Some argue that the response is simply too little too late, and if officials didn’t downplay COVID-19 early on and took matters more seriously it wouldn’t have spread to 49 states (allegedly West Virginia doesn’t have any cases).

Some Americans believe that interstate travel needs to be halted immediately and that everyone should be quarantined in their homes.

On the other hand, you have Americans that feel our government and their fellow American’s are over-reacting, this group questions whether there’s actually a pandemic, or could this all be a hoax or maybe a distraction from something bigger, they have many different theories about the origin of coronavirus and its supposed intent. Some leaders think it was crafted by the US, who then unleashed it specifically on China, Iran, and Italy.

Then there are those who don’t care about the what, why, where, and how and just want normalcy to return.

Another group fully (read that as blindly) supports anything President Trump’s administration says and would follow them off a cliff.

On Friday, President Donald Trump declared a National Emergency freeing up 50 billion in federal aid including additional resources and funding for officials on the federal, state, and local levels trying to combat the coronavirus.

Trump also announced a travel ban from Europe, (the coronavirus world epicenter) US citizens could still return but would need to self quarantine for 14 days. The ban has since added on the U.K. and Ireland.

EU officials were not happy with Washington’s unilateral decision and stated that the pandemic is a global concern and should be dealt with as such.

Trump also said he would waive interest on federal student loans “until further notice” and that the Department of Energy would purchase crude oil for storage in U.S. reserves.

Drive-thru coronavirus testing sites were also mentioned as well as a website that will be created by google to screen people that wanted to get tested.

Although this virus has been around for months (possibly longer) we really saw a huge shift in the past week or two, when we went from normal everyday life to a “cancel-everything culture”.

Another new phrase you’ve most likely heard is “social distancing” which is the practice of keeping a distance of six feet between you and another human just in case they might be a carrier of the coronavirus. For more on that you can read the CDC’s “implementation of mitigation strategies for communities with local COVID-19 transmission.”

In additional to banning large assemblies of 250 people or more across the country, many other things and places are in the process of shutting down or have already shut down including, grade schools, universities, libraries, pubs, malls, movie theaters, mass transportation, restaurants, church’s, mosques, synagogues, offices, businesses, sporting events (pretty much the whole sports world is on hold). Planes are being grounded, cruise ships are staying docked, add to that travel bans, curfews, limiting hospital and nursing home visitors, as well as non-emergency operations, let’s not forget weddings, parties, etc.

This is what life during a pandemic looks like in the United States. Many countries around the world have also seen a drastic change in their nation’s normality.

Over a hundred nations are taking drastic measures to slow down COVID-19 transmission within their borders.

In Italy, the whole country is practically shut down. The total number of cases including those that recovered is 27,747, and their death toll is currently at 1,809, after a 25% rise.

Spain reports that their deaths have jumped up to 288 in just a day.

In the United Kingdom, police now have the power to arrest COVID-19 patients that refuse to self-isolate. UK’s death toll is up to 35 now after 14 more people died. The total number of cases is currently 1391. Residents over 70 are being asked to self-isolate for four months. Initially the strategy was to rely on building up herd immunity which shocked immunologists explained is usually brought about by vaccination and not just exposing people to the virus.

Iran’s death toll has risen 113 in a day bringing their total number of cases to 13.938 and deaths to 724. Iran is home to the worst coronavirus outbreak in the Middle East. Not only are they dealing with exponentially more cases than neighboring countries, but crippling severe US sanctions are making it very difficult for them to address the rapid spread of COVID-19.

Quarantines have been used by South Korea, China, Japan, Hong Kong and Taiwan to bring their numbers down. Keep in mind, actual numbers could be exponentially higher given that the vast majority of the 7.7 billion people around the world have not been tested, and others are asymptomatic.

Currently, Washington State is the epicenter of COVID-19 in the United States, with the most cases and deaths, current numbers are 40 deaths and over 642 cases. Washington state officials have warned that it’s only a matter of time before other states get to the stage that they are at now and that they should take immediate action to contain and mitigate the virus as much as possible.

Cases on the East Coast are quickly growing, creating the need for containment zones in NY.

Most people right now are living in a state of uncertainty, all we can do is wait and see how this pandemic plays out.

*

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.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist.

Featured image is from EPA-EFE/SHAWN THEW

Listen to George Kennan and End the War in Afghanistan

March 16th, 2020 by Daniel Larison

Van Jackson comments on the comparisons being made between the wars in Vietnam and Afghanistan, especially in this article by George Herring. Jackson notes that ending U.S. involvement in these unwinnable wars has a long-term benefit (quote starts at around 29:00):

Most allies were glad we got out [of Vietnam]. We cut bait from a strategic loss. So [the allies think] they’re not irrational after all. There’s a huge upside longer term to making consistently strategic moves. Getting out of a losing war is consistently strategic [bold mine-DL]. There are people on Twitter and neocons who say, literally, when this Foreign Affairs article came out, “You know if we stayed in Vietnam a little longer, we would have turned the…corner.” Are you out of your cotton-picking mind?…Also, Afghanistan is less important than Washington thinks. Yes, the Taliban was there, is there, and yeah it was a base for Al Qaeda, but everywhere can be a base for Al Qaeda. It doesn’t mean you put troops there.

The comparison with Vietnam is instructive in a few ways. First, it was the longest U.S. war prior to the war in Afghanistan, and like the vast majority of the war in Afghanistan it had nothing to do with U.S. security. Both wars were/are unwinnable, because in the end the local forces opposed to the U.S. will always be able to outlast our commitment to propping up a client government. Neither war was worth the cost. In both cases, politicians and policymakers inflated the importance of these conflicts in order to justify prolonged involvement, but when Vietnam ended it became clear very quickly how little the war actually mattered to larger U.S. policy goals. Once our war in Afghanistan is over, we will all soon realize how unnecessary it was to keep fighting there for almost two decades.

Jackson’s comment about the upside that comes from ending a losing war reminded me of the famous quote from George Kennan, who testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee in 1966 to express his opposition to the war in Vietnam and said this:

There is more respect to be won in the opinion of this world by a resolute and courageous liquidation of unsound positions than by the most stubborn pursuit of extravagant or unpromising objectives.

If there is one sentence that U.S. politicians and policymakers should sear into their brains when thinking about U.S. involvement in foreign wars, it is this one. Kennan’s statement was all the more powerful because he had been the intellectual architect of the containment doctrine that the war was supposedly being fought to uphold. Kennan never believed that containment should apply to conflicts like the one in Vietnam, and he recognized it as the folly it was from the start. He was saying this in the earliest years of the war, but unfortunately his recommendation went unheeded until after tens of thousands of Americans and millions of Vietnamese lost their lives. Whenever hawks start screeching about the danger of losing credibility, Kennan’s words serve as an effective rebuke. The U.S. position in Afghanistan is an unsound one, and it has been for a long time. It does no one any favors to keep pretending otherwise, and the U.S. cannot conclude our part in the war there until we recognize this.

Continuing to pursue “extravagant or unpromising objectives” is neither wise nor strong. It is simple pigheadedness that allows the U.S. to waste lives and resources on a futile effort that will eventually be ended on even worse terms than it could be ended now. An essential part of statecraft is having the courage to admit when a policy has failed and to correct course as swiftly as prudence allows, and that also means admitting that we promised results that we were incapable of delivering.

*

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.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

Featured image is from the Library of Congress

The large number of Europeans being diagnosed with coronavirus in Africa has sparked debate and ridicule, with one Senegalese newspaper questioning whether France was out to “coronise” its former colony after two French nationals received a positive diagnosis.

With around 273 cases as of Sunday morning, Africa has been left relatively unscathed by the virus. However, governments there have come under intense pressure to put in place travel bans to stop Europeans bringing it in.

The situation has prompted some to speculate about the seeming reversal of fortunes between the two continents, with one analyst telling Middle East Eye that it was “ironic” that Europeans were attempting to travel to Africa when Africans refugees and migrants are virtually barred entry into Europe.

Some have pointed out also that many Europeans countries imposed restrictive bans during the Ebola crisis, including on African countries that had no cases.

After news broke in Senegal at the start of March that two French nationals had tested positive for the virus, Senegalese papers saw a chance to link the virus to grievances over France’s continued political and economic influence in its former colony.

Senegalese daily L’evidence pondered: “Is France Coronising Senegal?” A subtitle then added: “slave trade, economic colonisation, epidemiological colonisation?”

Rewmi, another Senegalese daily, meanwhile, exclaimed: “Another contaminated Frenchman.”

Le Pays, a daily in Burkina Faso, another former French colony, which reported two cases of Burkinabes returning from Italy this week, wrote:

“If a dozen countries on the black continent have confirmed cases here and there, the fact remains that the cases revealed are, for the most part, those of European travellers travelling to the African continent.”

Rufaro Samanga, a South African commentator at African news platform OkayAfrica, said that while African countries could continue to cope with the virus “so long as we keep the rest of the world out”, economic dependency on the West means African governments were reluctant to put in place travel bans.

“African countries are going to have lesser freedom to put in place travel bans compared to western countries because we are so dependent on things like business, investments and particularly tourism,” said Samanga, who is also a Rhodes-Mandela Scholar in Epidemiology.

“Our governments might feel that they need to pander to a lot to the governments of countries where there is a high prevalence of coronavirus just to manage the economic situation.”

She points to South Africa deciding to keep its borders open despite the country having dozens of cases, amid news last week that the economy has tipped into recession, as an example.

“I definitely think that the public health component of it at times will become secondary particularly for African countries,” she said.

“If we don’t nip it in the bud we will start seeing a steady increase in the cases.”

It was “ironic”, Samanga said, that while Africans are unable to find safe haven in the US or Europe, now people in the West are attempting to travel to various African countries.

While European nationals can enter countries like Senegal and South Africa visa-free with little more than a flash of their passports at the immigration desk, most other African nationals are required to go through a pricey and opaque visa application process that offers little guarantee of success.

Last year, a British parliamentary report said that Africans were twice as likely to be rejected for British visas than applicants from other continents, such as the Middle East. There was a “lack of procedural fairness” in the application process, the report said.

But some, like nationals of Senegal and South Africa, regional diplomatic hubs, have it easier than others. Mauritanians would need to make a 4,000km round trip to Morocco in order to apply for a British visa, and to enter Morocco they would also need a visa.

In any case, the visa option is only open to those able to afford it and who feel they may have a reasonable chance of success. Instead, many young Africans risk their lives traversing the “backway” – the treacherous routes by sea via the Atlantic or across the Sahara desert  – in the hopes of reaching Europe’s shores.

An estimated 20,000 migrants and refugees have died attempting to cross the Mediterranean since 2014, and the UN has said that the African land journey to the Mediterranean coast is twice as deadly.

On 3 March, Senegal reported its third case of coronavirus, a 33-year-old British woman and member of staff at the regional office for West Africa and Central Africa at the International Organisation of Migration (IOM).

The office, which oversees a supposedly voluntary repatriation programme for African migrants who reach Europe, or who are detained in Libya, has since taken precautionary measures.

IOM’s regional Assisted Voluntary Return programme has been heavily criticised by rights groups on the grounds that it is in fact not voluntary, because the conditions migrants face are so bad that they are left with little choice but to leave.

Visiting detention camps for mainly African migrants held in Libya in July, Vincent Cochetel, the UN’s special envoy on migration in the Mediterranean, said he saw people reduced to “skin and bone”.

Conditions, he said, were comparable to concentration camps in Bosnia in the 1990s and those in Cambodia in the 1970s under the Khmer Rouge, which was responsible for the deaths of over one million people.

A number of reasons have been offered for why the disease has not penetrated Africa. Hot weather and the continent’s relatively young population have been put forward, while some have questioned whether low detection rates are a factor.

If a string of online publications are to be believed, however, it is because black people are somehow more resistant to the virus than white people.

One message circulating in French-speaking African countries about the recovery of a Cameroonian man who took sick in China, claimed that the Chinese doctors confirmed the man survived because the “antibodies of a black person are three times stronger, powerful and resistant than that of a white”.

The claim has been strongly refuted. The World Health Organisation has warned against an “infodemic” of fake news about the virus spreading across social media channels.

Samanga puts the reason down to African countries being able to build on previous experience fighting diseases like Ebola.

Africans have taken the lead with precautionary measures at airports, while a Senegalese innovation lab which made self-diagnosis kits for Ebola is now creating ones for coronavirus, she points out.

“You’re seeing a reversal of role,” she said, speaking to MEE from Johannesburg, South Africa. “You have Africa at the forefront and the West is flailing, unable to self contain the outbreak.”

According to the Washington Post, Senegal is testing and returning results within four hours, compared to about a week in the US.

During the height of the European migrant crisis, ideas likening African and other migrants to carriers of diseases were stoked by the media and politicians. In 2015, British Prime Minister David Cameron was accused of using racist language after referring to the numbers of people seeking refuge in Europe as a “swarm”.

Spanish daily El Pais, has imagined a different world, in which it is Europeans – and not Africans – fleeing to safety across the Mediterranean, only to be barred entry to North Africa because of the coronavirus.

“Imagine that the spread of the coronavirus is uncontrolled in Europe while on the African continent, due to climatic conditions, it has no incidence,” the article entitled “Our Everyday Dystopia”, said.

Travelling on “precarious boats” from across the Straits of Gibraltar, the Greek Islands and Turkish coast, migrants would arrive to African shores to find “the same fences they erected, the same violent controls and the most impregnable borders.”

“The North African forces would shoot at Westerners mercilessly, they would shout at them: go home, leave us alone, we don’t want your illness, your misery,” it says.

It goes on to imagine European migrants falling victim to extortion by a mafia who lock them up in “inhospitable quarantines, where they would be stripped of their belongings, their feelings and their dignity.”

Countries where Europeans have tested positive for the virus include both Nigeria and Cameroon whose first cases were Italian and French nationals respectively.

A Norwegian was among Ghana’s first two cases reported on Friday. Europeans are among the confirmed cases in Algeria, which has the second highest number of confirmed infections after Egypt. In South Africa, the bulk of cases have come from a group returned home after skiing in the Italian Alps.

Mauritania reported a case of an unspecified European being diagnosed with the virus on Saturday. But at the start of the month, a group of Italian tourists attempted to escape confinement but were caught and sent home.

“The 15 were caught 90km from [the capital] Nouakchott and brought back to the airport, from where they were re-routed to their country on Sunday via Morocco,” a health ministry spokesperson said on 5 March.

One of the worst migrant boat tragedies of 2019 took place off Mauritania’s Atlantic coast, when a vessel carrying 62 Gambians capsized in December en-route to the Canary Islands, which are a part of Spain.

Days later another boat carrying nearly 200 people from the tiny West African nation was intercepted by the Mauritanian coastguard.

*

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: A Kenyan health worker prepares for a disinfection operation (Reuters)

1– Investors are cashing in and heading for the exits

According to Bloomberg News: “Investors made their biggest dash for cash in history” in the last week. “They channeled $137 billion into cash-like assets and a record $14 billion into government bonds in the five days through March 11…..(while) money managers are liquidating en masse.” (“Investors Liquidate Everything in Record $137 Billion Cash Haul”, Bloomberg)

Why are investors exiting the market?

Because the psychology that drives business investment (“animal spirits”) has been dramatically impacted by the coronavirus. Expectations for future prosperity have been dampened by the fog of uncertainty. When uncertainty prevails, confidence wanes and investors cash in and get out. Coronavirus is fiendishly designed to push stocks and bonds lower in response to the staggering deluge of bad news.

2–Stocks have been walloped, but consumer confidence is just now starting to drop

According to the University of Michigan, consumer sentiment fell from 101.0 to 95.9 in February. These calculations were made before the “Thursday’s stock-market plunge — the worst since 1987 — and the rapid shutdown of university campuses, public schools, major sports and entertainment venues over the last 24 hours…. the data suggest that additional declines in confidence are still likely to occur as the spread of the virus continues to accelerate.” (Bloomberg)

Stocks will undoubtedly reflect investor pessimism in the months ahead, pushing prices lower while the virus spreads.

3– The Fed’s $1.5 trillion liquidity announcement triggered an impressive 2,000 point rally, but the policy badly misfired

On Thursday, the Fed announced that it would provide more than $1.5 trillion in short-term loans to repo market traders. Fed chairman Powell believed that this would ease tighter lending conditions in a market that is a critical part of the system’s financial plumbing. Surprisingly, the demand for these short-term loans was weak and the Fed only provided a meager $119 billion. In short, the Fed did not accurately identify the source of the problem which obviously lies elsewhere.

In order to conceal its mistake, the Fed launched another round of Quantitative Easing on Friday. According to the Wall Street Journal: “The Fed announced Friday morning that it would purchase later in the day roughly half of some $80 billion in Treasury securities that it had said Thursday would be purchased over the next month.” (Wall Street Journal)

In other words, the Fed fired its $1.5 trillion policy bazooka at the repo market and missed the target entirely. The next day, the Fed resumed its QE money printing operation and investors piled back into stocks. This hit-or-miss approach shows that the Fed does not completely understand the issue it is dealing with.

4–The real economy was weak even before stocks started crashing

This is an excerpt from an article at Marketwatch by economist Stephen Roach: “The problem also lies in weak real economies that are far too close to their stall speed. The International Monetary Fund recently lowered its estimate for world GDP growth in 2019 to 3% —midway between the 40-year trend of 3.5% and the 2.5% threshold commonly associated with global recessions.

As the year comes to a close, real GDP growth in the US is tracking below 2%, and the 2020 growth forecasts for the eurozone and Japan are less than 1%. In other words, the major developed economies are not only flirting with overvalued financial markets DJIA, +9.36% and still relying on a failed monetary-policy strategy, but they are also lacking a growth cushion just when they may need it most. In such a vulnerable world, it would not take much to spark the crisis of 2020.” (Marketwatch)

Since the recession ended in March 2009, the US economy has experienced the weakest recovery in the post-World War II era. Now the American people will be facing an extended period of economic contraction in which deflationary pressures lead to a sharp rise in unemployment, homelessness, and financial insecurity.

5– Gold took a beating in last week’s selloff

Typically, gold is a “flight to safety” asset that does well when markets are crashing, but that rule did not apply last week. According to the Wall Street Journal: “Gold…suffered its worst week since 2011, dropping 9.3% and wiping out all its 2020 gains. Silver, a more volatile precious metal, tumbled 16% and is down 19% for the year.” (WSJ)

At the same time, ultra-safe municipal bonds and risk-free US Treasuries sold off hard. The reason safe haven assets sell during periods of stress is because of margin calls, that is, when a broker demands additional capital from an investor to maintain his current position in the stocks he bought with borrowed money. When stock prices fall sharply, many investors have to sell their good stocks (gold, US Treasuries) to support the bad. That is why gold got hammered last week. It is an sign that many investors are severely over-stretched and nearing the end of their resources. Many high-stakes speculators are now in big trouble.

6—Stock buybacks have plunged

Stock buybacks have been the jet-fuel that has kept the equities markets soaring to record highs before the latest virus-driven downturn. Even before the latest ructions, buybacks had significantly slowed to 2013 levels wracking up just $14 billion in January, a 30% decline from a year before. And while there are no estimations of buyback activity during the last few weeks of March, it is impossible to imagine that cash-strapped CEOs would even dream of pumping more money into shares that are falling faster than anytime since 2008. And while there is a remote possibility that the US economy will avoid recession, there’s only the slimmest chance that revenues, earnings or future expectations will give corporate bosses the wiggle-room they need to repurchase their own shares rather than stockpiling the cash they might need to maintain operations during some very tough times ahead.

Bottom line: It will be very hard for stocks to rebound in an environment in which buybacks have significantly declined or vanished altogether.

7– Stocks have already dropped sharply, but the credit crunch still lies ahead

A credit crunch refers to a decline in lending activity when funding suddenly becomes available. Currently, the markets for corporate debt have frozen due to investor skepticism that these same corporations will be able to repay the nearly $10 trillion of debt they wracked up during the “easy money” days of the last decade. Many of these corporations used the money they got from bond market to enrich themselves through executive compensation and share appreciation. In other words, CEOs sold bonds to credulous investors who thought they were buying the debt of responsible, well-managed companies when, in fact, 30% of corporate debt was deceptively used for buybacks, that is, it was used to line the pockets of executives and shareholders rather than boosting productivity, increasing worker training or R&D, or building new factories and equipment.

Corporations have been engaged in the same illicit scam mortgage lenders were involved in prior to the Crash of ’08, transferring trillions of dollars to wealthy executives via financial products that public really didn’t understand.

Many of these companies are presently unable to get the money they need to stay afloat because the market for corporate debt has shut down. This means, they will not be able to refinance their debts which will force them into bankruptcy triggering a cascade of defaults that will severely hurt their counterparties, their lenders and the broader economy. When credit becomes scarce, the economy contracts.

8– The IMF warned that the Fed’s easy money policies would lead to another crisis

This is an excerpt from Chapter 2 of the IMF’s Global Financial Stability Report: 

Accommodative monetary policy supports the economy in the near term, but easy financial conditions encourage more financial risk-taking and may fuel a further buildup of vulnerabilities in some sectors and countries. …In a material economic slowdown scenario, half as severe as the global financial crisis, corporate debt-at-risk (debt owed by firms that cannot cover their interest expenses with their earnings) could rise to $19 trillion—or nearly 40 percent of total corporate debt in major economies, and above postcrisis levels.”

The Fed’s monetary policies ignited a corporate borrowing binge that has put the country’s financial future at risk. The US is now facing a catastrophe that is entirely attributable to the “emergency rates” and the relentless meddling of the Central Bank.

9– The American people are not ready for another recession

According to Zero Hedge: “Almost 60 percent of Americans have less than $1000 in savings for a rainy day fund or an immediate emergency….”

“Four in ten Americans can’t cover an unexpected $400 expense according to a report from the Federal Reserve Board.” (CNN)

“78% Of Workers Live Paycheck To Paycheck,” says Forbes

“58 percent of Americans had less than $1,000 saved,” says Yahoo Finance

“Only 37% of Americans believe today’s children will grow up to be better off than they were,” says Marketwatch

According to Pew Research, “Majorities predict that the economy will be weaker, health care will be less affordable, the condition of the environment will be worse and older Americans will have a harder time making ends meet in the future than they do now.”

Finally, according to a MassMutual US survey, “54% of respondents think the American Dream (defined as financial security for themselves and their family) is no longer attainable.”

The majority of Americans never reaped the benefits of the economic recovery and they’re certainly not ready for another debilitating slump. As the data show, most people are living on the edge already and barely hanging on by the skin of their teeth. Another downturn will put them into freefall which will dramatically increase homelessness, food insecurity and destitution. The federal government should be looking for ways to soften the blow now instead of waiting for the markets to crash and the economy to shrivel. Forward-thinking leaders should be able to see the handwriting on the wall and realize that we are fast approaching zero hour, a crisis the likes of which we haven’t seen since the 1930s.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on 9 Things You Should Know About the 2020 Stock Market Crash
  • Tags:

Dubious Postponement of Netanyahu’s Trial

March 16th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Hopefully delay isn’t an escape hatch for Netanyahu to avoid long overdue justice.

Notably, charges of bribery, fraud and breach of trust he faces don’t remotely rise to the level of his crimes of war, against humanity, and slow motion genocide committed against the Palestinian people.

These high crimes are what’s most important to hold him accountable for in an international tribunal — followed by conviction on all counts and longterm imprisonment.

On Sunday, his trial scheduled to begin March 17 was postponed until May 24 on the same day his regime’s justice minister Amir Ohana, a Likudnik Netanyahu loyalist, invoked emergency measures to combat COVID-19 — both issues unrelated to each other.

In response, the Jerusalem District Court announced the following:

“In light of developments regarding the spread of the coronavirus, and taking into account the latest guidelines given and the declaration of a state of emergency in the courts, we have decided to cancel the scheduled hearing.”

Ohana declared a “state of emergency (to halt judicial proceedings except for largely undefined urgent ones) as part of the national effort to prevent the spread of the coronavirus.”

Until proceedings were ordered largely halted for public health reasons, this action was only taken before for security reasons. Ohana changed the rules.

Following his announcement, the Movement for Quality of Government in Israel urged AG Mendelblit to stay the ruling, saying:

“This is a temporary minister in a temporary government that has never received the public’s trust.”

Ohana’s ruling came days after the Jerusalem District Court rejected a request by Netanyahu’s defense team to delay his trial for 45 days on dubious grounds of more time needed to receive and review all investigative materials related to the case.

Ohana’s declaration means most, not all, judicial hearings are on hold. Some can go on at the discretion of courts, including issues “relating to the special emergency.”

Halting proceedings on Netanyahu’s case followed a recommendation by his health ministry that “there is a real fear of serious harm to public health” — a dubious judgment unrelated to continuing court business normally.

On Sunday, Netanyahu’s health ministry said 200 Israelis tested positive for COVID-19, a minute percent of its population, showing no just cause for declaring a state of emergency.

Only two Israelis ill from the coronavirus are in serious condition, 11 in moderate condition, others with mild symptoms, according to the health ministry.

Around 40,000 Israelis are quarantined at home, including doctors, nurses, and pharmacists.

Tests for COVID-19 have been conducted on over 6,800 Israelis as of Sunday. The US with around 37-fold Israel’s population only tested about 11,000 people so far nationwide.

South Korea with around one-sixth the US population tests around 20,000 daily.

China through late February tested around 320,000 people, South Korea through March 13 nearly 250,000 people, Italy to date 86,000, Russia 77,000, Britain 30,000.

China’s Global Times cited the country’s Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, saying it provides 341,600 nucleic acid reagent test kits daily, enough to accommodate everyone in the country needing one with plenty available for export.

China’s BGI Group exported COVID-19 detection kits for testing around 310,000 people in 26 countries, including in Asia and Europe.

They’re available for export to the US in large numbers if permitted by the Trump regime — not so far.

He and his Health and Human Services Department (HHS) announced that tests will only be offered by his regime to individuals showing COVID-19 symptoms — instead of getting ahead of the curve to detect early and treat as needed, what’s vital in dealing with a highly contagious disease easily spread from person to person.

It’s unclear how many ill Americans were misdiagnosed with seasonal flu and treated accordingly.

While it’s highly unlikely that contagion in the US is anywhere near epidemic levels, in dealing with infectious diseases, widespread testing is important because it’s better to be safe than sorry.

Through mid-March, around 156,000 COVID-19 cases were reported worldwide, around 5,800 deaths from the disease — these numbers nowhere near suggesting a global pandemic.

According to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), there were 2,839,205 US deaths in 2019, including from the following diseases:

  • Heart disease: 647,457
  • Cancer: 599,108
  • Chronic lower respiratory diseases: 160,201
  • Stroke (cerebrovascular diseases): 146,383
  • Alzheimer’s disease: 121,404
  • Diabetes: 83,564
  • Influenza and pneumonia: 55,672
  • Nephritis, nephrotic syndrome, and nephrosis: 50,633

Annual deaths from these diseases worldwide are at or near epidemic levels with no fear-mongering headlines blasted daily about them.

A few thousand COVID-19 infections in the US and a reported 59 deaths through Friday do not an epidemic make.

Around 40,000 Americans die in car crashes annually, around 36,000 from gun violence.

In 2019, there were 169,936 deaths by accidents and unintentional injuries, according to the CDC. There were 47,173 reported suicides.

All of the above numbers are far greater causes for concern in the US than COVID-19 — so far.

It doesn’t mean that the virus can be taken lightly or can’t rise to a much higher worrisome level.

It does mean that it hasn’t hasn’t so far and with proper steps taken at the federal, state and local levels, it should be controllable like other infectious diseases are handled.

*

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 Bush Administration’s Secret Biowarfare Agenda

March 16th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

First published in July 2008

When it comes to observing US and international laws, treaties and norms, the Bush administration is a serial offender. Since 2001, it’s:

— spurned efforts for nuclear disarmament to advance its weapons program and retain current stockpiles;

— renounced the 1970 Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and asserted the right to develop and test new weapons;

— abandoned the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) because it expressly forbids the development, testing and deployment of missile defenses like its Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) and other programs;

— refuses to adopt a proposed Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) that would prohibit further weapons-grade uranium and plutonium production and prevent new nuclear weapons to be added to present stockpiles – already dangerously too high;

— spends more on the military than the rest of the world combined plus multi-billions off-the-books, for secret programs, and for agencies like the CIA;

— advocates preventive, preemptive and “proactive” wars globally with first-strike nuclear and other weapons under the nihilistic doctrines of “anticipatory self-defense” and remaking the world to be like America;

— rescinded and subverted the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) to illegally develop new biowarfare weapons; in November 1969 and February 1970, Richard Nixon issued National Security Decision Memoranda (NSDM) 35 and 44; they renounced the use of lethal and other types of biological warfare and ordered existing weapons stockpiles destroyed, save for small amounts for research – a huge exploitable loophole; the Reagan and Clinton administrations took advantage; GHW Bush to a lesser degree;

— GW Bush went further by renouncing the US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 that prohibits “the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons….;” on May 22, 1990, GHW Bush signed it into law to complete the 1972 Convention’s implementation; what the father and Nixon established, GW Bush rendered null and void; “Rebuilding America’s Defenses” is his central policy document for unchallengeable US hegemony; among other provisions, it illegally advocates advanced forms of biowarfare that can target specific genotypes – the genetic constitution of individual organisms.

A Brief Modern History of Biowarfare

— the Hague Convention of 1907 bans chemical weapons;

— WW I use of poison gas causes 100,000 deaths and 900,000 injuries;

— Britain uses poison gas against Iraqis in the 1920s; as Secretary of State for War in 1919, Winston Churchill advocates it in a secret memo stating: “I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes;”

— the 1928 Geneva Protocol prohibits gas and bacteriological warfare;

— in 1931, Dr. Cornelius Rhoads infects human subjects with cancer cells – under the auspices of the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Investigations; Rhoads later conducts radiation exposure experiments on American soldiers and civilian hospital patients;

— in 1932, the Tuskegee Syphilis Study begins on 200 black men; they’re not told of their illness, are denied treatment, and are used as human guinea pigs to follow their disease symptoms and progression; they all subsequently die;

— in 1935, the Pellagra Incident occurs; after millions die over two decades, the US Public Health Service finally acts to stem the disease;

— In 1935 – 1936, Italy uses mustard gas in conquering Ethiopia;

— In its 1936 invasion, Japan uses chemical weapons against China; in the same year, a German chemical lab produces the first nerve agent, Tabun;

— in 1940, 400 Chicago prisoners are infected with malaria to study the effects of new and experimental drugs;

— the US has had an active biological warfare program since at least the 1940s; in 1941, it implements a secret program to develop offensive and allegedly defensive bioweapons using controversial testing methods; most research and development is at Fort Detrick, MD; beginning in 2008, Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore labs will also conduct it; production and testing are at Pine Bluff, AR and Dugway Proving Ground, UT;

— from 1942 – 1945, (US) Chemical Warfare Services begins mustard gas experiments on about 4000 servicemen;

— in 1943, the US begins biological weapons research at Fort Detrick, MD;

— in 1944, the US Navy uses human subjects (locked in chambers) to test gas masks and clothing;

— during WW II, Germany uses lethal Zyklon-B gas in concentration camp exterminations; the Japanese (in Unit 731) conduct biowarfare experiments on civilians;

— in 1945, German offenders get immunity under Project Paperclip; Japanese ones as well – in exchange for their data and (for Germans at least) to work on top secret government projects in the US;

— in 1945, the US Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) implements “Program F;” it’s the most extensive US study of the health effects of fluoride – a key chemical component in atomic bomb production; it’s one of the most toxic chemicals known and causes marked adverse central nervous system effects; in the interest of national security and not undermining full-scale nuclear weapons production, the information is suppressed; fluoride is found naturally in low concentration in drinking water and foods; compounds of the substance are also commonly used for cavity-prevention, but few people understand its toxicity;

— in 1946, VA hospital patients become guinea pigs for medical experiments;

— in 1947, the US has germ warfare weapons; Truman withdraws the 1928 Geneva Protocol from Senate consideration; it’s not ratified until 1974 and is now null and void under George Bush;

— in 1947, the AEC’s Colonel EE Kirkpatrick issues secret document #07075001; it states that the agency will begin administering intravenous doses of radioactive substances to human subjects;

— in July 1947, the CIA is established; it begins LSD experiments on civilian and military subjects with and without their knowledge – to learn its use as an intelligence weapon;

— in 1949, the US Army releases biological agents in US cities to learn the effects of a real germ warfare attack; tests continue secretly through at least the 1960s in San Francisco, New York, Washington, DC, Panama City and Key West, Florida, Minnesota, other midwest locations, along the Pennsylvania turnpike and elsewhere; more on outdoor testing below;

— after the (official) 1950 Korean War outbreak, North Korea and China accuse the US of waging germ warfare; an outbreak of disease the same year in San Francisco apparently is from Army bacteria released in the city; residents become ill with pneumonia-like symptoms;

— in 1950, the DOD begins open-air nuclear weapons detonations in desert areas, then monitors downwind residents for medical problems and mortality rates;

— in 1951, African-Americans are exposed to potentially fatal stimulants as part of a race-specific fungal weapons test in Virginia;

— in 1953, the US military releases clouds of zinc cadium sulfide gas over Winnipeg, Canada, St. Louis, Minneapolis, Fort Wayne, the Monocacy River Valley in Maryland, and Leesburg, VA – to determine how efficiently chemical agents can be dispersed;

— in 1953, joint Army-Navy-CIA experiments are conducted in New York and San Francisco – exposing tens of thousands of people to the airborne germs Serratia marcescens and Bacillus glogigii;

— in 1953, the CIA initiates Project MKULTRA – an 11 year research program to produce and test drugs and biological agents that can be used for mind control and behavior modification; unwitting human subjects are used;

— in 1955, the CIA releases bacteria from the Army’s Tampa, FL biological warfare arsenal – to test its ability to infect human populations;

— from 1955 – 1958, the Army Chemical Corps continues LSD research (on over 1000 subjects) – to study its effect as an incapacitating agent;

— in 1956, the US military releases mosquitoes infected with Yellow Fever over Savannah, GA and Avon Park, FL – to test the health effects on victims;

— in 1956, Army Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, specifically states bio-chemical warfare isn’t banned;

— in 1960, the Army Assistant Chief of Staff for Intelligence authorizes LSD field tested in Europe and the Far East;

— in 1961, the Kennedy administration increases chemical spending from $75 – $330 million; it authorizes Project 112 – a secret program (from 1962 – 1973) to test the effects of biological and chemical weapons on thousands of unwitting US servicemen; Project SHAD was a related project; subjects were exposed to VX, tabun, sarin and soman nerve gases plus other toxic agents;

— in 1962, chemical weapons are loaded on planes for possible use during the Cuban missile crisis;

— in 1966, the New York subway system is used for a germ warfare experiment;

— in 1968, the Pentagon considers using some of its chemical weapons (including nerve gas) against civil rights and anti-war protesters;

— in 1969, an apparent nerve agent kills thousands of sheep in Utah; Nixon issues two National Security Memoranda in 1969 and 1970; the first (in November 1969) ends production and offensive use of lethal and other type biological and chemical weapons; it confines “bacteriological/biological programs….to research for defensive purposes” and has other loopholes as well; the second (in February 1970) orders existing stockpiles destroyed, confines “toxins….research and development (to) defensive purposes only,” and declares only small quantities will be maintained to develop vaccines, drugs and diagnostics – a huge exploitable loophole;

— in 1969, the General Assembly bans herbicide plant killers and tear gases in warfare; the US is one of three opposing votes; despite being banned, open-air testing intermittently continues to the present, and the Pentagon apparently authorized it in its most recent annual report; it calls for developmental and operational “field testing of (CBW) full systems,” not just simulations, and followed it up in a recent March 2008 test; in Crystal City, VA, it released perflourocarbon tracers and sulfur hexaflouride assuring residents it’s safe; it’s not and may harm persons with asthma, emphysema and other respiratory ailments;

— in 1969, DOD’s Dr. Robert MacMahan requests $10 million to develop a synthetic biological agent for which no natural immunity exists;

— from the 1960s through at least the 1980s, the US assaults Cuba with biological agent attacks;

— in 1970, US Southeast Asian forces conduct Operation Tailwind using sarin nerve gas in Laos; many die, including civilians; Admiral Thomas Moorer, former Joint Chiefs Chairman, confirmes the raid on CNN in 1998; under Pentagon pressure, CNN retracts the report and fires award-winning journalist Peter Arnett and co-producers April Oliver and Jack Smith because they refuse to disavow their report;

— in 1971, US forces end direct use of Agent Orange in Southeast Asia; also in 1971 with CIA help, an anti-Castro paramilitary group introduces African swine fever into Cuba; it infects a half a million pigs and results in their destruction; a few months later a similar attack fails against Cuban poultry; in 1981, a covert US operation unleashes a type 2 dengue fever outbreak – the first in the Caribbean since the turn of the century involving hemorrhagic shock on a massive scale; over 300,000 cases are reported, including 158 fatalities;

— in 1975, the Senate Church Committee confirms from a CIA memorandum that US “defensive” bioweapons are stockpiled at Fort Detrick, MD – including anthrax, encephalitis, tuberculosis, shellfish toxin, and food poisons;

— in 1980, Congress approves a nerve gas facility in Pine Bluff, Arkansas;

— during the 1980s Iran-Iraq war, the US supplies Iraq with toxic biological and chemical agents; Ronald Reagan signs a secret order to do “whatever (is) necessary and ‘legal’ ” to prevent Iraq from losing the war;” a 1994 congressional inquiry later finds that dozens of biological agents were shipped, including various strains of anthrax and precursors of nerve gas (like sarin), gangrene, and West Nile virus;

— in 1984, Reagan orders M55 rockets retooled to contain high-yield explosives and VX gas; his administration begins researching and developing biological agents allegedly for “defensive purposes;”

— in 1985 and 1986, the US resumes open-air biological agents testing; it likely never stopped;

— in 1987, Congress votes to resume chemical weapons production;

— in 1989, 149 nations at the Paris Chemical Weapons Conference condemn these weapons; after signing the treaty, it’s revealed that the US plans to produce poison gas; at the UN, GHW Bush reaffirms the US commitment to eliminate chemical weapons in 10 years; the US implements the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – “to implement….the Prohibition of the Development, Production, and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and Their Destruction….;”

— in 1990, GHW Bush signs the 1989 act making it illegal for the US to develop, possess or use biological weapons; Bush also signs Executive Order 12735 stating: the spread of chemical and biological weapons constitutes an “unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States;”

— following the Gulf War, reports surface about US forces’ health problems – later called Gulf War Syndrome; the likely cause – widespread use of depleted uranium, other toxic substances, and the illegal use (on nearly 700,000 theater forces) of experimental vaccines in violation of the Nuremberg Code on medical experimentation; over 12,000 have since died and over 30% are now ill from non-combat-related factors; they’ve since filed claims with the VA for medical care, compensation, and pension benefits;

— in 1997, Cuba accuses the US of spraying crops with biological agents;

— in 1997, the US ratifies the Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) banning the production, stockpile and use of these substances;

— in 2001, the Bush administration rejects the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) citing 38 problems with it, some called serious; claiming a need to counter chemical and biological weapons threats, it’s spending multi-billions illegally to develop, test and stockpile “first-strike” chemical and biological weapons that endanger homeland security and threaten good relations with other countries;

— all along, a BWC loophole allows appropriate types and amounts of biological agents to be used for “prophylactic, protective or other peaceful purposes” – construed to be defensive; it also permits “research,” not “development;” the CIA took full advantage to conduct programs for offense, not defense or to further peace; further, the BWC includes nothing about genetic engineering because it didn’t exist at the time.

The US Secret Bioweapons Program

In November 2001, Michel Chossudovsky used this title for his Global Research.ca article. It was when “an impressive military arsenal of aircraft carriers and gun-boats” was building up in the Persian Gulf in preparation for “a major bombing operation….against Iraq” at a future designated time.

Back home, the administration used the 2001 anthrax attacks as “justification for extending the ‘campaign against international terrorism’ to Iraq….Washington singled out Iraq, North Korea, Iran, Syria and Libya of violating the international treaty banning weapons of germ warfare.”

At the same time, ample evidence “confirms that the US has built an extensive arsenal of biological weapons (in blatant violation) of international laws and covenants.” It was enlarged in the 1980s and 1990s but significantly expanded under George Bush on the pretext of being strictly “defensive” and to “curb the use of germ warfare by ‘rogue states.’ ”

On October 29, 2002, the London Guardian reported that “Respected scientists on both sides of the Atlantic warned that the US is (illegally) developing a new generation of weapons that undermine and possibly violate international treaties on biological and chemical warfare” – ironically at the same time it accused Iraq of these same type violations.

University of Bradford international security professor Malcolm Dando and University of California microbiology lecturer Mark Wheelis accused the Bush administration of “encouraging a breakdown in arms control” treaties by secretly conducting these programs. Dando said they include:

— developing a cluster bomb to disperse bioweapons;

— building a bioweapons plant from commercially available materials to prove “terrorists” can do it;

— genetically engineering a more potent anthrax strain;

— producing dried and weaponized anthrax spores in quantities far larger than for research;

— researching and producing hallucinogenic weapons such as BZ gas; and

— developing “non-lethal” weapons similar to the gas Russia used to end the 2002 Moscow theater siege that killed around 170 people and injured hundreds.

In February 2008, the Sunshine Project suspended operations, but its website is still accessible. It was an NGO dedicated to banning and “avert(ing) the dangers of” bioweapons. In 2001, it accused the Bush administration of advancing “a plan to undermine international controls on biological weapons.”

On May 8, 2002, it issued a press release titled “US Armed Forces Push for Offensive Biological Weapons Development – genetically engineered microbes that attack items such as fuel, plastics and asphalt” in violation of international law. The proposals date from 1997 and involve the (Washington, DC) Naval Research Laboratory and the (Brooks Air Force Base, San Antonio, Texas) Armstrong Laboratory. They come at a time when the US rejected “legally-binding” UN inspections of “suspected” facilities producing weapons “explicitly for offense.”

Additional documents have been suppressed and those known “are probably only the tip of the iceberg….The National Academies are also concealing related documents. After the Sunshine Project requested copies….on March 12, 2002, (they) placed a ‘security hold’ on the public file” without explanation. “The research proposed by the Air Force and Navy raises serious legal questions. Under the (1989) US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act, development of biological weapons, including those that attack materials, is subject to federal criminal and civil penalties.” It also prohibits development, acquisition and stockpiling of agents intended as bioweapons.

On May 21, 2004, AP reported that arms control advocates warned the Bush administration that “proposed research for a new (Fort Detrick) Homeland Security center may violate an international ban on biological weapons and encourage other countries to follow.” Experts said proposals for the National Biodefense Analysis and Countermeasures Center (NBACC) flout bioweapons prohibitions by crossing the line between “defensive” research and banned weapons development.

On July 31, 2007 the London Guardian reported that the US is “Building (a) Treaty-Breaching Germ War Defence Centre” near Washington, DC” – NBACC. It’s to be completed in 2008 and will be a “vast germ warfare laboratory intended to help protect the US against an attack with biological weapons, but critics say the laboratory’s work will violate international law and its extreme secrecy will exacerbate a biological arms race (by) accelerat(ing) work on similar facilities around the world.”

It will house “heavily guarded and hermetically sealed chambers….to produce and stockpile the world’s most lethal bacteria and viruses” – forbidden by the 1972 BWC and 1989 US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act. The Fort Detrick facility will be used for the new 160,000 square foot lab, and it’s authorization coincided with the 2001 anthrax attacks that killed five people, and along with 9/11, unleashed everything that followed.

DHS calls Fort Detrick the home of “The National Interagency Biodefense Campus.” Besides NBACC, other agencies there include:

— the Health and Human Services’ (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID);

— the Department of Agriculture’s Agricultural Research Service and Foreign Disease-Weed Science Research Unit (FDWSRU); and

— the Department of Defense’s US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases (USAMRIID).

DHS says USAMRIID “conduct(s) basic and applied research on biological threats (to provide) cutting-edge medical research for the warfighter against biological threats.” International law and bioweapons expert, Francis Boyle, disagrees. He says the “program constitutes clear violations of the international (1972 BWC) arms control treaty….ratified by the United States in 1975.” He also cites BWC’s preamble that states in part:

“….Parties to this Convention (are) Determined to act with a view to achieving effective progress towards general and complete disarmament, including the prohibition and elimination of all types of weapons of mass destruction, and convinced that the prohibition of the development, production and stockpiling of chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons and their elimination, through effective measures, will facilitate the achievement of general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control….” The BWC goes on to say that use of these weapons are so “repugnant to the conscience of mankind….that no effort should be spared to minimize this risk.”

In Boyle’s view, Fort Detrick’s NBACC and USAMRIID heighten risks because their work involves: “acquiring, growing, modifying, storing, packaging and dispersing classical, emerging and genetically engineered pathogens.” This work is an “unmistakable hallmark of an offensive weapons program” in violation of the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act that he authored. Even worse according to Edward Hammond, former director of the Sunshine Project: Recreating the deadly 1918 “Spanish flu” germ that killed an estimated 40 million worldwide (or other dangerous pathogens) increases “the possibility of (a) man-made disaster, either accidental or deliberate….for the entire world.” If a single viral particle or cell escapes or is unleashed, an enormous outbreak may result with potentially catastrophic consequences.

The Fort Detrick plan derives from a Bush Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD-10) written April 28, 2004. It states: “Among our many initiatives we are continuing to develop more forward-looking analyses, to include Red Teaming efforts, to understand new scientific trends that may be exploited by our adversaries to develop biological weapons and to help position intelligence collectors ahead of the problem.” Boyle calls it “a smoking gun” aimed at the BWC.

“Red Teaming means that we actually have people out there on a Red Team plotting, planning, scheming and conspiring how to use biowarfare” and sooner or later will unleash it using living organisms for military purposes. They may be viral, bacterial, fungal, or other forms that can spread over a vast terrain by wind, water, insect, animal, or humans, according to Jeremy Rifkin, author of “The Biotech Century.” Rifkin also asserts it’s “impossible to distinguish between defensive and offensive research in the field,” and given this administration’s penchant for lying and secrecy, other nations will be justifiably suspicious.

The Bush administration proceeded anyway. Since 9/11, it spent or allocated around $50 billion on bioweapons development through 11 federal departments and agencies, including DOD and DHS. For FY 2009, it wants an additional $8.1 billion or $2.5 billion more than in FY2008. It calls its program preventive and defensive and cites Project BioShield as an example. It became law in July 2004 as a 10 year program to develop countermeasures to biological, chemical, radiological and nuclear (CBRN) agents. It was, in fact, a gift to companies like Gilead Sciences, the company Donald Rumsfeld led as chairman from 1997 to 2001 (and remains a major shareholder) until he left to become George Bush’s Defense Secretary.

It would have also required every American to be vaccinated under the Biodefense and Pandemic Vaccine and Drug Development Act of 2005. It passed the Senate but not the House and would have, under a public emergency, allowed experimental or approved drugs to be used with insufficient knowledge of their safety – in violation of the Nuremburg Code on medical experimentation. It also would have immunized companies from liability and denied those harmed the right to sue.

Private Bioweapons Labs Cashing In

According to the Sunshine Project, “scores of US universities and biotechnology companies (since 2001) have benefitted handsomely from billions of dollars in ‘biodefense’ cash. Across the country, ‘biodefense’ labs are sprouting up like weeds. The unrelenting spigot of federal money (has) thousands of scientists and technicians” doing bioweapons research on some of the deadliest pathogens. But the problem is much greater than that:

— projects underway are illegal;

— immense secrecy enshrouds them; and

— federal oversight is so lax that NIH safety guidelines aren’t enforced and CDC poorly identifies problems it should address; as a result, “accidents are popping up everywhere” amidst a “pervasive cover-up culture” that hides them – in direct violation of federal rules and responsible practice that:

(1) require government agencies to protect the public from dangerous pathogens, and

(2) obligate research labs to disclose the nature of their work; failure to do so suggests alleged biodefense research is, in fact, cover for offensive biowarfare programs to complement Fort Detrick and other government site efforts.

The Sunshine Project believes about 400 private bioweapons labs now operate around the country with no public disclosure of their activities – and plenty of reasons to worry Francis Boyle that the Bush administration is up to mischief. It “sabotaged the Verification Protocol for the BWC (and) fully intend(s) to (engage in) research, development and testing of illegal and criminal offensive biowarfare programs.” That prospect should frighten everyone.

Reporter Sherwood Ross for sure. He calls the administration’s project “the costliest, most grandiose research scheme ever attempted (with) germ warfare capability….going forward under President Bush and in defiance of” US and international laws. Far worse, where once “germ warfare was an isolated happenstance, (today’s efforts elevate it) to an instrument of (deadly and loathsome) policy.

Other Recent Developments

On February 21, 2008, the Sidney Morning Herald reported that the Bush administration rejected claims made by Indonesian Health Minister, Siti Fadilah Supari, in her book titled: “It Is Time for the World to Change! God’s Hand Behind Bird Flu Virus.” She questions whether the US is using bird flu samples collected from developing nations to develop biological weapons, not new vaccines as claimed.

On July 20, 2008, the Jakarta Post reported: “If there were a “National Darling Award” contest….Supari would probably win it. (Her) supporters praise her as a great third world heroine who dares challenge the global structure of injustice and inequality perpetrated by powerful states (like the US) and networks of international institutions. Most of the praise is based on opinions” from her new book mentioned above.

She claims the US is transferring virus samples to the Los Alamos National Laboratory. It’s one of two US nuclear weapons labs that will operate new biological research facilities capable of researching and developing dangerous pathogens in violation of the BWC and US Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989. California-based Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is the other one. On January 25, it began operating a new Biosafety Level 3 (BSL-3) lab. In August, Los Alamos is scheduled to complete a federally mandated environmental study for a similar lab to begin operations shortly thereafter. Given the Bush administration’s penchant for secrecy, Supari’s accusations may be justified.

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) establishes biosafety classifications. BLS-4 ones, like for Ebola, are the most dangerous, in part, because no known cures exist. Los Alamos and Lawrence Livermore currently operate BLS-2 labs. They’ll now have BLS-3 ones to study infectious agents able to cause serious or fatal illnesses if inhaled. But there’s no way to know if both labs, Fort Detrick, others like the former Edgewood Arsenal (now the Edgewood Area at the Aberdeen Proving Ground), Oak Ridge Ridge National Laboratory, and still more we don’t know about will secretly research any type pathogens, including the most dangerous ones, for any purpose – offense or defense.

What is known is that government labs will study pathogens posing serious public health and safety threats. Ones like anthrax, botulism, brucellosis, plague, Rickettsia, tularemia, Avian influenza, H5N1 (the recent strain reported and called the most dangerous), and valley fever plus whatever others are planned but kept secret.

Most important is this. These labs conduct weapons research, so they’ll likely focus on bioweapons and not follow BWC “prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes” guidelines. For example, vaccines and potential biological weapons defenses may, in fact, be for offense. Distinguishing between the two is impossible so other nations and figures like Supari are suspicious.

They’re not comforted by Lawrence Livermore’s Lynda Seaver. On February 12, she told Arms Control Today that the US is “a signatory to the Biowarfare Convention and does not conduct bioweapons research.” She also said most work there will be unclassified. On February 15, however, a CDC spokesperson suggested otherwise and informed Arms Control Today that Lawrence Livermore security restrictions are tight as they are at Los Alamos, Fort Detrick and other US weapons research facilities. They bar transparency and place strict limits on sharing select agents research to prevent other nations from knowing it exists or its purpose.

Further, later this year DHS will complete construction of the new Fort Detrick lab (NBACC), and a new $500 million animal research facility is planned. Both will have BLS-3 and 4 capabilities. They’ll work on the most dangerous known pathogens and conduct controversial type threat assessment research – to develop and produce new biological weapons and develop defenses against them. Once again, differentiating between offense and defense is impossible, and given their penchant for deception and secrecy, no one takes Bush administration officials at their word nor should they.

Francis Boyle’s “Biowarfare and Terrorism”

Boyle drafted the 1989 Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act and covers it in his 2006 book. It’s now codified in Title 18 of the US Code, sections 175 – 178 and was the implementing legislation for the landmark 1972 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC).

MIT molecular biology professor Jonathan King wrote this about the book in its forward:

It “outlines how and why the United States government initiated, sustained and then dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms buildup….Boyle reveals how the new (multi-) billion-dollar US Chemical and Biological Defense Program has been reoriented (endorsing “first strike” CBW use in war) to accord with the Neo-Conservative pre-emptive strike agenda – this time by (illegal) biological and chemical warfare.” This “represent(s) a significant emerging danger to our population (and) threaten(s) international relations among nations.” These programs “are always called defensive (but) with biological weapons, defensive and offensive programs overlap almost completely.”

“Boyle (also) sheds new light on the motives for the (2001) anthrax attacks, the media black hole of silence (about them), and why the FBI may never apprehended the perpetrators of this seminal crime of the 21st century.” They killed five people, injured 17 others, and temporarily shut down Congress, the Supreme Court, and other federal operations. Army scientist Dr. Steven Hatfill was unfairly implicated as a “person of interest” but was never charged. He sued the Justice Department and in June was awarded $2.8 million and a $150,000 annuity for violating his privacy, leaking false and inflammatory information, costing him his job and reputation, and blasting his name all over the media for days. It was the beginning of the frightening events that followed.

Boyle is currently a leading proponent of an effort to impeach George Bush, Dick Cheney and other high-level administration figures for their crimes of war, against humanity and other grievous violations of domestic and international law. In his “Biowarfare and Terrorism,” he sounds an alarm about the administration’s bioweapons program and what it means for humanity. He fears “a catastrophic biowarfare or bioterrorist incident or accident (is) a statistical certainty.” It highlights enormous new risks plus other frightening ones like the possibility of nuclear war and catastrophic fallout from it. That, permanent wars, a potential Andromeda Strain, police state justice, and destroying the republic are but five among other threats since the advent of George Bush and his roguish team.

In “Biowarfare and Terrorism,” Boyle addresses the bioweapons threat as an expert on the subject and gives readers an historical perspective. He asserts that the US government dramatically expanded an illegal biological arms development, production, and buildup that endangers all humanity with its potential. It’s part of an extremist agenda for unchallengeable power and right to unleash “proactive” wars with the most aggressive weapons in its arsensal – nuclear, chemical, biological, others, space-based ones, and new ones in development.

Since WW II, America has actively developed, tested, and used terror weapons, including biological ones. Even after Nixon ended the nation’s biowarfare programs, they never stopped. The CIA remained active through a loophole in the law, then the Reagan administration reactivated what Nixon slowed down. It acted much like the current regime with many of the same officials espousing similar extremist views – that America must exploit its technological superiority and not let laws, norms, or the greater good deter them.

The Bush administration raised the stakes and threatens all humanity. Boyle believes it used 9/11 and the anthrax attacks to stampede Congress and the public into aggressive wars and a menu of repressive laws. He also thinks the FBI knows who’s behind the anthrax attacks: criminal US government elements planning a police state and another frightening enterprise – to fight and win a future biowar. A possible nuclear one as well. Boyle sounds the alarm about what may lie ahead and its potential consequences.

In October 2003, the National Academy of Sciences did as well. It warned about the “misuse of tools, technology, or knowledge base of (bioweapons) research for offensive military or terrorist purposes.” That’s the present risk. It makes everyone unwitting subjects of a recklessly endangering experiment.

Stephen Lendman is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization. He lives in Chicago and can be reached at [email protected].

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Global Research News Hour on RepublicBroadcasting.org Mondays from 11AM – 1PM US Central time for cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests. All programs are archived for easy listening.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9671

I have previously objected to how the Justice Department uses grand juries to punish certain individuals who refuse to cooperate with federal investigations. This concern was heightened during my representation of Dr. Sami Al-Arian who signed a plea bargain with the understanding that, after serving his time, he would be allowed to leave the country. Instead, he was forced before a grand jury and remained in jail for years as a matter of contempt. The Justice Department often prolongs the incarceration while piling on fines to ruin individuals who refuse to cooperate. That was the case with Chelsea Manning. Like Al-Arian, she had already served time for her role in the Wikileaks controversy but the remainder of her sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama. The Justice Department proceeded to pull her before another grand jury where she refused to testify (like Al-Arian). After a long incarceration and an equally excessive 256,000 in fines, she finally tried to kill herself this week by hanging in the Alexandria jail. Only then did U.S. District Judge Anthony Trenga finally order her release.

In a 2019 letter to the judge, Manning objected to the grand jury probe as “an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a public good.” Given her long prior sentence and the presidential commutation, Manning refused to testify under a guarantee to immunity because she viewed the effort as an attack on press freedom.

Judge Trenga rejected her prior pleas to be released for 10 months. After the suicide attempt, he finally relented but refused to lift the massive fines against Manning. Trenga simply noted that the grand jury had been disbanded so there was nothing to coerce at this time in terms of testimony: “The Court finds that Ms. Manning’s appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose.”

The Manning case (like Al-Arian’s) should compel Congress to take another look at how the grand jury system is used for retaliatory and punitive purposes by the Justice Department. One does not have to agree with the views or the actions of either Manning or Al-Arian to view these cases as abusive.

Courts clearly are not exercising much discretion under these current rules governing contempt cases. The result is that prosecutors can impose excessive levels of incarceration and fines on individuals by daisy-chaining grand juries (as with both Manning and Al-Arian). This is an area of abuse that has been ignored by Congress for too long. Prosecutors know that there is little political benefit for Congress to seek reforms when the subjects of the cases are so unpopular. The result has been unchecked authority to impose unjust and unwarranted levels of punishment through the federal contempt rules.

*

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.

COVID-19: Is the United States Committing Economic Suicide?

March 16th, 2020 by Michael Zitterman

Houston, we have a problem.  That problem is Covid-19 (named for Coronavirus disease 2019), first identified in Wuhan City, China. 

Our government is taking actions which appear to be excessive and misguided, based on the concept of “cost versus benefits”.

These actions, at the minimum, are shutting down portions of our economy.  The ambiguities of the unintended consequences are extremely problematic in that the costs of these actions are massive and may become severe enough to cause a recession or even a depression.

What “value“ do we expect to receive from these actions?

Based on the most recent evidence, it appears this virus is most damaging to the elderly, especially those with medical problems.

What is the cost of the common-sense concepts of washing our hands, staying home if ill, identifying at-risk signs (high fever, coughing, and sore throat) reacting appropriately, adjusting protocols at nursing homes, reasonably segregating at-risk persons, etcetera?

Can we make a rational extrapolation of these common-sense costs and compare to those which will result from the proposed protocols?   The “value” differential must also be evaluated.  That accumulated comparative data should inform our “adjusted” actions.

We probably have the requisite evidence to guide us on how we should expend our energies, most effectively and efficiently, to mitigate the damages which will be caused by the virus.

There are, now, about 5,000 deaths, worldwide and climbing.  What if the year’s total were 100,000?  Would that cost, rationally, necessitate our shutting down our normal activities?

The World Health Organization estimates that worldwide annual influenza epidemics result in about 3 to 5 million cases of severe illness and about 250,000 to 500,000 deaths.  Using 4 million cases and 375,000 deaths, it shows a mortality rate of 9.375%.

Once again, “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself” (FDR).

Let’s use common sense and get back to living.

*

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.

In the early 2000s, genetically modified (GM) Bt insecticidal cotton was being heavily promoted in India on the basis that it would cut pesticide use dramatically, boost yields and contribute to the financial well-being of farmers. Private sector Bt cotton hybrids now cover over 90% of the area under cotton.

Supporters of Bt cotton have wasted little time in claiming that GM technology has increased cotton yields, reduced pesticide use and has been of enormous benefit to farmers due to increased crop profitability. If we consider Prof Glenn Stone’s 2012 paper ‘Constructing Facts: Bt Cotton Narratives in India’, however, it becomes clear that such claims are too often weaved from flawed data and studies and merely serve to bolster vested interests.

In an attempt to shed further light on the role of Bt cotton in India, Glenn Stone (Washington University in St Louis) and his colleague K R Kranthi (International Cotton Advisory Committee) have jointly authored a new paper – ‘Long-term impacts of Bt Cotton in India’ – that appears in the journal Nature Plants (March 2020). Unlike previous assessments, the paper is quite unique as it is based on a long-term analysis that spans a period of 20 years.

While proponents of Bt cotton say that GM technology is responsible for tripling cotton production between 2002 (when Bt cotton was commercialised in India) and 2014, Stone argues that the largest production gains came prior to widespread GM seed adoption and must be viewed in line with changes in fertilisation practices and other pest population dynamics.

Stone says:

“There are two particularly devastating caterpillar pests for cotton in India, and, from the beginning, Bt cotton did control one of them: the (misnamed) American bollworm. It initially controlled the other one, too – the pink bollworm – but that pest quickly developed resistance and now it is a worse problem than ever.”

He adds that Bt plants were highly vulnerable to other insect pests that proliferated as more and more farmers adopted the crop.

According to Stone:

“Farmers are now spending much more on insecticides than before they had ever heard of Bt cotton. And the situation is worsening.”

Although yields in all crops jumped in 2003, the increase was especially large in cotton.

However, Stone says:

“… Bt cotton had virtually no effect on the rise in cotton yields because it accounted for less than 5% of India’s cotton crop at the time.”

Stone argues that any changes in productivity have more to do with huge increases in insecticides and fertilisers and that farmers in India are now spending more on seeds, more on fertiliser and more on insecticides.

So, what has been the overall impact of Bt cotton in India?

Stone says that Bt cotton’s primary impact on agriculture will be its role in making farming more capital-intensive, rather than any enduring agronomic benefits. And this conclusion appears to confirm what others have been saying in recent years.

During a September 2019 media event in Delhi, for instance, Aruna Rodrigues and Vandana Shiva showed that pesticide use is back to pre-Bt levels and yields have stagnated or are falling. Moreover, they noted that some 31 countries rank above India in terms of cotton yield and of these only 10 grow GM cotton. They concluded that farmers now find themselves on a (capital-intensive) chemical-biotech treadmill and have to deal with an increasing number of Bt/insecticide resistant pests and rising costs of production.

Their data indicated that overall net profit for cotton farmers in the pre-Bt era had plummeted to average net losses  in 2015, while fertiliser use kg/ha had exhibited a 2.2-fold increase. As Bt technology was being rolled out, costs of production were thus increasing. And these costs have increased in the face of stagnant yields. They too indicated that increased fertiliser and insecticides along with high-yielding hybrid trait value (independent of Bt technology) and increased acreage under cotton cultivation were responsible for any increase in productivity. 

In fact, based on his own research, Prof A P Gutierrez argues that Bt cotton has effectively put many farmers in a corporate noose. Although Bt cotton hybrids perform better under irrigation, 66% of cotton in India is cultivated in rain fed areas, where yields depend on the timing and quantity of highly variable monsoon rains. Unreliable rains, the high costs of Bt hybrid seed, continued insecticide use and debt have placed many poor (marginal) smallholder farmers in a situation of severe financial hardship.  

Based on extensive field research in India, cultural anthropologist Andrew Flachs argues that independent cultivators have become dependent on corporate products, including off-farm commodified corporate knowledge. In the past, they cultivated, saved and exchanged seeds; now, as far as cotton cultivation is concerned, they must purchase GM hybrid seeds (and necessary chemical inputs) each year. 

While Bt cotton farmers are losing their traditional knowledge and skills due to increasing market dependency, they are now trapped in a scenario of debt and rising input costs. In the meantime, maybe one in four seasons a farmer will attain a good enough yield to break even. Flachs notes that negotiating risk and gambling on seeds, weather and pesticide use have become an integral part of the corporate cotton seed and chemical treadmill.

It all begs the question: just who has benefitted from Bt cotton? For the answer to this, let us turn to Imran Siddiqi from the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology in Hyderabad, who notes that India opted to use hybrids seeds for Bt technology. Hybrids are made by crossing two parent strains having different genetic characters and the plants have more biomass than both parents and capacity for greater yields. But they also require more inputs, including fertiliser and water, and require suboptimal planting (more space).

Siddiqi notes that all other cotton-producing countries grow cotton not as hybrids but varieties for which seeds are produced by self-fertilisation. He argues that  the advantages of non-hybrids are considerable: twice the productivity, half the fertiliser, reduced water requirement and less vulnerability to pest damage due to a shorter field duration. He concludes that agricultural distress is extremely high among Indian cotton farmers and the combination of high input and high risk has likely been a contributing factor.

The introduction of hybrids disallowed seed saving, forcing farmers to purchase new, expensive hybrid Bt cotton seed each year, as hybridisation – unlike pure line varieties – affords one-time vigour. The use of hybrids in India gave pricing control to seed companies and Monsanto that issued licenses for the technology, while ensuring a continuous market.

When viewed in this light, Bt hybrid cotton technology has been integral to what veteran rural reporter P Sainath terms the ‘predatory commercialisation of the countryside’ by corporate interests. Its main role from the outset has been value capture and the creation of market dependency. It this respect, Bt cotton has been an outstanding success.

*

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.

Colin Todhunter is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Dependency, Distress and No Durable Agronomic Benefits: The Story of Bt Cotton in India
  • Tags: , ,

The Release of Chelsea Manning

March 16th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Chelsea Manning’s release last Thursday by order of Virginia District Court judge Anthony Trenga had an air of oddness to it.  “The court finds Ms. Manning’s appearance before the Grand Jury is no longer needed, in light of which her detention no longer serves any coercive purpose.”

Her detention had never served any coercive purpose as such – she remained unwilling to testify before an institution she questions as dangerous, secretive and oppressive.  She steadfastly refused to answer any questions relating to WikiLeaks and Julian Assange.  What her detention has done is disturb her health and constitute an act of State harassment that ranks high in the annals of abuses of power.

In March 2019, the former military analyst was summoned to appear and give testimony to the Grand Jury convened in the Eastern District of Virginia.  As the New York Times put it at the time, “there were multiple reasons to believe that the subpoena [forcing Manning to testify] is related to the investigation of Mr Assange.”  She challenged the legitimacy of the subpoena, though lost and was held for contempt.  Having already been court martialled and sentenced, Manning saw little need having to go through another round of ear bashing interrogations.  “Chelsea,” submitted her support committee in a statement, “gave voluminous testimony during her court martial.  She has stood by the truth of her prior statements, and there is no legitimate purpose to having her rehash them before a hostile grand jury.”

In May that year, Manning was granted one week of freedom until the next grand jury was convened.  Again, she was found to be in civil contempt and remanded “to the custody of the Attorney General until such time as she purges herself of contempt or for the life of the Grand Jury”.  Her refusal to purge herself of contempt after 30 days duly incurred a fine of $500 per day, an amount that was increased to $1,000 after 60 days.

As Nils Melzer, UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment noted at the time, such limitations on Manning’s liberty did “not constitute a circumscribed sanction for a specific offence, but an open-ended, progressively severe measure of coercion fulfilling all the constitutive elements of torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment.”  The mental degradation inflicted by the process did almost achieve its worst. On March 11, Manning attempted to take her own life.

In attempting to battle her fine, Manning argued that the Court vacate the imposed sanctions, as they exceeded “their lawful functions as coercive” and were punitive in character.  Her legal team had argued that she lacked savings, seen “an uncertain speaking career … abruptly halted by her incarceration, and is moving her few belongings into storage, as she can no longer afford to pay her rent.”  Financial records were duly shared with the court to make the case of “compromised earning capacity”.

Judge Trenga refused to bite.  Despite accepting the premise that detaining her had ceased any utility, the fines amounting to $256,000 were not “punitive but rather necessary to the coercive purpose of the Court’s civil contempt order.”

The brutish episode has done much to confirm Manning’s views that the Grand Jury has powers that are needless, serve no purpose other than to vex those it seeks to ensnares, and remains an odd fit in a democratic state.  As Manning herself explained in a letter to Judge Trenga in May last year, “I object to this grand jury … as an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a crucial public good.  I have had these values since I was a child, and I’ve had years of confinement to reflect on them.  For much of that time, I depended on survival on my values, my decisions, and my conscience. I will not abandon them now.”

The rosy standpoint – that such body served, in Robert Gilbert Johnson’s words, as “security to the accused against oppressive prosecution and as protector of the community against public malfeasance and corruption” – can be put to bed and strangled.  The very secrecy that supposedly protects the grand jurors against corrupt eyes and venal prosecutors has been used to ensure its flourishing.  Prosecutors can be assured of compliance rather than challenge being, in District Judge Edward Becker’s sharp observation, “essentially controlled by the United States Attorney [as] his prosecutorial tool”.

The current crop of critics is also growing in number.  According to Natasha Lennard, writing on the subpoena directed at Manning, “Prosecutors and other authorities use grand juries to map out political affiliations while sowing paranoia and discord.”  She quotes the views of civil rights attorney and Manning’s legal representative Moira Meltzer-Cohen. “While the federal grand jury purports to be a simple mechanism for investigating criminal offences, it can be – and historically has been – used by prosecutors to gather intelligence to which they are not entitled, for example about lawful and constitutionally protected political activity.”  The US, being a galloping imperium, needs certain tools to rein in the dissidents and rabble rousers.

A funding campaign was commenced to ease Manning’s burden and, with $267,002 raised, met its goal handsomely.  But the legacy of the grand jury, and the continuing prosecution of Assange and the WikiLeaks project, retain their menace and sting.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

China has sent a team of medical experts and aid to support Italy and Spain in their fight against coronavirus after Rome blasted the European Union for ignoring its pleas for help.

A charter flight with a nine-member Chinese medical-aid team and tons of supplies arrived in Rome last night.

Organised by the National Health Commission and the Red Cross Society of China, the flight carried 700 pieces of equipment including ventilators, monitors and defibrillators.

“Today, Italy is not alone,” said Foreign Minister Luigi Di Maio. “Many people in the world are supporting us.”

It is the third team of experts deployed by the Chinese authorities. Missions and shipments of supplies have already been sent to Iraq and Iran, the latter being one of the countries worst affected by coronavirus so far.

Earlier this week, Italy’s permanent representative to the EU, Maurizio Massari, complained that Italy’s plea for medical help to combat the coronavirus outbreak crippling the country had gone unanswered.

Doctors and members of the Chinese Red Cross pose for a photo prior to a press conference in Rome 

Mr Massari noted that while the EU had ignored Italian requests for aid, China had begun helping bilaterally.

“Italy, the European country struck hardest by the coronavirus, has done everything it can to contain and manage the epidemic,” he said.

“We must ensure, under EU co-ordination, the supply of the necessary medical equipment and its redistribution among those countries and regions most in need. Today, this means Italy; tomorrow, the need could be elsewhere.”

“Italy has already asked to activate the European Union Mechanism of Civil Protection for the supply of medical equipment for individual protection.

“But, unfortunately, not a single EU country responded to the commission’s call. Only China responded bilaterally. Certainly, this is not a good sign of European solidarity.”

The Chinese experts and equipment arrived two days after the number of confirmed confirmed cases in Italy topped 10,000.

Beijing has been praised by the World Health Organisation for its efforts against the coronavirus. Authorities responded to the outbreak by building new hospitals in a matter of days and locking down Hubei province, which has a population of 58 million, to contain the spread of the disease.

National Health Commission spokesman Mi Feng told a briefing earlier this week that the peak of China’s outbreak was “generally over.”

Health authorities reported just 15 new cases and 11 additional deaths yesterday, a dramatic fall from the thousands of new cases being reported daily last month.

So far, China has recorded 80,793 cases of infection and 3,169 deaths.

*

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: Doctors and members of the Chinese Red Cross pose for a photo prior to a press conference in Rome

The Environmental Protection Agency today issued revised methods for assessing pesticide risks that will allow widespread harm to most of the nation’s most endangered plants and animals, including American burying beetles, Rio Grande silvery minnows and Hawaiian hoary bats.

The revised methods from the Trump administration, requested by the pesticide industry, overlook and ignore many of the common ways that protected species are harmed and killed by pesticides. For example, they fail to take into account downstream impacts of pesticides that runoff into streams and rivers or the loss of insect pollinators that endangered plants depend upon.

“This disgraceful new rule prioritizes the pesticide industry’s profits over the protection of America’s most endangered animals and plants,” said Lori Ann Burd, environmental health director at the Center for Biological Diversity. “It’s painfully clear that pesticides have a devastating effect on some of our most vulnerable species, and the Trump administration is intent on thwarting urgently needed protections.”

Using the revised methods, the EPA released new assessments finding that the highly toxic pesticide carbaryl is likely to harm 1,542 protected species, or 86% of all endangered plants and animals. It found that the pesticide methomyl is likely to harm 1,114 of all protected species, or 62%. Species adversely affected include the highly endangered whooping crane, San Joaquin kit fox and all species of salmon.

Carbaryl and methomyl are neurotoxic insecticides in the carbamate class, very similar to organophosphates such as chlorpyrifos. They are highly toxic and among the worst pesticides still in use.

The EPA walked back some of the worst ideas from its draft revised methods, which were described by the attorneys general of 10 states and the District of Columbia as “antithetical to the plain language and purpose of the ESA.”

“The EPA recognized that the draft revised methods were so blatantly pro-pesticide that they had to dial them back. Even so, they still fail to meet the Endangered Species Act’s requirements for determining harm to protected plants and animals,” said Burd. “We’re in the midst of a heartbreaking wildlife extinction crisis, and the EPA’s new rules only make the situation worse.”

Today’s assessments of carbaryl and methomyl were the result of extensive litigation and the EPA reaching a legal settlement with the Center in which it committed to assess the risks that eight of the nation’s most harmful pesticides pose to protected plants and animals. To date the EPA has never once implemented a nationwide Endangered Species Act consultation on pesticides, as required under the Act.

The revised methods released today are designed to allow pesticides to remain on the market without common-sense restrictions on their use to protect endangered species. They disregard the recommendations of the National Academy of Sciences and ignore the mandate of the Endangered Species Act to give imperiled wildlife and plants the benefit of the doubt when evaluating the range of impacts caused by exposure to pesticides.

Records obtained through the Freedom of Information Act show that the new assessment methods were driven by political-level appointees at the EPA, Department of the Interior, Department of Commerce and the White House.

From 2013 to 2017 career scientists at the EPA and federal wildlife agencies worked to implement the recommendations of the National Academy of Science assessing the impacts of pesticides. This collaborative and transparent process was developed with hundreds of hours of stakeholder input but was halted when then acting Interior Secretary David Bernhardt was briefed on the results of the initial assessments in October 2017.

This unprecedented effort to scuttle endangered species consultations spurred the EPA and wildlife agencies to attempt to justify their failure to release the analysis and to demonstrate they are taking action to save endangered animals on the brink of extinction.

*

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: San Joaquin kit fox, courtesy of USFWS

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump New Rules for Assessing Pesticide Risks Ignore Many Harms to Endangered Species
  • Tags:

It’s more than interesting—it’s significant—how various civilizations throughout history have had absolute faith their own primary mode of understanding the world, until catastrophic events caused people to violently destroy the symbols that held their world together, and left it all behind.

In the Indus Valley they walked away from their villages and abandoned their gods.

The tribe centered in Teotihuacan burned their temples before leaving, as did the ancient Egyptians after Pepi II’s death.

In each case, a once-dominant culture symbolized its death by rejecting the entities, the gods that unified them, and by burning their shrines.

In our time, the back-to-back sequence of WWI and WWII caused Western culture to burn their unifying mode of understanding the world: rationality and human dignity. As the drifting Indus and wandering Central Americans diffused and dissolved into history, Western culture is right now drifting into history, having abandoned its central unifying world view.

In our day, the temples of the old gods of rationality and of the human spirit–e.g. colleges and universities–like the temples of old, have been set on fire, in this case not literally, but by surrendering internally to a bleak relativism that knows only the rejection of all objective unity expressed by the morally exhausted exhalation of a single word: “resist.” In this deliberate self-impaling on the spike of relativism, the college surrendered to the external forces of neoliberal capitalism as a model for running education, by allowing it to make faculty into mini-administrators, and courses into outcome-based profit units, measured in terms of numbers alone. Just as in primal days, the collapse of cultural unity opens the door to that culture’s enemies, especially if that collapsing culture happened to be an empire, as in the case of Teotihuacan, Egypt, and our own U.S. Empire in the West.

So what have we burned? We have squandered a once-prosperous nation built on dual ideals of freedom and equality and turned them both inside out, into their negatives: freedom into the selfishness of “me first” as a virtue, and equality into the dominance me over you, or more obviously, one class over other classes, with the others splintered and siloed into small “identity groups” competing for leftover crumbs falling from the table of the dominant class. The result is increasing internal dissatisfaction between identity groups, and the likelihood of more and more extreme violence from the elite class upon the “identities classes” as a “means of discourse” as the crumbs dry up. The result will finish up the collapse of the bonds that join us as a society and as nations, that we see going on right now.

Not coincidentally, both levels of this collapse involve the rejection of reason of science that demonstrates the reality of the already-occurring climate catastrophe, and the rationality of ethics that holds the primacy of the dignity of each person and notions of responsibility as the primary concerns in any ethical discourse. Both have been replaced by a “discourse of desire,” focused on what we want, whoever the “we” happens to be defined as being.

If it is not yet obvious, here are just a few things that liberal-turned-neoliberal narcissism in conjunction with postmodern relativism have set on fire in the twilight of Western cultural dominance (you can find a detailed analysis of this development in Christopher Lasch, The Culture of Narcissism):

1) Collapse of international law

2) Collapse/U.S. rejection of treaties (e.g. ABM [Anti-ballistic Missile Treaty]; INF [Intermediate Range Nuclear Forces Treaty]; JCPOA [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action—nuclear treaty between U.S. and Iran])

3) Corporate-bought politicians

4) Racism and nationalism abound

5) Denial of any authority

6) Disenfranchisement of citizens and lack of citizen involvement

7) Politicians and political leaders disconnected from the people and in their own “billionaire’s bubble,” making laws only for themselves, and hearing only their billionaire colleagues, doing their own billionaire infighting (e.g. Donald Trump vs. Jeff Bezos, etc.)

8) Spying on citizens

But all is not lost, for deep in the recesses of both our individual thinking and our cultural memory, there remain the ideas that once held the promise for a better life for all people, had we simply been true to our words and in our consciences, and had we been more consistent in our actions, that these ideas applied to all people, and had we held our leaders fully and consistently accountable for those values, instead of allowing them to fill their pockets with their fruitless attempts to satiate their intrinsically insatiable greed.

It might behoove us to awaken this memory in and for the young generation which now has to migrate among and away from the ruins of what was once a thriving culture. First of all, we baby boomers owe an apology to the up and coming generation: we have let you down. We have failed you. We have left the planet, the economy, the social situation, and the government all in far worse shape than when we baby boomers took over in the late 1970’s.

The only thing we can do at this point is to try to help you repair the damage we have done. As we do this, we can also leave you some advice from our own past to guide your steps as you try to regain a way to return to the rule of the people, instead of the dictate of the few or a society of splintered groups clamoring for recognition. There are some things you might want to think about if you want to try restoring a functional democracy again.

First of all, realize that the restoration of democracy from the current authoritarian oligarchy under which we currently live is not going to happen overnight. Nor, unfortunately, is it going to happen under Bernie Sanders. Although he is a good and decent man, he, too, has let you down. He has refused to fight against the party that has fought against him, and he has already made it clear that he will not lead a revolution outside of that party. Another solution will be needed.

Second, realize that without a restoration of the primacy of reason/rationality—i.e. a bedrock belief in the innate ability of people take in information for themselves, to sort it out, to think independently, to discourse freely and openly (and that means with accountability, and not hiding behind electronic anonymity), and thus to make their own informed choices—a people’s democracy won’t even get off the ground.

Third, renew a commitment to the intrinsic dignity of all life—maybe even humans first, if we need to start somewhere—but to all life on the planet. This will help recalibrate a new ethical compass that will not misguide you. Given that renewed presupposition, here is what it can bring:

1) Equality of all, based on the recognition of the inherent dignity of all;

2) Freedom of all, not to fulfill individual desires nor narcissistic greed, but to live out a life of being the kind of person with the kind of creative character and career they choose;

3) Therefore, human rights can become important again;

4) Democratic ideals of citizenship

5) An end to the “me first” or “us first” and “you last” mentality that is currently dividing us

6) A return to the rule of law between government and its people and between governments and governments in the world order, to say nothing of laws of war when it occurs.

It is never to late to start to renew democracy, since democracy lives in the hearts of people, not in the halls of governments. We just need to remember that maxim, keep that fire burning, and get to work to reclaim what is rightfully ours, and not the oligarchs: our own rule!

*

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. Robert P. Abele holds a Ph.D. in Philosophy from Marquette University He is the author of three books: A User’s Guide to the USA PATRIOT Act (2005); The Anatomy of a Deception: A Logical and Ethical Analysis of the Decision to Invade Iraq (2009); Democracy Gone: A Chronicle of the Last Chapters of the Great American Democratic Experiment (2009). He contributed eleven chapters to the Encyclopedia of Global Justice, from The Hague: Springer Press (October, 2011). Dr. Abele is a professor of philosophy at Diablo Valley College, located in Pleasant Hill, California in the San Francisco Bay area. His web site is www.spotlightonfreedom.com

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Burning the Temples. The Collapsing Culture of the American Empire

The Battle of Idlib Is Far From Over

March 16th, 2020 by Elijah J. Magnier

The opening of the Saraqeb-Latakia road, known as the M4, is scheduled for this Sunday the 15th of March as established during the memorandum protocol signed in Moscow between the two presidents Vladimir Putin and Recep Tayyip Erdogan following the battle of Saraqeb.

The Turkish-Russian patrols are supposed to secure the M4  following a three-day meeting in Ankara between Russian and Turkish military to coordinate the joint patrols and to prevent any attacks from Jihadists. Many jihadists groups reject the Russian-Turkish deal and will likely shell the road or try to kidnap drivers. Everything depends on how decisive the Turkish army and its allies in the Idlib area will be in adhering to the ceasefire, and how convincing Russia’s response will be if the ceasefire is violated. 

The Aleppo-Damascus road, known as the M5, was liberated by military force (Russia, the Syrian army and its allies) and is now open for civilians. However, the Syrian army and its allies still use the safer Aleppo-Ithriya-Khanaser road. The battle of Saraqeb forced the Moscow deal and revived the 2018 Astana agreement that was ignored by Turkey for a year and a half.

Jihadists groups including Ansar al-Tawheed wal-Jihad, Ansar al-Islam, Ansar al-Deen, Kavkaz brigade and Hurras al-Deen (al-Qaeda in Bilad al-Sham) have decided to oppose the Russian-Turkish agreement and attack the joint patrol along the M4. These groups, along with Abu Imara, Tansiqiyat a-Jihad and Muhajereen brigade are sworn to oppose Turkey and Russia in rural Idlib. Northwestern Syria has been divided between two camps: one camp under Turkey’s control, acknowledging the Moscow-Astana agreement, and another rejecting it.

This week, a Russian military delegation visited Ankara to discuss with Turkish army leadership procedures to control the M4. Armed drones and Russian Air Force will be ready to intervene, along with Special Forces, to hit any attempt to oppose joint Russian-Turkish control of the M4 and to deal with any presence of jihadists along the road.

Al-Qaeda in Syria (Hurras al-Deen) issued audio of its Emir Hammam al-Suri (Samir Hijazi), one of the notorious Emirs of al-Qaeda who fought in Chechnya, Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, asking Syrian and other jihadists to “persist” in their position, thereby rejecting withdrawal from the M4.

Abu Mohamad al-Joulani – the ex-ISIS Emir who led al-Qaeda in Syria and quit it later to lead his jihadist group “Hayat Tahrir al-Sham” (former al-Nusra) – “thanked the Turkish government for its support in the last battle”. Joulani was ambiguous about his intentions in the coming days, when Russian-Turkish patrols are supposed to take control of the M4, even if Joulani concluded that “only the language of weapons will prevail”, indicating his will to continue fighting.

The Moscow deal (and before it Astana) free the M4 from the control of jihadists who are mainly foreign fighters. They control the cities of al-Nerab, Ariha, Jisr al-Shughur and Bdama. These foreign fighters are said to be entrenched in these cities. They reject any withdrawal. It will be the Turkish task to convince these jihadists by force or dialogue before Sunday the 15th. Jihadists managed to survive and restore their food and ammunition via Turkey only. It will be a hard choice for them: to wage war on Turkey and lose everything, or to hope that Ankara will manoeuvre further and prolong their presence for another year.

On the other hand, the Russian military delegation visiting Turkey in the past days said the Turkish party had realised the seriousness of Russia’s intention to implement the Moscow agreement by all means. According to the Russian delegation, the Turks realised that the M5 had been opened by force and that the M4 will follow if the Jihadists fail to withdraw. It is all in Ankara’s benefit to dislodge the jihadists from the M4 and entrench them in the city of Idlib. President Erdogan has no intention to deliver Idlib back to the Syrian government.

Sources close to President Bashar al-Assad said that the problem is not with Turkey but with President Erdogan himself.

“As long as Erdogan is in power, the problems between the two countries will persist. The Turkish president wants to divide Syria and keep control of the north, Idlib in particular, because it represents the first line of defence in front of Afrin. If Idlib is liberated, the Syrian army will knock the door of the north.”

Neither Russia nor Iran are willing to start a war with Turkey or to repeat the scenario of Saraqeb again. During the last battle for the control of the M5 and Saraqeb, the presence of the Turkish army along with Jihadists in the battlefield left 59 Turkish soldiers and officers killed, as Erdogan announced. The Turkish military was about to widen the conflict by indiscriminately bombing the Syrian army and its allies.

The Turkish command was angered following the destruction an armoured personnel carrier by a laser-guided missile (9M133 Kornet) fired by Syrian allies killing all Turkish servicemen in it. Turkey was planning to break the defence line on the city of Talhiyah but failed, notwithstanding the significant number of jihadists involved in the attack. Twenty-four hours before, Hezbollah Secretary General Sayyed Hassan Nasrallah ordered the dispatched of a large number of Ridwan Special Forces to reinforce the frontline notwithstanding the contest of his field commanders. Sayyed Nasrallah’s move saved the front from falling, a front that suffered a huge attack by Jihadists and Turkey.

Iran and its allies sent a strong message to Turkey warning they have no plans to be engaged in a war against Ankara troops but that they would if Turkey were to continue bombing their positions. Turkey concluded that Syria and its allies are determined to hold on to the entire liberated area and that a war between Turkey and Iran and its partners is not beneficial to any side involved.

Syria considers that Erdogan will not give up on the jihadists who obey his instructions. They represent a buffer and a significant asset he can use to fight in different parts of the world, i.e. Egypt, Libya, Syria, Iraq or anywhere he wants to be present. Jihadists help Erdogan to secure a place in the constitutional negotiation to limit the authority of the Syrian president and other reforms.

The presence of US forces in north-east Syria is a problem for Russia and the Syrian government since their goal is to “make it very difficult” to defeat jihadists and to “ban any assistance [of reconstruction] to put the country back together again”. Turkey, unlike the Syrian army, is capable of negotiating the US presence in the US-occupied north-east Syria. This is why Erdogan proposed to Putin joint management of oil fields in eastern Syria under  US control. Putin left the door open without agreeing to Erdogan’s proposal. The Turkish presence in Syria has become more problematic than the US occupation as long as this Turkish president is in power.

Indeed, even if Erdogan asserted in Moscow his willingness to preserve the unity of Syria, he can always align himself behind more than one excuse to stay in Syria.  The presence of millions of Syrian refugees internally displaced or the request of some elements – loyal to Turkey – of the Syrian population for Ankara to intervene as he has stated in previous occasions are enough reasons for him to keep his forces in Syria. This is the reason why Russia has enforced the opening of the M5 and M4 to crawl slowly towards Idlib city and limit the expansion of jihadists to a vast and challenging territory.

In the coming months, Russia and the Syrian government will rely on the rejection of jihadists in the Russian-Turkish agreement. If jihadists refuse to withdraw and continue violating the ceasefire (thirty violations registered in four days), there will be enough reasons for military intervention when all options are exhausted. This time Turkey will be able to do very little to protect the jihadists. Whatever direction this ceasefire will take, the battle of Idlib is far from over. It has only been postponed.

*

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

Somalia’s Dysfunctional Clan-Federalism

March 16th, 2020 by Dr. Bischara A. Egal

“Technological progress has merely provided us with more efficient means for going backwards.” – Aldous Huxley

“History can come in handy. If you were born yesterday, with no knowledge of the past, you might easily accept whatever the government tells you. But knowing a bit of history–while it would not absolutely prove the government was lying in a given instance–might make you skeptical, lead you to ask questions, make it more likely that you would find out the truth.” – Howard Zinn

“How we understand history is shaped by when we start the clock.” – Roger Waters

Introduction

Historical Background

The Federal Republic of Somalia is a country located in the Horn of Africa. It is bordered with Ethiopia to the west, Djibouti to the northwest, the Gulf of Aden to the north, the Indian Ocean to the east, and Kenya to the southwest. Somalia has the longest coastline on the continent’s mainland, and its terrain consists mainly of plateaus, plains and highlands. Climatically, hot conditions prevail year-round, with periodic monsoon winds and irregular rainfall. Somalia has a population of around 19 million (2017). Around 95% of its residents are ethnic Somalis, who share common language, land, history, culture. Somalis are 99% homogenous since the first settlement in Somalia’s history.

AS late Saadia Touval wrote

“Somalis are primarily homogenous people United by Cultural, Historical, religious, and linguistic ties as well by territorial contiguity, common traditions, and way of life. They posses ,moreover,  a highly developed sense of belonging to a Somali race and have a strong desire together in a government of their own.

Thus, Somali nationalism springs not from any influence of or reaction to colonial nor is it due to colonial rule, nor isit due to any absorption of the political outlook and ideas of the west; rather , it arises from the essentially homogenous nature of the Somali people. As a matter of fact, even the divisive impact of alien domination has utterly failed to make any headway in undermining the fundamental unity of the Somali nation”1

Somalis almost exclusively inhabit the Horn of Africa, form one of the most uniformly homogeneous populations of the continent. They speak one language, adhere to a single faith, and share a common cultural heritage which is an integral part of their nomadic way of life.

The very name “So maal”, when spoken in the imperative, means ‘Go and milk a beast for yourself’, welcome words of hospitality in a wandering stranger’s ears. The Somali’s self-conception is inseparable from his flocks and his historical grazing lands. Yet, the Somalis have watched helplessly for the past generation or two as their pasturelands were dismembered by colonizing European powers and neighbouring potentates.2

Since the demise of the central government  of Somalia  Siad Barre‘s government in January 1991 and The Civil war and Violence that ensued up to 1996 when a strong man SNA leader Gen. Mohamed Farah Aideed was killed by one of his own tribal militias.

Somalia was ravaged by a vicious tribal and resources Hyper-warfare founded, funded, and controlled from outside of the country, especially by western corporate and deep state complex interest using tribal wars and supewramacy as means to political and economic supremacy.

After 16 reconciliation conferences mostly outside of insecure Somalia, the warring Somali factions agreed to political  Transition  & the establishment of the Transitional National Government in 2006 (succeeded by the Transitional Federal Government), there was no central in Somalia.[3]

The Transitional Federal Government, formed in 2004 under the Transitional Federal Charter Which recognized it as the central government of Somalia. Under this charter there was alongside the national constitution, the Transitional Federal Charter of the Somali Republic [2] (TFC) lays out the basic way in which the government is to operate.

Executive power (President), Legislative (Parliament) and independent and separate Judiciary (lawmaking bodies + delivery system) as well as semi-autonomous regional states i.e. Somaliland & Puntland.

This political arrangement has function and administered the republic from 2004-2008 and 2009 – 2013 for Presidents Abdullahi Ahmed Yussuf and Sheikh Sharif  Sheikh Ahmed respectively Until the Nascence and rebirt6h of a Somali Federal system and Government on August 22, 2014 after the end of the Transitional Federal System.

This Federal System heralded the nation to a new and challenging (Legally and politically) territories Which Somalis have no experience now and in the past. Since Somalia from independence up to 1991 was administered in a unitary central system of a Republic. Especially in Governance, Socio- Economic, development of national security apparatus, and the development and revival of Somali National character and culture.

What is federalism and Why for Somalia?

federalism is a system of government in which power is divided between a central authority and constituent (regional, provincial and local starlets-Cantons) political units. Federalism balances powers by distributing functions between a central government and a regional government.

Federalism divides authority between the state/regional/constituent governments and federal governments. Ex: The federal authorities are responsible in Foreign Affairs, and International Cooperation, National Finance, Taxation, and Defense departments. Internal Securities, Border security and control; Immigration and Citizenship departments. National Treasury and Development Policies and Constitutional Laws.

There are two types of federation: 1) Coming together Federation and 2) Holding together Federation. Federalism has dual objectives of safeguarding and promoting unity of the country and recognizing regional diversity (in the case of Somalia –clan  affinities +belongings) by way of mutual trust and agreement of living together.

The use of Federal System in Somalia is new although it has been used globally in many African, American (both North + South), Asian, European and Latin America countries before. Such Examples are Austria, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, India, Ethiopia, Former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Germany, Mexico, Nigeria, Russia, Switzerland, South Africa, Spain & the USA.

Out of 54 African Nations, ethnic (clan) federalism is found  only in 3 countries  of (Ethiopia, Nigeria and S. Africawhich have special sociological, historical, cultural and political experience then Homogeneous united Somalia.

There are many types of federalism: Regional Federalism; Cooperative Federalism; Ethnic Federalism and Territorial federalism. Why would Somalia a homogenous nation (98%) in every aspect i.e. culturally, socially, ethnically, historically, linguistically, and religiously,   choose clan federalism? And who was behind it?

In specific matters of legislation, taxation and administration, in federalism each tier has its own jurisdiction. Jurisdiction is the legal authority and can be defined in terms of geographical area or subject-matter to which such authority applies. There are two or more tiers or levels of Government:  In Somalia’s case there are The Central government, The State government and the local (District) self-government.

Since the inception of clan- Federalism based on 4.5 model of clan power division in2014 in Somalia, the central government faced a lot of challenges developmental, fiscal, constitutional, security and above all how to implement and make functional the federalist political system in the country.

“From developing functional state, regional and local federal governing systems to strengthening the central federal system in Mogadishu Capital City (3.7 pop), Benadir region which is an independent regional administration of 17 districts which under the federal constitution the Executive Branch/President appoints the Regional Governor of Benadir who is also the Mayor of City of Mogadishu.

All processes used to form the Federal States have undermined the sovereignty and political independence of the federal (central) government, usurped the responsibilities of the federal parliament, and legitimized political dishonesty and disregard of the rule of law. They abolished the right of the Somali citizens to challenge the unconstitutionality and harmful consequences of the clan based States.

Nepotism, injustices, economic and financial mismanagement, rampant corruption, and abuse of political power, have caused the total collapse of the Somali State. The fight against those negative clan influences in the public sphere of Somalia is fundamental for rebuilding the Somali State. There are tested legal systems, public administration practices, and economic policies that guarantee regional autonomy or decentralization of state power while strengthening the leadership authority of the central government for national unity and harmony. The path for Somalia’s recovery starts and ends with patriotic conscience, respect and defense of the rule of law and Islamic values rather than in clan rivalry and discrimination disapproved by Almighty Allah.

The Somali society enjoys unique culture that has less to share with Germany, Switzerland, or United States of America in terms of the letters’ choices for different federal systems of governance suitable for them. Somalia needs a system of governance that counters clan ills.

The litigation over the federal and local governments’ democratic performances with respect to the rule of law would make sense after the establishment of shared central government that exercises power all over Somalia through integrated governance structures.  Then, the current temporary clan formula of 4.5 or 3.5 in Puntland and Somaliland will be replaced by a transparent and well administered electoral political system. Clan federalism weakens national identity, unity, and reliance.”4

Who is behind the push for Clan Federalism in Homogenouse  Somalia?

Clan federalism was pushed into Somali political and social psychic after 10 years of European Union, UK, US, Ethiopian, Kenyan, Emirates and Saudi external destabilization process of Somalia from  1998-2015.

All the (17)  UN brokered Reconciliations conferences were infested, controlled, influenced and pushed by non-Somalis for their own  narrow + destructive Geo-strategic and political interests in Somalia Not that of Somalia, it future, sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and absoulty not its Unity and Prosperity.

Clan Federalism and “kililism + Balkanization” of Somalia through Ethiopian manipulations of AU & IGAD offices  as well as the UN in perpetuating the ideology of clanism and clan federalism in another words , it is the full  development of the “Building Block theory  of Ethiopia , Kenya and Djibouti , Which are, of course, both members of the Standing Committee whose current strategy for Somalia revolves around the “building block” approach, using the development of local administrative units as the basis for a decentralised approach to Somali unity. The Ethiopian and Egyptian-sponsored conferences at Sodere (January 1997) and Cairo (October 1997) only succeeded in highlighting the divisions among Somali faction leaders, and among interested regional powers. The idea of the “building blocks” arises from the SACB’s evaluation of certain local administrative bodies as “responsible”, and the UN’s identification of zones of “recovery”, “transition” and “crisis” in Somalia.” 5)

Foreign and External Actors using Clan Federalism for Somali “Balkanization-Killilism”

“Clan politics, rivalry and hatred have ruined the social bond, moral principles and trust among Somalis who share a language, culture, territory, history and religion. Now, three political manifestations – secession, clan based federalism and a unitary decentralized political system – divide them and are an obstacle to the recovery of the lost nation.

The Provisional Constitution (PC) rejects secession, suggests voluntary federalism of regions while it establishes a unitary democratic central government. Respect for human rights, political and civil rights for all citizens, a free market economic system, political pluralis and promotion of peace constitute the basic foundation of the new constitution. The US diplomatic recognition of the government of Somalia gives impetus to the implementation of these goals and offers space and encouragement for internal unity and dialogue

Therefore the people of Somalia led by their farsighted and legitimate leaders have the responsibility to engage a national dialogue that aims to respond to the sentiments and anxieties underlying the three political manifestations so that a strong Somalia can bargain with the international community. In his 1963 book on Somali nationalism, Saadia Touval wrote,

“Somali nationalism as opposed to “they” which has existed among the Somalis for many centuries. It was nurtured by tribal genealogies and traditions, by the Islamic religious ties, and by conflicts with foreign people.” This kind of exceptional Somali nationalism is now needed more than ever. Political negotiations in bad faith fail Somalia.

Today’s acrimonious relations among Somalis are in full public display. The late Said Osman Kenediid captured this sad situation when he said in his book “xusuusqor”, a Somali becomes foe of the other when clan diversity is discovered. This approximates the present social breakdown.

Clan federalism worsens the situation and tears Somalia apart. It is an overstatement, even wrong, to claim that the PC has created a federal government for Somalia. Yes, article 1(1) stipulates the establishment of the Federal Republic of Somalia (FG). The stakeholders of this FG are the 4.5 clans represented by the 275 members of the Federal Parliament (FP) and not by Federal Member States (FMS), Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama, Ras Kamboni or other factions.

In accordance with articles 48 and 49 of the PC, the FP must enact a law establishing the parameters and conditions to be used for the establishment of FMS and appoint a commission that will study the issue. The findings of the commission will determine the options. Article 49 (6) sets only one parameter: The voluntary merger of two or more regions based on the 1991 boundaries can form an FMS. In the interim, FG will represent the country and administer the regions and districts.

Clan-based federalism is against many articles of the PC. For example it is against Article 8 on the people and citizenship; Article 11 concerning equality of all citizens and prohibition of clan based discrimination; Article 21 on the freedom of movement and residence; Article 46 which prescribes that the power of self-governance begins and ends with the people. Article 142 does not recognize in name the existing FMSs and harms national interest.

The late Ethiopian PM  Meles Zenawi believed that Somalia could be divided strictly by their clan identity, and “killilism + clan-land” so as to fulfill the Menelik (Abyssinian king and Amharic crusader and warmongering Ras of 19th) ideology of usurping Somali territories+ soverngiuty  by “divide & conquer” ideological hyper-warfare. This clan- federalism is straight from Abyssinian Menelik policy towards “Ethiopianization of Somalia” 6

“Also, in 1995, the European Union funded a study project co-chaired by Prof Ioan M Lewis and James Mayall who issued a document titled, “A study of decentralized political structure of Somalia: A Menu of Options,” In 1998, the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry drafted a policy paper for the conceptualization and implementation of a “clan based building blocks strategy” for Somalia. Despite the widely documented criticisms (debunking),  if not outright rejection of clan federalism by the majority of Somalis, foreign powers spearheading federalism went ahead with the imposition of a federal system- a harbinger of national conflict.

Nation building opponents, theorists of “wicked problem” concept in political science, revisionists of Westphalian nation-state sovereignty for fragile (failed, weakened, collapsed) States, war on terror pundits and profiteers, donor bureaucrats, and historically rival neighbors ( Ethiopia and Kenya) have targeted Somalia to seriously debilitate rather than rehabilitate. These groups would use Somalia as a laboratory experiment or as a site for looting foreign aid. They have developed brilliant narratives that have obfuscated the flaws and superficiality of the perfunctory international efforts to help Somalia” (7)

As I have mentioned  in a policy paper to Somali Monitoring Group (SMG) 1996.

“The EU perverted the International community’s and their own precious Institutions, in order to cover their plundering and corrupting goals in Somalia. The United Nations and its specialized agencies in Somalia plus the International NGOs are also perverted. Millions of Humanitarian and Development Funds are diverted to secret and private Europeans Accounts for personal deposit, both by EU officials such as, Illing and by Somali collaborators (Warlords). Somali peoples wishes, hopes, and dreams are subverted, by keeping the internal civil strife, clan wars, drought and lawlessness on.

It hardly needs mentioning that European Union funds and financial contributions to some of the Somali Factions in the South and to Egal’s Administration in the North-West contributed the internal conflict in the country. EU funds disguised as “Humanitarian Aid” were given in huge amount, usually through European or/ and Somali middle men. In the wake of this adventurous and enterprising European policy, the political situation in Somalia and the Horn of Africa turned polarized and corrupt.

According to European Union and Illing, Somali history is being re-written in a very big way and as a result of that we are now living ina world were our past is being denied, where our political, social, cultural and historical developments in the past has been reduced to a minor footnote, thus designing and creating a new Somalia according to their wishes (Western).

These days Somalia and many African and Developing nations which are experiencing internal Civil strife/ wars are turned into a political and economic “Feifdoms” run and operated by Western NGO’s who are an extension of their nations foreign departments and policies. They propagate western political ideology and economic/ social dependency in these countries at time of great social and political CRISIS.

Through EU funding many International (European) NGO’s such as the Swedish “Life and Peace” are funded in order to assist Illing’s policy plane of disseminating and propagating the idea of many small, independent tribe/ethnics in Somalia with their own tribal Regions/Homelands with ethnic exclusiveness that will be composed in the whole map of the country. And through “Life and Peace NGO,” European Union is trying to socially, politically, ethnically (tribal) engineer a New Somalia according to their Liking.

The truth of the matter is, that European Union Funds and Policy towards Somalia is politically motivated and is Eurocentric. It is generally not permanent nor can they fulfill wholly, or even substantially, the great needs (Infra-structure and sustainability) of Somalia, since this type of Aid and Assistance does not essentially reverse the Socio – Economic and Political circumstances that created current conditions of need and despair in the country.

In Conclusion, Sigurd Illing and the European Union can disturb Somali peace peace and reconstruction, fuel clan wars and tribal discourses through their Humanitarian Aid Funds, destroy precious Somali lives and properties, but they will never succeed in realizing their GOALS. They will never DESTROY Somali nationalism, Somali Dignity and History of fighting against oppression and neo-colonialism but can only disturb it, and damage it. And if Somalis yield to this harmful policy of European intervention they would be surrendering their independence and sovereignty to them which will continue to perpetuate their dominance over them ad Infinitum – it will then be a matter of time before re-colonization of Somalia becomes a total REALITY.

European Union Development funds and their political system have impacted Somalia negatively, for what is emerging is an unjust and corrupt society and system. A system which allows a privileged foreigners (EC/US) plus their Somalia collaborators to dominate the political and social life of Somalia; A system which leaves vast majority of Somalis poor, diseased and powerless. A system which allows greed by the few (Expatriates)to grow and authoritarian rule to spread as a thread to the Nationhood.

In sum, the impact of continued western (EU/US) interference into Somalia has resulted the destruction and blunder of the country’s national infrastructure and its wealth – assets that were built over 3 decades with national and international expertise and help. The future outlook for Somalia is indeed bleak as long as this external intervention continues.”(8)

Conclusion

Somalia clan federalism resembles the clan division suggested by President Yuweri K. Museveni of Uganda in his letter dated July 15, 2009 for handling the Banyoro political grievance against Bafuruki in Banyuro region. Banyoro are considered an indigenous (natives) clan, while Bafuruki (migrants/settlers) – a derogatory word – are Ugandan citizens whose ancestral land is not Banyuro region even if they were born in it. The president proposed clan land ownership and ring-fencing the positions of local councils and Member of Parliament for the indigenous (native) Banyoro clan. This has raised a firestorm inside and outside Uganda because it was seen as tribalist, unpatriotic and unconstitutional and later President Museveni backtracked.

The signs of many problems associated with clan federalism like violent minority dissent within are now visible in Puntland. In fact, clan federalism rather than solving the problems of bad governance expands them. Only Ethiopia, Nigeria and South Africa practice clan based federalism in the African continent. A comparative study carried out in 2012 shows that African federalism fails for at least nine causes like a lack of commitment to democratic values and obstruction of the central government authority.

In the gloomy prospect for Somalia’s future, the observations of Saadia Touval about Somali nationalism provide pride and hope. He testified that Somali leaders were always striving to eradicate “political tribalism” because it was and still is detrimental to national harmony. In 1958, political parties with clan names were banned. He also stated that Somali leaders (northerners) gave up their privileged positions for the sake of realizing the broader nationalist goals of unifying the British and Italian territories in 1960. These kinds of patriotism are deeply rooted in the Somali culture and could re-emergence at the right moment like today.(9)

To me, one question Somalis need to ask themselves at this juncture is: Will western and special interest external forces induced (pushed) Clan – federalism ever work in Somalia or will it simply open up a Pandora’s box of more problems that can eventually destroy Somalia?

In its current form, I honestly think, Somalia can’t afford to have a federal system because to introduce one in a country like Somalia, which is in the grip of security, economic and political crises, is to dismember Somalia . What the Horn of Africa nation needs now is stability that allows it to resolve its myriad problems and have a strong government that works not for certain regions or clans but for all Somalis.

*

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

Prof. Dr. Bischara Ali Egal is Executive Director, Chief Researcher of The Horn of Africa Center for Strategic and international Studies (Horncsis.org)

Notes

1. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/somali-nationalism-by-touvalsaadiacambridge-mass-harvard-university-press-1963-pp-214-495/41F08775C39334FDB7C1A6EC33C7DEF7

2. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/somali-nationalism-its-origins-and-future/C009A6DE4B6528A5775FEEE9E62CFD11

3. https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/clan-federalism-tears-somalia-apart

4. https://www.thesstar.com/somalia-is-too-intertwined-to-federate/

5. https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/somalia-are-building-blocks-solution

6. https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/clan-federalism-tears-somalia-apart

7. https://www.mareeg.com/fidsan.php?Destructive-Governance-Model-for-Somalia:-the-case-of-Prof-Ken-Menkhaus&sid=25747&tirsan=3

8. SIGURD ILLING: AN EMPROR IN SEARCH OF AN AFRICAN COLONY.“AN INDEPTH AND CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITY’S POLICY TOWARDS SOMALI AND THE ROLE ITS SPECIAL ENVOY PLAYS 1996” By Dr. Bischara Ali Egal.

9. https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/clan-federalism-tears-somalia-apart

10. https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.easo.europa.eu%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Fpublic%2FCOI-Report-Somalia.pdf&psig=AOvVaw3wLyZ_cqdzqvXmcsNU102&ust=1583663633779000&source=images&cd=vfe&ved=2ahUKEwjM3_nzlIjoAhWI2uAKHU0uBwkQr4kDegUIARDLAQ

11. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-modern-african-studies/article/somali-nationalism-by-touvalsaadiacambridge-mass-harvard-university-press-1963-pp-214-495/41F08775C39334FDB7C1A6EC33C7DEF7

12. https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/clan-federalism-worst-option-state-building-somalia

13. https://africanarguments.org/2014/02/14/somali-decentralization-a-delicate-balancing-act-by-dr-afyare-elmi/

14. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03056249908704367?journalCode=crea20

They live in huts, without sanitation and without perspective: the EU wants it like that, says the globalization critic Jean Ziegler on the refugee camp Moria.

***

The Swiss Jean Ziegler is one of the most famous globalization critics. In an interview, he talks about his experiences at the Moria hot spot in Greece, which serves as a refugee camp for migrants on the European external border.

ZEIT ONLINE: Mr. Ziegler, did you travel to the Moria refugee camp on the Greek island of Lesbos?

Jean Ziegler: I am here as vice-chairman of the committee of experts advising the UN Human Rights Council. This is one of the most important bodies of the United Nations, he reviewed the human rights policy of the 193 member states. On Lesbos I prepare a resolution on the so-called hotspots; those camps where the European Union keeps refugees and subjects them to a fast asylum procedure.

ZEIT ONLINE: What situation did you find in Moria?

Ziegler: A terrible one. Quite Terrible! The camp is located in a former barracks and is crowded with 5,000 people. That’s why there are unofficial camps all around the olive groves. Families from Syria or Afghanistan have cobbled together makeshift protective structures made of branches and plastic. In the middle of Europe they live in huts as they are known from Bangladesh or the slums of Honduras. 35 percent of the residents are children under 10 years.

ZEIT ONLINE: What consequences has the distress in the camp?

Ziegler: Here 100 people have to share a shower and a toilet. It’s often clogged, filthy, feces lying around. There is no hot water, no schools and just two doctors – for 5,000 people! The food that catering companies supply on behalf of the government is often inedible. Also the security is not guaranteed, although Greek police are on site. Many women do not dare to go to the bathroom at night because of rape. With all that, I first described the physical condition. The psychological misery is still added.

ZEIT ONLINE: What did you learn about it?

Ziegler: The people here often have terrible experiences behind them. Bombing, torture, shipwreck on the Mediterranean. Now they are sitting here in prison, surrounded by barbed wire, and they do not know what to expect. I talked to a young Afghan who lives with his family on Lesvos since February. His first appointment with theAsylprüfungsbehörde was announced for June 14, 2020. The procedures are delayed, and it is not the Greek judges who exercise the real power over the fate of these people.

ZEIT ONLINE: Who else?

Ziegler: The first survey will be carried out by officials of the European Asylum Support Office, EASO for short. This often takes only 15 minutes per person, according to computer specifications, tak tak tak. But how should someone who is traumatized report on such experiences as torture, rape, or persecution in such a short time? In order to talk about it, it takes time and a personal contact has to develop. If these people are not given the opportunity to explain themselves, then the dossiers on the basis of which the Greek authorities and courts judge are programmed for rejection.

ZEIT ONLINE: The EASO is not allowed to decide for itself, the national authorities do.

Ziegler: But the first survey marks the process. The universal human right to asylum is undermined by administrative trivialities. As early as 2017, the lawyers of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights (ECCHR) non-governmental organization complained to the European Ombudsman, with all the allegations that I am raising. In its reply, the EU Ombudsman stated that EASO’s actions raise serious concerns – but the case was dismissed and the investigation closed.

ZEIT ONLINE: Who should be sent back, but can still appeal?

Ziegler: Of course, Greece is a constitutional state. But the judges meet in Athens. They do not even get to see the asylum seekers. I express my admiration to non-governmental organizations such as Pro Asyl or Medico International, who, together with Greek young lawyers, are trying to enforce the objections in Athens. They are doing Sisyphus work.

ZEIT ONLINE: The EU blames the Greek government for all these conditions. They receive billions, but neither the supply nor the administration work. Would you agree with that?

Ziegler: Apparently, millions of dollars are allocated for feeding the refugees, and organizational efficiency is missing everywhere. For example, the United Nations Refugee Commissioner may provide emergency tents. However, the Greek government did not request them, so people have to continue to live in their plastic homes. Nobody understands that here. Perhaps there is also European pressure behind such decisions. The concrete heads in Brussels hope that terrible images from the camps will stop people. This is not only inhuman, but also unrealistic.

*

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 “People Live Here Like Animals”: Moria Refugee camp on Greek island of Lesbos
  • Tags: , ,

Since the US pulled its support from the Kurdish SDF in Syria, there hasn’t been much talk of them getting foreign aid, while Turkish forces continue to square up against them in the Syrian northeast.

Reports now are that Egypt is leading the charge among the Gulf Arab states to start providing “major military assistance” to the SDF, and doing so with an eye toward facilitating their fight with Turkey.

Egypt also gave the SDF a diplomatic office in Cairo, and a TV station. This has resulted in the UAE and Saudi Arabia both getting involved, and providing financial support for the Kurds.

This isn’t all coming out of a blue, of course. Turkey has angered these countries with its heavy support for Libya’s Government of National Accord (GNA), while Egypt and the others are backing Gen. Khalifa Hafter. In a way, this influx of arms for the Kurds can be seen as retaliation for Turkey sending aid to the GNA in Tripoli.

*

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.

Frankly and in summary: recently The United States of America has crossed several lines, committing atrocities, in many parts of the world. In the past, no country could get away with this; such situations would inevitably lead to war.

Presently, war is “avoided” only because the world is too frightened of Washington and its mafia-style deeds. Countries on all continents are accepting the lawlessness and thuggery of Washington and the allies; bitterly, but accepting. If ordered, many of them have been falling on their knees, begging for mercy. If hit hard, they have lost the courage and strength to hit back.

There are no sanctions, no embargos imposed on the US, which is the biggest violator of international law. There are no retaliatory actions taken against its bullying, attacks, covert and overt operations. The U.N. has become a laughing stock, toothless and irrelevant, synonymous with Western interests.

The fact is – the world is scared. It is petrified. Just as a little creature is petrified and immobilized, when faced by a cobra.

It has gotten to this level. To a primitive, never before witnessed level. In the past, colonies fought back, aiming at independence. Indochina fought against the Western Empire, losing millions, but fought.

Now, Washington and its allies commit crimes, and they laugh straight in the faces of victims: “Now what? What are you going to do? Hit me back? Just try; I will burn your family members alive, break all your bones.”

You think I am exaggerating? Oh no, I am not; not at all! This is the level the West really has sank to. And almost no one dares to talk about it! Except… Well, of course, except Russia, China, Iran and few other brave nations.

*

But look at what has happened to Iran. It is just an example of how thuggish, how insane Washington’s foreign policy is (if one could really call it a foreign policy):

Iran has done nothing bad to anyone; at least not in recent modern history. In 1953, the West arranged and implemented a horrific coup against the democratic, left-leaning Prime minister Mohammad Mosaddegh. Washington and London put on the throne a real monster – Shah Reza Pahlavi. Millions of lives were ruined. People were tortured, raped, and murdered. Then, in 1980, Iraq was armed and unleashed against Iran, again by the West. Consequently, hundreds of thousands of people died.

But no, that was not enough! Modern, socialist and internationalist Iran helped to defend the entire Middle East against terrorism which has been released by the West and its allies in the Gulf. Teheran also joined forces with several left-wing countries in Latin America, including Venezuela, helping them, among other things, to build social housing, media outlets, and the oil industry.

Therefore, Iran became the target of the U.S. and Israel. President Trump cancelled the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), a win-win agreement. For absolutely no reason, sanctions against Iran were re-introduced. Iran’s allies in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Yemen and elsewhere, were attacked by Israeli drones and by war planes, and by relentless Saudi bombing.

Then, the United States murdered the most revered Iranian military figure, General Qasem Soleimani, and they did it on Iraqi soil. This was a double act of war, against Iran and Iraq, which had officially invited General Soleimani in order to negotiate the peace process with the Saudis.

Then, the real banditry of Washington got exposed:

Iran, outraged and in mourning, has declared that it will retaliate; avenge the murder of its heroic commander, as well as the others who were killed by the U.S. attack near Baghdad airport. Trump and his entourage replied immediately, threatening Iran, declaring that if it dares to retaliate, it would face terrible re-retaliation.

Basically, the U.S. claims that it can kill your people anywhere it wants, and if you fight back, it reserves right to obliterate you.

The world has done nothing. It is doing nothing. The United Nations is taking zero concrete actions to stop the biggest bully.

On 4th January, 2020, Donald Trump Tweeted in 3 separate messages, something that vaguely resembled the language of the German occupation forces during WWII:

“Iran is talking very boldly about targeting certain USA assets as revenge for our ridding the world of their terrorist leader who had just killed an American, & badly wounded many others, not to mention all of the people he had killed over his lifetime, including recently hundreds of Iranian protesters. He was already attacking our Embassy, and preparing for additional hits in other locations. Iran has been nothing but problems for many years. Let this serve as a WARNING that if Iran strikes any Americans, or American assets, we have targeted 52 Iranian sites (representing the 52 American hostages taken by Iran many years ago), some at a very high level & important to Iran & the Iranian culture, and those targets, and Iran itself, WILL BE HIT VERY FAST AND VERY HARD. The USA wants no more threats!”

Outrageous lies, manipulations of a primitive businessman, elected by the American people to lead their country and the world. A man of no culture (one of the things that, perhaps, made him so popular among so many people in his country).

What he is really saying is this: “We overthrew your government, we unleash a war against you, we impose sanctions, prevent you from selling your own oil, and then we murder the second most important man in your country. That is all fine. But, if you defend yourself, if you dare retaliate, we will basically bomb your country back to the stone age, as we have bombed so many other countries to the stone age, including Laos, Cambodia and Vietnam.”  All this is because the United Sates and West in general believe that they mainly consist of chosen people. That they are different. That they are by definition correct.

And that is, my friends and comrades, the same ‘philosophy’ used by ISIS, and by al Qaida. It is deep, extremist, religious fanaticism. As the United States uses market fundamentalism in its trade wars, it also applies primitive fanaticism in the way it deals with the rest of the world.

In a way, the world order is now resembling order imposed in Mosul under the ISIS occupation.

*

After the killing of General Soleimani, the planet has exploded in outrage, including some of Washington’s allies. Even Israel has refused to back the U.S. in this particular case.

UNESCO (which the United States left after it recognized Palestine and after it refused to follow Washington’s diktat), issued a statement, reported by RT:

“Meanwhile, UNESCO also told the US to stay away from Iran’s cultural heritage, reminding Washington that it is party to treaties which explicitly prohibit the targeting of cultural sites during armed conflict.”

But that is not all. It has not ended with Iran only.

Iraq, outraged that the murder of Iranian allies took place on its soil, and that some of its people were also killed in the attack, demanded the full withdrawal of U.S. military forces.

The reply from Trump:

“If they do ask us to leave, if we don’t do it on a very friendly basis, we will charge them sanctions like they’ve never seen before, ever. We have a very extraordinarily expensive airbase that’s there. It cost billions of dollars to build. Long before my time. We’re not leaving unless they pay us back for it.”

Now just think what has been happening: Iraq was starved and bombed, and hundreds of thousands have died as a result of the depleted uranium that was used in U.S. warheads. Then came the U.S. invasion of 2003. The country was thoroughly ruined. Once proud Iraq, with a very high human development index (UNDP) virtually collapsed, became a beggar. On top of that, terrorist groups were injected into its territory, as they were, into Syria.

And now the President of the occupying country is demanding that the victim, Iraq, actually pays for the military bases constructed on its territory?

This is, of course, thoroughly sick, grotesque, but nobody is laughing, just as no one is publicly disgusted.

And these mafia tactics have been paying off, until now. Iraq which finally dared to stand up, shouting enough is enough, down with the occupation, began backing down. Abdul Mahdi’s office issued a communique:

“The prime minister stressed the importance of mutual cooperation on implementing the withdrawal of foreign troops, in line with the Iraqi parliament’s resolution, and to set relations with the United States on a proper foundation.”

Of course, U.S. threats and U.S. armor on the Iraq’s territory, have been frightening too many people in Baghdad.

United States occupation forces have never brought anything good to their victims.

The best example is Afghanistan, the once proud socialist country, where women and men enjoyed equal rights. Around two decades after the US/NATO occupation, the country is the poorest, and with the shortest life expectancy, on the Asian continent.

Then and Now

I worked there on several occasions and was shocked by the bestiality of the U.S. rule. Burqa-clad women begging with their infants, sitting on speed-bumps near U.S. military bases. These bases are surrounded by poppy seeds, used for the cultivation and production of drugs, under U.S. and U.K. sponsorship. And foreign contractors, as well as NATO soldiers, shared with me horrific stories of spite: how unused food is burned by the Americans, while people are starving. How, when some old base is abandoned, it is dynamited and bulldozed down. The logic is simple: “There was nothing when we came, and there will be nothing after we leave!”

But paying for occupation bases is something new; a new concept by the empire.

Syria. “We want oil” declared Trump, recently. No niceties, no hide-and-seek. The U.S. military is staying. Turkish military, which has been supporting terrorists for years, is staying. The U.S.– backed Uyghur terrorists are staying in Idlib area. While, as recently as on February 24, Israelis have been bombing the outskirts of Damascus.

And, all this is allowed to happen. In a broad daylight. Committed by people who openly support, even promote torture. Imperialists whom the BBC recently described as ‘noninterventionists!” In brief: U.S. regime.

*

In just the few latest months, Washington created and financed riots in Hong Kong, intimidating China, trying to trick the most populous nation into a crackdown against the treasonous cadres that are demanding the return of British colonialist rule, as well as a U.S. invasion.

China is also facing brutal Western propaganda attacks, related to coronavirus.

Washington overthrew the socialist, democratic multi-ethnic government in Bolivia, and it is starving millions of people, while backing an illegitimate self-proclaimed right-wing puppet political figure in Venezuela.

*

The things the West does to China and Russia would lead to a war, if they were happening some 30 years ago.

The more diplomacy is used by Russia and China, the more aggressive the United States becomes, the more reassured of its own exceptionalism it gets.

It is time to re-think the entire concept of engagement with the United States.

It is because the United States and its allies have already crossed all lines and are now holding the entire world hostage.

Perhaps what we are all experiencing now is not a war, at least not in the classic sense of the word, but it is an occupation – brutal and shameless. Almost the entire planet used to be occupied by Europe, some 100 years ago. Now it is occupied, directly and indirectly, by Europe’s offspring – the United States. It is not always a military occupation, but occupation it is. World is held hostage. It is petrified. It doesn’t dare to speak, to dream, often even to think.

This is the most undemocratic global arrangement imaginable.

The world has fallen on its knees. It has surrendered itself, as if in some extremist religious ritual.

It gets hit but does not hit back. It gets looted, but doesn’t dare to protect itself and its people.

All this makes no sense: countries that got occupied, or where governments have been overthrown, are now living in absolute misery, even in agony: Iraq and Libya, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Honduras, Brazil, to name just a few.

For how long will the entire world lick the boots of a country with only around 300 million inhabitants, which produces hardly anything, and governs over the world through brutality and fear? It only prints money. It only insults human logic. It vulgarizes everything on earth; everything that used to be sacred to humanity.

I have to remind those who prefer not to notice: millions are dying, annually, all over the world, because of this “arrangement of the world”. Surrender and submission do not save lives. The empire never stops; it never has enough.

And one more old wisdom: kneeling in front of terror never brought liberation, or progress!

In more and more countries that I am visiting, all over the world, people are admiring “Russian way”, and “Chinese way”. You would never read this in Western mass media outlets, but precisely this is taking place: injured, brutalized and humiliated countries are beginning to levitate towards those great countries which are proudly standing and refusing to surrender to Western terror.

*

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 NEO.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative”,China and Ecological Civilization”with John B. Cobb, Jr., “Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism”, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and Latin America, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website, his Twitter and his Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

As COVID-19 (coronavirus) spreads, it is a clear reminder that germs and viruses don’t respect national boundaries in an interconnected world. But the mainstream press has certainly not publicized how corporate capitalism and imperialism cross national boundaries to destroy people’s health.

The responsibility of U.S. corporate power, especially the medical-industrial complex, in the calculated destruction of basic health care capacity in the U.S. and worldwide must be challenged. On a global scale, the connection of the largest U.S. pharmaceutical corporations to U.S. sanctions policies — whether signed by executive order, voted for in the U.S. Congress or pushed by U.S. ambassadors through the United Nations Security Council —  demands careful scrutiny by investigative journalists, human rights organizations and working-class organizations.

Consider the role of Josh Black. He was U.S. head of sanctions and counterterrorism enforcement at the United Nations from 2008 to 2016 under the Obama administration; then Black joined the Trump administration’s National Security Council.

Black’s stated role was coordinating “peacekeeping operations” and sanctions policies passed by the U.N. Security Council — measures calculated to strangle economies and ruin lives in Iran, North Korea, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Sudan.

Josh Black now represents the giant medical corporations that hold peoples’ lives hostage to profits. He is still based at the U.N., now as vice president of one of this country’s most powerful lobbying organizations. PhRMA — short for Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America and also known as Big Pharma — is the global lobby for the U.S. pharmaceutical industry.

In his new role Black is still involved in enforcement and compliance with U.S- imposed sanctions. On his LinkedIn site he brags: “Looking forward to presenting on complex 50% rule scenarios at the ACI Economic Sanctions Enforcement and Compliance conference on May 2nd.

There are whole series of conferences and seminars where global sanctions compliance, internal audits and investigations, international trade, banking, insurance are discussed. Entire fields of law, banking and accounting are involved in enforcing hundreds of sanction regulations and brutally cutting off every possible source of supplies and equipment to starve targeted countries.

Marchers on International Working Women’s Day in New York City on March 8 demand an end to sanctions and comprehensive support for workers during the COVID-19 epidemic. (Source: author)

Josh Black is just one of thousands of lobbyists and government officials who rotate in and out of lobbying and government positions. Their role changes very little from appointment to appointment; it is always about setting and enacting policies, laws and regulations that benefit capitalist corporations.

PhRMA is often called the war criminal of public health.  It represents the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, including Merck, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Bayer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. It is part of a coalition of insurance providers, pharmaceuticals and investor-owned hospitals in the Partnership for America’s Health Care Future.

PhRMA is the organizational think tank behind the push to derail “healthcare for all” campaigns at national and state levels. It has spent $28 million on lobbying, arguing that the U.S. government can’t pay for a nationalized health care system. As PhRMA sees it, hospitals, drugs, medical equipment and all forms of health care, along with every government service, must be a source of private and corporate profit.

A whole series of interlocking industries of insurance, medical and pharmaceutical corporations depend on maintaining and expanding health care for profit.

U.S. sanctions threaten even breastfeeding 

Just how far these capitalist medical and food industries will go, and what kinds of brutal threats they are prepared to make to enhance their profits, can be seen by their actions around breastfeeding.

The World Health Organization estimates that breastfeeding infants would save 820,000 lives of children under five annually. To educate the public, WHO wanted to pass a nonbinding resolution encouraging breastfeeding at the May 2018 U.N. World Health Assembly in Geneva. The resolution called on governments to “protect, promote, and support breastfeeding” and for policymakers to restrict the promotion of unhealthy food products.

Ecuador was scheduled to introduce this resolution. The U.S. officials at the meeting quietly threatened to unleash harsh economic sanctions on Ecuador’s critical trade goods and on scheduled aid just for introducing a nonbinding U.N. resolution. This dire threat of sanctions signaled capitalist support for the $70 billion infant formula industry.

Finally Russia, already sanctioned, agreed to introduce the breastfeeding resolution. But language calling for an end to “inappropriate promotion of foods for infants and young children” was removed after the U.S. reportedly threatened to cut its contributions to WHO. (NY Times, July 8, 2018)

Sanctions target health care globally

More than 39 countries are currently under U.S. economic sanctions — more than one-third of the world’s population. But as in the case of Ecuador, every country can be routinely threatened with economic strangulation for the smallest attempt to limit U.S. profits.

Powerful corporations very existence is based on expanding the price of medicines and creating shortages of doctors, drugs and hospitals. Nationalized health care programs around the world threaten their profit taking. Developing countries that have invested substantial resources in dramatically improving health standards and medical access are an increasing target of U.S. corporations.

The destruction of public health caused by U.S. imposed economic sanctions is extensively documented. Denial of medicine and nutritious food has been measured in painful detail in Iraq, Iran, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Zimbabwe and Venezuela, including preventable deaths and stunted growth of children.

The destruction of national health programs is not just a by-product of hyperinflation and freezes on trade and credits — it is the intent of sanctions. The pharmaceutical corporations are using sanctions as a weapon to defend and expand profits. They are behind a calculated policy of depriving countries of the ability to purchase large quantities of inexpensive and unpatented medicines, antibiotics and vaccines in order to raise general health standards.

According to reports by the Center for Economic and Policy Research and Korea Peace Now, sanctions are responsible for the deaths of 40,000 people in Venezuela over two years, and 4,000 people in North Korea in 2018, primarily by depriving access to medicine.

Sanctions breaking down health care in Iran

As the COVID-19 outbreak continues to spread worldwide, the impact of U.S. sanctions on health care threatens to thwart attempts to contain the disease.U.S. sanctions have severely hampered Iran’s efforts to respond to the outbreak, limiting access to medical supplies, test kits and information about the virus.

Before the U.S. hit Iran with the harshest sanctions ever, Iran had an advanced, free health care system in place. There was also a system of private health care.

The Iranian government has focused on expanding basic health care ever since the Iranian revolution in 1979 nationalized oil and gas resources. The government became the main provider of health care with an extensive network of primary, secondary and tertiary services. There is a vast network of over 17,000 Health Houses — neighborhood health clinics for immunizations, pre- and postnatal care and urgent care needs. The Health Houses provided free contraception and other family planning tools lacking in many neighboring countries.

In a war-torn region of the world, Iran became an important country for medical tourism, attracting over 100,000 in 2016. But the intensification of sanctions and the resulting hyperinflation have undermined decades of progress.

The rapid spread of COVID-19 in Iran confirms that U.S. imposed sanctions on a third of the world’s people will quickly impact the whole global population.

 Targeting health care in Iraq, Libya, Syria

U.S. wars have caused widespread destruction in Iraq, Libya and Syria. Prior to the wars, these three countries were the most modern, secular states in the Middle East and North Africa, with the best records on women’s rights, standard of living, and free, accessible health care.

In 2003, after imposing 13 years of devastating sanctions, the U.S. invaded Iraq. During the decade of direct military occupation, the U.S. forces of occupation did not build any hospitals. But they did build military bases throughout Iraq and in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, Oman and Saudi Arabia.

In Libya in 2011, the objective of seven months of U.S./NATO bombing was not to help the Libyan people. It was outright piracy —  to gain control of Libya’s natural resources. Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa, using its nationalized oil wealth to sustain progressive social welfare programs for all Libyans. The population enjoyed not only free health care and education to the college level, but also free electricity and interest-free loans.

NATO declared that its mission in Libya has been “one of the most successful in NATO history.” Now all institutions of higher education, even medical schools, are closed. Hospitals have been looted. Cities are in ruins.

Following the massive bombing of Libya, the U.S. has not rebuilt any of Libya’s infrastructure. But it has built new U.S. military bases in Seychelles, Kenya, South Sudan, Niger and Burkina Faso, along with numerous secret bases throughout Africa.

Syria is another example of the targeted destruction of national health care. Syria had an advanced network of primary health care at three levels — village, district and provincial — and thousands of trained doctors and medical personnel.

U.S. sanctions, imposed in 2003 and intensifying since, led to increased privatization of services, though nationalized, free health care continued.

Beginning in 2011, Syria was faced with a vast influx of U.S. funded mercenary forces determined to overthrow the government. Syria saw the destruction of medical facilities, deterioration in the functioning of medical equipment due to lack of spare parts, and shortages of drugs and medical supplies due to sanctions. The killing of hundreds of health care workers was unprecedented. These attacks have dangerous implications for medical neutrality in all conflict zones.

The lack of security and the deliberate targeting of health workers and health facilities led to the exodus of trained staff. The destruction of Syria’s health infrastructure contributed to the increase in communicable and noncommunicable diseases and in rising morbidity and mortality. Sanctions have created waves of desperate migrants, uprooted from communities of care.

 Sanctions attack Venezuela health care

After the Bolivarian Revolution, extensive inoculation programs and the availability of free health care provided by the Venezuelan Institute of Social Security made Venezuela‘s health care infrastructure one of the more advanced in Latin America. However, following U.S. imposed sanctions, the Venezuelan health care system has all but collapsed, as 86 percent of medical supplies were being imported.

There has been a 68 percent shortage of surgical supplies and a 70 percent shortage of medicines in Venezuelan pharmacies. Large hospitals have only 7 percent of required supplies.

In March 2019, the Wall Street Journal reported that the “collapse of Venezuela’s health system, once one of the best in Latin America, has led to a surge in infant and maternal mortality rates and a return of rare diseases that were considered all but eradicated.”

That same month Red Cross officials also reported that the “collapse” of the health system had caused the return of old and eradicated rare diseases like yellow fever, dengue, malaria and tuberculosis, as well as a large increase in infant and maternal mortality rates.

Domination of U.S. health care by profit 

The complete domination of U.S. health care by for-profit drug and insurance companies has led to the lowest life expectancy and the most deaths from preventable diseases in the U.S. of any industrialized countries — lower than comparable statistics in 30 other nations.

Much has been written about PhRMA’s blocking of any national health program in the U.S. This group has helped engineer a crisis of high drug costs, forcing untold numbers of people here to go without medicines they need.

Corporate executives have pushed through 1000 percent price increases in diabetes and cancer medications. Research into essential medicines to combat malaria, tuberculosis and flu viruses are routinely shelved as unprofitable. Research is totally market- and profit-dependent. Companies see too little profit in focusing on epidemic diseases, such as COVID-19.

U.S. preparedness to deal with the threat of COVID-19 has been further hampered by the personnel and budget cuts of the Trump administration over the past three years. Until Feb. 26 there was no one in the White House tasked specifically with overseeing a coordinated governmentwide response in the event of a pandemic, since the post of senior director for global health security and biothreats on the National Security Council was eliminated in May 2019. Global health issues were not considered to be a “national security” priority.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has seen a 30 percent funding cut since 2003, despite an increasing number of public health emergencies.

In its 2020 budget the Trump administration proposed a further 10 percent cut in CDC funding, equivalent to $750 million. It zeroed out funding for epidemiology and laboratory capacity at state and local levels. The funding cuts have also forced the CDC to reduce or discontinue epidemic-prevention efforts in 39 of the 49 countries it had been helping.

On Feb. 26, Trump appointed Vice President Mike Pence to lead the government’s COVID-19 response team. This is a field in which Pence has no credentials, no expertise. He is not a doctor or a medical expert.  As governor of Indiana, Pence, who is notoriously anti-LGBTQ2+, ignored all public health advice on HIV AIDS.

The response team will be led by none other than Alex Azar, a former Big Pharma lobbyist and former executive of pharmaceutical giant  Eli Lilly. Azar is now Trump’s Secretary of Health and Human Services.

 Lack of testing, lack of planning — and nothing for workers

As the COVID-19 epidemic accelerated, Congress rushed to pass an emergency bill of $8.3 billion on March 4 to provide low-interest federal loans to businesses affected by a coronavirus outbreak.

But there was no bill introduced or even discussed to bail out the millions of working people who will become unemployed. There are no national provisions for paid sick days and no funds for those without health insurance. The banks and corporations and their government are focused only on how the virus impacts their bottom line.

The U.S. has done very little testing for COVID-19, thus the number of recorded infections appear low. But low numbers won’t provide protection. Thanks to the problems at the CDC, including the initial distribution of a faulty test kit, it is not clear when — or if — U.S. testing capacity will improve.

One province in Canada, Ontario, has already conducted more tests — 629—  than in the entire U.S.!

South Korea, which is battling the largest known outbreak outside of China, has drive-through testing in place. The country’s health officials conducted more than 30,000 tests within one week.

The extensive corporate press coverage of COVID-19 contrasts with what little press coverage there is of the current 2019-20 flu season. according to the CDC. So far there have been 15 million illnesses, 140,000 hospitalizations and 8,200 deaths in the U.S. — from the ordinary flu.

And while it is being trumpeted that 3,000 people have died worldwide from COVID-19, no media attention is being paid to the 25,000 people who globally die of hunger each day.

The far greater crime than unpreparedness for this emerging pandemic is the disease of capitalism itself, where only profits are measured, while millions of people fall through the gaping holes of a fraying system of private ownership for profit.

*

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 Big Pharma’s Role: Destruction of Basic Health Care Worldwide, U.S. Sanctions Lead to Global Rise in Coronavirus
  • Tags: , ,

Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Zhao Lijian wrote on his Twitter account on Thursday that the US military may have brought the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) to Wuhan.

.

.

“CDC was caught on the spot. When did patient zero begin in US? How many people are infected? What are the names of the hospitals?” Zhao wrote on Twitter,

“It might be US army who brought the epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent! Make public your data! US owe us an explanation!”

Currently, there’s no evidence to back his claim. But in a tweet shortly after, Zhao demanded to know how many of the 34 million infections and 20,000 deaths during the US’ latest flu season were actually related to COVID-19. He attached a video clip showing Robert Redfield, the director of the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, responding to Rep. Harley Rouda’s question during the US House Oversight Committee discussion on the novel coronavirus response.

Rouda asked, “So we could have some people in the United States dying for what appears to be influenza when in fact it could be the coronavirus?”

Redfield replied that “some cases have actually been diagnosed that way in the United States today.”

Last month, according to a report by TV Asahi Corporation of Japan, the CDC suspected that among the American patients who were thought to have died of flu in the past few months, some may have actually died of COVID-19.

Later, the report sparked speculation from some Chinese netizens that the virus might have been brought by US participants in the 2019 Military World Games, which were held in Wuhan last October.

*

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

The Forever War in Iraq

March 16th, 2020 by Daniel Larison

The New York Times reports that U.S. “retaliatory” strikes in Iraq ended up killing regular Iraqi soldiers and policemen and one civilian:

Iraqi military officials strongly condemned the United States military on Friday for airstrikes launched overnight that they said killed three Iraqi soldiers, two police officers and a civilian worker, and damaged an unfinished civilian airport.

American officials said on Friday that the strikes had hit sites where rockets and other weapons were stored by an Iranian-backed militia, Kataib Hezbollah. But according to multiple Iraqi military officials, who so far have been largely supportive of the U.S. role in Iraq, the bombings killed members of the Iraqi military and police. It was not clear whether they had killed any Kataib Hezbollah fighters.

The U.S. is carrying out attacks inside Iraqi territory against Iraqis in blatant violation of that country’s sovereignty. In this case, it appears that the strikes didn’t even hit the intended targets, but killed several people that had absolutely nothing to do with the rocket attack earlier this week. The Iraqi government is once again predictably furious that our government is committing acts of war that kill their people. A statement from Iraq’s military command denounced the attack:

In a statement released on Friday morning, the Iraqi Joint Command described the attack as “an aggression” that “targeted Iraqi military institutions violating the principal of partnership” between the Iraqi security forces and the Americans.

This attack “cost the lives of Iraqi fighters while they were doing their military duty,” the statement said.

The U.S. claims to value the Iraqi government as a partner, but in practice our government treats them as if they are a colony or protectorate. Our forces attack and kill some of their troops, and when they object we tell them that it was their fault for being there. The head of Central Command blew off Iraqi complaints as arrogantly as possible:

He and other American military officials were dismissive of the Iraqi complaints given that Iraqi soldiers and police officers are often located on bases with Iranian-backed militias like Kataib Hezbollah.

“I don’t know whether the Iraqis are happy or unhappy,” General McKenzie said. “These locations that we struck are clear locations of terrorist bases. If Iraqi military forces were there, I would say it’s probably not a good idea to position yourself with Kataib Hezbollah in the wake of a strike that killed Americans and coalition members.”

It takes extraordinary gall to lecture the Iraqis like this when these are their bases in their own country. Iraqi military forces are there because it is their base. Calling it a “terrorist base” may make McKenzie feel better, but it doesn’t change the fact that our forces are attacking Iraqi forces on their soil against the wishes of their government. We commit acts of aggression against them and then berate them for daring to say anything about it.

U.S. forces have been bombing and killing Iraqis for most of my lifetime. It is insane that the U.S. is still engaged in hostilities in the same country almost thirty years after Desert Storm. The official reasons for these attacks change, but the results are the same: more dead Americans and Iraqis. These strikes serve no discernible American interest. Our military presence in Iraq is unwanted, but it is also unnecessary for U.S. security. Keeping troops there just makes them targets for no good reason. The U.S. has no vital interests there and nothing that warrants a continued military presence. The U.S. has been waging a forever war in Iraq for decades, and it needs to end before any more lives are lost.

*

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.

Daniel Larison is a senior editor at TAC, where he also keeps a solo blog. He has been published in the New York Times Book Review, Dallas Morning News, World Politics Review, Politico Magazine, Orthodox Life, Front Porch Republic, The American Scene, and Culture11, and was a columnist for The Week. He holds a PhD in history from the University of Chicago, and resides in Lancaster, PA. Follow him on Twitter.

Not satisfied with Canada’s largest public relations machine, the Canadian Forces also employ various “arm’s-length” institutions to push their influence over the discussion of military and international affairs.

For example, the Conference of Defence Associations (CDA) Institute recently published a half-page ad in the Globe and Mail to announce its Conference on Security and Defence. The March 3 and 4 meeting at the venerable Château Laurier was sponsored by the Department of National Defence (DND) and Global Affairs as well as Lockheed Martin, Raytheon and other arms companies. As in previous years, CDA’s confab in Ottawa drew leading military and political officials, including the Chief of the Defence Staff, who heard speakers hype security threats and push for increased military spending.

The headlines the conference generated included: “Russia poses most immediate military threat to Canada, top general says” (Globe and Mail), “Canada and the West are at war with Russia whether they want it or not: military experts” (Global) and “Top Canadian general calls out Russia and China for ‘antagonistic actions’” (CTV).

None of these stories explained what the CDA Institute actually is. The group describes itself as a “non-partisan, independent, non-profit organization [that] expresses its ideas and opinions with a view to influencing government security and defence policy.” Established in 1932, then Minister of Defence Donald Matheson Sutherland backed CDA’s creation. Since its inception CDA has been directly or indirectly financed by DND. Initially, member associations paid a small part of the funds they received from DND to CDA. But, three decades later the role was reversed. CDA received a block grant from DND and parcelled out the money to its various member associations.

Since its creation, defence ministers and governor generals (as commander in chief) have regularly appeared at CDA’s annual conference. The governor general, prime minister, defence minister and chief of the defence staff are honorary patrons or vice patrons of the organization.

At the height of Canada’s war in Afghanistan CDA received a highly politicized five-year $500,000 contract from DND. University of Ottawa professor Amir Attaran wrote, “that money comes not with strings, but with an entire leash.” To receive the money CDA committed to producing 15 opinion pieces or letters to the editor in major Canadian newspapers, generating 29 media references to the organization and eliciting 100 requests for radio/television interviews. The media work was part of a requirement to “support activities that give evidence of contributing to Canada’s national policies.” CDA didn’t initially disclose its 2007–12 DND sponsorship agreement, which was reviewed by cabinet.

CDA represents over 50 military associations ranging from the Naval Association of Canada to the Canadian Infantry Association, Royal Canadian Legion to the Military Intelligence Association. It is run by high-ranking former officers.

CDA publishes Security and Defence Briefings, Vimy Papers and Presentations and Position Papers. The organization’s quarterly journal ON TRACKpromotes informed public debate on security and defence issues and the vital role played by the Canadian Armed forces in society.” CDA has also published influential books such as Queens professor Douglas Bland’s A Nation at Risk: The Decline of the Canadian Forces.

To encourage militarist research, CDA awards a number of prizes. It puts on an annual graduate student symposium where $3,000 goes to the winning paper, $2,000 to second place and $1,000 to third place. CDA co-sponsors the Ross Munro Media Award to a “journalist who has made a significant contribution to understanding defence and security issues” and gives the Vimy Award to a “Canadian who has made a significant and outstanding contribution to the defence and security of Canada and the preservation of (its) democratic values.”

CDA advocates militarism. Its first official resolution noted “the urgent need for an increased appropriation for national defence.” At almost every CDA convention between 1946 and 1959 a resolution passed in favour of compulsory military training. A 1968 resolution called for universal military training, expressing concern that a generation of Canadians had become “unused to the idea of military service.”

In the 1980s CDA developed the idea of the “Total Defence of Canada”. In 1985 Colonel H. A. J. Hutchinson told a CDA meeting: “I would say that the Total Defence of Canada requires much more than just the support of the Canadian Armed Forces, it involves the organization of our total economy, our industrial base, towards a single objective — the defence of this country.” Hinting at the need to talk up US President Ronald Reagan’s revival of Cold War rhetoric, Hutchison said this “can only be made [possible] if the Canadian people perceive that it is necessary and that, in fact, it is the only course of action open to them.”

A 2000 CDA report funded by the Business Council on National Issues, the Molson Foundation and DND advocated increased military spending to defend free trade. It claimed “the defence establishment, including the Canadian Forces, plays a key role in an international policy which provides the insurance and the means which allow the national interest to flourish. It contributes to stability at home and abroad, thus supporting the development of an environment congenial to trade.”

In November Richard Fadden told CDA’s Vimy Dinner Canada had to be “clear-eyed” about Russia and China, which are prepared to “use virtually any means to attain their goals.” Fadden claimed, “the risks posed by these two countries are certainly different, but they are generally based on advancing all their interests to the detriment of the West.”

For the military and the industries that profit from militarism, it is important to have “arms-length” organizations that create the illusion of a diversity of voices. But honest writers should be blunt about the CDA. It is a war machine front group, created and controlled by the military.

*

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 ‘Arm’s-length’ Military Institution Promotes Belligerent Worldview
  • Tags:

US to Practice Invasion of Europe

March 16th, 2020 by Kate Hudson

Defender Europe 20, NATO’s biggest wargames for over 25 years, is getting under way this month. 20,000 US troops are participating in the US’s largest deployment to Europe in over quarter of a century. With 18 states involved totaling 37,000 troops, this will be an extraordinary provocation in Europe’s border regions with Russia, including Georgia. With troop and equipment movements lasting from February through to July, the exercises themselves will take place in April and May.

2,500 UK troops will participate. According to the British Army website, #DefenderEurope demonstrates the UK’s commitment to #NATO and that the UK remains utterly committed to European security. But looking more closely at the exercises, this is clearly a rehearsal for a US invasion of Europe targeted on Russia. And going from bad to worse, the US army will also conduct Defender Pacific exercises in the ‘Indo-Pacific theater’ which will focus on ‘a South China Sea scenario’.

Those following US ‘defence’ strategy will see the clear link with the 2018 National Defense Strategy where ‘staying ahead’ of Russia and China was the clear strategic reorientation – away from the previous counter-terrorism emphasis towards ‘inter-state strategic competition’. In other words preparing for war against Russia and China. Indeed, US Army propaganda explicitly states: ‘DEFENDER-Europe 20 operationalizes the U.S. National Defense Strategy’.

So Defender 20 exercises in both Europe and Asia are the military outcomes of the strategic change and both follow the same pattern. Whilst many different national forces are involved, the central focus is on rapid deployment from the US to Europe and the Pacific.

In Europe, 20,000 US troops comprising active soldiers, national guard and reservists will be transported to seaports and airports in the Netherlands, Germany and Poland, alongside vast quantities of equipment. Personnel and equipment, including so-called ‘prepositioned stock’ already in Europe, will travel 4,000 kilometres for the exercises before returning to the US.

While the US Army has 85,000 permanently stationed troops in the Indo-Pacific region and already conducts military exercises with allies and partners, the purpose of Defender 20 in Asia is to practice rapid deployment of tens of thousands of troops from the US to the Pacific.

We are already facing the practical implementation of Trump’s Nuclear Posture Review – so-called low-yield, ‘usable’ nukes are already out there on US navy submarines. Now we are seeing active preparations for the mass war anticipated in his National Defense Strategy.

We must mobilise and work internationally to oppose these dangerous developments – and raise public awareness of the dangers they present.

*

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.

Kate Hudson has been General Secretary of CND since September 2010. Prior to this she served as the organisation’s Chair from 2003. She is a leading anti-nuclear and anti-war campaigner nationally and internationally.

Coronavirus Exposes Hong Kong’s Fake “Pro-Democracy” Mobs

March 16th, 2020 by Andrés Figueroa Cornejo

While the large street mobs plaguing Hong Kong’s streets have more or less subsided, the foreign-funded movement and its supporters continue seeking every opportunity to perpetuate their agenda.

This agenda, despite the Western media claiming it is centred on advancing human rights and democracy while opposing Beijing’s “authoritarianism,” is in all actuality merely racist and anti-Chinese, a scion of both British and American attempts to impose their rule on Hong Kong and use the territory as a vector to project power across into mainland China.

Far from the conclusions reached by pro-Beijing media, the most recent example of the so-called “pro-democracy” movement’s overt racism and its attempts to hide behind legitimate excuses was covered by the pro-Western South China Morning Post (SCMP).

The article titled, “More than 100 HK restaurants refuse to serve customers from China,” at first attempts to depict supporters of the recent “pro-democracy” mobs barring mainlanders as taking measures merely to fend off the spread of the Covid-19 coronavirus outbreak.

But soon even the pro-Western newspaper is forced to admit not only legitimate human rights concerns regarding what is clearly a racist and discriminatory policy, but that the restaurants involved are indeed supporters of the recent anti-Chinese mobs indicating that their real motivation is political and concerns regarding the coronavirus are a poor attempt to disguise it.

The article claims:

More than 100 restaurants in Hong Kong have refused to serve diners from mainland China during the coronavirus outbreak, according to a human rights group that is warning firms against crossing the line into racial discrimination.

The article however eventually admits that one of the restaurants investigated was previously and openly a supporter of anti-Chinese mobs masked as “pro-democracy” protests. The article stated:

The findings came three weeks after the EOC advised Kwong Wing Catering, a popular local restaurant chain — which supported the anti-government protesters who took to the city’s streets from last June — to remove notices displayed at its outlets. Those posters said the eatery would only serve Hongkongers and that its staff did not speak Mandarin.

While organisations like the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) and others are stepping up to speak out against this pattern of increasingly bold racism and discrimination, silent are the same foreign organisations that supported the anti-Chinese mobs at the height of their violence on the grounds of defending “human rights.”

The mobs then and now continue a blatant agenda of racism and discrimination, not against the government in Beijing and its policies but clearly against the over 1.3 billion people of China itself.

This reveals the movement, backed by Washington, London and Brussels, as merely hiding behind notions like democracy and human rights while in actuality trampling both while pursuing agendas built on the worst imaginable values (or lack there of).

In a time of crisis like this most recent coronavirus outbreak, those truly dedicated to humanity and its movement forward into a better future are revealed. So too are those who merely pose as progressives yet seek every opportunity to exploit the misfortune of others to advance their own self-serving and ultimately anti-social agendas.

The coronavirus has served as a litmus test, exposing the true nature of individuals, organisations and nations alike.

The “pro-democracy” mobs and their supporters have been put to the test as well, and to no one’s surprise, they have failed.

For the rest of the world looking on, if they haven’t already entirely tuned out Hong Kong’s disingenuous faux democracy movement, they now have another example of the West and its “pro-democracy” proxies revealing their true nature.

The coronavirus has caused much damage to individuals’ health, to the economy and strained relations between nations, but it has also helped shine a light on many who have for too long posed as forces of good while all along perpetuating the very worst.

*

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.

Joseph Thomas is chief editor of Thailand-based geopolitical journal, The New Atlas and contributor to the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from NEO

In the the Kuomingtang (KMT), the Nationalist Party of Taiwan, election held on Saturday, Jiang Khai (commonly known in the West as Johnny Chiang) was selected as a new head of the political party. According to Taiwanese media, Jiang Kai will change the KMT’s policy towards mainland China.

The press draws such conclusions based on the KMT’s new president’s statement about the 1992 consensus, also known as the One China Consensus, as “somewhat outdated.” In the presidential election held on January 11, KMT candidate Han Kuo-yu, a former mayor of Kaohsiung City, lost to Tsai Ing-wen of the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), becoming Taiwan’s first female. In addition, the DPP still occupies the majority of seats in the Legislature. 

In the election for the new party chairman, Jiang Kai only had a single opponent – the former Taipei mayor, Zhu Lilun (commonly known in the West as Eric Chu). He overcame his opponent with 84,860 votes compared to 38,483 votes, however it is worth noting that only 35% of voters bothered to vote. Taiwanese authorities claim that such a low rate is due to the coronavirus epidemic. In his speech after announcing the conclusion of voting, Jiang revealed that the KMT needs to make some changes to meet the spirit of the times, and he will make these changes within a year. The KMT are no longer as conservative as they once used to be, and in this way, Jiang is hoping to attract a part of the DPP’s voters who are generally younger and more progressive than the KMT.

For example, the KMT opposes same-sex marriage, but the law is still valid because the DPP legislature occupies the majority of seats. And among young Taiwanese, not just in the LGBT community, the legalization of such relationships is considered the greatest achievement since democracy reached Taiwan. An even more important contradiction between the two parties: the so-called 1992 consensus and the concept of “one China” (united China). The DPP does not recognize this consensus and the KMT has supported relations with mainland China, something the DPP are extremely hostile to. Clearly, the KMT now wants to move on to resolve internal issues, such as attracting new voters, and then resolve relations with Beijing. That’s why the KMT must begin entertaining the idea of making some changes to the 1992 consensus.

How will the new KMT party chairman and changes in the party’s policy affect Beijing? The last election showed that the DPP won the populist wave in the context of social disturbances in Hong Kong, and now they are also using the Covid-19 epidemic for political purposes to prove the validity of not strengthening relations with Beijing. The anti-Beijing DPP has prevented relations from becoming closer with Taipei, despite Taiwan’s economy suffering greatly just because its relationship with mainland China has cooled. This economic factor was especially felt when Beijing stopped granting licenses to travel companies to go to Taiwan which saw the number of tourists decrease by nearly a third. Agricultural imports into mainland China have plummeted, even though two years ago China purchased 20% of agricultural products worth nearly $1 billion. Taking into account the damage that coronavirus outbreaks has caused worldwide, economic development may become the most important task. The KMT will then try to balance domestic political interests and not move too far away from mainland China.

This spells bad news for the U.S. as they have been the main backers of Taiwan since the end of the Chinese Civil War in 1949 when the KMT were defeated by communist guerrillas and forced to leave the Chinese mainland. Taiwan’s modern history lays with the U.S.-backed authoritarian regime of General Chiang Kai-Shek, the leader of the KMT. Chiang then imposed martial law and became dictator of Taiwan for the next 38 years, before a gradual democratization was achieved and presidential elections in 1996. The resentment of losing mainland China to the communists and the permanent deployment of tens of thousands of American soldiers has ensured that Taiwan, an island located just off the coast of China’s Fujian province, is a major U.S. pressure point against Beijing.

Although the days of Chiang and the KMT believing they are an exile government is long over, they still believe in One China, a stark difference to that of the DPP who want complete sovereignty and independence in their own right and reject One China. With the KMT seeking closer relations with Beijing despite once being mortal enemies, their inevitable return to power in the future could mean that they will begin to deAmericanize Taiwan as they seek closer relations, particularly for stability and economic reasons, with China, recognizing that we now live in a multipolar world order.

A deAmericanized Taiwan effectively means that the U.S. will lose a major submissive partner that acted as a thorn to Chinese hegemony in the South China Sea, and it is unlikely that Washington will accept this reality so easily. None-the-less, as the KMT changes its policies to attract the younger generation, it can see a real potential for One China to be achieved and the U.S. expelled from the island just as calls for the U.S. military to leave South Korea and Japan also intensify.

*

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 a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Taiwan Nationalists Seek Closer Relations with China. Bad News for America
  • Tags: ,

A volley of rockets struck the Camp Taji military base in Iraq on the evening of March 11, killing three US-led coalition service members, two of them Americans and one British, and injuring 12 others. The targeted military base is a large facility located in a rural region approximately 27km north of Baghdad.

After the shelling, Iraqi security forces found the improvised rocket launcher used in the attack in the nearby area of Rashidiya. It was forty 107mm barrels installed on the back of a Kia Bongo truck. Three rockets were still remaining inside the barrel.

There were no immediate claims of responsibility for the attack. However, over the past months US-linked targets have witnessed a number of similar rocket attacks. Most of them led to no casualties. In general, US sources blame Kataib Hezbollah and other Iran-linked groups for these incidents.

The situation became especially tense after the US strike on a convoy of Iraqi and Iranian officers moving near Baghdad International Airport on January 3. The prominent Iranian general, commander of the Qods Force, Qassem Soleimani, was assassinated in this strike. The attack caused a large-scale crisis in the region, and prompted an Iranian retaliatiory missile strike on US military bases in Iraq. Washington swallowed a public attack on its forces by a state claiming that there were no casualties. In the following weeks, these ‘no casualties’ steadily turned into at least 110. All of them, according to the official version, received traumatic brain injury.

Additionally, the Iraqi Parliament accepted a bill demanding US troop withdrawal from the country, which Washington ignored, even threatening Baghdad with devastating sanctions, should Iraq continue to act like it is a sovereign, rather than occupied, country.

Following the attack on Camp Taji, ‘unknown aircraft’, most likely belonging to the US-led coalition, struck positions belonging to Iranian-backed groups near the Syrian-Iraqi border. The surroundings of the Syrian town of al-Bukamal, located on the highway linking Deir Ezzor and Baghdad, became the main target of the attack. Pro-Iranian sources claimed that the strikes caused material damage only.

Meanwhile, US forces in northeastern Syria strengthened their military positions by deploying additional howitzers. The Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces declared in an official statement that the military buildup was needed to provide US bases with additional protection. Another troop withdrawal announced by the administration of President Donald Trump is apparently successfully ongoing.

Syria’s northwest is also a source of tensions. On March 11, intense fighting erupted among Turkish-backed armed groups in the town of Azaz. As always, the incident was caused by internal contradictions between Turkish proxies who are involved in a wide range of various criminal activities and regularly clash for spheres of influence.

In the region of Greater Idlib, Turkish-backed groups, including those linked with al-Qaeda, are preparing to sabotage another ceasefire deal. They reinforced their positions north of the M4 highway and east of Jisr al-Shughur and declared that they are not planning to withdraw from any areas south of the highway. These statements go contrary to Turkish claims that preparations for the creation of a security zone in the area and the start of joint Turkish-Russian patrols are successfully in progress. Despite these, Ankara continues blaming the Syrian government for supposed violations of the Moscow deal and threatening it with military action should the ceasefire be violated. It seems that Turkey once again seeks to sweep agreements regarding the withdrawal and neutralization of radicals under the carpet, thus pushing the region into a new round of military escalation.

*

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

Today, March 12, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia ended the grand jury of Julian Assange and Wikileaks in which Chelsea Manning refused to testify. As a result, US District Court Judge Anthony Trenga ordered the immediate release of Chelsea Manning.

.

.

Manning has been incarcerated since May 2019. Judge Trenga had tried to coerce Manning into testifying by imposing a fine for every day she resisted even though she said repeatedly that she would not violate her principles, which include opposition to the secret grand jury system, and would never testify.

A hearing was scheduled this Friday on a motion for release filed in February 2020 by her attorneys. Manning was arguing that her long time in jail had shown she could not be coerced to testify and that her incarceration was a punishment, which is illegal under US law. On Wednesday, her lawyers and Alexandria Sheriff Dana Lawhorne reported she attempted suicide in jail. With the end of the grand jury and Manning’s release, the Friday hearing was canceled.

In May 2019, Manning wrote a letter to Judge Anthony Trenga, the presiding judge regarding her incarceration. The letter examined the history of grand juries and how they no longer serve their original purpose. Manning wrote:

“I am certainly not alone in thinking that the grand jury process, which at one time acted as an independent body of citizens along the lines of a civilian police review board, slowly transitioned into the unbridled arm of the police and prosecution in ways that run contrary to the grand jury’s originally intended purposes.”

She pointed out how grand juries were originally independent of the police and were investigations by citizens without a prosecutor.  In fact, grand juries were originally a check on government as Manning wrote, they “nullified unjust laws or their unjust application.”  She told the judge that only the US and Liberia continue to use grand juries as many western and developed nations have abandoned the process.

After providing the judge with a “nuanced understanding of my conscientious objection to the grand jury” she wrote:

“Each person must make the world we want to live in around us where we stand… I object to the use of grand juries as tools to tear apart vulnerable communities. I object to this grand jury in particular as an effort to frighten journalists and publishers, who serve a crucial public good. I have had these values since I was a child, and I’ve had years of confinement to reflect on them. For much of that time, I depended for survival on my values, my decisions, and my conscience. I will not abandon them now.”

Manning has once again shown courageous political leadership, standing up to an abusive criminal justice system and exposing the corrupt grand jury process that has often been used for political purposes — from indicting anti-slavery activists to members of the Black Panther Party — and now against the political prisoner, Julian Assange for being an editor and publisher who told the truth about US war crimes, violations of international law and how US foreign policy dominated by corporate interests.

Manning has also shown great bravery in advancing trans rights. While imprisoned in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas, she fought for her right to treatment. She also struggled for her right to be held in the women’s prison in Alexandria. Her openness about being trans has been an inspiration to others. As Lexi McMenamin wrote: “One in six trans Americans — and one in two black trans Americans — have been to prison, according to Lambda Legal. Incarcerated trans people face higher levels of violence, and experience higher rates of rape and sexual assault. According to the National Center for Transgender Equality, trans people are ‘ten times as likely to be sexually assaulted by their fellow inmates and five times as likely to be sexually assaulted by staff.’”

The injustice against Manning continues. Manning’s attorneys sought to have the fines imposed by Judge Trenga vacated. Manning is facing more than $256,000 in fines, which have been accumulating at a rate of $1,000 a day. The court left those fines in place.

The incarceration of Manning was a violation of US law as the authority to incarcerate a recalcitrant witness was abused by Judge Trenga. Nils Melzer the UN Special Rapporteur on torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment wrote that Manning’s incarceration violated international law focusing on the prohibition against torture.  While we are pleased Manning has been released, she should have not served anytime in jail and the fines against her should be vacated.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

The MH-17 trial started on March 9 in a heavily guarded judicial complex in Scheveningen, The Hague. The process is being followed by a lot of media attention.

Bonanza media, an independent company, presented new evidence based on leaked documents from the Public Prosecution Office and the JIT-team two days before the trial began. The results of the investigation contradict the Ukrainian and Dutch state media. Even the judge at the opening of the trial could not resist making a “political” statement: “There will still be many smokescreens raised”. Thus Bonanza media in advance is considered as a conspiracy outlet or “the long arm of the Kremlin trolls”.

Bonanza Media’s Evidence

After a thorough research on the spot, Bonanza Media consulted a Malaysian specialist Akash Rosen who investigated the six audio tapes which are the ultimate piece of evidence as seen by the JIT-team. Bonanza came to the conclusion that the tapes had been edited. Also, Billy Sixt, an independent German journalist, had the tapes examined in Germany. He talked to many former GDR and post-GDR generals about BUK missile system installations and came to the same conclusion that manipulation of audiotapes really took place.

The Bonanza team has traveled to Ukraine many times, visited the site of the crash and spoke with witnesses, and these visits led to an astonishing conclusion. Almost all witnesses (no, they are not bribed, as the propaganda machine of the Netherlands immediately suggests) claim that two fighter jets flew not far from the wings of the MH-17, most likely Ukrainian fighter jets, just moments before the MH-17 was shot down.

In 2015 a villager responded to the call from Ukrainian TV which gathered information about the crash. He wanted to tell them what he had seen that day in 2014. He was then approached by the JIT-team and two conversations took place via SKYPE. The name of the witness was Alexander.

Witness Statement

Later, Alexander told Bonanza Media that the JIT-team asked him which direction the MH-17 plane was flying. He answered that it flew in the direction of Petropavlivka and not Kirovsk of Luhansk region, as the JIT-team suggested. They also asked about the BUK installation, but according to Alexander, there was no BUK installation there. He was never called again by the JIT-team. According to the official version, the MH-17 crashed in Hrabove – Kirovsk .

He was also surprised by the audiotapes, which he later heard and which are now used by the court as evidence. Immediately after the crash of MH-17, members of the Ukrainian security service spoke about the place called Petropavlivka in Luhansk region and not about Petropavlivka in Donetsk region. Alexander heard the original version of the Ukrainian security services tapes and they differed from the manipulated tapes used in the court.

According to many witnesses, the position of the BUK in the area where the MH-17 was crashed is still a mystery to this day. Nobody has seen the BUK installation.

Leaked Documents From The Police In Driebergen, The Netherlands

In January 2018, there was a meeting of the investigation teams from the Netherlands, Belgium, Australia, and Ukraine, excluding Malaysia. The team members were worried that data from the US about the crash had not yet been received. But the US claimed that two years ago it had delivered it. An internal discussion took place to reassure the media and the public that the investigation teams had everything under control. Later, in a leaked memo they suggested that the Dutch state has not yet had a case law for similar cases and thus did not have enough evidence to that day.

The most bizarre thing about the leaked memo is its mentioning that members of the JIT-team were “intimidating witnesses”. All members of the team, in particular, the Belgians, were comfortable with that, the Ukrainians also thought it was fine but the Dutch had to fix it, the Australians had some trouble with it. The Malaysians were not asked for anything as they were not present at the meeting.

And there is also an investigation of Ukr Leaks, which was not included as evidence. This video examined many things such as moving the BUK missile system, its installation, closing the airspace to a certain height, etc.

Conclusion

As it turns out, this one-sided trial lacks solid evidence. Normally, independent trials have two sides to be heard, otherwise, it will not be a democratic process. In this case, only one side is blamed. Immediately after the crash, Russia was called a culprit. One might think that the whole spectacle would be labeled as a media-hype, but the majority of the Dutch think it’s fine. They are bombarded with media and state propaganda on a daily basis. For them, there is no doubt Russia is the culprit.

After a thorough investigation by Bonanza Media and Ukr Leaks, many questions remain unanswered along with the evidence that is not taken by the court or the JIT-team into consideration. For instance, the change of places where the plane flew, the position of the BUK. The plane was brought down over Ukraine and not over Russia. Flying above a war zone is also a gross negligence, but who allowed this mischief? The Netherlands, Malaysia or Ukraine? At least, not Russia. And now it appears that the manipulated audiotapes are not “relevant”.

Considering all these unanswered questions and oddities, one can not escape the impression that it is a political process with the culprit determined beforehand. The amateurish investigation of the Dutch police and JIT-team really represents a big concern for finding the truth in a political show trial.

*

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 Malaysian Airlines MH-17 Trial at The Hague: Evidence based on Leaked Documents from the Public Prosecution Office
  • Tags: , ,

House Passed Paid Sick Leave Only for 20% of US Workers

March 15th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

Monied interests and government officials serving them at the federal, state, and local levels comprise America’s ruling class.

Time and again, their actions in cahoots with each other show indifference toward ordinary people — including at times of economic and other duress periods like now.

Even America’s finest hour during a decade of Great Depression fell short by not doing enough to create jobs and stimulate economic recovery — why it took WW II and its preparatory buildup to restore economic health to the country.

The US Great Recession that began in late 2007 never ended for ordinary Americans to this day because Bush/Cheney, Obama/Biden, Trump/Pence, and the Wall Street owned and operated Fed acted only to aid business, the markets, investors, and other high-net-worth individuals, not the economy or all Americans equitably.

As a result, the late 2007 period to the present day constitutes America’s 2nd Great Depression for ordinary Americans.

It’s gone unreported with real unemployment exceeding 20%, most working Americans way underemployed, most households impoverished or bordering it, most jobs available part-time or temp low-pay ones with few or no benefits.

Things today are worsening as economic conditions weaken — the nation perhaps already in recession, its depth and duration only to be known after the fact, the human toll likely to be downplayed.

Reality is polar opposite Trump’s January hyperbolic claim that the US economy is “the best it has ever been” — his regime and Congress fiddling while Rome burns.

According to economist Michael Feroli, Q II economic data will likely show economic decline exceeding its 2008 Lehman moment level.

Since the dot.com bubble burst at the end of the neoliberal 90s, force-fed austerity has been US policy when economic stimulus is needed — especially under Obama/Biden and Trump/Pence during a 2nd Great Depression for ordinary Americans.

On December 16, 1933 during the earlier Great Depression, economist John Maynard Keynes wrote an open letter to Franklin Roosevelt, calling for all-out stimulative policies to restore economic health.

He urged “spend, spend, spend.” Supply “cheap and abundant credit.” Stress “speed and quick” recovery.

Focus on “increas(ing) the national output.” Boost purchasing power by “put(ting) people back to work” on good high-paying jobs.

“(I)ncrease aggregate purchasing power.” Undertake “a large volume of loan expenditures under government auspices.”

Choose projects able “to mature quickly on a large scale.”

Roosevelt only partially followed Keynes’ advice, why a decade of Great Depression persisted that could have ended much sooner with all-out fiscal stimulus only occurring in the run-up to and during WW II.

Policies under the Clintons, GW Bush, Obama and Trump were and remain world’s apart from how FDR addressed economic crisis conditions even though he didn’t go far enough.

US ruling regimes since the 1990s focused on and continue focusing only on lifting all yachts, the vast majority of Americans left adrift on their own, sink or swim — along with waging endless wars of aggression against invented enemies to feed the nation’s military, industrial, security, media complex.

On Friday, House members passed HR 6201: Families First Coronavirus Response Act by a 363 – 40 majority vote hours after Trump declared a COVID-19 national emergency.

He should have declared an economic national emergency, not a health-related one, along with announcing all-out stimulative policies to reverse economic decline, an initiative to aid all Americans, not just its privileged class as he’s operated so far.

The House measure moves to the Senate for consideration, possible changes, followed by resolution between both Houses, Trump highly likely to sign it into law.

Although something to help ordinary Americans through likely worsening economic conditions ahead is better than nothing, House legislation falls woefully short.

It’s a tepid measure when large-scale economic stimulus is needed, including significant protection for laid off workers.

Broken clocks are right twice daily. Even establishment NYT editors highlighted “a giant hole” in the House measure, explaining the following:

“(T)he bill guarantees sick leave only to about 20 percent of workers. Big employers like McDonald’s and Amazon are not required to provide any paid sick leave, while companies with fewer than 50 employees can seek hardship exemptions from the Trump” regime.

Mike Pence told US workers to stay home if sick, falsely saying: “You’re not going to miss a pay check” — a bald-faced Big Lie for around 80% of US workers.

If ill for a protracted period for any reason, they’ll be uncompensated by their companies because of House indifference toward them — wanting their employers and their profits protected, not them.

Nothing short of protection for all workers is acceptable. A guaranteed living wage should be mandated public policy, prioritizing the welfare of all Americans.

The woefully weak House measure requires some companies to provide paid sick leave for full-time workers only up to 10 days.

Temp and part-time workers are left on their own, full-time workers as well after 10 days if still too ill to work for any reasons.

The Times: House legislation “does not apply to the nation’s largest employers — companies with 500 or more workers, who together employ roughly 54 percent of all workers.”

The measure “provides some compensation for workers who need to take longer leaves under the Family and Medical Leave Act — but this too excludes workers at big companies.”

The bill grants hardship exemptions to companies with less than 50 employees, comprising over another fourth of the nation’s workforce.

In total, House legislation leaves around 80% of US workers unprotected if ill for a protracted period.

The measure only focuses on paid sick leave related to COVID-19 illnesses — a relatively minor situation that hasn’t remotely reached epidemic levels and may not ahead.

Major protracted epidemics of cancer, heart disease, stroke, disabling injuries, and other serious illnesses requiring time off from work are unaddressed in the House measure and what’s likely to become law in the days ahead.

The Times got it right, saying: “The House’s failure to require universal paid sick leave is an embarrassment that endangers the health of workers, consumers and the broader American public.”

Governments are responsible for serving all their people. From inception, US ruling authorities served privileged interests exclusively at the expense of the public welfare.

New Deal, Fair Deal, and Great Society programs were exceptions to the rule.

Since the neoliberal 90s, especially post-9/11, they’ve been fast eroding en route toward disappearing altogether — with bipartisan support.

*

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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on House Passed Paid Sick Leave Only for 20% of US Workers

On March 13, House members passed HR 6201: Families First Coronavirus Response Act by a 363 – 40 majority vote hours after Trump declared a national COVID-19 emergency.

The measure moves to the Senate. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said its members “will need to carefully review the version just passed by the House,” adding:

“I believe the vast majority of senators in both parties will agree we should act swiftly to secure relief for American workers, families, and small businesses.”

Trump’s declaration makes about $50 billion in federal funds available to states and US territories for use in dealing with and containing COVID-19.

He suspended entry of foreign nationals to the US who’ve been in Europe since end of February.

US citizens and residents returning from Europe will be screened for possible COVID-19 infection and quarantined if necessary.

Interest on debt-entrapping student loans are temporarily suspended. The Department of Energy will take advantage of low oil prices to increase the US (energy) strategic reserve.

Trump announced support for HR 6201. According to Speaker Pelosi, it authorizes $8.3 billion (in) emergency funding,” adding:

“This legislation is about testing, testing, testing. To stop the spread of the virus, we have secured free coronavirus testing for everyone who needs a test, including the uninsured.”

There’s more including “paid emergency leave with two weeks of paid sick leave and up to three months of paid family and medical leave.”

It authorizes “enhanced unemployment insurance” for laid off workers, numbers likely to increase as economic conditions weaken, maybe exponentially if things worsen dramatically because of social distancing by millions of people to avoid possible infection from the virus.

To enhance food security, the measure includes funding for increased food stamp benefits, school lunches, as well as “seniors’ nutrition and food banks.”

There’s “increased federal funds for Medicaid” and $1 billion for a National Disaster Medical System.

The measure calls for reimbursing families and individuals without health insurance, along with providing $82 million for “defense beneficiaries, $64 million for the Indian Health Service and $60 million for veterans.”

Work will begin in the House on follow-up emergency legislation. What House members passed Friday is a drop in the bucket compared to what’s needed.

The devil is also in fine print of House and Senate measures — most important in their implementation when signed into law by Trump.

What’s authorized so far by the House, likely to be largely or entirely agreed to by the Senate, already accepted by Trump, is way short of what’s needed — hundreds of billions of dollars to address an unprecedented situation that’s likely to persist for some time while economic conditions weaken, making a bad situation worse.

Monetary policy is ineffective in dealing with a national health emergency.

Fiscal policy can help greatly by putting money in the pockets of ordinary people for essentials — provided large enough amounts are authorized for as long as needed.

Government provided healthcare for everyone is vital at times like now, not tinkering around the edges alone that HR 6201 authorized.

At times of national duress like now, government is a backstop of last resort to provide aid for what households can’t provide for themselves.

Perhaps $1 trillion or several trillions of federal funding are needed to address what’s going on — the amount depending on how long emergency conditions last.

Things are likely to get much worse ahead before improving. It’s essential for Washington to work all-out cooperatively with states and local communities to address things as long as crisis conditions persist.

Newly announced restrictions in my Chicago residential building with hundreds of residents may be a sign of more of the same to come elsewhere.

We’ve been instructed to socially distance ourselves from other residents, in common areas stay six feet or more from others, not visit the management office, communicate by phone and/or email instead — all non-emergency work orders temporarily suspended.

We were told to cease visiting the building areas where residents normally gather, wash hands thoroughly before entering common areas, and use knuckles or elbows to push elevator buttons.

If ill for any reason, self-quarantine as a precaution and notify management. Building maintenance was ordered to disinfect, disinfect, disinfect common areas multiple times daily.

At the federal, state, local, and personal levels, it’s important to go all-out to deal with what may become an unprecedented situation in our lifetimes.

No guidelines exist to predict what may unfold ahead other than comparing the current situation to the century-ago Spanish flu when societal structures and state of the art medical care were world’s apart from now.

Over one-fifth of the world’s population was infected from 1918 – 1920, millions perishing worldwide.

Can history repeat? What happened before can happen again but shouldn’t if all-out proper steps are taken by authorities and individuals through self-protective measures.

At times of great duress, unity against a common foe is vital until it passes and things return to normal.

Until then, hunkering down and following sound personal hygiene practices are essential to stay safe.

*

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 coronavirus panic has resulted in hordes of people running after toilet paper.  Such actions are the flip side of running with the bulls, except that I suspect those who run with the bulls have some sense of why they do it.  I imagine the thrill is a bit different, even if the goal is similar.

The overriding narratives of every society are composed of myths and symbols.  Societies operate within controlling mythic symbol systems whose primary purpose is to allow people to move through their lives on automatic pilot, believing they are safe from death and chaos in the arms of the authorities. All cultures revolve around death and the need to control people’s fears of it through the construction of symbols of reassurance.  People need to be convinced that they are protected.  In “normal” times, all this goes relatively smoothly and the symbols of protection – such as the military, the primary institutions, and photos of the political leaders against a backdrop of flags – serve as a comforting security blanket.  In times of extreme stress, however, whether real or created, the system of reassurance breaks down and people panic.

Enter the coronavirus and the run on toilet paper. Many economists and psychologists have commented on the fear that motivates this hoarding behavior.  Most commentaries are true as far as they go.  The problem is they don’t go very far and never touch the real issue.  Hoarding is obviously done to quell the fear of running out.  But running out of what?

Why toilet paper?  The explanations I have seen say that toilet paper is an essential household item that is easy to hoard because it has no expiration date and comes in large packages that are light and easy to carry and store.  All true.  Fear induces hoarding, and people have gone insane hoarding all kinds of items, as if the plague to end the world were upon us, which is what the mass media keeps repeating as it whips up lunatic reactions.  The end times are near!  The Grim Reaper is at your door!

The authorities have inflamed this fear, as authorities are apt to do, since fear, and the fear of death and disease, is the greatest way to control people.  Remember the aftermath of the attacks of September 11, 2001.  Fear went rampant and people ran to religious services for a while as elements within the U.S. government sent anthrax through the mail to heighten the fear.  But anthrax was nothing compared to the coronavirus’s spread and panic.  With the 2001 attacks, the terrorist fear soon went onto the back burner to simmer away for all these years and keep everyone on an emergency fear footing so the government could execute its war and Patriot Act plans with little rebellion. It worked very well. Constant fear and anxiety became the norm as people internalized the 9/11 meme and its emergency phone number reminder.

But now the coronavirus panic is running wild and we don’t know when it will end. But why this frantic race to scoop up toilet paper? The answer should be quite obvious, but it is isn’t because it is unconscious. People react to the real biological fear of death by adopting any means that might protect them from it.  Excrement is the fundamental symbol of death.  It suggests we are bodies and nothing more; that the symbols of transcendence, whether religious or secular, are mirages. Shit has always been so associated, and always will. It has also long been associated in the Western imagination with the devil, Satan, the Lord of the underworld, who rules the pit of smelly steaming death where the bodies of people are deposited down in the earth to rot away.  That’s it.  No heaven, no immortality, just maggots in the dirt where shit descends.  The thought that that is all we are doesn’t go over well with many people.

To accept that we are only bodies, and that civilization and cultures have been constructed upon symbols created to tell us this isn’t true are pipe dreams, is the fear that runs rampant in days such as these, with the coronavirus allegedly stalking everyone as if it were Mister Pumpkin Head ready to pounce. The fundamental human fear is that we, like excrement, are destined to be buried and forgotten; that we will be buried in the earth or flushed down a toilet.  The fear is that “dead” excrement is what we are and that all the shiny symbols erected by civilization to say we are more are just bullshit.

This fear is compounded when science often claims that everything religions have ever taught is hocus pocus. The religious symbol systems that were the overarching bulwarks of western civilization have been replaced by science and technology.  But these twins have no answer for the fact of death, except to say it is inevitable and maybe we can help you to live a bit longer.  Many people, if only unconsciously, might not be satisfied with that answer.

So when death comes courting in the guise of a so-called plague or pandemic, toilet paper will keep you safe and clean. You can wipe away any reminder that you are mortal and will return to the earth; that you will rot there unless you somehow believe in the transcendent spirit of days gone by.

Rather than focus on all the death unleashed by government violence – their alleged protectors – people are easily manipulated into fearing the wrong things and unconsciously seeking some innocuous symbol that might do the job.

Running with the bulls gives people the thrill of teasing death while defeating it.  It must be very exciting.

Running after toilet paper is quite dull by comparison, but it serves a similar purpose.

It’s the people’s vaccine against death.

*

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

The spread of the coronavirus has meant that much of the other news about developments around the world has disappeared from the normal news cycle. The situation in Syria, which involves not only the government in Damascus but also Turkey, Russia, Iran and a remaining American force in part of the country has been proving increasingly unstable.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has met face-to-face with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to come up with a de-escalation plan that would avoid any head-to-head confrontation. An agreement was reached that included a cease fire, which most observers are describing as a surrender by Erdogan that accepted all Russian-Syrian army gains in the Idlib Province, but it remains to be seen what exactly will be sustainable. There have been subsequent reports that have include claims of the downing of two Syrian aircraft and several helicopters.

The United States for its part has been sending mixed messages to appeals from the Turks for support. Donald Trump has had an on and off again relationship with Erdogan and he has more-or-less approved the Turkish presence in the border areas and continues to endorse something like regime change in Damascus. Though it seems that at least for the moment the danger of a major armed conflict between Russia and Turkey has faded, many believe that more incidents are likely and could easily escalate.

And there is a truly dangerous connection in that Turkey and the United States are, of course, members of NATO. Under Article 5 of the NATO treaty, an attack on any one member is considered to be the same as an attack on all members and all members must respond by coming to the defense of the victim of the attack. Turkey has asked the United States for Patriot missiles to defend its troops on the ground in Syria. It has also called for NATO to enforce a no-fly zone in Idlib Province, air space that is currently controlled by Russia. Omer Celik, speaking for Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party, said that in his government’s view “The attack against Turkey is an attack against NATO. NATO should have been with Turkey, not starting today but from before these events.” Washington, for its part, has reportedly offered to provide Patriot batteries if the Turks do not deploy their recently purchased Russian built S-400 missiles. Trump has otherwisedeferred to the Europeans for any direct assistance and NATO has not entertained seriously anyno-fly commitment.

Under normal circumstances and in a normal world, the very idea that a member of a defensive alliance should be able to attack another country, as Turkey has done in Syria, and then demand assistance from other members of the alliance when the attacked country fights back would be a non-starter. But the problem with that kind of rational thinking is that NATO has long since ceased to be a defensive alliance. Both as an alliance and also acting through several of its member states, it has been actively involved in wars that have nothing to do with defense of Europe or of the Atlantic relationship with Washington. NATO troops are currently in Afghanistan and have also been in Iraq, Syria and Libya. Alliance members including the U.S. fought in Bosnia and Kosovo. 

And there are the usual head cases on the American side also demanding action against Russia and Syria. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida tweeted that “The prospects of a direct military confrontation between Turkey & Russia in Syria are very high & increasing by the hour… [Erdogan] is on the right side here. Putin & Assad are responsible for this horrific humanitarian catastrophe.”

The American ambassador to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchison told reporters “This is a big development, and our alliance is with Turkey, it is not with Russia. We want Turkey to understand that we are the ones that they’ve been allied with.”

The United States has further complicated the game through a recent visit made by the entourages of two senior U.S. officials whovisited Syria’s Idlib on March 3rd and pledged $108 million aid for Syrian civilians, hours after Turkey downed its second Syrianwarplane in the province. Who exactly would receive the money and how it would be distributed was, inevitably, not immediately clear.

The two diplomats slipped over the border from Turkey with the connivance of Ankara and several Syrian “resistance” groups. They conspicuously met with the so-called White Helmets, a group that claims to be involved in nonpartisan humanitarian rescue missions but which really is affiliated with terrorists, most notably the Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS), which is affiliated with al-Qaeda. HTS is the principal terrorist group operating in Idlib.

The group of American diplomats was headed by U.S. representative to the United Nations Kelly Craft, along with U.S. Special Envoy for Syria James Jeffrey. It was the first visit by American diplomats to Idlib. Craft announced that the aid package was for “the people of Syria in response to the ongoing crisis caused by Assad regime, Russian, and Iranian forces”. Jeffrey struck a more directly belligerent pose, saying that Washington would be providing ammunition in addition to the humanitarian assistance. “Turkey is a NATO  ally. Much of the military uses American equipment. We will make sure that equipment is ready and usable.” 

U.S. policy in Syria serves no American interest, but both Craft and Jeffrey are well known to be in the pocket of Israel. Craft, a big time GOP donor, who, in her fifteen months spent as Ambassador to Canada was remarkable for flying back to the U.S. from Ottawa 128 times, 70 of which were to her home in Kentucky. All on the government dime even though she is an extremely wealthy woman.

Craft left Canada when she replaced the arch Zionist Nikki Haley at the U.N. She emphasized in her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that she wouldfight against anti-Israel resolutions and actions by the U.N. and its affiliated agencies.” She also:

made a case for America returning to a leading role at Turtle Bay [the U.N.] as a way of protecting IsraelWithout U.S. leadership, our partners and allies would be vulnerable to bad actors at the U.N. This is particularly true in the case of Israel, which is the subject of unrelenting bias and hostility in U.N. venues. The United States will never accept such bias, and if confirmed I commit to seizing every opportunity to shine a light on this conduct, call it what it is, and demand that these outrageous practices finally come to an end.” 

Jeffrey is even more the zealot. His full title is as United States Special Representative for Syria Engagement and the Special Envoy for the Global Coalition to Defeat ISIL. He is, generally speaking, a hardliner politically, closely aligned with Israel and regarding Iran as a hostile destabilizing force in the Middle East region. He was between 2013 and 2018 Philip Solondz distinguished fellow at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP), a think tank that is a spin-off of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC). He is currently a WINEP “Outside Author” and go-to “expert.”

Professor John Mearsheimer of the University of Chicago and Stephen Walt, academic dean at Harvard University ‘s Kennedy School of Government, describe WINEP as “part of the core” of the Israel Lobby in the U.S. They examined the group on pages 175-6 in their groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and US Foreign Policy and concluded as follows:

“Although WINEP plays down its links to Israel and claims that it provides a ‘balanced and realistic’ perspective on Middle East issues, this is not the case. In fact, WINEP is funded and run by individuals who are deeply committed to advancing Israel’s agenda … Many of its personnel are genuine scholars or experienced former officials, but they are hardly neutral observers on most Middle East issues and there is little diversity of views within WINEP’s ranks.”

Jeffrey  set the tone  for his term of office shortly after being appointed by President Trump back in August 2018 when he argued that the Syrian terrorists were “. . . not terrorists, but people fighting a civil war against a brutal dictator.” Jeffrey, who must have somehow missed a lot of the head chopping and rape going on, subsequently traveled to the Middle East and stopped off in Israel to meet Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. It has been suggested that Jeffrey received his marching orders during the visit.

So, Trump bleats incessantly about how he wants to withdraw the U.S. from the senseless wars that it has been drawn into but at the same time his State Department sends two Zionist hardliners to Syria on a semi-secret mission to support a policy of regime change in Damascus while also providing aid that will inevitably fall into the pockets of an al-Qaeda linked terrorist group. And ammunition will also be forthcoming for the invading Turks to shoot Syrians, Russians and Iranians. If anyone is seriously interested in what is wrong with U.S. foreign policy, the activity of Craft and Jeffrey might serve as a decent case study on how not to do it. Unless, of course, the actual objective is to screw things up and involve the United States in quarrels that it could easily avoid.

*

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: US Ambassador to the United Nations Kelly Craft, and James Jeffrey, the US envoy for Syria, pose with rescue workers at the Syrian commercial crossing point of Bab al-Hawa in Idlib. Credit: Walid/ Twitter)

The authority of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and similar organizations requires that its credibility be impeccable, and like Caesar’s Wife, “above suspicion.”  Thus, the tarnished reputation of the OPCW as a result of its “unacceptable practices involving suppression of information with the aim of reaching a “preordained conclusion,” as confirmed by the panel of eminent individuals, (including Jose Bustani, First Director-General of the OPCW, Professor Richard Falk, Professor Emeritus of International Law, Princeton University and former UN Special Rapporteur and Dr. Helmut Lohrer, International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War) not only disqualifies its “official final report” of the events at Douma, April 7, 2018 but inevitably raises suspicions of “derelection of duty” in other distinguished investigations released by the United Nations, and numerous other “Commissions of Inquiry.”

There are evidently no limits to attempts by certain Western governments to attain their “interests,” in this case, as in others, regime change, by “all necessary methods.” (Including fraud)

In a recent “Arria- Formula” meeting at the United Nations,  Ambassador to the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, Alexander Shulgin  exposed the fraudulence of the “investigation” into the alleged chemical weapons attack in Douma on April 7, 2018.

The credibility of the OPCW is damaged by revelations of “unacceptable practices,” including intimidation of inspectors whose conclusions differed from the biased “official report.”  “Based on the whistleblower’s extensive presentation, including internal e-mails, text exchanges and suppressed draft reports, we are unanimous in expressing our alarm over unacceptable practices in the investigation of the alleged chemical attack in Douma on 7 April 2018.  We became convinced by the testimony that key information about chemical analyses, toxicology consultations, ballistics studies, and witness testimonies was suppressed, ostensibly to favor a preordained conclusion.”  “We have learned of disquieting efforts to exclude some inspectors from the investigations whilst thwarting their attempts to raise legitimate concerns, highlight irregular practices or even to express their differing observations and assessments—a right explicitly conferred on inspectors in the Chemical Weapons Convention, evidently with the intention of ensuring the independence and authoritativeness of inspection reports.”

In May, 2019 an engineering report written by Ian Henderson, an OPCW official, reached a conclusion antithetical to the conclusion of the official OPCW report. This engineering report was finally “leaked.” Henderson was among the members of the FFM (Fact Finding Mission) who were subjected to intimidation, and his documents, among other supporting documents were excluded from the final report, thereby severely discrediting the report’s reliability and any claim to impartiality.

Although the “White Helmets” released a video alleging that the Douma Hospital had suffered a chemical weapons attack on 7 April, 2018, interviews with doctors actually working at the Douma Hospital completely refuted these allegations of chemical attacks, and the doctors confirmed that there was no evidence of chemical poisoning suffered by any of their patients.  Although the “White Helmet” video showed dead bodies in the Douma area where it alleged there had been a chemical weapons attack, interviews with 300 residents of that precise area confirmed that none of the residents recognized or could identify the corpses shown in the “White Helmets” video, and the residents who were at home on April 7, 2018 when the chemical weapons attack was alleged to have occurred stated that they did not suffer any chlorine injuries whatsoever.  Witnesses stated that they saw dead bodies being brought into their neighborhood and placed there by “White Helmets” who militantly guarded their staging of the video, which completely fabricated the incident.  The dead persons shown in the video were brought into the area for the express purpose of fabricating victims of a chemical weapons attack which, in fact, never occurred.

Of course, the Syrian government was blamed for this bogus chemical weapons attack on civilians.  Who would make such a preposterous effort to create a falsified picture of victims of a chemical weapons attack which never, in fact occurred?

And, above all, why would such a preposterous effort be made?  I asked this question of Ambassador Alexander Shulgin at his press stake-out after the meeting, and he replied:  “The West wants regime change.”  This falsified attack on Douma, an attack which had, in reality never occurred, served propaganda relentlessly determined to demonize President Assad and his allies.   Ambassador Shulgin’s answer raised staggering questions.  It raised the possibility that not only was the West determined, after eleven years of warfare to destroy the Syrian government, as it had the governments in Iraq and Libya, but that the extent of fraud, duplicity and propaganda verging on insanity had no limits.  No lies were beyond bounds.  And the global danger became obvious and inescapable.  Further, this bastardization of the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ultimately cast suspicions on all other supposedly impartial and objective investigations and inquiries produced by the United Nations and any or all other organizations, however distinguished or impeccable their credibility had been.

The letter written in protest of this grotesque perversion of the report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, dated 18 November, 2019 was signed by luminaries of great  integrity, including  John Kiriakou, former CIA officer and Senior Investigator, US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (Kiriakou disclosed that the CIA was using the most barbarous tortures, and he himself witnessed one prisoner waterboarded 189 times;

Kiriakou was imprisoned for revealing this truth to the American people);  Katherine Gun, former GCHQ (UK GOV) investigator, who revealed that Tony Blair was lying to the British people to attempt to justify the Bush administration’s criminal invasion of Iraq, using fake information;

Katherine Gun was threatened with prosecution under the “Official Secrets” act, and her case was dropped when it was obvious that the enormity of treachery committed by Tony Blair’s government would inevitably be exposed if her prosecution proceeded;  Coleen Rowley, retired FBI agent and former Minneapolis Division Legal Counsel, 9-11 Whistleblower;

Marcello Ferada de Noli, Professor Emeritus, former head Research group Cross-cultural Injury Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Chair Swedish Doctors for Human Rights – SWEDHR, and twenty other distinguished signatories.

The duplicity of other “official reports” must, inevitably be exposed, including the UN Commission of Inquiry into the DPRK – the infamous Kirby report.  The UN Coordinator for Humanitarian Affairs, Ivan Simonovic stated that the Kirby report did not meet the standard of proof required to be admitted as evidence in a court of law.

And, now, the trial of four Russians (or Eastern Ukranians) by the District Court of the Hague, accused of involvement in the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight MH17, will very likely become a similar case, in the words of Russian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Maria Zakarova, “making farce out of tragedy.”  The presumption of innocence is violated, and the international team of investigators includes Australia, Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine, and significantly excludes Russia.  The conclusion is inevitably preordained, and suspect.

*

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.

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from Syria News

US-NATO Military Presence in the Arctic Threatens Global Security

March 15th, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

The US Navy has released on a video the emergence of its powerful submarine USS Toledo in the Arctic, in a clear act of military propaganda. The maneuver was conducted as part of the Ice Exercise (ICEX) program, which consists of a series of American military tests in the Arctic to be carried out over the next three weeks. In addition to the USS Toledo, the equally powerful submarine USS Connectcut was also sent to the Arctic. When interviewed about these drills, the US Vice Admiral Dary Caudle said that “the Arctic is a potential strategic corridor – between Indo-Pacific, Europe and the USA […] The submarine force must maintain readiness, training under conditions from the Arctic to ensure that it can protect national security interests and maintain a favorable balance of power in Indo-Pacific and Europe, if necessary”.

NATO announced for this year the “Ice Response 2020” program, to be conducted by the countries of the military alliance, with a central role to be played by Norway, due to its geographical conditions. The program consists of a series of military operations that were to be carried out between 2 and 18 March 2020. Undoubtedly, the program has a clear provocative nature and can be compared to “Defender Europe 2020”, both of which are NATO projects to provoke reactions from Russia. However, the tests were canceled due to the coronavirus epidemic.

 

In parallel, earlier this year the United States and Canada started another military program with the aim of countering the Russian presence in the Arctic, the so-called “Arctic Edge 2020”. In this program, both countries conducted exercises in the Alaskan region, testing their defense ability at low temperatures. However, the image they both managed to convey was not promising, revealing their weaknesses in this area, not convincing public opinion that the West has sufficient power to contain the Russian presence in the Arctic in the event of a war. The US has paid too much attention to the Middle East and the Pacific and neglected the strategic importance of the Arctic. For this reason, Washington and NATO are now trying to make up for their losses by conducting increasingly risky maneuvers in the region, which unnecessarily put international security at risk.

The strategic importance of the Arctic has been praised in recent years. The melting of glaciers has led to the discovery of new reserves of oil and natural gas that had not yet been explored, increasing general interest in the Arctic. Hal Brands, a researcher at Johns Hopkins University, points out that

“the Bering Sea could become a future Persian Gulf and will have a strong influence on the international scene. However, the USA no longer has a place in this region”.

Russia has expanded its military power in the region, increasing control over maritime routes – mainly the Northern Sea Route – and creating a coast guard system. President Putin recently declared that

“the realization of the Russian Federation’s state policy in the Arctic from 2020 provided […] the creation of a general designation group for the Russian Armed Forces in the country’s arctic zone, capable to provide military security in different political-military conditions”. China has also sought to increase its presence in the Arctic as part of the “One Belt, One Road Initiative”.

Faced with this scenario, the West becomes increasingly aggressive. The United States has expressed interest to deploy small and medium-range missiles in arctic region, shortly after its withdrawal from the INF Treaty. The Pentagon is developing a defense system in which it intends to deploy 20 interceptor missiles in Alaska by 2023, where 44 military units are already deployed.

In addition, NATO created a new North Atlantic command last year, significantly increasing its frequency of exercises in the Arctic. In October, the Organization made a bid to purchase a set of snow camouflage for winter operations, which includes 78.000 sets of special trousers, jackets and backpacks, all capable of withstanding temperatures of minus 40 degrees Celsius. Above all, the question remains: what will be the West’s next step? Oil and gas certainly explain a considerable part of military maneuvers and international interest in the Arctic, but they do not exhaust the reasons why the United States and NATO are increasing their presence in the north. Truly, the fact that the Russian military presence in some regions of the planet is greater than the American one is already sufficient reason for the Pentagon strategists. The dominance achieved by the West in the Middle East costed the lack of attention with the Arctic, only now realized. And Washington will not stop putting the world in danger to seek its hegemony in the region.

*

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

On March 12, the Federal Reserve announced its biggest market intervention to date, a massive $1.5 trillion injection into the short-term funding markets (“repo”) aimed at preventing grossly-inflated stock valuations from resetting at lower prices.

There should be no misunderstanding about the Fed’s real intention or whether its meddling will work. When financial assets are purchased in bulk, prices rise, that is the immutable law of the market. Stocks and bonds do not differentiate between day-traders and Central Bankers. What matters is the amount of money and what securities are purchased. What we know from 3 iterations of Quantitative Easing (QE) is that, when the Fed buys financial assets (USTs or MBS) stock prices climb higher. Friday’s trading will undoubtedly produce the same result.

We also know that the Fed’s circuitous blabbering never explains their real objectives. The Fed is not trying to ease “ominous trading conditions” or “counter signs of market dysfunction ” or “address highly unusual disruptions in Treasury financing markets associated with the coronavirus outbreak.” That’s all diversionary mumbo-jumbo. The Fed’s real goal is to prevent the markets from working the way they are supposed to work, to prevent basic price discovery, because price discovery will dramatically reduce valuations leaving banks and other financial institutions deep underwater.

Price discovery is the means through which an asset’s price is set by matching buyers and sellers according to a price that both sides find acceptable. It is largely driven by supply and demand. It is a useful mechanism to gauge whether an asset is currently overbought or oversold. Price discovery is the central function of a marketplace and is the process of finding out the price of a given asset or commodity. (Investopedia)

When an outside actor, like the Fed, intervenes in the market and creates fake demand for financial assets that investors have shunned, it is destroying the “central function” of the free market. It is asserting power over the market to set prices and, by doing so, assumes the role of Central Planner. That is what the Fed is doing by stopping the market from clearing. It is “price setting”. It is pushing stock prices higher than their true market value by loading up on mainly US Treasuries which dramatically distort rates while inflating the price of government bonds. We can only guess what the yield on the benchmark 10-year Treasury would be if the Fed had not purchased $2 trillion of them to save the insolvent banks from bankruptcy in 2008? And, in case there is any doubt about that matter, here is a straightforward admission by former-Fed chairman Ben Bernanke during the post-Lehman congressional hearings:

“As a scholar of the Great Depression, I honestly believe that September and October of 2008 was the worst financial crisis in global history, including the Great Depression. If you look at the firms that came under pressure in that period. . . only one . . . was not at serious risk of failure. So out of maybe the 13 of the most important financial institutions in the United States, 12 were at risk of failure within a period of a week or two.

Think about that. They were all broke, all the biggest banks on Wall Street were completely busted. But they were brought back to life by Lazarus Bernanke’s emergency rates, giveaway loan programs and lavish liquidity injections. At the same time, the American people were deliberately misled about the process that was underway, just as they are being misled about today’s intervention. What is actually taking place is another multi-trillion dollar bailout that is going to seriously undermine confidence in US Treasuries as a reliable barometer of financial asset value. Here’s an excerpt from an article by Bernanke’s right-hand man during the last crisis, Kevin Warsh, who underscores the risks the Fed is taking by intervening in the markets:

“The Fed’s increased presence in the market for long-term Treasury securities also poses nontrivial risks. The Treasury market is special. It plays a unique role in the global financial system. It is a corollary to the dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency. The prices assigned to Treasury securities–the risk-free rate–are the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is calculated. As the Fed’s balance sheet expands, it becomes more of a price maker than a price taker in the Treasury market. And if market participants come to doubt these prices–or their reliance on these prices proves fleeting–risk premiums across asset classes and geographies could move unexpectedly. The shock that hit the financial markets in 2008 upon the imminent failures of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac gives some indication of the harm that can be done when assets perceived to be relatively riskless turn out not to be.” (“The New Malaise”, Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal.)

Here’s more from Warsh on the unintended consequences of the Fed’s interventions that create powerful incentives for risky behavior that undermine investment, inflate asset values, and damage the real economy.

“Extremely accommodative monetary policy, including the purchase of about $3 trillion in Treasurys and mortgage-backed securities during three rounds of “quantitative easing” (QE), pushed down long-term yields and boosted the value of risk-assets. Higher stock prices were supposed to drive business confidence and higher capital expenditures, which were supposed to result in higher wages and strong consumption. Would it were so.

Business investment in the real economy is weak … In 2014, S&P 500 companies spent considerably more of their operating cash flow on financially engineered buybacks than real capital expenditures for the first time since 2007 … We believe that QE has redirected capital from the real domestic economy to financial assets at home and abroad. In this environment, it is hard to criticize companies that choose “shareholder friendly” share buybacks over investment in a new factory. But public policy shouldn’t bias investments to paper assets over investments in the real economy.” (The Fed Has Hurt Business Investment, Michael Spence And Kevin Warsh, Wall Street Journal)

The Fed is destroying the system it is entrusted to safeguard. It’s acting as a stooge for the banks instead of an impartial referee whose job is to oversee and regulate the financial system so capital is efficiently deployed to productive investments that benefit the American people. Does anyone think the Fed is acting within its mandate by pumping the system with liquidity so crooked banks can cream bigger profits off their casino operations?

No one, and yet it continues.

There’s no way to know the true value of the benchmark 10-year Treasury (which is the “the foundation from which the price of virtually every asset in the world is calculated”) because the Fed’s relentless mucking-around has distorted prices beyond recognition. Imagine for a minute if the central banks had not purchased trillions of dollars in sovereign bonds during the financial crisis? Imagine where rates would be today?

Rates would not only be positive, they’d also be “normalized” which was the Fed’s stated goal when it tried to reduce its $4 trillion dollar balance sheet last year but then suddenly slammed on the brakes when stocks fell and the crybaby banks began howling. So now the Fed has abandoned normalization altogether while its balance sheet remains permanently submerged in red ink.

But how is capitalism supposed to work if rates are stuck at zero or go negative? Interest rates are the jet-fuel that energize capitalism. The “marginal efficiency of capital” refers to the returns that are expected from a capital asset during the time it is held by an investor. If those expected returns are reduced to zero, then the incentive to invest vanishes, the system is stood on its head, and capitalism no longer works. What is left is not productive investment, innovation or socially-beneficial development. What’s left is rampant speculation, asset prices that are completely divorced from reality, and the endless build-up of paper claims on imaginary wealth. Isn’t this an apt description of today’s Fed-generated market?

And now the Fed is at it again, tilting the system so the bulk of the nation’s wealth continues to flow upwards. Here are some of the shocking details about this latest bank bailout:

The New York Fed said it will offer its primary dealers another $500 billion in a 3-month loan and another $500 billion in a one-month loan….Both 3-month and 1-month loans will be offered weekly “for the remainder of the monthly schedule.” That means $1 trillion a week will be available at below-market interest rates until the middle of April.

That will be on top of the $175 billion the Fed is offering daily in one-day loans and the $45 billion it is offering each Tuesday and Thursday in 14-day loans. This is a dramatic expansion of the Fed’s balance sheet to support Wall Street — all without one vote, or debate, or hearing occurring in Congress.” (“Federal Reserve Announces Unprecedented $1.5 Trillion in Loans to Wall Street Today and Tomorrow” Wall Street on Parade)

In one fell swoop, the Fed has become the market, the whole market and nothing but the market. This new bailout is not $1.5 trillion, it is more than $1 trillion per week for the remainder of the monthly schedule. This explains why “risk-free” US Treasuries sharply rose during yesterday’s selloff, it’s because the banks moved into cash so they would have the resources they needed to lend to all the desperate businesses (Cruise lines, airlines etc) that have been whacked by the coronavirus.

Wall Street Bankers Visit Trump on Wednesday

Some readers may have noticed that, on Wednesday, the CEOs from Wall Street’s biggest banks visited Trump in the White House to tell the president how well capitalized they were. Why would they do that? Why did they need to visit Trump to tell him how great they were doing?

It’s because they knew that, in less than 24 hours, the Fed was going to announce that it was dumping trillions of dollars in to the repo market and they’d be back on Easy Street. That’s why.

It was all a set-up. The fleecing of the American people is just one big freaking set up after the other. It’s infuriating.

Are the banks in trouble again? Is that why we’re being subjected to this latest sheering?

Of course they’re in trouble. Do you think you can slash $10 trillion off stock valuations and shove oil off a cliff and not have the banks in trouble?? The banks are heavily invested in oil, just as they are in derivatives trades, loans to shaky hedge funds, and stocks that are currently in freefall. Which is why the Fed has wheeled in the heavy artillery.. Check out this excerpt from an article at The Wall Street Journal:

The deepening Wall Street rout is adding to pressure on U.S. banks, as the retreat of investors from risky assets saddles lenders with securities they are struggling to sell at desired prices. The crunch has been evident in the share prices of the largest U.S. financial firms, which have fallen 30% or more in many cases over the past month. Citigroup Inc. dropped 8.6% on Wednesday, extending its decline to 36%, nearly doubling the drop in the S&P 500…

When markets come under duress as they have over the past couple of weeks, asset prices are pushed to levels where you begin to see margin calls and other internal activity that is not always visible on the surface,” said Daniel Deming, a managing director at Chicago-based KKM Financial.

The most surprising development for traders Wednesday: the sharp decline in the price of U.S. Treasury securities, which until this week had consistently risen significantly on days when U.S. stocks were falling. The price declines sent yields higher after dropping to record lows and were fueled in part by banks selling U.S. government securities to reduce inventories and raise cash. Rates are low enough that Wednesday’s action itself didn’t hurt banks, but the unusual nature of the move raised eyebrows.”

People familiar with some of the largest securities-dealing banks said many firms bought corporate bonds as prices fell last week, but those purchases resulted in some banks having balance sheets that executives deemed too large. With prices barely having recovered in many markets, some banks chose to sell Treasuries instead, in part reflecting their significant appreciation in recent weeks.” (“Wall Street Plunge Stresses Banks, Treasury Markets”, Wall Street Journal)

Let’s recap: Why are the banks selling Treasuries?

Because they need the cash.

Why do they need the cash?

Because–according to the author– the banks are stuck with a bunch of stocks “they are struggling to sell at desired prices.”

But that just means stock prices have dropped, it doesn’t explain why the banks need cash?

True, the only reason they would need cash is if they borrowed the money to buy the stocks in the first place, which is what the author suggests when he refers to “margin calls and other internal activity that is not always visible on the surface.” In other words, the banks need cash because their portfolio is underwater and they are leveraged up to their eyeballs.

According to the article: “People familiar with some of the largest securities-dealing banks said many firms bought corporate bonds as prices fell last week, but those purchases resulted in some banks having balance sheets that executives deemed too large.”

Corporate bonds?!? The corporate bond market froze last week, no activity at all, a complete graveyard. If the banks were dabbling in that garbage, then they must’ve gotten burned bigtime which would explain why they want another bailout from Uncle Sugar.

It’s worth noting that none of this has anything to do with the Fed. The banks were playing the stock market and lost their shirts. Who cares? Break ’em up, auction off the good assets, ring-fence the bad, install new management, and start over. That’s how the system is supposed to work. You roll the dice, and if you come up snake-eyes, you go home. End of story. That’s what we should have done in 2008 instead of keeping these parasites on life support so they could take us all over the cliff for a second time in 10 years. It’s ridiculous!

Keep in mind, the Trump administration has only allocated a lousy $8 billion to fund its response to coronavirus. So the American people –all 330 million of them– will get a whopping $8 billion while the crooked Wall Street banks get regular multi-trillion dollar infusions that allow them to swap their crappy, dog-eared securities for cold-hard cash. The banks will then roll over these 3-month loans indefinitely turning their short-term debts into perennial welfare payouts. Does that sound fair to you?

This is why people despise the Federal Reserve. They don’t see the Fed as an impartial arbiter fulfilling its mandate of price stability and full employment but an evil puppetmaster that wants to rule the world. That, of course, is a gross exaggeration. In truth, the Fed is no different than the FAA, a thoroughly corrupt and unreformable “rubber stamp” agency that is entirely controlled by the corporations it’s supposed to regulate. This latest multi-trillion dollar travesty just proves what we’ve known for a long time, that the Fed always operates in the exclusive interests of its reprobate constituents, the crooked Wall Street banks.

*

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.

Today we call it breaking news, the story of the moment — before it changes again. A century ago it was what ran on the front page — the big story, the killer headline. But then as now, it is often tied up with ambitions, competition, and money.

The Front Page was also the name of a broadway play written more than 20 years before I was born. Yet I fell in love with its characters, stories and attitude by the time I was ten. Then it was called His Girl Friday, a Hollywood version often shown on early television, with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as Walter Burns, a manipulative Chicago editor, and Hildy Johnson, an ace reporter trying to escape the grind.

This was the second film version of the hit play about tabloid reporters on the Chicago police beat. Written by former reporters Ben Hecht and Charles MacArthur, it was first produced in 1928, and quickly bought by Howard Hughes for the film adaptation by Lewis Milestone.

In early April, a restored version of the film was scheduled to open Global Roots 2020, a three-day festival about reporting and film, organized by the Vermont International Film Festival. Due to the coronavirus, however, all eleven films and panel discussions have been indefinitely postponed. Still, The Front Page is worth another look.

Grant and Russell in His Girl Friday

After all, the basic story has been retold on film, radio and television countless times. That includes four major films. The first, released in 1931, had a young Pat O’Brien as Hildy and Adolphe Menjou as Burns. In 1940, director Howard Hawkes updated the tale with His Girl Friday, featuring the fast-talking Grant and Russell, along with a gender switch. Then came a 1974 remake with Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthew as a journalistic odd couple, and 1988’s Switching Channels, a return to the Russell-Grant model with Kathleen Turner as Hildy and Burt Reynolds as a cable TV Burns. There were also radio productions in the 1930s and 1940s, two television versions, a British musical called Windy City, and a 2016 revival of the play with Nathan Lane and John Slattery in the key roles.

In the 1950s, watching old movies on TV, I was fascinated by Grant and Russell, who seemed to both personify and hilariously exaggerate the struggle between newspaper editors and reporters, and also between men and women. The fast-talking repartee was like jousting, and the situational ethics used to get what they wanted was a revelation.

The society they inhabited was rough, lively and seductive; there were tough reporters barking into telephones, corrupt politicians and life-and-death cover ups, a ruthless editor racing deadlines and looking for angles, his defiant star reporter, a misunderstood outlaw on the run, and a good-hearted prostitute, plus other enduring types and tropes. But what really cemented the impressions was reading the play itself, one of the learning tools used by my junior high school English teacher to keep us interested.

Since then, I’ve been a major fan of Ben Hecht. Journalist, screenwriter, novelist, and activist, Hecht was a literary phenomenon, a defiant, complicated, unapologetic Jewish-American writer. Jean-Luc Godard once said, “He invented 80 percent of what is used in Hollywood movies today.” Pauline Kael annointed him “the Greatest American screenwriter.” And then, with the rise of Hitler and World War II, he continued to evolve, gradually becoming a Jewish radical and dedicating much of his last decades to the cause of Israel. At his funeral, Menachem Begin summed it up, “He wrote stories and he made history.”

Menjou and O‘Brien in the original film version

In addition to The Front Page, Hecht wrote or worked on scripts for classic films like Underworld (the 1929 silent film for which he won the first-ever Academy Award for best story), Scarface, Design for Living, Viva Villa!, Topaze, Twentieth Century, Barbary Coast, Nothing Sacred, Gunga Din, It’s a Wonderful Life, Angels Over Broadway, Comrade X, Lydia, SpellBound, Notorious, Kiss of Death, Monkey Business, and A Farewell to Arms. He also had a hand in Gone with the Wind, Foreign Correspondent, Gilda, and Roman Holiday. In all, Hecht worked on at least 140 films. What range!

And what a life! Running away to Chicago at 16, he “haunted streets, whorehouses, police stations, courtrooms, theater stages, jails, saloons, slums, madhouses, fires, murders, riots, banquet halls, and bookshops,” Hecht recalled. By the 1920s he was a noted journalist, foreign correspondent, and literary figure. And that was before Hollywood called.

In 1928, The Front Page became a hugely popular Broadway play, a sharp-edged valentine to the scruffy newsmen of an earlier era. At the time, though, many people thought Hecht and MacArthur had invented the characters and fabricated their stories. But Hecht later claimed that, in his youth, sometimes he and a photographer would actually stage shots at times to back up their made-up scoops — like a brave tugboat captain who fought off pirates on Lake Michigan, or digging a trench to  fake a severe earthquake photo. On the other hand, they met everyone and covered everything — floods, funerals, trials, and hangings.

Later, Hecht described the times this way: “We were a tribe of assorted drunkards, poets, burglars, philosophers and boastful raggamuffins. Supermen with soiled collars and holes in our pants, stony broke and sneering at our betters in limousines and unmortgaged houses. Cynical of all things on earth including the tyrannical journal that underpaid and overworked us and for which, after a round of cursing, we were ready to die.”

The actress Helen Hayes said of their work on The Front Page, “They took the corset off American theater.” Tennessee Williams once acknowledged that the play made it possible for him to conceive his own work. British Critic Kenneth Tynan described it as “the best American comedy ever written.” And playwright Tom Stoppard called it “the only American comedy of the 1920s in the way that The Importance of Being Earnest is the only English comedy of the 1890s.

I don’t know any play which sustains its verve so well.”

Nevertheless, the source material of this classic story describes a very different time, one in which objectivity and facts were the last thing on most reporters’ minds. Almost century ago, The Front Page revealed a hidden world, one based loosely on reality and filled with slippery politicians and hungry reporters, where getting the story first and boldest was considered more important than getting it right.

But their already-nostalgic vision also placed a high value on courage, community, and having a heart. In today’s white-hot media environment that unfortunately begins to sound like a romantic, and possibly obsolete notion.

*

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 author’s blog site, Greg Guma / For Preservation & Change.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Supermen with Soiled Collars: Reporters in a Golden Age

The Political Economy of Corruption in South Korea

March 14th, 2020 by Prof. Joseph H. Chung

The whole world is facing the deepening and widening corruption which challenges the very survival of the free democracy and the free market economy.

Korea has been suffering for last 70 years from the corruption culture. But owing to courageous fight of Korean people and the Candle-Light Revolution of 2016-2017, Korea is freeing painfully but steadily from the dark clouds of the corruption culture.

I hope that Korea’s experience will help developing countries for assuring the development of their economy without becoming the slave of corruption.

The literature on corruption is rich but it has two shortcomings. First, it is based on a definition of corruption which is too narrow to deal with the complexity of corruption. Second, it does not cover sufficiently the range of the impact of corruption on the society.

Most of the existing studies tend to define corruption as illegal activities which are designed to maximize personal gains at the expense of those of others. But, it must be pointed out that some of the laws and regulations are designed to justify corruption.

Therefore, I would define corruption as “illegal or immoral human activities designed to maximize personal or group gains at the expense of the welfare of other persons or other groups”.

The objective of this paper is to find, on the basis of Korea’s experience, appropriate measures that would facilitate the fight against corruption.

This paper has five sections.

Section 1 offers a typology of corruption based on the Korean experience of corruption. I have found that the useful way of classifying corruption is to relate it to the behaviour of individuals and organizations involved in corruption.

Section 2 deals with the evolution stage of corruption. I argue that the phenomenon of corruption evolves by stage. The level, the contents and the impact of corruption vary by stage. Therefore, to find appropriate measure of anti-corruption, it is important to know at what stage the process of corruption finds itself.

Section 3 discusses the strategy of protecting the benefits of corruption. It will be shown that, in Korea, the strategy of protecting the fruit of corruption is brutal and sophisticated.

Section 4 copes with the impact of corruption. Here, I will distinguish between economic impact and moral impact. It goes without saying that these two types of impact are related. In fact, I argue that these two types of impact combined can destroy a country

Finally, Section 5 will show how the Korean people have fought for last 70 years against corruption risking their lives and enduring the violation of their basic human rights. In this section, I will show also how President Moon is conducting a total war against the deep rooted corruption in Korea. In addition I will show some lessons we can learn from the Korea’s experience of corruption

Typology of Corruption

The corruption takes several forms depending upon the individuals and organizations involved in the process of corruption. I am sure that the following types of corruption take place in many other countries.

A. Outright theft of public funds

One of the most notorious scandals in Korea is the embezzlement of billions of dollars of public funds by the conservative presidents of the country, civil servants, heads of public corporations, directors of research institutions, and even owners of even kindergarten.

Chun Doo-hwan, 1983-March-11-02 (cropped).jpg

One of the notorious cases was the embezzlements of more than $ 200 million USD by former conservative president, General Chun Doo-hwan (image on the right). He was imprisoned for corruption and abuse of power. He was ordered by the court to pay back to the government the embezzled money. But he is still claiming that he has only $260 USD in his bank; he is making mockery of Korea’s judiciary system.

Under President Lee Myong-bak, billions of dollars of public money was suspected to be stolen through what are called the “4-River Projects” and “Resource Diplomacy.” These scandals remain to be investigated.

Another case of the theft of public money is that of private kindergartens which steal openly a good part of government subsidies for personal use including the purchase of jewellery and other personal use.

B. Transaction of privileges

The market of privileged rights is huge. To do business, one has to go through a long series of regulations. But, by paying bribes to government officials, one can get privileges of going over the laws and regulations.

For instance, by paying bribes to government officials, one can get more quickly a legal building permit or illegal building permit. With bribes, a land developer can transform greenbelt land into residential land.

The supply of these privileges is provided by the public authorities. The demand of these privileges is determined by the business. The price of these privileges is the monetary value of these privileges.

The market price of these privileges is the amount of bribery. It is by no means easy to have an idea about the amount of such bribery. But, for example, it is a known secret that the amount of bribery paid by the industry of construction is 5% of the amount of sales. The total amount of bribery could be tens of billions of dollars.

C. Theft of Information

In Korea, some of those who are involved in the supervision of stock market and land development are known to be wealthy after their retirement.

The high ranking civil servants of the ministry of construction know in advance the land-development plan and buy land in the name of someone else and assure huge capital gains by selling it.

A person working at the institution which supervises the stock market has access to confidential information on investment plan of companies and can make fortune by buying or selling the stocks. God knows how much illicit money is made by these thieves of confidential information.

D. Fraudulent procurement 

The government and its numerous agents spend hundreds of billions of dollars every year to buy goods and services. For national defence alone, Korea spends a year $50 billion USD. It happens more often than not that the government and its agents pay an amount far above the real price for the procurement of goods and services.

The difference between the price paid and the real price is shared between the seller and the buyer. This is the “kick-back”. In the area of procurement of military equipment, the amount of kick-back is said to be 10% of the amount of military equipment bought.

E. Transaction of Freedom 

Perhaps, another devastating form of corruption is the transaction of freedom. Under the corrupted judiciary system, those who have committed crimes and corruption can buy freedom with bribe money.

The police do not arrest people of power despite their obvious crimes and corruption in exchange of bribery. The bureau of prosecutors does not investigate clear cases of corruption, if the accused are leaders of business ready to pay bribes.

Even if the investigation shows undeniable proof of corruption, the prosecutor does not accuse the person involved.

Heads of the largest Chaebol were suspected several times for corruption but they were seldom sent to the court trial.

Even if they were judged guilty, they were soon liberated. In many cases, even if the prosecutor provides proof of guilt, the court makes ruling of not guilty.

F. Transaction of laws 

It is a well known fact that the powerful Chaebols persuade the law makers to pass laws in their favour in exchange of disguised campaign funds.

Laws adopted by the National Assembly can affect the interests of business and other interest groups. The groups which are the most sensitive to laws are large corporations. Large corporations have, in fact, a specialized group whose job is to prevent laws harmful to them and foster those laws which are favourable to them. The laws that have been the most visible target of lobbying have been labour related laws.

Chaebols have been spending a lot of bribe money paid to law makers to prevent the adoption of pro-labour laws. This is one of the reasons for low wages and long hour of work in Korea

G. Transaction of jobs 

Korea President Park UN 20130506 01 cropped.jpg

Another form of corruption is the transaction of jobs. In the case of a Casino in Gangwon Province, 80% of jobs were illegally given, in exchange of bribes, to those who were close to lawmakers or other persons close to the government of Park Geun-hye (image on the left).

It is suspected that Mrs Choi Soon-sil (now in prison for 20 years for corruption and illegally interfering in government policies) would have intervened, for large sum of bribe, in the nomination of cabinet ministers, judges and other high ranking officials.

Evolution Stages of Corruption 

The corruption in Korea has evolved by the following stages:

  • Economic development and collusion of government-business.
  • Formation of oligarchy of corruption
  • Creation of corruption community

Stage 1. Economic Development and the emergence of bilateral collusion: government-business

One of the key factors of the economic miracle in Japan and Korea was the concept of Japan Incorporated (Japan Inc.) and that of Korea Incorporated (Korea Inc) by which I mean the situation in which the government and the business act as one single company. The government and the business become almost equal partners for economic policies and development.

The close cooperation government-business led inevitably to collusion in planning and executing the project of industrialization and economic development.

Park Chung-hee 1963's.png

The story of collusion between President Park Chung-hee (image on the right) and Chung Joo-young, founder of the Hyundai Group and Lee Byung-chul, founder of the Samsung groups is almost a legend.

The stage of government-business collusion was almost identical to the period of take-off of the Korean economy (1960-1970), In fact, owing to the Korea Inc. and the bilateral collusion, Korea could free itself from absolute poverty in less than thirty years. 

Stage 2. Formation of Oligarchy  

As the economy developed further and the process of planning of economic development was executed, the role of bureaucracy became essential for the success of planning. In particular, the Bureau of Economic Planning (EPB) became the key factor of success of economic planning. As a result, the daily participation of EPB bureaucrats and high ranking officials of the Ministry of Finance and other civil servants joined the collusion. This led to the trilateral collusion: politics-bureaucracy-business.

No doubt, the trilateral collusion made significant contribution to the Han-River economic miracle. But in the absence of close supervision of the collusion, the members of the collusion became attempted to appropriate some of the fruits of economic development.

To do so, the collusion members formed a close circle to hide their illegal or immoral activities. In fact, this close circle became an exclusive oligarchy. One of the functions of the oligarchy consisted in allocating privileges to big businesses in exchange of bribe money.

There were several ways of giving public resources to big businesses. The policy loans were the most lucrative gift to the businesses. The government made loans of huge amount of money at an interest rate of less than 5%, while the market rate was above 20%.

This money was designed to foster industrialization and exports. True, a part of these loans were used for the construction of factories and exports. But, in many cases, the businesses made a fortune by making loans of the money borrowed at an interest rate much higher than 5 %.

The big businesses were given tax incentives; they were allowed free entry to industrial complexes; they were given lands which were supposed to be used for industrial use but a part of these lands were used for land speculation. The Chaebols were given all sorts of permit and privileges; they were given huge amount of grants and subsidies for reasons which were not clear.

This stage of the formation of the oligarchy took place in 1980s and 1990s. We may remember that theses two decades were active in reordering the global economy into neo-liberalism, which gave more power to big business and considerably weakened the power of the government. Under this circumstance, it could have become easier for business to dictate policies in their favour by giving bribes.

It was also the period of the transformation of Korean industry into heavy and chemical industries allowing big businesses to have almost unlimited sources of funds.

Stage 3. Establishment of Corruption Community

The oligarchy might have felt the need for strengthening itself by sharing the illicit income with media, the academics and conservative civic groups. In this way, the network of corruption was expanded to form a community of corruption.

The community of corruption is designed to widen the network of corruption so that it can better defend themselves against the anti-corruption forces. Thus, the Korean society became doubly divided between conservatism and progressivism on the one hand and, on the other, between pro-corruption force and anti-corruption force.

The stage of the corruption community came in the 2000s during which the progressive government of Kim Dae-jung (1997-2002 and Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008) governed the country.

During this period, the corruption community of conservatives had to slow down their activities of corruption. But, it invested money to widen and strengthen its network.

However, since Lee Myong-bak took power in 2008 and Park Geun-hye succeeded him in 2013, the conservative government ruled for 9 years (2008-2017).

During this period, the corruption community expanded and intensified its corruption activities.

In fact, the degree of corruption during this period was even greater than that of the corruption under the military dictatorship of Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan.

Lee Myung-bak 2013-01-29.jpg

As a result of their crimes, Park Geun-hye is sentenced 25-year imprisonment, while Lee Myong-bak (image on the left) is judged for 15-year imprisonment and accused for additional crimes of corruption.

Strategy of protecting the benefits of corruption

The strategy of protecting the interests of the corruption community included the following.

First, in order to silence the voice of opposition, the conservative government massacred a few hundred thousand innocent people under Rhee Sygnman, Park Chung-hee and Chun Doo-hwan.

Second, the freedom of press was completely silenced either through the brutal police force or through bribe money. The sad situation is that majority of press cannot survive without Chaebols’ advertising fees which are used as bribe money

In Korea, there are three dominant national newspapers: Chosun, Joong-ang, and Dong-ah (Cho-Joong-Dong). These newspapers may account for more than a half of the circulation of major newspapers.

They exited during the Japanese occupation of Korea (1910-1945) and they are known to be pro-Japan and pro-conservative; they have been suspected to play major roles in protecting the corruption community.

Third, ordinary Koreans who were suspected for being a part of pro-progressive and anti-corruption force were the targets of false accusation for being North Korean spy by the intelligence services; they were victims of police harassment and other unlawful means of oppression.

Fourth, authors of academic publications unfavourable to the conservative government were deprived of research funds.

In Korea, there is a group of academics, called “the New Right” who justifies the Japanese invasion of Korea. They have revised the modern history book in which they have written that Japan had come to Korea for its economic development for Koreans.

They deny the existence of the crime of sex slavery of 250,000 Korean teen age girls committed by Japanese soldiers during WWII.

The New Right academics along with the conservatives have given themselves the role of criticizing the progressive force for being “Red” (Pal-Gaeng-Ie) in order to induce voters to vote for the conservative party.

Fifth, about 10,000 artists, singer, movie actors and authors of novels who were not for conservative government were put on a black list and excluded from government grants. The director of the movie “Parasite” Bong Joon-ho was also on the black list along with his crew.

Sixth, the corruption community provides money to several civic pro-conservative movements including the association of Korea War veterans and various organizations of the elderly. These people participate, in street demonstrations, to criticize the progressives. They are paid by Chaebols for their participation.

Seventh, the intra-group marriage is another way of widening and strengthening the corruption community. The most visible cases are the marriages between families of leading conservative politicians and Chaebol families. 

Negative Impact of Corruption

The major negative impact of corruption may be grouped into two groups: economic impact and moral impact.

A. Economic Impact

In the short run, corruption can weaken the competitiveness of national economy, while, in the long run, it may bring decades-long deflation as it has happened in Japan.

We may separate micro-economic impact and macro-economic impact.

Micro-economic impact my take various forms. The corrupted way of supervising competition may favour big businesses which may prevent the market from assuring fair competition leading to the loss of competitiveness of small- and medium-sized firms (SMEs).

The government’s bailout operation of insolvent firms in exchange of bribery would simply prolong the life of insolvent firms and, as a result, it could weaken the competitiveness of the Korean industries.

The corrupted system of government procurement may result in buying services and goods of unreliable quality. Korea bought    once a submarine which did not submerge in exchange of kick-back.

The macro-economic impact of corruption is as bad as the micro-economic impact.

The pro-export policy imposed upon by the oligarchy may make GDP increase, but exports do not create much the trickledown effects; it does not create jobs; it increases unemployment; it makes income distribution unfair and unequal..

In Korea, 99.9 % of the total number of firms is small-and medium-sized firms (SMEs). They create 87% of jobs. But, the oligarchy has adopted pro-Chaebol and anti-SME policies.

This policy has contributed to the increase in exports. At the same time, it has surely boosted the income of the Chaebols. The increase of Chaebols’ income meant more bribe money available.

Another feature of pro-Chaebol policy was the exploitation of the SMEs for the benefit of the Chaebols. The conservative government allowed the big companies to steal technologies developed by the SMEs, violate the contracts, delaying the payment due to the SMEs and cutting down unilaterally the price of products sub-contracted.

The results of these policies are serious enough; they have prevented the development of the SMEs; they have destroyed jobs accessible to ordinary people. The worst thing was that these policies have delayed the development of domestic industries and increased the possibility of chronic deflation.

B. Moral impact  

The moral impact of corruption is even more destructive than the economic impact.

In Korea, there is an old saying: “The downstream water becomes clean, if the upstream water is clean”

Korean people believe that the very root of corruption is the Blue House (Korean White House). In other words, the upstream water is muddy. Therefore the downstream water is muddy. So, the corruption is spread throughout the society

Under the conservative regime, the primary objective of corruption is to accumulate money.

Man becomes slave of money; the money is above the law, above the Confucian values and even above Jesus.

The social status is determined by money. The money determines the hierarchy of the society. The rich Chaebol chief becomes the king and his family becomes royal family. The king of kings is the head of Samsung Group. In fact, under the conservative government, Korea was called the Republic of Samsung.

Chaebols hire former ministers of the central government to show off that they are more important than the government, demonstrate their wealth and power. These poor former ministers are fatly paid for their lobbying in favour of pro-Chaebol policies.

The power of money has created the phenomenon of “Gap-jil” in which the rich and powerful mistreat the poor as inferior beings.

The world may remembers the 2014 incidence of “macadamia nut” in which, the second daughter of the funder of Air Korea insulted and hit one of the personnel on board of a plane for the stupid reason for not opening the bag of nuts.

Pastors of mega protestant churches which have an annual income of millions of USD seem to have the illusion of having become a king and abuse their money power and mistreat congregation members.

In fact, a number of pastors have been accused of stealing church money, but they went free without being accused for the crime. The bribe money has played its role.

In many companies, the employees are forced to do something which has nothing to do with their job descriptions.

The perilous moral impact of the corruption of the conservative leaders is translated into the worship of money and the destruction of honesty, the decency, the integrity and the loss of mutual respect and love.

Fight against corruption 

If Korea remains one of the respected countries in the world for its economic performance, it is because Korean people fought back against dictatorship and corruption.

In fact, before the Candle-Light Revolution of 2016-2017, millions of Koreans had gone down to the street and fought bravely against corrupted conservative presidents: Rhee Shygnman (19th of April  1960), Park Chung-hee (16th of October 1979), Chun Do-hwn ( 18th of May 1980 and the month of June 1987).

Finally, from late 2016 to April 2017 for eight months, 17,000,000 individuals from all walks of life went down to the frozen streets and shouted:” Impeach the Park Geun -hye! Clean the corruption!”

The Candle-Light Revolution was successful in bringing back the progressive government after nine years of destructive conservative government. And Moon Jae-in became president.

The candlelight movement in Seoul, South Korea, mobilized for change of government (Credit: Women Cross DMZ)

President Moon is the third progressive presidents. The first was President Kim Dae-jung (1998-2002) and the second, President Rho Moo-hyun (2003-2008).

President Kim Dae-jung strengthened the anti-corruption force by encouraging the unionization of labour, vitalizing existing labour unions and fostering the development of progressive civic movements. In addition, he made a major reform of Chaebols asking them to specialize, to stop the circular intra-group financing and to be more transparent in counting.

It was President Rho Moo-hyun who tried hard to guarantee the freedom of media and accomplish a fundamental reform of the police, the office of prosecutors, the courts and the intelligence services.

Measures taken by President Rho were a real challenge to the community of corruption and they plotted his impeachment with fabricated reasons. He was not impeached after all. He finished his presidential term.

However, what worried the community of corruption the most was Rho’s political and ideological legacy of just society and egalitarian democracy.

In order to kill such legacy, the conservatives fabricated fake story that the first lady, Mrs. Rho, had received an expensive watch as bribery and hid it on a rice paddy. This story continued after the take-over of power by the conservative government of Lee Myong-bak.

The family of Rho was continuously harassed even after the retirement of Rho by the police, the conservative media and the office of prosecutors. This was a burden too heavy to endure for Rho and he killed himself.

This episode illustrates how deeply the conservatives were involved in the corruption and why they fabricated incredible story so that they could cling to the rich deriving from corruption.

President Moon Jae-in was President Rho’s chief of cabinet and he knows very well how difficult it is to clean the corruption culture accumulated for 70 years. But, he knows very well also that unless Korea gets rid of the corruption, it is difficult to survive as a normal and healthy nation.

President Moon has adopted the following measures to combat corruption which can be grouped into macro-measures and micro-measures.

Macro-measures anti-corruption

Macro-measures include the North-South peace process and the improved income distribution.

The North-South peace process has resulted in a peace situation in which North Korea no longer threats South Korea.

We remember that the conservative governments have been able to keep power largely due to the North-South tension allowing them to create an atmosphere of fear and win elections. They have been pretending that they are better qualified to deal with North Korea perhaps because of their long tradition of police and military dictatorship.

One of the major socio-economic policies of the Moon’s government is the policy of economic growth with fair income distribution.

Moon’s government increased the minimum wage, increased the national pension, instituted income allowance for the elderly, reduced the number of weekly labour hour, revised the real estate taxes and other measured to slow down the increase of income of the rich and increase the income of the poor.

This policy has the effect of providing a sound basis of economic growth. This policy also allows the poor to have more income and better resist corruption and “Gap-jil.)

Micro-measures of anti-corruption

Moon’s government has taken several micro-measures to tackle the corruption of the conservatives.

First, one of the roots of corruption is the influence peddling by the staff of the Blue House (Korean White House).

Since Moon took over the power, there has been no single case of influence peddling. The mother of President has met no person outside her family for last two years to avoid rumours of influence-peddling which can be fabricated by the conservative media.

Second, Moon has reduced greatly the functions of institutions of power. For instance, the function of the National Intelligence Service (former CIA) is reduced to the management of international information. Under the conservative government, its main function was to arrest those who oppose the government’s corruption by accusing them as North Korean spy.

Moreover, Moon abolished the Military Security Command whose function was to prevent unlawful activities with the armed forces. But, it was unlawfully involved in activities of spying those who criticized the conservative government.

Third, Moon’s government nominated a committee with the mission of re-investigating cases of obvious corruption and crimes committed by the community of corruption. For instance, there was the case of raping women by a deputy director of the Office of Prosecutor, but the case was not properly investigated partly because of bribes and partly because of his close relation with powerful people within the conservative government. 

Fourth, some of the leaders of media who sided with the community of corruption for the oppression of labour unions of reporters were replaced.

Fifth, Moon’s government has passed a series of anti-corruption laws including the Kindergarten Law preventing the theft of public funds by founders of kindergartens.

Sixth, Dozens of the Blue House personnel who collaborated with the corruption community of the conservatives have been punished.

Seventh, Perhaps the most difficult fight President Moon has started is the fight against the Office of Prosecutors.

The Korean prosecutor system is the most powerful one in the world; it has the right of investigation of crime and corruption. True, he police also has the right of investigation, but it is the prosecutor’s office which has the final say. Moreover, the prosecutor has the monopoly of indictment right.

In the past, thousand cases of corruption and abuse of power have been accused. But few of them went beyond the office of prosecutor and to the court.

In short, Korea has not been able to win the war against corruption mainly because of the corrupted prosecutor’s monopoly of judiciary power.

In Korea, there is no power which can rule the prosecutor, not even the president. In a way, the prosecutor has been the most powerful and effective defender of the corruption culture.

To fight the prosecutor, Moon has been able to pass a law on the mechanism of supervising high ranking officials including prosecutors (Gong-Soo-Cheo). Moon has won a battle. But it is a long way to go before cleaning the corruption culture.

The ultimate defender of corruption is money. The conservatives have been stacking up corruption money for last 70 years amounting hundreds of billions of dollars hidden in cash, real estate, stocks throughout the world.

It may take more than 10 years, even 20 years of progressive government in power, before Korea can destroy completely the corruption culture.

Lessons

There are some lessons which can be drawn from Korea’s experience of corruption.

First, the corruption must be stopped at the first stage of the evolution of corruption, that is, the stage of the bilateral collusion.

Second, when the process of corruption attains the stage of oligarchy formation, it may take very hard measure to fight it.

Third, if we wait until the stage of the corruption community, it may take decades to clean it. This is the case of Korea

Fourth, one cannot rely always on the government for the elimination of corruption, because the government is often corrupted.

It is very fortunate that, in Korea, the progressive government of Moon is leading the fight against corruption. However, Moon needs the active cooperation of ordinary people to defeat corruption. The people are with him.

*

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.

Professor Joseph H. Chung is professor of economics and co-director of the Observatoire de l’Asie de l’Est (OAE) – the Centre d’Études sur l’Intégration et la Mondialisation (CEIM), Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM). He is Research Fellow of the Center of Research on Globalisation (CRG).

Venezuela’s President Nicolas Maduro Thursday announced that the health system is “on permanent alert,” although there are no Covid-19 cases in this South American country so far. He also reported that landing of flights from Europe, Colombia, and Panama will be prohibited from March 15.

Maduro also indicated that the border with Colombia must be cordoned off and urged the authorities of the neighboring country to act jointly to contain the disease.

“I tell President [Ivan] Duque, beyond ideological differences, this is a true humanitarian situation and we need to coordinate from government to government, from health ministry to health ministry, and cordon off the entire border and protect the people from Venezuela and Colombia,” he said.

Maduro also stressed that his government has been working to prevent the arrival of Covid-19 to Venezuela in difficult circumstances due to the U.S. blockade against the Bolivarian people.

“We have taken all preventive measures to prevent the arrival of the virus… we have carried out all the actions that the [U.S.] criminal sanctions have allowed us to undertake.”

Previously, on Wednesday, the World Health Organization (WHO) stated that the Covid-19 outbreak is a pandemic due to its spread around the world.

Faced with likely attempts by the right-wing forces to destabilize Venezuela, President Maduro called on opponents to act with a humanitarian sense and invited the population to increase their solidarity.

“Let us be the greatest example of social discipline, organization, medical scientific quality, cooperation to solve all these situations,” the Bolivarian leader said.

*

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

This article by award winning author Mahdi Nazemroaya was first published by GR in November 2006 (barely a few months after Israel’s invasion of Lebanon)

It is of particular relevance  to an understanding of the ongoing process of destabilization and political fragmentation in the Middle East as well as US war plans directed against Lebanon, Syria,  Iran and Yemen.  

 

GR Editor, August 10, 2020, March 2021

*      *      *

“Hegemony is as old as Mankind…” -Zbigniew Brzezinski, former U.S. National Security Advisor

The term “New Middle East” was introduced to the world in June 2006 in Tel Aviv by U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice (who was credited by the Western media for coining the term) in replacement of the older and more imposing term, the “Greater Middle East.”

This shift in foreign policy phraseology coincided with the inauguration of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) Oil Terminal in the Eastern Mediterranean. The term and conceptualization of the “New Middle East,” was subsequently heralded by the U.S. Secretary of State and the Israeli Prime Minister at the height of  the Anglo-American sponsored Israeli siege of Lebanon. Prime Minister Olmert and Secretary Rice had informed the international media that a project for a “New Middle East” was being launched from Lebanon.

This announcement was a confirmation of an Anglo-American-Israeli “military roadmap” in the Middle East. This project, which has been in the  planning stages for several years, consists in creating an arc of instability, chaos, and violence extending from Lebanon, Palestine, and Syria to Iraq, the Persian Gulf, Iran, and the borders of NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

The “New Middle East” project was introduced publicly by Washington and Tel Aviv with the expectation that Lebanon would be the pressure point for realigning the whole Middle East and thereby unleashing the forces of “constructive chaos.” This “constructive chaos” –which generates conditions of violence and warfare throughout the region– would in turn be used so that the United States, Britain, and Israel could redraw the map of the Middle East in accordance with their geo-strategic needs and objectives.

New Middle East Map

Secretary Condoleezza Rice stated during a press conference that

“[w]hat we’re seeing here [in regards to the destruction of Lebanon and the Israeli attacks on Lebanon], in a sense, is the growing—the ‘birth pangs’—of a ‘New Middle East’ and whatever we do we [meaning the United States] have to be certain that we’re pushing forward to the New Middle East [and] not going back to the old one.”1

Secretary Rice was immediately criticized for her statements both within Lebanon and internationally for expressing indifference to the suffering of an entire nation, which was being bombed  indiscriminately by the Israeli Air Force.

The Anglo-American Military Roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia 

U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s speech on the “New Middle East” had set the stage. The Israeli attacks on Lebanon –which had been fully endorsed by Washington and London– have further compromised and validated the existence of the geo-strategic objectives of the United States, Britain, and Israel. According to Professor Mark Levine the “neo-liberal globalizers and neo-conservatives, and ultimately the Bush Administration, would latch on to creative destruction as a way of describing the process by which they hoped to create their new world orders,” and that “creative destruction [in] the United States was, in the words of neo-conservative philosopher and Bush adviser Michael Ledeen, ‘an awesome revolutionary force’ for (…) creative destruction…”2

Anglo-American occupied Iraq, particularly Iraqi Kurdistan, seems to be the preparatory ground for the balkanization (division) and finlandization (pacification) of the Middle East. Already the legislative framework, under the Iraqi Parliament and the name of Iraqi federalization, for the partition of Iraq into three portions is being drawn out. (See map below)

Moreover, the Anglo-American military roadmap appears to be vying an entry into Central Asia via the Middle East. The Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan are stepping stones for extending U.S. influence into the former Soviet Union and the ex-Soviet Republics of Central Asia. The Middle East is to some extent the southern tier of Central Asia. Central Asia in turn is also termed as “Russia’s Southern Tier” or the Russian “Near Abroad.”

Many Russian and Central Asian scholars, military planners, strategists, security advisors, economists, and politicians consider Central Asia (“Russia’s Southern Tier”) to be the vulnerable and “soft under-belly” of the Russian Federation.3

It should be noted that in his book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives, Zbigniew Brzezinski, a former U.S. National Security Advisor, alluded to the modern Middle East as a control lever of an area he, Brzezinski, calls the Eurasian Balkans. The Eurasian Balkans consists of the Caucasus (Georgia, the Republic of Azerbaijan, and Armenia) and Central Asia (Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Tajikistan) and to some extent both Iran and Turkey. Iran and Turkey both form the northernmost tiers of the Middle East (excluding the Caucasus4) that edge into Europe and the former Soviet Union.

The Map of the “New Middle East”

A relatively unknown map of the Middle East, NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan, and Pakistan has been circulating around strategic, governmental, NATO, policy and military circles since mid-2006. It has been causally allowed to surface in public, maybe in an attempt to build consensus and to slowly prepare the general public for possible, maybe even cataclysmic, changes in the Middle East. This is a map of a redrawn and restructured Middle East identified as the “New Middle East.”

MAP OF THE NEW MIDDLE EAST



Note:
The following map was prepared by Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters. It was published in the Armed Forces Journal in June 2006, Peters is a retired colonel of the U.S. National War Academy. (Map Copyright Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters 2006).

Although the map does not officially reflect Pentagon doctrine, it has been used in a training program at NATO’s Defense College for senior military officers. This map, as well as other similar maps, has most probably been used at the National War Academy as well as in military planning circles.

This map of the “New Middle East” seems to be based on several other maps, including older maps of potential boundaries in the Middle East extending back to the era of U.S. President Woodrow Wilson and World War I. This map is showcased and presented as the brainchild of retired Lieutenant-Colonel (U.S. Army) Ralph Peters, who believes the redesigned borders contained in the map will fundamentally solve the problems of the contemporary Middle East.

The map of the “New Middle East” was a key element in the retired Lieutenant-Colonel’s book, Never Quit the Fight, which was released to the public on July 10, 2006. This map of a redrawn Middle East was also published, under the title of Blood Borders: How a better Middle East would look, in the U.S. military’s Armed Forces Journal with commentary from Ralph Peters.5

It should be noted that Lieutenant-Colonel Peters was last posted to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence, within the U.S. Defence Department, and has been one of the Pentagon’s foremost authors with numerous essays on strategy for military journals and U.S. foreign policy.

It has been written that Ralph Peters’ “four previous books on strategy have been highly influential in government and military circles,” but one can be pardoned for asking if in fact quite the opposite could be taking place. Could it be Lieutenant-Colonel Peters is revealing and putting forward what Washington D.C. and its strategic planners have anticipated for the Middle East?

The concept of a redrawn Middle East has been presented as a “humanitarian” and “righteous” arrangement that would benefit the people(s) of the Middle East and its peripheral regions. According to Ralph Peters:

International borders are never completely just. But the degree of injustice they inflict upon those whom frontiers force together or separate makes an enormous difference — often the difference between freedom and oppression, tolerance and atrocity, the rule of law and terrorism, or even peace and war.

The most arbitrary and distorted borders in the world are in Africa and the Middle East. Drawn by self-interested Europeans (who have had sufficient trouble defining their own frontiers), Africa’s borders continue to provoke the deaths of millions of local inhabitants. But the unjust borders in the Middle East — to borrow from Churchill — generate more trouble than can be consumed locally.

While the Middle East has far more problems than dysfunctional borders alone — from cultural stagnation through scandalous inequality to deadly religious extremism — the greatest taboo in striving to understand the region’s comprehensive failure isn’t Islam, but the awful-but-sacrosanct international boundaries worshipped by our own diplomats.

Of course, no adjustment of borders, however draconian, could make every minority in the Middle East happy. In some instances, ethnic and religious groups live intermingled and have intermarried. Elsewhere, reunions based on blood or belief might not prove quite as joyous as their current proponents expect. The boundaries projected in the maps accompanying this article redress the wrongs suffered by the most significant “cheated” population groups, such as the Kurds, Baluch and Arab Shia [Muslims], but still fail to account adequately for Middle Eastern Christians, Bahais, Ismailis, Naqshbandis and many another numerically lesser minorities. And one haunting wrong can never be redressed with a reward of territory: the genocide perpetrated against the Armenians by the dying Ottoman Empire.

Yet, for all the injustices the borders re-imagined here leave unaddressed, without such major boundary revisions, we shall never see a more peaceful Middle East.

Even those who abhor the topic of altering borders would be well-served to engage in an exercise that attempts to conceive a fairer, if still imperfect, amendment of national boundaries between the Bosphorus and the Indus. Accepting that international statecraft has never developed effective tools — short of war — for readjusting faulty borders, a mental effort to grasp the Middle East’s “organic” frontiers nonetheless helps us understand the extent of the difficulties we face and will continue to face. We are dealing with colossal, man-made deformities that will not stop generating hatred and violence until they are corrected. 6

(emphasis added)

“Necessary Pain”

Besides believing that there is “cultural stagnation” in the Middle East, it must be noted that Ralph Peters admits that his propositions are “draconian” in nature, but he insists that they are necessary pains for the people of the Middle East. This view of necessary pain and suffering is in startling parallel to U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice’s belief that the devastation of Lebanon by the Israeli military was a necessary pain or “birth pang” in order to create the “New Middle East” that Washington, London, and Tel Aviv envision.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the subject of the Armenian Genocide is being politicized and stimulated in Europe to offend Turkey.7

The overhaul, dismantlement, and reassembly of the nation-states of the Middle East have been packaged as a solution to the hostilities in the Middle East, but this is categorically misleading, false, and fictitious. The advocates of a “New Middle East” and redrawn boundaries in the region avoid and fail to candidly depict the roots of the problems and conflicts in the contemporary Middle East. What the media does not acknowledge is the fact that almost all major conflicts afflicting the Middle East are the consequence of overlapping Anglo-American-Israeli agendas.

Many of the problems affecting the contemporary Middle East are the result of the deliberate aggravation of pre-existing regional tensions. Sectarian division, ethnic tension and internal violence have been traditionally exploited by the United States and Britain in various parts of the globe including Africa, Latin America, the Balkans, and the Middle East. Iraq is just one of many examples of the Anglo-American strategy of “divide and conquer.” Other examples are Rwanda, Yugoslavia, the Caucasus, and Afghanistan.

Amongst the problems in the contemporary Middle East is the lack of genuine democracy which U.S. and British foreign policy has actually been deliberately obstructing.  Western-style “Democracy” has been a requirement only for those Middle Eastern states which do not conform to Washington’s political demands. Invariably, it constitutes a pretext for confrontation. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and Jordan are examples of undemocratic states that the United States has no problems with because they are firmly alligned within the Anglo-American orbit or sphere.

Additionally, the United States has deliberately blocked or displaced genuine democratic movements in the Middle East from Iran in 1953 (where a U.S./U.K. sponsored coup was staged against the democratic government of Prime Minister Mossadegh) to Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Turkey, the Arab Sheikdoms, and Jordan where the Anglo-American alliance supports military control, absolutists, and dictators in one form or another. The latest example of this is Palestine.

The Turkish Protest at NATO’s Military College in Rome

Lieutenant-Colonel Ralph Peters’ map of the “New Middle East” has sparked angry reactions in Turkey. According to Turkish press releases on September 15, 2006 the map of the “New Middle East” was displayed in NATO’s Military College in Rome, Italy. It was additionally reported that Turkish officers were immediately outraged by the presentation of a portioned and segmented Turkey.8 The map received some form of approval from the U.S. National War Academy before it was unveiled in front of NATO officers in Rome.

The Turkish Chief of Staff, General Buyukanit, contacted the U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Peter Pace, and protested the event and the exhibition of the redrawn map of the Middle East, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.9 Furthermore the Pentagon has gone out of its way to assure Turkey that the map does not reflect official U.S. policy and objectives in the region, but this seems to be conflicting with Anglo-American actions in the Middle East and NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan.

Is there a Connection between Zbigniew Brzezinski’s “Eurasian Balkans” and the “New Middle East” Project?

The following are important excerpts and passages from former U.S. National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski’s book, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives. Brzezinski also states that both Turkey and Iran, the two most powerful states of the “Eurasian Balkans,” located on its southern tier, are “potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts [balkanization],” and that, “If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable.”10

It seems that a divided and balkanized Iraq would be the best means of accomplishing this. Taking what we know from the White House’s own admissions; there is a belief that “creative destruction and chaos” in the Middle East are beneficial assets to reshaping the Middle East, creating the “New Middle East,” and furthering the Anglo-American roadmap in the Middle East and Central Asia:

In Europe, the Word “Balkans” conjures up images of ethnic conflicts and great-power regional rivalries. Eurasia, too, has its “Balkans,” but the Eurasian Balkans are much larger, more populated, even more religiously and ethnically heterogenous. They are located within that large geographic oblong that demarcates the central zone of global instability (…) that embraces portions of southeastern Europe, Central Asia and parts of South Asia [Pakistan, Kashmir, Western India], the Persian Gulf area, and the Middle East.

The Eurasian Balkans form the inner core of that large oblong (…) they differ from its outer zone in one particularly significant way: they are a power vacuum. Although most of the states located in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East are also unstable, American power is that region’s [meaning the Middle East’s] ultimate arbiter. The unstable region in the outer zone is thus an area of single power hegemony and is tempered by that hegemony. In contrast, the Eurasian Balkans are truly reminiscent of the older, more familiar Balkans of southeastern Europe: not only are its political entities unstable but they tempt and invite the intrusion of more powerful neighbors, each of whom is determined to oppose the region’s domination by another. It is this familiar combination of a power vacuum and power suction that justifies the appellation “Eurasian Balkans.”

The traditional Balkans represented a potential geopolitical prize in the struggle for European supremacy. The Eurasian Balkans, astride the inevitably emerging transportation network meant to link more directly Eurasia’s richest and most industrious western and eastern extremities, are also geopolitically significant. Moreover, they are of importance from the standpoint of security and historical ambitions to at least three of their most immediate and more powerful neighbors, namely, Russia, Turkey, and Iran, with China also signaling an increasing political interest in the region. But the Eurasian Balkans are infinitely more important as a potential economic prize: an enormous concentration of natural gas and oil reserves is located in the region, in addition to important minerals, including gold.

 The world’s energy consumption is bound to vastly increase over the next two or three decades. Estimates by the U.S. Department of Energy anticipate that world demand will rise by more than 50 percent between 1993 and 2015, with the most significant increase in consumption occurring in the Far East. The momentum of Asia’s economic development is already generating massive pressures for the exploration and exploitation of new sources of energy, and the Central Asian region and the Caspian Sea basin are known to contain reserves of natural gas and oil that dwarf those of Kuwait, the Gulf of Mexico, or the North Sea.

Access to that resource and sharing in its potential wealth represent objectives that stir national ambitions, motivate corporate interests, rekindle historical claims, revive imperial aspirations, and fuel international rivalries. The situation is made all the more volatile by the fact that the region is not only a power vacuum but is also internally unstable.

(…)

The Eurasian Balkans include nine countries that one way or another fit the foregoing description, with two others as potential candidates. The nine are Kazakstan [alternative and official spelling of Kazakhstan] , Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Georgia—all of them formerly part of the defunct Soviet Union—as well as Afghanistan.

The potential additions to the list are Turkey and Iran, both of them much more politically and economically viable, both active contestants for regional influence within the Eurasian Balkans, and thus both significant geo-strategic players in the region. At the same time, both are potentially vulnerable to internal ethnic conflicts. If either or both of them were to be destabilized, the internal problems of the region would become unmanageable, while efforts to restrain regional domination by Russia could even become futile. 11

(emphasis added)

Redrawing the Middle East

The Middle East, in some regards, is a striking parallel to the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe during the years leading up the First World War. In the wake of the the First World War the borders of the Balkans and Central-Eastern Europe were redrawn. This region experienced a period of upheaval, violence and conflict, before and after World War I, which was the direct result of foreign economic interests and interference.

The reasons behind the First World War are more sinister than the standard school-book explanation, the assassination of the heir to the throne of the Austro-Hungarian (Habsburg) Empire, Archduke Franz Ferdinand, in Sarajevo. Economic factors were the real motivation for the large-scale war in 1914.

Norman Dodd, a former Wall Street banker and investigator for the U.S. Congress, who examined  U.S. tax-exempt foundations, confirmed in a 1982 interview that those powerful individuals who from behind the scenes controlled the finances, policies, and government of the United States had in fact also planned U.S. involvement in a war, which would contribute to entrenching their grip on power.

The following testimonial is from the transcript of Norman Dodd’s interview with G. Edward Griffin;

We are now at the year 1908, which was the year that the Carnegie Foundation began operations.  And, in that year, the trustees meeting, for the first time, raised a specific question, which they discussed throughout the balance of the year, in a very learned fashion.  And the question is this:  Is there any means known more effective than war, assuming you wish to alter the life of an entire people?  And they conclude that, no more effective means to that end is known to humanity, than war.  So then, in 1909, they raise the second question, and discuss it, namely, how do we involve the United States in a war?

Well, I doubt, at that time, if there was any subject more removed from the thinking of most of the people of this country [the United States], than its involvement in a war.  There were intermittent shows [wars] in the Balkans, but I doubt very much if many people even knew where the Balkans were.  And finally, they answer that question as follows:  we must control the State Department.

And then, that very naturally raises the question of how do we do that?  They answer it by saying, we must take over and control the diplomatic machinery of this country and, finally, they resolve to aim at that as an objective.  Then, time passes, and we are eventually in a war, which would be World War I.  At that time, they record on their minutes a shocking report in which they dispatch to President Wilson a telegram cautioning him to see that the war does not end too quickly.  And finally, of course, the war is over.

At that time, their interest shifts over to preventing what they call a reversion of life in the United States to what it was prior to 1914, when World War I broke out. (emphasis added)

The redrawing and partition of the Middle East from the Eastern Mediterranean shores of Lebanon and Syria to Anatolia (Asia Minor), Arabia, the Persian Gulf, and the Iranian Plateau responds to broad economic, strategic and military objectives, which are part of a longstanding Anglo-American and Israeli agenda in the region.

The Middle East has been conditioned by outside forces into a powder keg that is ready to explode with the right trigger, possibly the launching of Anglo-American and/or Israeli air raids against Iran and Syria. A wider war in the Middle East could result in redrawn borders that are strategically advantageous to Anglo-American interests and Israel.

NATO-garrisoned Afghanistan has been successfully divided, all but in name. Animosity has been inseminated in the Levant, where a Palestinian civil war is being nurtured and divisions in Lebanon agitated. The Eastern Mediterranean has been successfully militarized by NATO. Syria and Iran continue to be demonized by the Western media, with a view to justifying a military agenda. In turn, the Western media has fed, on a daily basis, incorrect and biased notions that the populations of Iraq cannot co-exist and that the conflict is not a war of occupation but a “civil war” characterised by domestic strife between Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds.

Attempts at intentionally creating animosity between the different ethno-cultural and religious groups of the Middle East have been systematic. In fact, they are part of a carefully designed covert intelligence agenda.

Even more ominous, many Middle Eastern governments, such as that of Saudi Arabia, are assisting Washington in fomenting divisions between Middle Eastern populations. The ultimate objective is to weaken the resistance movement against foreign occupation through a “divide and conquer strategy” which serves Anglo-American and Israeli interests in the broader region.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes in Middle Eastern and Central Asian affairs. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Notes

1 Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, Special Briefing on the Travel to the Middle East and Europe of Secretary Condoleezza Rice (Press Conference, U.S. State Department, Washington, D.C., July 21, 2006).

http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2006/69331.htm

2 Mark LeVine, “The New Creative Destruction,” Asia Times, August 22, 2006.

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/HH22Ak01.html

3 Andrej Kreutz, “The Geopolitics of post-Soviet Russia and the Middle East,” Arab Studies Quarterly (ASQ) (Washington, D.C.: Association of Arab-American University Graduates, January 2002).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2501/is_1_24/ai_93458168/pg_1

4 The Caucasus or Caucasia can be considered as part of the Middle East or as a separate region

5 Ralph Peters, “Blood borders: How a better Middle East would look,” Armed Forces Journal (AFJ), June 2006.

http://www.armedforcesjournal.com/2006/06/1833899

6 Ibid.

7 Crispian Balmer, “French MPs back Armenia genocide bill, Turkey angry, Reuters, October 12, 2006; James McConalogue, “French against Turks: Talking about Armenian Genocide,” The Brussels Journal, October 10, 2006.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/1585

8 Suleyman Kurt, “Carved-up Map of Turkey at NATO Prompts U.S. Apology,” Zaman (Turkey), September 29, 2006.

http://www.zaman.com/?bl=international&alt=&hn=36919

9 Ibid.

10 Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Grand Chessboard: American Primacy and Its Geo-strategic Imperatives (New York City: Basic Books, 1997).

11 Ibid.

Related Global Research articles on the March to War in the Middle East

US naval war games off the Iranian coastline: A provocation which could lead to War? 2006-10-24

“Cold War Shivers:” War Preparations in the Middle East and Central Asia 2006-10-06

The March to War: Naval build-up in the Persian Gulf and the Eastern Mediterranean 2006-10-01

The March to War: Iran Preparing for US Air Attacks 2006-09-21

The Next Phase of the Middle East War 2006-09-04

Baluchistan and the Coming Iran War 2006-09-01

British Troops Mobilizing on the Iranian Border 2006-08-30

Russia and Central Asian Allies Conduct War Games in Response to US Threats 2006-08-24

Beating the Drums of War: US Troop Build-up: Army & Marines authorize “Involuntary Conscription” 2006-08-23

Iranian War Games: Exercises, Tests, and Drills or Preparation and Mobilization for War? 2006-08-21

Triple Alliance:” The US, Turkey, Israel and the War on Lebanon 2006-08-06 

The War on Lebanon and the Battle for Oil 2006-07-26 

Is the Bush Administration Planning a Nuclear Holocaust? 2006-02-22 

The Dangers of a Middle East Nuclear War 2006-02-17 

Nuclear War against Iran 2006-01-03 

Israeli Bombings could lead to Escalation of Middle East War 2006-07-15 

Iran: Next Target of US Military Aggression 2005-05-01 

Planned US-Israeli Attack on Iran 2005-05-01

Coronavirus COVID-19: “Made in China” or “Made in America”?

March 14th, 2020 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Trump contends that the coronavirus was “Made in China”.  And that China threatens America.

The president of the US wants Americans to believe that the coronavirus pandemic carries the “Made in China” label.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refers to it as the “Wuhan coronavirus.” 

“The Big Lie” started on January 30th when the WHO Director General pressured by powerful US economic interests declared a global public health emergency with only 150 “confirmed cases” (by the WHO) outside China with only six cases in the USA. And it was called a pandemic. 

“Fake media” immediately went into high gear. China was held responsible for “spreading infection” Worldwide.

On the following day (January 31, 2020), Trump announced that he would deny entry to the US of both Chinese and foreign nationals “who have traveled in China in the last 14 days”. This immediately triggered a crisis in air travel,  transportation, US-China business relations as well as freight and shipping transactions.

While the “Made in China” coronavirus label served as a pretext, the unspoken objective was to bring the Chinese economy to its knees.

It was an act of “economic warfare”, which has contributed to undermining both China’s  economy as well as that of  most Western countries (allies of the US), leading to a wave of bankruptcies, not to mention unemployment, collapse of the tourist industry,  etc.

Moreover, Trump’s “Made in China” coronavirus label almost immediately as of early February triggered a campaign against ethnic Chinese throughout the Western World.

Stage 2.0: “Infections Transmitted by Europeans”? 

On March 11, a new phase was launched. The Trump administration imposed a 30-day ban on Europeans entering the United States through the suspension of air-travel with the EU (with the exception of Britain).

America is now waging its “economic  war” against Western Europe, while using COVID-19 as a justification.

European governments have been co-opted. In Italy a lockdown prevails, ordered by the Prime Minister, large cities in Northern Italy including Milano and Torino have literally closed down.

Confusion, Fear and intimidation prevail.

It’s “Damage Made in America”.

Late February: Financial manipulation characterizes stock market transactions Worldwide.

The stock value of airlines companies collapses overnight. Those who had  “foreknowledge” of Trump’s March 11 decision to ban transatlantic flights from EU countries made a bundle of money. It’s called “short-selling” in the derivative market among other speculative ops. Institutional speculators including hedge funds with “inside info” had already placed their bets.

More generally, a massive transfer of money wealth has occurred, among the largest in World history, leading to countless bankruptcies, not to mention the loss of lifelong savings engineered through the collapse of financial markets.

This process is ongoing. It would be naive to believe that these occurrences are spontaneous, based on market forces. They are deliberate. They are part of a carefully designed plan involving powerful financial interests.

COVID-19: “Made in China” or “Made in America”? 

And now a new bombshell has emerged: The White House rhetoric of accusing China of spreading the “Wuhan virus” Worldwide has been questioned by both Japanese and Chinese reports:

A report from a Japanese TV station that suspected some of the 14,000 Americans died of influenza may have unknowningly contracted the coronavirus has gone viral on Chinese social media, stoking fears and speculations in China that the novel coronavirus may have originated in the US.

The report, by TV Asahi Corporation of Japan, suggested that the US government may have failed to grasp how rampant the virus have gone on the US soil.

(People’s Daily, February 23, 2020)

 

And on March 12, in a statement to the US Congress (House Oversight Committee), CDC Director Robert Redfield  candidly admitted, yes, some cases diagnosed as seasonal flu could have been coronavirus.

When did this occur? In October, November? He did not mention the dates.

 

China’s Foreign Ministry reacted to CDC Robert Redfield’s statements intimating that the virus could have originated in the US.

“When Did “Patient Zero” Begin in the US?” said China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian.

Of course “WHEN” is the fundamental question.

“How many people are infected, what are the names of the hospitals, It might be US Army that brought epidemic to Wuhan. Be transparent, US owe us an explanation”

See below

The World is at the Crossroads of the Most Serious Social and Economic Crisis in Modern History

People Worldwide are being misled. They are told: “It’s going to get worse”. Angela Merkel has stated without a shred of evidence that “70% of the German population could contract coronavirus if more isn’t done to stop its spread.”

In several countries, the economy has closed down. Supermarkets, shopping malls, offices, factories, schools, universities are at a standstill. People are confined to their homes. Fear and intimidation prevail.

In the meantime, coinciding with the coronavirus lockdown in Italy, 30,000 US troops have been dispatched to the EU, under US-NATO’s  “Defend Europe 2020” war games against Russia, in the largest military deployment since World War II. “Could the Defender become the Invader…?”

Let’s be clear: The coronavirus pandemic is not the “cause” of this unfolding economic and social crisis. It is the “pretext” for the implementation of a carefully designed “operation” (supported by media disinformation) which destabilizes national economies, impoverishes large sectors of the World population and literally undermines the lives of millions of people. What we are dealing with is “An Act of War”.

While COVID-19 is an important Public Health concern, the freeze of economic activity coupled with the lockdown and an ongoing fear campaign does not constitute an effective means to combating the virus. What is required is a carefully designed and coordinated preventative and curative public health program.

 


For further details see:

COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and Analysis 


What Happens Next: The Potential Impacts of a Continued Freeze of US Trade with China

The geopolitics are complex. How will economic events unfold? We will essentially focus briefly on US-China relations.

Those who formulated America’s “undeclared economic war” against China, failed to envisage the potential backlash on the US economy.

It’s an “Economic Harakiri” i.e. “Suicide American Style”

In a matter of  months, if normal US-China trade relations and transportation are not resumed, the impacts on the national economies of Western countries could be devastating.

A large share of goods displayed in America’s shopping malls, including major brands are  “Made in China”.

“Made in China” is the backbone of retail trade in the USA which indelibly sustains household consumption in virtually all major commodity categories from clothing, footwear, hardware, electronics, toys, jewellery, household fixtures, medical supplies, medicine and prescription drugs,,  TV sets, cell phones, etc.

“Made in China” also dominates the production of a wide range of industrial inputs, advanced technology, machinery, building materials, automotive, parts and accessories, etc. not to mention the extensive sub-contracting of Chinese companies on behalf of US conglomerates.

While the US has a powerful and sophisticated financial apparatus (which has the ability to manipulate trade and stock markets Worldwide), America’s Real Economy is in a shambles.

Production does not take place in the USA. The producers have given up production.

The US trade deficit with China is instrumental in fuelling the profit driven consumer economy which relies on “Made in China” consumer goods. Meanwhile China holds a large part of the US public debt which they can readily convert into real assets overnight.

www.Made-In-China.com

At this juncture of the coronavirus crisis, Beijing policy makers are fully aware that the US economy is fragile and heavily dependent on “Made in China”.  Moreover, China has overtaken the US in several high tech areas including 5G.

And with an internal market of 1.4 billion people, coupled with a global export market under the “Belt and Road” initiative, the Chinese economy will have the upper hand.

  • Posted in English, Mobile
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus COVID-19: “Made in China” or “Made in America”?

An underlying theme behind the Western political and media focus on the coronavirus, is to damage and undermine China’s international standing, the country where this disease is commonly purported to have spread forth from. Prominent American politicians like Mike Pompeo, the US Secretary of State, have publicly labelled this disease as “the Wuhan coronavirus”, in an attempt to harm China’s reputation and lay the blame at Beijing’s door.

Throughout this century, China has represented the main threat to American global hegemony, and this threat to US power has gradually been growing as elites in the West are only too aware. The coronavirus, whose spectre is being exaggerated by the establishment, provides an excuse to tighten the choke-hold on China.

This is happening in the shadows, away from the public glare. Indeed, China is already surrounded by hundreds of US military bases in the east Asian and Pacific regions, and for well over a year Beijing has been embroiled in a bitter trade war with Washington.

Although it may sound cynical, we can recognise another central factor behind the coronavirus hyperbole: that it is being exploited by the powers-that-be, in order to frighten and keep under control a world populace which has increasingly been rebelling against the assaults of neoliberal globalisation (1). A supposedly all-consuming virus is an ideal opportunity to warn the public not to gather outside in large groups, to remain isolated from each other and stay indoors. Simply put, be obedient and passive.

A serious infectious ailment like the coronavirus does, up to a point, merit attention and concern. It would be disingenuous to suggest otherwise, particularly when the cases are notably increasing in number. The coronavirus is presented as more dangerous in comparison to influenza (flu) – without adequate and reliable tests and statistics (2). Yet these figures are evolving, and will change over the course of time, becoming more or less severe; quite often the latter case.

It is important to put the coronavirus into context and provide some perspective. Since late December 2019 until the present, just over 4,600 deaths have officially been attributed to the illness, out of a global human population of 7.8 billion. This makes a world death toll of a tiny fraction of 1%. Among those who have died, just over 3,000 of them were Chinese citizens, comprising more than 60% of the combined fatality count.

As things stand, one is far more likely to suffer death in an automobile accident, than either contracting the coronavirus or succumbing to it. Each year there are around 1.3 million deaths worldwide from traffic accidents. Almost 40,000 people were killed on the roads in America during 2019; in China, there are on average 250,000 road fatalities each year. The number of cars worldwide are responsible for 20% of global carbon emissions.

Nevertheless there are no large-scale media campaigns directed against the hazards of vehicles. Quite the opposite, car manufacturers are regularly advertised in the corporate press; who, at the same, claim to have sincere concerns about the worsening climate crisis.

Since the first coronavirus case was said to have occurred in eastern China over two months ago, there are at the time of writing a reported 130,000 coronavirus infections globally – with it thought to have spread to 113 nations and counting, more than half of the world’s countries (3). However, this does not constitute a pandemic, as the World Health Organisation (WHO) mistakenly insists, who themselves have a somewhat dubious history in these affairs, as will be discussed below further.

A pandemic is an outbreak of disease that is occurring over both a wide geographic area “and affecting an exceptionally high proportion of the population” (4). This stark description, which can be found in separate dictionaries, seems to have escaped the attention of the WHO. It cannot be claimed that over 100,000 infections out of a world population of almost eight billion is an exceptionally high proportion of the population. This ratio accounts once more to a small fraction of 1% of all humans. In reality this is not remotely a pandemic as of yet.

Panic-inducing media headlines fail to mention that the majority of all coronavirus cases have still occurred in mainland China, where more than 80,000 people are reported to have been infected.

Even in this instance, there are firm indications that the disease has successfully been contained by Beijing’s authorities (5). Over three weeks ago and more, around 2,000 new coronavirus cases were recorded in China daily; but this worrying figure has dropped dramatically, with a mere 40 new cases in China occurring on Monday this week, the lowest number since tracking began. If the virus can be smothered in the world’s most populace country, surely the same can be achieved elsewhere.

States such as Italy and Iran, with much smaller populations than China, are well advised in seeking Beijing’s counsel on how to suppress this disease.

Much of the reporting on the coronavirus has been misleading and sensationalist. It is receiving an extent of media coverage that is not afforded to much more serious issues, like nuclear weapons and climate change – in particular the nuclear threat, which is barely focused on or even understood, despite the fact it remains the single greatest threat facing mankind.

The American author and military analyst Daniel Ellsberg said last year that, “It is true that climate change may totally disrupt civilisation as we know it, but how many lives would it cost? Whatever the number, some form of civilisation would probably survive. By contrast, a nuclear winter, which has a non-zero possibility of occurring, would occasion near extinction”. (6)

Ellsberg estimates that two years after a nuclear winter – which would spread globally in the weeks following a nuclear war between America and Russia or China – that about 100,000 people would be left alive out out of 7.8 billion. Hence his accurate description of “near extinction” for humanity, in the event of a nuclear war between the major powers. One will do well to find mention of this in mass media journals, however.

An interested scholar will also have to search hard in newspaper archives to learn anything about the near-deadly accidents, involving nuclear bombs through the decades, of which there have been many. (7)

One should be cautious whenever the mainstream press and first world politicians strongly push a certain agenda. This was most obvious in recent years with the ludicrous claims that Moscow decided the 2016 US presidential election in Donald Trump’s favour, which the American public paid scant attention to.

The WHO, who have a history of unnecessarily overestimating threat of infectious diseases under suspect circumstances, have done little to dampen the hysteria regarding the coronavirus. According to the experienced German physician Wolfgang Wodarg, who is also an expert in analysing the spread of contagious diseases, the WHO is “unduly influenced by pharmaceutical companies”, as came to light with the swine flu pandemic of a decade ago.

The swine flu of 2009 to 2010 can be classed as a pandemic, with 700 million to 1.4 billion people infected with what was an overall mild ailment (8). This may have consisted of up to 21% of the planet’s then human population.

The chief goal of the pharmaceutical industry, which is held dominion over by giant corporate entities, is to the requirements of short-term profit-making, like all corporations. Dr Wodarg further remarked of the swine flu in relation to pharmaceutical companies that, “the declaration of a pandemic hugely enriched the industry at the expense of taxpayers and governments”. (9)

The business of big pharma is accumulation of wealth for their elite base, and not in serving the public interest. An infamous virus represents a financial opening and bonanza for pharmaceutical corporations. The coronavirus is being capitalised upon with the assistance of politicians and media, whose actions are often dictated by large businesses in the neoliberal era. The media are reliant on revenue from corporate advertising, including big pharma adverts. Most media companies even have pharmaceutical representatives sitting in their boardrooms. (10)

During the panic regarding the swine flu, pharmaceuticals enjoyed billions of dollars worth of profits, as governments were compelled to stockpile huge levels of drugs and vaccines, most of which were never used. The WHO guidelines were written up by scientists on the payroll of big pharma. Paul Flynn, a veteran former British Labour MP, said that “The tentacles of drug company influence are in all levels in the decision-making process” (11). This very likely remains the case pertaining to the coronavirus.

There is another significant reason behind the campaigns of virus scaremongering. A critical one is to try to weaken China as a state, by impacting negatively upon Beijing’s ability to spread its financial clout and influence across continents. As a result of the coronavirus frenzy, the Chinese government is “losing leverage in dealings with the US and other developed countries” while “the US economy and markets could actually benefit from the coronavirus”. (12)

China is the only nation that can even attempt to challenge American dominance in the global arena. Over these past 20 years China’s neighbour, Russia, has re-emerged as a major power under Vladimir Putin, with Moscow’s presence on the international scene having grown considerably. Regardless, Russia remains a much weaker country when compared to the US. In military terms alone, the Kremlin’s annual arms expenditure amounts to less than 10% of the US, and this chasm is widening.

China’s military budget, the second largest in the world, is about a third that of America’s. The vast economic projects of Beijing, like the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), are being constructed on an unprecedented scale in modern history. This has drawn considerable international and economic influence to China, not to mention prestige.

It would have been unimaginable at the end of World War II – when American strength was at its peak – that the western superpower would have no involvement in a landmark industrial program such as the Belt and Road, which is headquartered in Beijing. Unfortunately for Washington this has proven the case.

The Americans are also excluded from Beijing’s other milestone associations, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB). The AIIB, centred in the Chinese capital and established in 2015, can count among its members crucial US allies like Britain, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Australia and South Korea; along with dozens of other countries, some of them NATO states. This is a major development in international affairs, as many traditional American-friendly nations defy Washington’s wishes in entering organisations controlled by Beijing.

Britain’s decision to join the AIIB four years ago drew a particularly withering response from the White House. A top US official under president Barack Obama lamented that, “We are wary about a trend toward constant accommodation of China, which is not the best way to engage a rising power” (13). Instead one can presume that the best way to engage a rising power, is to surround it with military forces on an enormous scale – which is precisely what the Obama administration had accomplished by late 2016 in its encirclement of China.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1 Oscar Rickett, “From Lebanon to Chile, the people are rising up against neoliberalism”, Middle East Eye, 10 November 2019, https://www.middleeasteye.net/opinion/middle-east-and-rest-world-are-united-struggle

2 Live Science Staff, “13 coronavirus myths busted by science”, Live Science, 10 March 2020, https://www.livescience.com/coronavirus-myths.html

3 Vasanthi Vara, “Coronavirus outbreak: the countries affected”, Pharmaceutical Technology, 12 March 2020, https://www.pharmaceutical-technology.com/features/coronavirus-outbreak-the-countries-affected/

4 Merriam-Webster, “Pandemic”, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pandemic

5 Lily Kuo, “How did China get to grips with its coronavirus outbreak?”, The Guardian, 9 March 2020,
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/mar/09/how-did-china-get-grips-with-coronavirus-outbreak

6 Daniel Ellsberg, “The truth-teller: From the Pentagon Papers to the Doomsday Machine”, Resilience.org, 25 April 2019, https://www.resilience.org/stories/2019-04-25/the-truth-teller-from-the-pentagon-papers-to-the-doomsday-machine/

7 Hans M. Kristensen, “Declassified: US Nuclear Weapons At Sea”, Federation of American Scientists, 3 February 2016, https://fas.org/blogs/security/2016/02/nuclear-weapons-at-sea/

8 Fionnula Hainey, “When was the last flu pandemic declared?”, Manchester Evening News, 11 March 2020, https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/world-news/coronavirus-pandemic-when-was-last-17814014

9 Ronan McGreevy, “Was swine flu threat exaggerated?”, Irish Times, January 19 2010, https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/was-swine-flu-threat-exaggerated-1.1241758

10 Martha Rosenberg, “Once Again, Mainstream Media Does Pharma’s Bidding”, CounterPunch, 30 May 2017, https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/05/30/once-again-mainstream-media-does-pharmas-bidding/

11 Randeep Ramesh, “Report condemns swine fly experts’ ties to big pharma”, The Guardian, 4 June 2010, https://www.theguardian.com/business/2010/jun/04/swine-flu-experts-big-pharmaceutical

12 Cody Willard, “The coronavirus and trade war punish China, damaging its status as a source of growth”, MarketWatch, 8 March 2020, https://www.marketwatch.com/story/the-coronavirus-and-trade-war-punish-china-damaging-its-status-as-a-source-of-growth-2020-03-08

13 Michelle Murray, The Struggle for Recognition in International Relations: Status, Revisionism and Rising Powers (OUP USA, 20 Dec. 2018) p. 217

COVID-19: Further Evidence that the Virus Originated in the US

By Larry Romanoff, March 11, 2020

The Taiwanese physician noted that in August of 2019 the US had a flurry of lung pneumonias or similar, which the Americans blamed on ‘vaping’ from e-cigarettes, but which, according to the scientist, the symptoms and conditions could not be explained by e-cigarettes. He said he wrote to the US officials telling them he suspected those deaths were likely due to the coronavirus. He claims his warnings were ignored.

The Coronavirus COVID-19 Pandemic: The Real Danger is “Agenda ID2020”

By Peter Koenig, March 12, 2020

WHO has most likely received orders from “above”, from those people who also manage Trump and the “leaders” (sic) of the European Union and her member countries, those who aim to control the world with force – the One World Order.

This has been on the drawing board for years. The final decision to go ahead NOW, was taken in January 2020 at the World Economic Forum (WEF) in Davos – behind very much closed doors, of course. The Gates, GAVI (an association of vaccination-promoting pharmaceuticals), Rockefellers, Rothschilds et al, they are all behind this decision – the implementation of Agenda ID2020 – see below.

COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and Analysis

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2020

On January 30th 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC) in relation to China’s novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) categorized  as a viral pneumonia.  The virus outbreak was centred in  Wuhan, a city in Eastern China with a population in excess of 11 million.

In the week prior to January 30th decision, the WHO Emergency Committee “expressed divergent views”. There were visible divisions within the Committee. On January 30th, a far-reaching decision was taken without the support of expert opinion at a time when the coronavirus outbreak was limited to Mainland China.

The US Federal Reserve’s Baffling Response to the Coronavirus Explained

By Ellen Brown, March 12, 2020

When the World Health Organization announced on February 24th that it was time to prepare for a global pandemic, the stock market plummeted. Over the following week, the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped by more than 3,500 points or over 10%. In an attempt to contain the damage, on March 3rd the Federal Reserve slashed the fed funds rate from 1.5% to 1.0%, in their first emergency rate move and biggest one-time cut since the 2008 financial crisis. But rather than reassuring investors, the move fueled another panic sell-off.

Coronavirus COVID-19 in South Korea: Cult Sect, Corruption and Politics

By Prof. Joseph H. Chung, March 12, 2020

In South Korea, on January 20, a woman of 35 years old from China was found to be infected and the corona-virus spread rapidly. But, owing to the rapid and efficient measures taken by the government of Moon Jae-in, the spread of the virus almost stopped and the number of cured began to increase.

And the WHO and the international media praised highly the efficient measures taken by the Korean government.

Coronavirus: Why Is Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, Lying to Congress and the American People?

By Target Liberty, March 12, 2020

Dr. Anthonu Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease, testified before Congress on Wednesday and said that the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19) is  “10 times more lethal than seasonal flu.”

In a Europe Closed Down by the Coronavirus the EU Opens its Doors to the US Army. Could the Defender become the Invader of Europe?

By Manlio Dinucci, March 12, 2020

The Ministers for Defence of the 27 countries of the EU, 22 of which are also members of NATO, met on 4 and 5 March in Zagreb, Croatia. The central theme of the meeting (in which Lorenzo Guerini of the Democratic Party represented Italy) was not to seek a response to the Coronavirus crisis which is jamming up civil mobility, but how best to develop « military mobility ». The decisive test is the Defender Europe 20 exercise, scheduled for April and May. The General Secretary of NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, who took part in the EU meeting, défines it as « the largest deployment of US forces in Europe since the end of the Cold War ».

Global COVID-19 Pandemic, This Is a Test: How Will the Constitution Fare During a Nationwide Lockdown?

By John W. Whitehead, March 12, 2020

The coronavirus epidemic may well be a legitimate health concern, but it’s the government’s response to it that worries me more in the long term.

Based on the government’s track record and its long-anticipated plans for instituting martial law (using armed forces to solve domestic political and social problems) in response to a future crisis, there’s good reason to worry.

Congress Tries to Sneak Through Dangerous Spying Bill Under the Cover of the Coronavirus Crisis

By Free Press, March 12, 2020

Leading members of the House of Representatives are rushing a vote on Wednesday to extend abusive government surveillance powers before they’re set to expire on March 15.

If approved, the USA Freedom Reauthorization Act of 2020 would reauthorize Section 215 powers Congress established under the USA Patriot Act in 2001. Section 215 is the provision national-security agencies have cited to support their unwarranted collection of phone records of hundreds of millions of people in the United States.

US CDC Director Robert Redfield Admitted that Coronavirus Deaths Have Been Miscategorized as Flu

By Larry Romanoff, March 13, 2020

The US has been lying all along.

Robert Redfield, CDC director, testifying to Congress, today admitted that virus deaths have been miscategorised as the flu.

He also stated that the standard practice has been to first test people for the flu and, if the test is positive, they stop there. They don’t test for the coronavirus.

*

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


Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Latest Coronavirus Epidemic Coverage from Global Research in Your Inbox

The White House held dozens of meetings about coronavirus response that excluded government experts because the discussions were unnecessarily classified over the objections of HHS Secretary Alex Azar, reports Reuters. Experts were not just barred from speaking openly about what we knew about the emerging pandemic. Apparently, they weren’t even allowed in the room.

“It is not normal to classify discussions about a response to a public health crisis,” an unnamed official from the Republican George W. Bush administration told the wire service. Yet this is President Trump’s approach to nearly every public health and environmental threat: find some way to exclude the experts, stop them from speaking publicly, and make decisions in a vacuum. The deliberate sidelining of public health experts and science leads to bad policy, and ultimately, to more sickness and death.

Instead of prioritizing transparency and facts, the White House is choosing secrecy and confusing contradictions. This has likely allowed the coronavirus to spread more quickly and widely in the United States, with massive consequences for the entire US population and especially for those who contract the disease, plus all of the collateral damage that comes with this kind of large-scale disruption.

People are desperate for accurate and up-to-date information about this pandemic, and CDC experts are doing their best. But their work is in spite of the administration, not in concert with it.

Every day without full transparency means we are less prepared and more vulnerable. Scientists must be at the table to help slow the spread of coronavirus, and they should be able to share what they know without being subject to political control.

I urge all scientists to add their signature to this letter urging the White House to let us hear directly from the experts.

*

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.

Michael Halpern is an expert on political interference in science and solutions to reduce suppression, manipulation, and distortion of government science.

Markets Screaming Global Recession

March 13th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

The longest bull market in US history began on March 9, 2009.

It ended on March 11, 2020 when the Dow average closed down 20% from its 29,551.42 February 12, 2020 all-time closing high.

The same goes for the S & P 500 and Nasdaq — the former way down from its 3,386.15 closing high, the latter far below its 9,817.18 record high valuation.

According to stock market metrics used by most analysts, US equities reached bubble levels greater than before the 1929 crash and dot com peak.

Even after declining around 20% through March 11, plunging dramatically further on Thursday, the sharpest one-day fall since October 1987, valuations remain greatly inflated.

There’s much more to go on the downside to revert to mean valuations that could take considerable time to reach.

COVID-19 was the pin that burst the equity bubble, not the cause of what’s going on that’s likely to take some time to play out and very much could affect US November elections.

Years of near-zero interest rates by the Wall Street owned Fed, its money printing madness, and put protection to intervene when prices drop below a certain level inflated the equity bubble to an unprecedented level.

As Nixon’s chief economic advisor Herb Stein once said: “If something cannot go on forever, it will stop.”

Fed policy under Greenspan, especially Bernanke and Yellen followed by Powell benefitted Wall Street, not main street.

Since the 2008-09 financial crisis,  most ordinary Americans have endured protracted depression conditions.

Real unemployment exceeds 20%. Most US workers are way underemployed, needing two or more jobs to get by.

They’re mostly rotten low-pay/poor-or-no-benefits jobs because millions of higher-paying industrial and other jobs with good benefits were offshored to low-wage countries.

Market analyst Marc Faber once said he expected Fed policy to “destroy the world.” It just takes time.

He explained the fallacy of monetary for ordinary Americans, explaining that it’s false “to believe this money will go to the man on the street.”

“It goes to the Mayfair economy of the well-to-do people and boosts asset prices of Warhols.”

“It is difficult to tell what will happen. I happen to believe that eventually we will have a systemic crisis and everything will collapse.”

“But the question is really between here and then. Will everything collapse with Dow Jones 20,000 or 50,000 or 10 million?”

Fed chairmen since Greenspan have been and continue to be “money printer(s).”

“And so it will go on. The Europeans will print money. The Chinese will print money. Everybody will print money, and the purchasing power of paper money will go down.”

Last week, he said the coronavirus isn’t causing the selloff. It’s “a catalyst for a sell-off because the global economy was already weakening a long time before it occurred.”

“(F)or the last nine months, the economics statistics coming out of Asia have pointed out to a meaningful slowdown in economic activity.”

“In some cases, an absolute decline in many sectors and industries have been going down over the last nine months.”

“Coronavirus is the icing on the cake that really knocked the markets down…Today all markets are in the sky.”

Collapsing oil and other industrial commodities provide further evidence of economic weakness.

Fed policy bears most responsibility for inflating markets to their peak level.

It’s a huge misconception to believe Fed money printing flows to the economy, lifting all boats.

It goes to banks, other financial institutions, other businesses, investors and speculators at the expense of economic development.

Instead of capital investments to build their businesses in recent years, corporate America contributed to the equity bubble by large-scale stock buybacks.

Economist David Rosenberg said when the buyback craze ends, the bull market will die with it, what apparently happened.

In late February on Bloomberg News, he said “I think very strongly that (COVID-19) probably is going to cause not just a recession in Canada, but a global recession.”

“There’s going to be, I think, quite long-lasting economic impacts that are just starting right now. And the run rate on global growth was already anemic.”

Separately, he placed the odds of global recession at 80% before this month’s market crash.

Market turmoil is more likely at an early than a late stage. Years of excess may take considerable time to unwind.

Monetary policy elevated equities to unprecedented bubble levels. More of the same won’t fix things.

What’s needed is money going for healthcare to combat COVID-19 and to main street, not Wall Street.

When investors have money, they speculate. When ordinary people have money, they spend it — making a virtuous cycle of prosperity possible that can happen when today’s excess is gone and things begin returning to normal.

Correcting 11 years of excess since the 2008-09 financial crisis won’t happen quickly or at all without productive investments to create economic growth and good-paying jobs.

A Final Comment

Plunging equity markets shouldn’t surprise. What’s been a long time coming was inevitable.

The more elevated markets become, the harder they fall.

A day of reckoning always arrives. It’s just a matter of when.

Bull markets most often overshoot on the upside. The same pattern holds when going down.

The 1929 stock market crash began on October 24 Black Thursday.

When it ended, the Dow lost 89% of its value. It took WW II and a generation until November 23, 1954 to recoup market crash losses.

After the crash, Herbert Hoover reportedly said “(p)rosperity is just around the corner.”

Weeks ahead of the March 2020 crash in his January State of the Union address, Trump called the US economy “the best it’s ever been (and) the greatest in the history of the country.”

The health of the economy and public is key to whether he’ll be a one or two-term president.

If protracted global recession follow deflating equity prices, coupled with improperly addressing COVID-19 conditions at the federal level, his reelection chances may be doomed.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

COVID-19冠状病毒“假”大流行:时间表和分析

March 13th, 2020 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

2020年1月30日,世界卫生组织(WHO)宣布了有关中国被归类为病毒性肺炎的新型冠状病毒(2019-nCoV)的国际关注的突发公共卫生事件(PHEIC)。病毒的爆发集中在武汉,这是中国东部的一个城市,人口超过1100万。

在1月30日做出决定的前一周,世卫组织紧急事务委员会“表达了不同意见”。委员会内部有明显的分歧。 1月30日,在冠状病毒爆发仅限于中国大陆的时候,在没有专家意见支持的情况下做出了影响深远的决定。

做出决定后,中国以外有150例确诊病例。美国6个,加拿大3个,英国2个,依此类推。

150例确诊病例超过64亿人口(世界人口78亿减去中国的14亿)。

被感染的风险是什么?几乎为零。

世卫组织没有采取行动来向世界公众舆论保证和告知。恰恰相反:发起了“恐惧大流行”,而不是真正的国际关注的公共卫生突发事件。

彻底的恐慌和不确定性通过精心设计的媒体虚假宣传活动得以维持。

这几乎立即导致了经济混乱,与中国的贸易和运输危机影响了主要的航空公司和航运公司。在西方国家发起了针对华人的仇恨运动,随后在2月下旬股市崩溃,更不用说旅游业危机导致无数破产。

 

***

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

 

COVID-19 Coronavirus “Fake” Pandemic: Timeline and AnalysisBy Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 08, 2020

  • Posted in 中文
  • Comments Off on COVID-19冠状病毒“假”大流行:时间表和分析

“Blue No Matter Who!”

March 12th, 2020 by Keith Harmon Snow

There is something profoundly offensive about this declaration and, worse, there is something profoundly insufferable about the sentiments and beliefs behind it.

First of all, it is a matter of extreme white privilege to be able to “Vote Blue No Matter Who!”  What this says is that anyone that appears on the ballot as the Presidential challenger to Donald Trump is better than Donald Trump.

Anyone. What this means is that if _______ (fill in the blank) wins/won the Democratic nomination, well, it wouldn’t matter what his/her policies are, what his/her age is, what his/her mental acuity is, or their voting record, or what they smell like: he or she is Blue [read: Democrat], we have to converge and unite behind him/her, our candidate of choice, our ONLY hope to oust the guy in Washington.

Are the people who created and those who advance this slogan unable to discriminate between the various candidates, some of whom are barely indistinguishable from Donald Trump and everything he stands for, and who certainly no better?

What this says to me is that they—the Democratic Party and its supporters—have no consciousness or awareness about the true state of the Union (U.S.), or the true state of the world, or if they do they just don’t care. There’s the privilege: people of color, poor people, women and children, and many other demographics that have historically and routinely denied that space to exist on this earth don’t have such privileges.

So why then would anyone vote for ANY Democratic candidate that the system advances?

Clearly, let’s throw out Bernie Sanders as a “choice”, since the “Vote Blue No Matter Who” is not meant to include Sanders.

The propaganda system has for a long time now daily churned out reports meant to demean and devalue Bernie Sanders, reports designed to shape and direct the voting public away from Sanders and towards someone, anyone, else who will insure that Business as Usual takes the day.  However, the slogan was apparently created by the Democratic Party after Super Tuesday with the intention of channeling all voter energies and frustrations into voting for Joe Biden.

Anyone who makes the statement—with or without the insufferable self-righteousness that seems to often accompany it—whether in a Facebook post or in a NYT editorial or sitting at the lunch counter of their local small town diner needs to be prepared for the response that their sloganeering may provoke. In 2016, the response was the victory of Donald Trump.

“Blue no matter who!” is like a slap in the face to a great number of conscious, caring, compassionate people.

What is it that drives the repetition and regurgitation of this vacuous slogan: Callousness? Hope? Obliviousness? Blind faith? All of these?

Second, who is “we” that these people are purportedly speaking for when they say that “we” have to unite and get behind “our” candidate? It’s clearly the Royal “we” and I don’t know about you but I bristle when anyone presumes to speak for me, or does. The greater the propaganda anti-social propaganda venue (e.g. the New York Times or Boston Globe or Daily Hampshire Gazette) where the presumptuous slogan is expressed, the greater the insult, the more insufferable.

This is the perfect prescription for a repeat of the last election: not only do a lot of conscious caring intelligent people absolutely DESPISE the Democratic Party, and just about everyone in it, but I’m seeing a lot of these caring conscious people saying they would vote for Donald Trump before they would vote for Joe Biden. Ditto if Elizabeth Warren were the candidate of choice. Ditto Pete Buttieg. Ditto, for example, for someone as corrupt and egomaniacal as House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

No matter what propaganda the Pew Center poll pundits and anti-social media like the Washington Post are pumping out, it was not the “failure of voters to cast their votes” in 2016 that lost the first election to Trump: it was the insufferable ugliness of the candidate that people were faced with as a “choice” that drove people’s refusal to participate in the charade of voter ‘choice’.  Next to Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump looked pretty fresh (albeit, for many of us, akin to a hot steaming pasture patty).

Even almost four years later, far too many devoted Democrats still refuse to see, admit, hear or consider the corruption of the Clinton administration, of Bill Clinton, or Hillary Clinton.

On top of these denials and refusals, and what is apparently a very clear example of historical amnesia, there is the overwhelming failure of large segments of the population to recognize, admit and see the equally ugly and chronic pathologies of the Obama administration, in which Hillary Clinton played a pivotal role in advancing global chaos, human rights wrongs, war and destruction, while further eviscerating domestic policies meant to protect the environment, limit the power of corporations, institute any kind of health care reform, and provide some real equality for people of color.

I mean, let’s be clear: the Democratic Party comprises a large percentage of the rotten-to-the-core-political-center of the United States and the wasteland we call ‘congress’ and the people who run and ruin it.  The two party system comprises the heartless heartland. It is an ugly soulless duopoly that serves the one percent.

There are so many good people in our circles—I don’t care who you are—in our towns and cities and country, who won’t have anything to do with the Democrats or the Democratic Party. God bless you. God bless them.

Now, for those people reading this who are cognitively challenged, this does not automatically mean that these people who reject the Democrats and the Democratic Party are devout Republicans, or any kind of Republican, or that they voted for Donald Trump. It surely does mean, however, that they celebrated when Hillary Clinton lost.

I was one of them. I worked in Central Africa for a decade, and saw so many ruined lives, so much destruction, sadness, meanness and corruption. And that’s where I learned of the very personal role of the Clinton’s in the war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide across the region.

Hillary Clinton is so shamelessly arrogant, oblivious, egomaniacal and elitist—to mention just a few of her psycho-pathologies—that she appears to still be stewing and scheming to hatch a plan to seize the Presidential nomination and occupy the Oval Office. She’s like Gollum, the drooling soulless caricature of a creature, in the Lord of The Rings, completely and insanely preoccupied with securing and holding and coveting “my precious” [read: the Oval Office]. Forget about Killary’s vile behavior and culpability in international crimes committed during the downfall and assassination of Muammar al-Gaddafi.

There remain the ugly historical records and their contemporary ongoing repercussions in Central Africa, the former Yugoslavia and the Balkans. We should never forget how the Democrats and Republicans have advanced the genocide against the Palestinian people.

People are unable to forget what they never knew. The propaganda system has so completely obliterated the true historiography of U.S. interventions in Central Africa, Somalia, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Libya during the Clinton years that people either don’t at all know what happened or simply chose a pathological collective amnesia. Along with these U.S. and allied (Canada, Israel, NATO) interventions came the unprecedented loss of life and unspeakable atrocities committed by U.S. Special Forces, blood diamond dealers and their oil & gas mercenaries connected to the Clintons, and their proxy warriors under the commands of John Garang (Sudan), Yoweri Museveni (Uganda), Paul Kagame (Rwanda), and, well, let’s not even get into the Californication of the historigrapphy of Somalia facilitated by the ficticious but patriotic whiteout of the truth under the enterprise known as Black Hawk Down.

Hillary and Bill Clinton’s ties to diamond kingpin Maurice Tempelsman are never discussed. From 1993 to 1997, for example, Tempelsman was a White House guest at least ten times, while he also met Hillary Clinton in private more than once. Tempelsman enjoyed vacationing with the Clintons and the Kennedys in Martha’s Vineyard, but he also flew to Moscow and back with President Clinton on Air Force One and was one of the 101 people who traveled with the Clinton’s on their ‘victory’ tour in Africa in 1997, even as hundreds of thousands of innocent Hutu refugees were being slaughtered in plain sight.

Tempelsman and the Central Intelligence Agency sucked the blood out of the heart of Africa for decades, propping up the dictatorship of Joseph Mobutu. And, following in the footsteps of Reagan, Clinton and the Bush gang, did Obama do anything to advance the plight of the Hutu people and stop the ongoing genocide against them or the Congolese? No. Where was Joe Biden when this was all going down? It appears he was floating around the inner circles with Jeffrey Epstein and Harvey Weinstein.

The killing that the Clinton regime initiated in Central Africa was advanced by the policies and actions of the Bush and Obama administrations. The genocides in Rwanda and Congo and the absolute military dictatorships in Congo, Rwanda, Uganda and South Sudan—replete with all the usual human rights horrors of outright butchery, assassinations, and disappearances—continue to this day. They are whited out of the press, or if something does appear it is expedient propaganda, fully serving the interests of the corporate elites and the corporations, continuing the process of clouding, shrouding or destroying the true history of these places and the people who live and die there.

“Vote Blue No Matter Who?”

I don’t think so.

Do black lives matter?  Only as far as posting a sign on your gentrified well-manicured lawn.

*

It’s even worse when the Democrats’ vacuous slogan comes at the head of a long list of claims declaring that, well, it’s not really about voting for the candidate that has been distilled out of the murk and morass of the Democratic nomination process, but rather its about what you are REALLY voting for when you “Vote Blue No Matter Who.” This is another part of the disingenuous, shallow, weak-backboned tripe offered as a reasonable antidote to the possibility of a Trump victory. You know, this kind of thing:

“If it turns out to be Biden (or any Dem that’s not your ideal candidate) — as disappointed as many of us would be — please remember:

1. You’re not just voting for President.

2. You’re voting for who replaces RBG on the Supreme Court.

3. You’re voting for the next Secretary of Education.

4. You’re voting for federal judges.

5. You’re voting for the rule of law.

6. You’re voting for saving national parks.

7. You’re voting for letting kids out of cages.

8. You’re voting for clean air and clean water.

22. You’re voting for sensible gun laws.

The list goes on.

No Democrat is perfect.

Your first AND second choices may have dropped out. Your third might. But the nominee, no matter who she or he is, won’t be perfect. They won’t pass your purity test. And yet every single one of them will be better than four more years of Trump!!!

Please be reasonable.”

*

The above is simplistic propaganda meant to evoke a purely hysterical emotional response. It is complete nonsense. This list and every point on it is either simplistic, reductionist, manipulative or false. It completely fails any reasonable accounting of the corruption and complicity of the Democratic Party (together with the Republican party) in creating the horrible situation that so many people are trying to survive and dying under.

One could go through the list, point by point, and debunk every single one of these false simplistic and wrong claims. Let’s pick four exemplary points (7, 8, 16 and 21):

7. You’re voting for letting kids out of cages.

Actually, in November 1997, President William Jefferson Clinton signed the Adoption and Safe Families Act into law. This Act laid the groundwork for the massive trafficking of children and parents through U.S. family courts and with the complicity and oversight of the Department of Health and Human Services (and the Administration of Children and Families). Under this Act plenty of children have been separated from protective parents, especially protective mothers, and have suffered horrible abuses while in the “Foster Care” system.

8. You’re voting for clean air and clean water.

Actually, we can look at the record of every single president who increased the already obscene military budget and we can easily demonstrate that this led to massive environmental pollution, the creation of toxic Superfund sites, and egregious corporate pollution.  Every president—at least in recent history—promulgated horrible covert or overt wars and/or they also paved the way for corporations to be treated as ‘persons’ and facilitate their getting away with absolute murder all over the planet. Every single president for the past seventy years has prioritized predatory capitalism over clean air and clean water. Even today, at this very minute, for a singular poignant example, the Town of Amherst Massachusetts, backed by the local propaganda press (e.g. the local Daily Hampshire Gazette) continues to ignore the high rates of toxic lead contamination in Amherst public schools. This was not a creation of the Trump administration, but a lethal problem contiguous to every single political administration in power for the past 60 years, at least. Under the Clinton, Bush and Obama administrations, I was equally impossible to get enforcement of violations of the Clean Water Act or the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act or others. This is not a creation of the Trump administration.

16. You’re voting for veterans to get the care they deserve.

Oh really? Tell that to the veterans and see what they say.  I can count with one finger the number of presidents that have truly honored veterans by making sure veterans ‘get the care they deserve’. Which president would that one finger count?  Well, hold one hand up and drop the two fingers to the right and the two fingers to the left of your index finger. That is, no president.

21. And you’re voting against allowing the USA to become yet another authoritarian regime.

Nonsense. Arguably, every single president to date has played a role in further proscribing human and civil rights, increasing the powers and unaccountability of the defense and intelligence establishment, eviscerating the commons, and refining and growing the powers of the Executive Branch. Every single one.

“No Democrat is perfect?”

This is the understatement of the century, or millennium, or longer.

“Your first AND second choices may have dropped out…”

Or, the first choice of many many people (read: that God-forsaken radical socialist / communist bent on destroying our great country) might be getting (read: got) the royal reaming by the establishment for telling the truth more completely than anyone else.

“…Your third might. But the nominee, no matter who she or he is, won’t be perfect. They won’t pass your purity test. And yet every single one of them will be better than four more years of Trump!!!

Please be reasonable.”

Please be reasonable? Oy. One best be careful. This is the point where instead of pointing your middle finger in the direction of the Democratic party you are—apparently—supposed to shove it up your own ass.

*

There are a lot of really good people out there who find more resonance and some kind of solidarity with the Republicans and the Republican party. God bless you. God bless them. However, those who voted for Donald Trump might want to think twice about this choice now that the Coronavirus is striking the United States and its entirely inadequate almost non-existent public health care system. Watching your mother or father or sister or brother die in the hallways of a hospital might seem to inspire a whole new appreciation of what might have happened had Dr. Jill Stein—a medical professional with a moral compass—been elected a few years ago.

It takes two to tango in the political duopoly we live under, the Democrats and Republicans shore each other up, watch each other’s backs, all take super PAC funds, and so there is a very real mythology at play around the concept or ideology of (voter) ‘choice’ in a two-party tyranny.

All the posting and arguing and insulting and grandstanding and bullying on both social (Twitter, facebook, etc.) and anti-social (New York Times, Washington Post, Atlantic, NPRCNN, etc.) media are symptoms of the pathologies of western ‘society’ manufactured by the power structure and promoted through an ideology of divide and conquer.  To reduce the complex political landscape to a slogan and an ideology of “Blue no matter who!” is to succumb to the dictates and desires of the power system that is ruining our planet, destroying billions of human lives, and driving the suffering and extinction of all creatures great and small. To adopt the Democrats reductionist ideology is to follow the Pied Piper of the Propaganda system as obliviously as the rats followed the flautist in that medieval tale about conformity and fate.

The powers that be—and their propaganda pipers—have so horribly proscribed the discussions and debates about all aspects of our work and social conditions that even smart, thinking otherwise awake people have been subdued and now play along with the foolishness and stupidity and vacuousness, staying strictly within the parameters of the manufactured arguments, with little or no capacity to crawl, step or leap outside the boundaries of what is being said, and what is allowed to be said, and think more clearly, rationally and outside the box of Business as Usual.

For example: Elizabeth Warren didn’t lose out. She didn’t lose because she is a woman. She lost because her political values are unacceptable to far too many people. She scored points in this writer’s book when she slammed Bloomnberg, but far too few points too little too late and, anways, subordinated behind her otherwise Business as Usual position. All this whining and complaining that it was because she is a woman is disingenuous, at best, and fascist at worst. Ditto the demographics/populations in the south that voted for Joe Biden: the argument that black voters in the south cannot be criticized (by white people) for voting for Biden is an empty disingenuous race-baited argument. The fact is that there is a complete failure of large masses of people to understand the realities of the murderous Uncle Tom Obama administration (of which Biden was a part). This failure is not due to education alone, and it is not due to propaganda alone: there is a willful refusal to learn, comprehend, grow and thrive and this has been inculcated by think thanks and the media oligarchy based on the studied tried and true principles of propaganda and the formation of men’s (and women’s) attitudes.

Fascism is many things, but one of its central tenets is the shooting oneself in the foot: acting against one’s own interests. That is part of what fascism is. This is also part of why we have the guy in the White House who we do. That is also how and why the Clinton came to power, and the Bush gang, and Obama.

Anyone who is not angry about the destruction of the planet, the loss of life, the complete denial of our children’s future is not paying attention, psychologically dissociated, or already dead. The koan is that anyone who is (too?) angry about the situation we are in is wasting their precious life force. Hmm, so many seeming contradictions….

If people want to go around making empty foolish boorish pronouncements like “Blue No Matter Who!” they best be prepared for the response they might provoke.

“Blue no matter who?” is an INSUFFERABLE insult.

“Blue no matter who!” ? No thank you.

The real answers to the environmental and social horror show that we are witnessing, living and dying with, cannot be found in the political realm.  Any sincere concerns for the environment, for indigenous people, for clean air and water, for equality and social justice, for health care, require an admission that the system is rotten to the core, and the propaganda system—in its own interests—is covering that up.

Any real solutions revolve around true resistance, cooperation, courage and action. I’m not talking about those actions dictated by the system, trumpeted by its select champions, the foxes in sheep’s’ clothing who are acting under the cloak of radical change but only so much as insuring that plenty of powerful peoples’ profits and privileges are preserved.

But, well, we’re a long ways from any radical or revolutionary uprising, so we might as well just settle for the ruse of the “lesser of two evils” right? Vote Blue, No Matter Who!  Problem is, as history has proven all too clearly: There is no such thing as the lesser of two evils. In the end, everything seems to be drenched in red.

*

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 “Blue No Matter Who!”