The Myth of Moderate Nuclear War

March 4th, 2020 by Brian Cloughley

There are many influential supporters of nuclear war, and some of these contend that the use of ‘low-yield’ and/or short-range weapons is practicable without the possibility of escalation to all-out Armageddon. In a way their argument is comparable to that of the band of starry-eyed optimists who thought, apparently seriously, that there could be such a beast as a ‘moderate rebel’.

In October 2013 the Washington Post reported that “The CIA is expanding a clandestine effort to train opposition fighters in Syria amid concern that moderate, US-backed militias are rapidly losing ground in the country’s civil war,” and the US Congress gave approval to then President Barack Obama’s plan for training and arming moderate Syrian rebels to fight against Islamic State extremists. The belief that there could be any grouping of insurgents that could be described as “moderate rebels” is bizarre and it would be fascinating to know how Washington’s planners classify such people. It obviously didn’t dawn on them that any person who uses weapons illegally in a rebellion could not be defined as being moderate. And how moderate is moderate? Perhaps a moderate rebel could be equipped with US weapons that kill only extremists? Or are they allowed to kill only five children a month? The entire notion was absurd, and predictably the scheme collapsed, after expenditure of vast amounts of US taxpayers’ money.

And even vaster amounts of money are being spent on developing and producing what might be classed as moderate nuclear weapons, in that they don’t have the zillion-bang punch of most of its existing 4,000 plus warheads. It is apparently widely believed in Washington that if a nuclear weapon is (comparatively) small, then it’s less dangerous than a big nuclear weapon.

In January 2019 the Guardian reported that

“the Trump administration has argued the development of a low-yield weapon would make nuclear war less likely, by giving the US a more flexible deterrent. It would counter any enemy (particularly Russian) perception that the US would balk at using its own fearsome arsenal in response to a limited nuclear attack because its missiles were all in the hundreds of kilotons range and ‘too big to use’, because they would cause untold civilian casualties.”

In fact, the nuclear war envisaged in that scenario would be a global catastrophe — as would all nuclear wars, because there’s no way, no means whatever, of limiting escalation. Once a nuclear weapon has exploded and killed people, the nuclear-armed nation to which these people belonged is going to take massive action. There is no alternative, because no government is just going to sit there and try to start talking with an enemy that has taken the ultimate leap in warfare.

It is widely imagined — by many nuclear planners in the sub-continent, for example — that use of a tactical, a battlefield-deployed, nuclear weapon will in some fashion persuade the opponent (India or Pakistan) that there is no need to employ higher-capability weapons, or, in other words, longer range missiles delivering massive warheads. These people think that the other side will evaluate the situation calmly and dispassionately and come to the conclusion that at most it should itself reply with a similar weapon. But such a scenario supposes that there is good intelligence about the effects of the weapon that has exploded, most probably within the opponent’s sovereign territory. This is verging on the impossible.

War is confusing in the extreme, and tactical planning can be extremely complex. But there is no precedent for nuclear war, and nobody — nobody — knows for certain what reactions will be to such a situation in or near any nation. The US 2018 Nuclear Posture Review stated that low-yield weapons “help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely”. But do the possible opponents of the United States agree with that? How could they do so?

The reaction by any nuclear-armed state to what is confirmed as a nuclear attack will have to be swift. It cannot be guaranteed, for example, that the first attack will not represent a series. It will, by definition, be decisive, because the world will then be a tiny step from doomsday. The US nuclear review is optimistic that “flexibility” will by some means limit a nuclear exchange, or even persuade the nuked-nation that there should be no riposte, which is an intriguing hypothesis.

As pointed out by Lawfare, “the review calls for modification to ‘a small number of existing submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) warheads’ to provide a low-yield option.

It also calls for further exploration of low-yield options, arguing that expanding these options will ‘help ensure that potential adversaries perceive no possible advantage in limited nuclear escalation, making nuclear employment less likely.’ This is intended to address the argument that adversaries might think the United States, out of concern for collateral damage, would hesitate to employ a high-yield nuclear weapon in response to a ‘lower level’ conflict, in which an adversary used a low-yield nuclear device. The review argues that expanding low-yield options is ‘important for the preservation of credible deterrence,’ especially when it comes to smaller-scale regional conflicts.”

“Credible deterrence” is a favourite catch-phrase of the believers in limited nuclear war, but its credibility is suspect. Former US defence secretary William Perry said last year that he wasn’t so much worried about the vast number of warheads in the world as he was by open proposals that these weapons are “usable”. It’s right back to the Cold War and he emphasises that “The belief that there might be tactical advantage using nuclear weapons – which I haven’t heard being openly discussed in the United States or in Russia for a good many years – is happening now in those countries which I think is extremely distressing.” But the perturbing thing is that while it is certainly being discussed in Moscow, it’s verging on doctrine in Washington.

In late February US Defence Secretary Esper was reported as having taken part in a “classified military drill in which Russia and the United States traded nuclear strikes.” The Pentagon stated that “The scenario included a European contingency where you’re conducting a war with Russia and Russia decides to use a low-yield, limited nuclear weapon against a site on NATO territory.” The US response was to fire back with what was called a “limited response.”

First of all, the notion that Russia would take the first step to nuclear war is completely baseless, and there is no evidence that this could ever be contemplated. But ever if it were to be so, it cannot be imagined for an instant that Washington would indulge in moderate nuclear warfare in riposte. These self-justifying wargames are dangerous. And they bring Armageddon ever closer.

*

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.

Brian Cloughley is a British and Australian armies’ veteran, former deputy head of the UN military mission in Kashmir and Australian defense attaché in Pakistan.

What’s Going on with the Arctic ‘Doomsday’ Seed Vault?

March 4th, 2020 by F. William Engdahl

Against the backdrop of the spreading fear about a global coronavirus pandemic, an event has slipped largely under the radar at a spot so removed from the rest of the world that most are unaware of its existence. The Svalbard “Doomsday” Seed Vault on Spitsbergen Island north of the Arctic Circle just received an additional major shipment of plant variety seeds for its special storage. What makes this entire seed bank enterprise suspicious at the very least is the list of financial sponsors behind the global project.

On February 25 more than 60,000 new seed varieties were placed in the Svalbard vault, the largest deposit of seeds since it opened. This brings the total of seed types to over one million since the vault was first opened for deposits in early 2008.

The latest seed deposits include onions from Brazil, guar beans from central Asia, corn seeds sacred to the Cherokee nation and wildflowers from a meadow at Prince Charles’s home in the UK (sic). The Svalbard vault is on the island that is legally part of Norway since a 1925 treaty.

The Norwegian government put up much of the money for the construction of the facility whose backers declared it was able to withstand a nuclear bomb blast. The only problem was planners did not make the structure, built into a mountain side, waterproof and the entrance flooded amid heavy rains in 2016, necessitating a major € 20 million of repairs and upgrade which were just completed, some four years later. Notably, as Norwegian Prime Minister Erna Solberg pointed out during the recent seed-greeting ceremony, the year 2020 is slated as the year by which countries should have safeguarded genetic diversity of crops to meet the UN goal of “eliminating hunger by 2030.” The year 2030 is when the UN IPCC predicts catastrophic climate change barring a radical action from the world, as well as the key benchmark year for the UN’s Malthusian Agenda2030.

The publicly-stated argument for the major seed bank project is supposedly as a safe backup for the numerous national seed bank collections in event they are destroyed in war as in Syria or Iraq, or by natural disaster or other calamity. The Svalbard vault has been called the “Noah’s ark of seeds,” there should a “global catastrophe” occur, to allow a theoretical restart to world agriculture. OK. Interesting. Who would decide how to distribute those seeds in event of such a catastrophe is not addressed.

What is notable is the list of those backing this highly unusual public-private partnership.

Crop Trust?

The seed bank and acquisition of the seeds is managed by an entity known as the Crop Trust, officially known as the Global Crop Diversity Trust, now based in Bonn, Germany. On its website Crop Trust makes the modest claim that their “sole mission is to ensure humanity conserves and makes available the world’s crop diversity for future food security.”

It has an impressive list of financial sponsors which it calls the Donors’ Council. Among the most eye-catching they name Bayer Crop Science, which now incorporates Monsanto; DuPont Pioneer Hi-Bred; Syngenta AG, now owned by ChemChina. These are the world’s largest purveyors of GMO patented seeds and the paired agrichemicals such as Roundup with glyphosate. China’s now state-owned Syngenta is the world’s largest supplier of crop chemicals.

In addition, Crop Trust Donors include the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the major donor to initiate the Trust in 2004 with the FAO, the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization and CGIAR, acting through Bioversity International.

Gates Foundation is joined at Crop Trust by the Rockefeller Foundation, the ones who first financed the creation of GMO biotechnology beginning in the 1970’s at their International Rice Research Institute, where they spent millions trying to develop the colossal failure called Vitamin A-enhanced Golden Rice. CGIAR, set up in 1972 by the Rockefeller Foundation and Ford Foundation to spread their Green Revolution agribusiness model, controls most of the private seed banks from the Philippines to Syria to Kenya. In all, these present seed banks hold more than six and a half million seed varieties, almost two million of which are ‘distinct.’ Svalbard’s Doomsday Vault has a capacity to house four and a half million different seeds.

At the time the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault opened in 2008 the chairman of the Crop Trust was Canadian Margaret Catley-Carlson. Catley-Carlson was also president until 1999 of the New York-based Population Council, John D. Rockefeller III ’s population reduction organization, set up in 1952 to advance the Rockefeller family’s eugenics program under the cover of promoting “family planning,” birth control devices, sterilization and “population control” in developing countries. Catley-Carlson also sat on the board of the Syngenta Foundation.

De-Population Council

Being President of the Rockefeller-founded Population Council is no minor deal. In the 1990’s the UN’s World Health Organization launched a campaign to vaccinate millions of women in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines between the ages of 15 and 45, allegedly against Tetanus, a sickness arising from such things as stepping on a rusty nail. The vaccine was not given to men or boys, despite the fact they are presumably equally as liable to step on rusty nails as women.

Because of that curious anomaly, Comité Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious and had vaccine samples tested. The tests revealed that the Tetanus vaccine being spread by the WHO– only to women of child-bearing age– contained human Chorionic Gonadotrophin or hCG, a natural hormone which when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier stimulated antibodies rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy. None of the women vaccinated were told.

It later came out that the Rockefeller Foundation along with the Rockefeller’s Population Council, the World Bank (home to CGIAR), and the United States’ National Institutes of Health had been involved in a 20-year-long project begun in 1972 to develop the concealed abortion vaccine with a tetanus carrier for WHO. In addition, the Government of Norway, the host to the Svalbard Doomsday Seed Vault, donated $41 million to develop the special abortive Tetanus vaccine.

Is it just coincidence that the same Gates Foundation is backing the organization responsible for maintaining the Svalbard “Doomsday” Seed Vault at the same time Gates is emerging as a major authority on the danger of the Wuhan coronavirus epidemic? In an article he wrote for the New England Journal of Medicine, Gates stated that the designated COVID19, “has started behaving a lot like the once-in-a-century pathogen we’ve been worried about.”

A virtually inaccessible seed vault under the control of some of the world’s foremost advocates of eugenics and population reduction is definitely remarkable. With more than a million of the irreplaceable seed heritage of the world locked inside the Svalbard Seed Vault, could this be a way for GMO agribusiness giants like Bayer-Monsanto or Syngenta to illegally gain access to those seeds in a time of global crisis? It sounds very far-fetched, yet there are far-fetched goings on in our world. We could say, “He who controls the world’s crop seeds, controls the world.”

*

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

F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl
ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2
Year: 2007
Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

This skilfully researched book focuses on how a small socio-political American elite seeks to establish control over the very basis of human survival: the provision of our daily bread. “Control the food and you control the people.”

This is no ordinary book about the perils of GMO. Engdahl takes the reader inside the corridors of power, into the backrooms of the science labs, behind closed doors in the corporate boardrooms.

The author cogently reveals a diabolical world of profit-driven political intrigue, government corruption and coercion, where genetic manipulation and the patenting of life forms are used to gain worldwide control over food production. If the book often reads as a crime story, that should come as no surprise. For that is what it is.

Electoral Dirty Tricks in Play on Super Tuesday?

March 4th, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

How is it possible for a Dem presidential aspirant ahead in most Super Tuesday states (according to polls), including California and Texas, to lose overall to a challenger?

The latest pre-Super Tuesday polls showed Sanders leading Biden by wide margins in California and Texas with 416 and 228 pledged delegates respectively — according to Real Clear Politics from an average of polls.

They showed Sanders ahead in Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine, Colorado, Utah, and Vermont, his home state.

Sanders was projected to win eight of 14 Super Tuesday states. He won four — California, Vermont, Colorado and Utah, losing Texas to Biden despite a near-9 point lead, according to polls.

Results so far show Biden winning nine states — Virginia, North Carolina, Alabama, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Minnesota, Massachusetts (where he trailed Sanders and Warren in polls), and Texas.

A total of 1,357 Dem delegates were up for grabs in Super Tuesday states, 34% of total elected ones — nearly half the Tuesday total from California and Texas.

After teetering on the edge of elimination from poor showings in Iowa, New Hampshire and Nevada, Biden emerged from Super Tuesday as the Dem frontrunner.

He has 453 elected delegates. Sanders trails with 382, followed by Warren with 50 and Bloomberg with 44.

The only candidate worthy of popular support, Tulsi Gabbard, an anti-war/progressive champion, is virtually eliminated from the race with one delegate.

In her home state Massachusetts, Warren finished third behind Biden and Sanders.

Despite her poor Super Tuesday showing, she vowed not to quit, saying: “I am in this fight.”

Virtually too far behind in the delegate count to catch up, polls in upcoming primaries showing her trailing badly, is she in it for Biden over Sanders in return for favors promised her?

Earlier calling herself “capitalist to the bone,” she’s part of the dirty system, not against it, shown by her voting record, most often along party lines, including for what benefits corporate America and the US imperial agenda.

Time and again she defends the indefensible. Like other undemocratic Dems and Republicans, she considers naked aggression humanitarian intervention and democracy building.

During Israel’s preemptive 2014 Gaza war, she supported what demanded condemnation, falsely blaming Hamas for Netanyahu regime high crimes.

She’s militantly hostile toward Russia, China, Iran, Syria, Venezuela, and other nations on the US target list for regime change.

She falsely accused Russia of “belligeren(ce),” falsely claimed China “weaponized its economy.” She supports illegal US sanctions (economic terrorism) on Iran, Venezuela, North Korea and other targeted nations.

She’s an Obama clone with a gender difference, never a people’s champion.

If she favored progressive politics over dirty business as usual, she’d drop out of the race and endorse Sanders over Biden and Bloomberg — because she’s too far behind in the delegate count to catch up.

Vowing not to quit suggests she supports continuity over peace, equity, justice and the rule of law.

Did Dem party bosses manipulate things for Biden to win big on Super Tuesday?

Did they urge Warren to stay in the race to draw support from voters likely to back Sanders if she drops out?

Will key upcoming primaries be rigged for Biden, a figure assuring continuity — even though Sanders as Dem standard bearer would be more likely to defeat Trump in November?

Do Dem party bosses prefer DJT over Sanders — even though the Vermont senator votes along party lines most often?

US electoral dirty tricks are longstanding. Super Tuesday results suggests they were in play to elevate Biden in the delegate count over Sanders.

Is more of the same likely in upcoming primary contests?

Americans get the best “democracy” monied interests can buy — democracy for privileged few alone, governance of, by and for everyone equitably ruled out throughout US history.

That’s the disturbing reality in the current race for the White House — aspirants considered “safe” alone allowed to win.

*

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.

La campagna pubblicitaria e di disinformazione sulla diffusione del nuovo coronavirus COVID-19 ha creato un clima di paura e incertezza in tutto il mondo da quando l’OMS l’ha dichiarata un’emergenza medica della sanità pubblica internazionale il 30 gennaio.

La campagna della paura è in corso, creando panico e incertezza. I governi nazionali e l’OMS stanno ingannando il pubblico.

” Circa 84.000 persone in almeno 56 paesi sono state contagiate e circa 2.900 sono morte ” , ha dichiarato il New York Times. Quello che il giornale non menziona è che il 98% delle infezioni si trova nella Cina continentale. Ci sono meno di 5.000 casi confermati al di fuori della Cina (OMS, 28 febbraio 2020).

Al momento, non esiste una vera pandemia al di fuori della Cina continentale. I numeri parlano da soli.

Al momento in cui scrivo, il numero di “casi confermati” negli Stati Uniti è di 64 .
Il numero è minimo, ma i media stanno diffondendo il panico.
Vi sono tuttavia 15 milioni di casi di influenza negli Stati Uniti .

L’ultimo rapporto di sorveglianza FluView del Center for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) degli Stati Uniti indica che il 18 gennaio 2020 ci sono stati 15 milioni di casi di influenza, 140.000 ricoveri e 8.200 morti in questa stagione influenzale negli Stati Uniti (enfasi aggiunta ).

Dati pandemici COVID-19

Il 28 febbraio 2020, l’Organizzazione mondiale della sanità (OMS) ha riportato 83.652 casi confermati di COVID-19, inclusi 78.961 nella Cina continentale. Fuori dalla Cina c’erano 4.691 (OMS, 28 febbraio 2020, ).

L’OMS ha anche riportato 2.791 morti, di cui solo 67 al di fuori della Cina continentale .

Queste cifre confermano che la pandemia è principalmente limitata alla Cina continentale.

Inoltre, i dati recenti tendono a dimostrare che l’epidemia in Cina è sotto controllo. Il 21 febbraio 2020, la National Health Commission della Repubblica popolare cinese ha riferito che 36.157 pazienti sono stati dichiarati guariti e dimessi dall’ospedale (vedere la tabella sotto).

Rapporti cinesi confermano che le persone hanno ricevuto un trattamento e si stanno riprendendo dall’infezione virale. Anche il numero di pazienti infetti sta diminuendo.

Secondo la National Pharmaceutical Administration of China, gli ospedali usano il farmaco antivirale Favilavir ” per curare il coronavirus con effetti collaterali minimi “.

Diamo un’occhiata ai numeri:

La popolazione mondiale è di circa 7,8 miliardi di personeLa popolazione cinese è di circa 1,4 miliardi di persone.

La popolazione mondiale meno la Cina è di circa 6,4 miliardi di persone.4.691 casi confermati e 67 decessi segnalati (al di fuori della Cina) su una popolazione di 6,4 miliardi non costituiscono una pandemia. 4.691 / 6.400.000.000 = 0,00000073 = 0.000073%

Negli Stati Uniti, 64 casi su una popolazione di circa 330 milioni non costituiscono una pandemia. (dati del 28 febbraio): 64 / 330.000.000.

Perché propaganda Razzismo contro persone di origine cinese

È stata lanciata una campagna deliberata contro la Cina ed è in atto un’ondata di sentimento razzista nei confronti di persone di origine cinese, in gran parte promossa dai media occidentali, ma anche da agenzie governative (vedi sotto).

Guerra economica contro la Cina

La strategia degli Stati Uniti è quella di utilizzare COVID-19 per isolare la Cina, nonostante il fatto che l’economia statunitense si basi fortemente sulle importazioni cinesi.

La disorganizzazione a breve termine dell’economia cinese è in gran parte dovuta alla chiusura (temporanea) dei circuiti commerciali e di trasporto.

L’emergenza per la salute pubblica dichiarata dall’OMS si unisce alla disinformazione dei media e al divieto di voli in Cina.

Panico a Wall Street

La disinformazione dei media ha assunto un’altra dimensione causando il panico sui mercati azionari.
La paura del coronavirus ha portato a una caduta dei mercati finanziari in tutto il mondo.

Epidemia di coronavirus: l’OMS dichiara un’emergenza globale “falsa” per la salute pubblica

Secondo i rapporti, il valore dei mercati azionari mondiali è crollato di circa $ 6 trilioni. Questo calo è stato finora dell’ordine del “15% o più”.Ciò provoca ingenti perdite nei risparmi personali (cioè nella media americani), oltre a fallimenti personali e fallimenti aziendali.

È anche un vantaggio per gli speculatori istituzionali, in particolare per gli hedge fund aziendali. La debacle finanziaria ha portato a grandi trasferimenti di ricchezza monetaria nelle tasche di una manciata di istituzioni finanziarie.

Il fatto più ironico è che gli analisti collegano casualmente il crollo dei mercati alla diffusione del virus, quando negli Stati Uniti ci sono solo 64 casi confermati.

” Non sorprende che i mercati stiano calando … il virus è cresciuto così tanto …”

Potremmo “prevedere” il crollo finanziario di febbraio?
Sarebbe ingenuo credere che la crisi finanziaria fosse dovuta solo alle forze di mercato che hanno reagito spontaneamente alla diffusione di COVID-19. Il mercato è già stato attentamente manipolato da potenti attori che utilizzano strumenti speculativi nei mercati dei derivati, compresa la “vendita allo scoperto”.

L’obiettivo non detto è la concentrazione della ricchezza. Fu un vero vantaggio finanziario per gli “addetti ai lavori” che sapevano in anticipo cosa avrebbe portato alla decisione dell’OMS di dichiarare un’emergenza di sanità pubblica di interesse internazionale il 30 gennaio.

La pandemia COVID-19 (nCoV-2019) era nota in anticipo? Quali sono le probabili ripercussioni?
Il 18 ottobre 2019, il Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security di Baltimora ha intrapreso un esercizio di simulazione accuratamente realizzato di un’epidemia di coronavirus chiamata nCoV-2019.

Nell’esercizio chiamato Event 201 Simulation of a Coronavirus Pandemic , abbiamo “simulato” un calo del mercato azionario del 15%. Non è stato “pianificato” secondo gli organizzatori e gli sponsor dell’evento, la Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation e il World Economic Forum.

Una esercitazione pandemica globale

Schermata, 201 Un esercizio pandemico globale

La simulazione effettuata in ottobre chiamata nCoV-2019 è avvenuta appena due mesi prima della comparsa di COVID-19.

La simulazione della pandemia di John Hopkins ha simulato un calo del mercato azionario del “15% o più” (video, sezione 0.0 – 1’2 “), che corrisponde in gran parte al calo che ha avuto luogo alla fine di febbraio 2020.

Molti aspetti di questo “esercizio di simulazione” corrispondono effettivamente a ciò che è realmente accaduto quando il Direttore Generale dell’OMS ha dichiarato un’emergenza di sanità pubblica di interesse internazionale il 30 gennaio 2020.
Quello che deve essere compreso è che coloro che hanno sponsorizzato il “esercizio di simulazione” del John Hopkins Center sono potenti e competenti nelle aree della “salute globale” (B. e M. Gates Foundation) e “L’economia mondiale” (GEF).

Va anche notato che l’OMS ha inizialmente adottato un acronimo simile (per indicare il coronavirus) a quello del John Hopkins Center Pandemic Simulation Exercise (nCoV-2019) prima di cambiarlo in COVID-19 .

Corruzione e ruolo dell’OMS

Che motivato il direttore generale dell’OMS, Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , a dichiarare che la Ncov-2019 è una “emergenza sanitaria pubblica di rilevanza internazionale” il 30 gennaio, quando l’epidemia era in gran parte confinato alla Cina continentale?

Tutto suggerisce che il direttore generale dell’OMS Tedros abbia servito gli interessi di potenti partner delle grandi corporations.

Secondo F. William Engdahl , Tedros ha legami di vecchia data con la Clinton e la Clinton Foundation. È anche strettamente legato alla Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Insieme al World Economic Forum di Davos, la Gates Foundation ha sponsorizzato il “esercizio di simulazione” di John Hopkins nCoV-2019.

Come ministro della sanità, Tedros ha anche presieduto il Fondo globale per la lotta contro l’AIDS, la tubercolosi e la malaria, di cui la Fondazione Gates è stata cofondatrice. Il Fondo globale è stato rovinato da scandali di frode e corruzione.

” Durante la campagna triennale di Tedros per ottenere il suo posto presso l’OMS, è stato accusato di nascondere tre grandi epidemie di colera mentre era il Ministro della Salute dell’Etiopia, falsificando i casi “acuta diarrea acquosa” (un sintomo di colera), per ridurre al miniUna massiccia campagna di sviluppo del vaccino è stata ordinata dal direttore generale dell’OMS Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. Molte aziende farmaceutiche ci stanno già lavorando.

A questo proposito, è importante ricordare la frode dell’OMS durante il mandato del suo predecessore, la dott.ssa Margaret Chan , che ha detto questo sulla pandemia di influenza suina H1N1 nel 2009:

” I produttori di vaccini possono produrre nella migliore delle ipotesi 4,9 miliardi di vaccini contro l’influenza all’anno. ( Margaret Chan, direttore esecutivo dell’Organizzazione mondiale della sanità , citato da Reuters il 21 luglio 2009, sottolinea che è stato aggiunto).

Non vi è stata alcuna pandemia di H1N1 nel 2009. È stato una frode fare soldi, come rivelato dal Parlamento europeo.

Le multinazionali del farmaco si preparano al grande business dei vaccini per il Covid-19

Qual è il prossimo passo nella pandemia di COVID-19? È una falsa o una vera pandemia?

  • La propaganda contro la Cina non è finita.
  • Né la “paura della pandemia” è al di fuori della Cina, nonostante il numero veramente basso di “casi confermati”.
  • La crisi finanziaria continua, supportata dalla disinformazione dei media e dalle interferenze finanziarie.
  • Se non vengono ripristinati i normali rapporti commerciali (e di trasporto) tra Stati Uniti e Cina, la consegna dei beni di consumo “Made in China” esportati negli Stati Uniti verrà messa a repentaglio.
  • Questa situazione potrebbe innescare una grave crisi nel commercio al dettaglio negli Stati Uniti, dove i beni “Made in China” costituiscono una parte significativa del consumo mensile delle famiglie.
  • Dal punto di vista della salute pubblica, le prospettive di eliminare COVID-19 in Cina sono favorevoli. I progressi sono già stati segnalati.
  • Nel resto del mondo (dove ci sono stati circa 3.000 casi confermati il ​​28 febbraio 2020), la pandemia di COVID-19 continua, insieme alla propaganda per un programma di vaccinazione globale.
  • Senza una campagna di paura combinata con notizie false, COVID-19 non avrebbe fatto notizia.
  • Da un punto di vista medico, è indicata la vaccinazione globale?
  • 43,3% dei “casi confermati” in Cina è ora considerato “recuperato” (vedi grafico sopra). I rapporti occidentali non fanno distinzione tra “casi confermati” e “casi confermati infetti”. Sono gli ultimi casi che sono rilevanti. La tendenza è verso una ripresa e una diminuzione dei “casi infetti confermati”.

La massiccia campagna di vaccinazione dell’OMS (menzionata sopra) è stata debitamente confermata dal suo direttore generale, il dott. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus , il 28 febbraio:

” … Più di 20 vaccini sono in fase di sviluppo in tutto il mondo e numerosi prodotti terapeutici sono in fase di sperimentazione clinica, i cui primi risultati sono attesi in” poche settimane “. (enfasi aggiunta)

Va da sé che questa decisione dell’OMS costituisce un’altra manna per i cinque principali produttori di vaccini: Glaxo SmithKline, Novartis, Merck & Co., Sanofi e Pfizer, che controllano l’85% del mercato dei vaccini. Secondo CNBC: (enfasi aggiunta)

Queste aziende sono entrate nella corsa per combattere il coronavirus mortale e stanno lavorando a programmi per creare vaccini o farmaci … Sanofi sta collaborando con il governo degli Stati Uniti per sviluppare un vaccino contro il nuovo virus , sperando che il suo lavoro sul l’epidemia di SARS del 2003 accelererà il processo. Nel 2019, Merck ha guadagnato $ 8,4 miliardi di entrate dal mercato dei vaccini, un segmento in crescita a un tasso annuo del 9% dal 2010, secondo Bernstein .

Glaxo SmithKline ha annunciato questo mese la sua partnership con la Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations [CEPI] per un programma di vaccinazione … CEPI è stato lanciato al World Economic Forum 2017.

È interessante notare che il CEPI, lanciato a Davos nel 2017, è supportato dalla Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, dal Wellcome Trust (una fondazione umanitaria britannica multimiliardaria) e dal World Economic Forum. I governi di Norvegia e India sono membri e il loro ruolo è principalmente quello di finanziare CEPI.

Cronologia

18 ottobre 2019 : la B. e M. Gates Foundation e il World Economic Forum sono partner della pandemia “simulazione di esercitazione” a nCoV-2019 condotta dal John Hopkins Center for Health Security nell’ottobre 2019.

31 dicembre 2019 : la Cina avvisa l’OMS della scoperta di numerosi casi di “polmonite insolita” a Wuhan, nella provincia di Hubei.

7 gennaio 2020 : funzionari cinesi affermano di aver identificato un nuovo virus. L’OMS nomina il nuovo virus 2019-nCoV ( esattamente lo stesso nome del virus che era l’oggetto dell’esercizio di simulazione del John Hopkins Center, tranne il posizionamento della data).

24-25 gennaio 2020 : Vertice di Davos sotto l’egida del CEPI, che è anche il frutto di una partnership tra il World Economic Forum e la Gates Foundation, durante la quale viene annunciato lo sviluppo di un vaccino contro il nCoV 2019 (2 settimane dopo l’annuncio del 7 gennaio 2020 e appena una settimana prima della dichiarazione di emergenza sanitaria pubblica di portata internazionale da parte dell’OMS).

30 gennaio 2020 : il direttore dell’OMS dichiara una “emergenza sanitaria pubblica di rilevanza internazionale”.

Ora è stata lanciata una campagna di vaccinazione per fermare COVID-19 sotto l’egida di CEPI in collaborazione con GlaxoSmithKline .

Conclusione

COVID-19 (alias nCoV-2019) rappresenta un tesoro del valore di miliardi di dollari per le grandi aziende farmaceutiche. Ma contribuisce anche a far precipitare l’umanità in un pericoloso processo di destabilizzazione economica, sociale e geopolitica.

Michel Chossudovsky 

 

fonte inglese :

COVID-19 Coronavirus: A Fake Pandemic? Who’s Behind It? Global Economic, Social and Geopolitical Destabilization

 

fonte francese :

Coronavirus COVID-19: Une fausse pandémie? Qui est derrière cela? Déstabilisation économique, sociale et géopolitique mondiale

Tradotto da Daniel per Mondialisation.ca

 

Tradotto in Italiano da Luciano Lago per Controinformazione.info

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on Coronavirus: una falsa pandemia? Chi c’è dietro questo? Destabilizzazione economica, sociale e geopolitica globale

As the voting this evening, March 3, comes in from the fourteen states conducting Democrat Party primaries already the ‘takeaways’ are evident.

The first is that the last minute dropping out of the primary race by Pete Buttigieg and Amy Klobuchar—and their immediate endorsement of Joe Biden—has had its obvious strategic effect. Their votes clearly went to Biden. That was perhaps most evident in Klobuchar’s state, Minnesota, where Sanders was expected to win.

The Buttigieg-Klobuchar Maneuver

Both Buttigieg and Klobuchar entered the race, one might argue in retrospect, to test how far they could drag potential voters from Sanders. Buttigieg the youth and the gay vote. Klobuchar the female vote. Neither were able to chip away much, if any, of Sanders’ support. So when it was clear they had little chance of doing so, they quickly dropped out right before the Super Tuesday primaries and threw their endorsement, organizational support (and their financial backers’ funding?) to Biden.

If anyone believes their decisions were isolated and unrelated individual acts that had nothing to do with encouragement by the Democratic Party leadership, including Obama, Pelosi, Shumer and their own moneybag financiers, then they are deluding themselves. The timing, coordinated exits, and endorsements of Biden were not merely coincidental. Having done their ‘party duty’, they now will no doubt now be nicely rewarded in their future careers by the party’s organization and campaign contributors.

But you didn’t hear much of this kind of analysis if you listened to MSNBC, CNN, or the other media mouthpieces of the establishment, centrist leadership of the party. Why anyone continues to refer to the Democratic Party as ‘liberal’ or even as an independent party, is amazing. More accurately, it should be understood as the ‘globalist wing of the Corporate Party of America’. The other wing of the Corporate Party of America is the Republican. Correct that, today better called the ‘Trumpublican’ party. The policies of either wing of the Corporate Party of America for the past 40 years have been very similar and no less pro-business.

Warren Loses Massachusetts & Her Days Are Numbered

A second obvious takeaway from today’s Super Tuesday event is that Elizabeth Warren failed to win even her home state, Massachusetts, which went to Biden. Warren’s so-called progressive votes would have gone almost totally to Sanders, had she too dropped out. That would have easily given Sanders Massachusetts over Biden. Warren clearly has taken votes away from Sanders, not only in Massachusetts but everywhere on Super Tuesday.

To sum up in part then: Buttigieg-Klobuchar drop out and shift their centrist endorsements, support and votes to Biden; Warren stays in and diverts progressive votes from Sanders. Does anyone think this is all coincidental?

My prediction is that Warren will eventually drop out, but not before the Sanders-Biden contest concludes in the key swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin and a couple potential others. The dilution of Sanders’ progressive support full potential will have been achieved.

Biden Sweeps the South: So What!

A third takeaway is that Biden swept the southern states on Super Tuesday. No doubt about it. As in South Carolina, once again his vote margin was delivered by the over-35 black vote. The Democratic Party is so weak in the southern states that black voters comprise the largest plurality of their voting population in most of the states of the South. Older black voters went for Biden, while younger often went for Sanders. But the youth black vote was only a small percentage compared to the older black vote, typically around only 15% of the total black vote. Older black voters in the South tend to vote based on recommendations of their churches, community organizations, and black political leaders. In contrast, younger blacks are increasingly independent. But there weren’t as many of their numbers to offset, let alone overtake, the older black votes going to Biden. The youth black vote is there. But the Sanders organization still has much to do to organize, register, and turnout black youth to vote, and especially in the South.

Biden’s sweep of the South is largely irrelevant, however. These are states that Trump and the Republicans have solidly wrapped up. Decades of gerrymandering, voter suppression, and control of state legislatures and governorships in these states means no Democrat candidate, Sanders or Biden, is going to swing any of the ‘red states’ into the Democrat camp in the November 2020 election.

Thus Biden’s victories in the primaries in these states signifies nothing of import for the general election in November. But the party’s media wing make it sound like some great achievement that show Joe will sweep the South in the November election against Trump. Dream on.

The liberal, establishment media all night Tuesday have been hyping the story that Biden won in Virginia, in Tennessee, Arkansas and didn’t even show up to campaign there or spend money on TV ads. Doesn’t that show how strong a candidate Joe is, they echoed as if reading from the same tv monitor? No, it shows the Democrats are so weak in those states that the party organization’s recommendations mostly determine the outcomes.

Bloomberg’s New Choice: Fortune vs. Ego

What about Bloomberg? After spending more than $500 million of his own money (more than $70 million in California alone), he managed to gain voter support only in the mid-teens. Typically around 15% or so. Reportedly his own campaign manager has now urged him to drop out. Whether he does so will depend on whether he values more his ego or his dwindling fortune. He’s looks now more like the addicted gambler, chasing his money at the crap table or racetrack. IF one were to guess, however, it would be in favor of his ego. He could still accumulate enough votes of delegates to be a broker at the party’s convention.

The Party’s Geographical-Generational Class Divide

Another takeaway is the Super Tuesday, 14-state contest shows the Democrat Party is divided geographically, as well as generationally and along class lines.

Sanders wins big in the west and northern New England. Biden in the South. But the most important geographically area—the area that will determine the electoral college outcome and thus the election—is yet to be contested. That’s the ‘swing states’ regional arc from Pennsylvania to Michigan to Wisconsin (and maybe a few ‘outliers’ like Arizona). As in 2016, that’s where the general presidential election will be determined. My guess is that Warren will stay in to continue to split the progressive vote there, to Sanders’ disadvantage, and drop out after. Bloomberg, on the other hand, may be convinced to drop out just before those primaries. Should he do so his votes will largely go to Biden. That will all but ensure Biden wins most of the delegates there, although that’s not foreordained either.

Sanders’ won big in the west, where the ‘older black voter’ factor and the Warren ‘split the progressive vote’ factor have not been significant. An interesting contest was the Texas vote. Sanders was slated to win by a small margin. However, the party establishment threw everything into Texas, including the political kitchen sink, as they say. They even got that once thought of left liberal, Beto O’Rourke, to endorse and stump for Biden. Like Buttigieg and Klobuchar, he too will no doubt be nicely rewarded by the party apparatus down the road for his next career political move. The lesson: beware of progressive sounding young political careerists on the make.

Movement vs. Party Apparatchiki

Sanders has rallied the youth vote, the Latino vote (youth and older), young black and other minorities, women and local unions to his banner. It’s a movement that’s growing. It hasn’t yet peaked. The question is will it peak sooner, or perhaps after the 2020 election cycle? In the west, the older crowd of voters still went for Biden. But unlike in the South, the youth vote-minority vote turnout in the west swamped the older voters. The movement there has arrived! Sanders’ movement more than offset Biden’s party apparatus. And the west, unlike the South, must be won by the Democratic Party in order to offset the electoral vote advantage of Trump and Republicans in their ‘red state’ bastions. It is futile strategy to try to retake the ‘red state’ South out from under Trump. Too late. Past Democratic Party timidity and meekness confronting voter suppression and gerrymandering has all but rendered that extremely unlikely. Better solidify the West, New England, maybe Atlantic States and win the swing states. But the latter will also take a movement. And without Sanders, the Democrats have none.

So Sanders wins the west, New England, and the youth-Latino vote. Biden wins the South-older black vote. But the most important regional contest is yet to come: the swing states voting. That is determinative. And that will take more than Democrat leaders’ tired old strategies. And even tired old, same-o, same-o nominees.

When to Release the ‘Kraken’?

Sanders might have a fighting chance if the party’s nomination were determined by winning a simple majority of 1,991 delegates by means of winning caucuses and primaries. But it isn’t. The Democratic party leaders and financiers have made sure that their ‘ace in the hole’, should they need it, is their control over the 500+ so-called special delegates at their July nominating convention. The majority of these are Democrat members of Congress—representatives and Senators. And they will vote as the party recommends, with few exceptions. So even if Sanders wins in a sweep of the ‘swing states’ primaries coming up, even if he is far and away the holder of the largest plurality of delegates from the primaries, he will still be deprived of the party’s nomination in July at the convention, I predict, when the party leaders ‘release the Kraken’ (an ancient Norse sea-monster) of the 500 special delegates to vote for the party leaders’ favorite boy. And guess who that’ll be?

Why Biden Can’t Beat Trump

A final takeaway from Super Tuesday primaries is this: Biden’s win of the South is irrelevant, as was said. He can’t deliver those states’ electoral votes in the general election. Obama and the Democrats already lost that race back in 2010, when Obama’s failed economic recovery of Main St. resulted in an historic sweep by Republicans of the House & Senate, state governorships and state legislatures in dozens of ‘red states’ in 2010 and 2012-14. Gerrymandering and escalating voter suppression followed Republican capture of the red states. That now ensure that these states stay ‘red’. Second point: if Biden gets the nomination, Sanders movement supporters will not vote for him. They will stay home. The Democrats could lose several western states in that case, as well as the South. It then won’t matter if they win one or more northern ‘swing states’. Party leaders think all they have to do is hold the party together, convince everyone there’s no other choice but to vote for Biden (or Bloomberg). And just ‘turn’ the 70 electoral votes in the swing states that determined the electoral college win in 2016 for Trump. One must also add the strong likelihood that Trump will eat Biden’s lunch, as they say, in the TV debates before the general November election. Finally, one cannot discount Trump and Republican last minute dirty tricks. At the top of that list will be an ‘October Surprise’ in the week before the November election, in which something dramatic associated with Biden’s connection to the Ukraine—whether true or not—will be revealed by ‘Trumpublican’ dirty tricksters. The Democrat Party establishment will not be able to respond in time to negate the effect of the revelation.

The Party’s Coming Irrevocable Split

In short, a badly split Democrat Party, should Sanders be cheated out of the nomination (again), will undermine it during the last stage of the general election in November; Biden will almost certainly come off badly in the TV debates; and the ‘Trumpublican’ practice of winning by any means necessary, even if it means destroying what’s left of American Democracy, will together result in another failed strategy and attempt by the Democratic Party leadership to defeat Donald Trump.

Biden is not ‘more electable’ than Sanders (who by the way leads Trump in scores of independent polls). Biden’s electability is a gross myth peddled by the Democrat establishment’s media mouthpieces. Biden is maybe the least electable. Even Bloomberg would stand a better chance. (But then, there’s really little difference between Bloomberg and Trump, except for the latter’s foul mouth, bad manners, nasty tweets, and predilection to run roughshod over the US Constitution. Otherwise they’re both billionaires who in the end support billionaires).

So it seems the Democratic Party is at a real crossroads: Its corporate friendly leadership is doing all they can to maneuver on multiple fronts to deny Sanders the party’s nomination. Not just primary campaign maneuvers, convention delegate maneuvers, pushing fake messages like Sanders isn’t electable, or would lose ‘down ballot’ seats in Congress, and red-baiting Sanders’ FDR-like reforms (it’s not a revolution folks), labeling Sanders a radical ‘socialist’ (i.e. a Republican theme by the way), and raising trial balloons by some of the party’s major fundraisers who are declaring they would vote for Trump if Sanders were the nominee. (What they really mean is they would vote to keep the big investor tax cuts Trump gave them rather than let Sanders take their tax cut largesse away!).

The party’s leaders and strategists are so intent on denying Sanders the nomination that they would risk splitting the party and driving youth of all kind out of the party. If so, it could very well mean the beginning of the end of the Democratic party come November, a process by the way that would accelerate if Biden then loses the election.

Biden would be a replicant of Obama in terms of policy, albeit a tired and uninspiring version of the latter. But the outcome would be the same as under Obama for millennials, GenXers, and now GenZers. No solutions to their crises in employment, low pay, crunching student debt, unaffordable health care and cost of education, lack of decent housing, racial discrimination, indignation of the growing obscenity of super wealth accumulation by the few as they struggle for basics, and fear of a climate crisis out of control for them and their children. For the apparent generational divide within the Democratic Party is one and the same an economic divide—i.e. a matter of class.

It is unfortunate that Democrat leaders are so myopic they only see the coming general election with blinders on. Deny Sanders and they split the party, not just in November but after; allow Sanders as nominee and they give up their corporate-funded control of the party, its programs, and its policies they’ve had since 1992 with Bill Clinton. So they are talking themselves into the fiction that, even if they deny the nomination to Sanders, his supporters and movement will have ‘no where else to go’ but to fall in line behind Biden. But they do have somewhere to go: they’ll sit home. And then they’ll perhaps go out and organize a party independent of today’s Democratic Party.

Joe Biden’s nomination will not only mean failure to defeat Trump, but may mean an irrevocable split in the party itself.

*

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, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the recently published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January, 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is http://kyklosproductions.comand twitter handle, @drjackrasmus, He hosts the weekly radio show, Alternative Visions, on the Progressive Radio Network out of New York. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Syria Deception

March 4th, 2020 by Swiss Propaganda Research

What is the Syria war about?

Contrary to the depiction in Western media, the Syria war is not a civil war. This is because the initiators, financiers and a large part of the anti-government fighters come from abroad.

Nor is the Syria war a religious war, for Syria was and still is one of the most secular countries in the region, and the Syrian army – like its direct opponents – is itself mainly composed of Sunnis.

But the Syria war is also not a pipeline war, as some critics suspected, because the allegedly competing gas pipeline projects never existed to begin with, as even the Syrian president confirmed.

Instead, the Syria war is a war of conquest and regime change, which developed into a geopolitical proxy war between NATO states on one side – especially the US, Great Britain and France – and Russia, Iran, and China on the other side.

In fact, already since the 1940s the US has repeatedly attempted to install a pro-Western government in Syria, such as in 1949, 1956, 1957, after 1980 and after 2003, but without success so far. This makes Syria – since the fall of Libya – the last Mediterranean country independent of NATO.

Thus, in the course of the „Arab Spring“ of 2011, NATO and its allies, especially Israel and the Gulf States, decided to try again. To this end, politically and economically motivated protests in Syria were used and were quickly escalated into an armed conflict.

NATO’s original strategy of 2011 was based on the Afghanistan war of the 1980s and aimed at conquering Syria mainly through positively portrayed Islamist militias (so-called „rebels“). This did not succeed, however, because the militias lacked an air force and anti-aircraft missiles.

Hence from 2013 onwards, various poison gas attacks were staged in order to be able to deploy the NATO air force as part of a „humanitarian intervention“ similar to the earlier wars against Libya and Yugoslavia. But this did not succeed either, mainly because Russia and China blocked a UN mandate.

As of 2014, therefore, additional but negatively portrayed Islamist militias („terrorists“) were covertly established in Syria and Iraq via NATO partners Turkey and Jordan, secretly supplied with weapons and vehicles and indirectly financed by oil exports via the Turkish Ceyhan terminal.

ISIS Control Map 2015

ISIS: Supply and export routes through NATO partners Turkey and Jordan (ISW / Atlantic, 2015)

Media-effective atrocity propaganda and mysterious „terrorist attacks“ in Europe and the US then offered the opportunity to intervene in Syria using the NATO air force even without a UN mandate – ostensibly to fight the „terrorists“, but in reality still to conquer Syria and topple its government.

This plan failed again, however, as Russia also used the presence of the „terrorists“ in autumn 2015 as a justification for direct military intervention and was now able to attack both the „terrorists“ andparts of NATO’s „rebels“ while simultaneously securing the Syrian airspace to a large extent.

By the end of 2016, the Syrian army thus succeeded in recapturing the city of Aleppo.

From 2016 onwards, NATO therefore switched back to positively portrayed but now Kurdish-led militias  (the SDF) in order to still have unassailable ground forces available and to conquer the Syrian territory held by the previously established „terrorists“ before Syria and Russia could do so themselves.

This led to a kind of „race“ to conquer cities such as Raqqa and Deir ez-Zor in 2017 and to a temporary division of Syria along the Euphrates river into a (largely) Syrian-controlled West and a Kurdish (or rather American) controlled East (see map below).

This move, however, brought NATO into conflict with its key member Turkey, because Turkey did not accept a Kurdish-controlled territory on its southern border. As a result, the NATO alliance became increasingly divided from 2018 onwards.

Turkey now fought the Kurds in northern Syria and at the same time supported the remaining Islamists in the north-western province of Idlib against the Syrian army, while the Americans eventually withdrew to the eastern Syrian oil fields in order to retain a political bargaining chip.

While Turkey supported Islamists in northern Syria, Israel more or less covertly supplied Islamists in southern Syria and at the same time fought Iranian and Lebanese (Hezbollah) units with air strikes, though without lasting success: the militias in southern Syria had to surrender in 2018.

Ultimately, some NATO members tried to use a confrontation between the Turkish and Syrian armies in the province of Idlib as a last option to escalate the war. In addition to the situation in Idlib, the issues of the occupied territories in the north and east of Syria remain to be resolved, too.

Russia, for its part, has tried to draw Turkey out of the NATO alliance and onto its own side as far as possible. Modern Turkey, however, is pursuing a rather far-reaching geopolitical strategy of its own, which is also increasingly clashing with Russian interests in the Middle East and Central Asia.

As part of this geopolitical strategy, Turkey in 2015 and 2020 even used the so-called »weapon of mass migration«, which may serve to destabilize both Syria (so-called strategic depopulation) and Europe, as well as to extort financial, political or military support from the European Union.

Syria: The situation in February 2020

What role did the Western media play in this war?

The task of NATO-compliant media was to portray the war against Syria as a „civil war“, the Islamist „rebels“ positively, the Islamist „terrorists“ and the Syrian government negatively, the alleged „poison gas attacks“ credibly and the NATO intervention consequently as legitimate.

An important tool for this media strategy were the numerous Western-sponsored „media centres“, „activist groups“, „Twitter girls“, „human rights observatories“ and the like, which provided Western news agencies and media with the desired images and information.

Since 2019, NATO-compliant media moreover had to conceal or discredit various leaks and whistleblowers that began to prove the covert Western arms deliveries to the Islamist „rebels“ and „terrorists“ as well as the staged „poison gas attacks“.

But if even the „terrorists“ in Syria were demonstrably established and equipped by NATO states, what role then did the mysterious „caliph of terror“ Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi play? He possibly played a similar role as his direct predecessor, Omar al-Baghdadi – who was a phantom.

Thanks to new communication technologies and on-site sources, the Syria war was also the first war about which independent media could report almost in real-time and thus for the first time significantly influenced the public perception of events – a potentially historic change.

*

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

All images in this article are from SPR


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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Daring to Kiss: Coronavirus and the Butterfly Effect

March 4th, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

At some point, it seemed like a slow burner, gathering attention with each press release from the World Health Organisation.  When talking about a threat, language is everything.  With more cases of COVID-19 being identified, the panic that comes from paranoia, suspicion and good old distrust is beginning to thrive. 

The signs of this vary in nuance: full blown siren calls regarding health warnings to a conspicuous absence of certain food items in stores.  Then come the gentle prods, such as that of Ian Goldin of Oxford University. “The spread of coronavirus around the world is alarming, but not surprising,” he observes from the pulpit of the Financial Times.  “Globalisation creates systemic risks.  As trade, finance, travel, cyber and other networks grow in scale and interact, they become more complex and unstable.”

Goldin reminds us of chaos theory, and its father, Edward Lorenz, who postulated that a butterfly flapping its miniscule wings over Brazil might incite the violence of a tornado in Texas.  Globalised diseases and epidemics are similarly instances of “a butterfly effect”, leaving authorities woefully unprepared.

Less gentle are the screams and howls of social media networks.  In 2013, New Zealand sociologist Robert Bartholomew likened the role of information sharing through social media networks as akin to the frightful gossip that led to the hanging of 19 people in the Salem Witch trials of 1692 and 1693.  Bartholomew was focusing on a case at Danvers, where two dozen teenagers at the Essex Agricultural College claimed to be having “mysterious” vocal tics and hiccups. The result?  Mass psychogenic illness (MPI), a form of conversion disorder that itself becomes a contagion.  

In all of this, warned Bartholomew, social media had played and would continue to play a role, agitating the spread.  There was a “potential for a far greater or global episode, unless we quickly understand how social media is, for the first time, acting as the primary vector or agent of spread for conversion disorder.”  His warnings were valid enough: epidemics might spread, but social media would fan the contagion, making it “just a matter of time before we see outbreaks that are not just confined to a single school or factor or even region, but covering a disperse geographical area and causing real social and economic harm.”  The medium would itself become the means of transmission.

Political and medical announcements, acting upon by media discussions and analysis, have also done their bit go give COVID-19 a rapid spread.  The news site for the Australian Broadcasting Corporation persists in running a red banner like a gory tickertape, updating readers on the next identified case: “Breaking News: A 10th person has tested positive for coronavirus, according to the state’s Health Minister.”

The Australian Attorney-General Christian Porter is sufficiently alarmed to contemplate bringing in the heaviest of responses, activating biosecurity laws that will serve as nasty measures of population control.  The contagion, it seems, is spreading to the national security state itself.  On March 3, Australia’s chief health officers met to consider “social distancing” restrictions, while Porter chewed over laws introduced in 2015 that would give the minister power to prevent people from attending mass gatherings, forcibly detain and decontaminate targeted individuals.    

The Attorney-General could not help but sound slightly sinister in addressing questions posed to him on RN Breakfast.  “It’s very likely Australians will encounter practices and instructions and circumstances that they have not had to encounter before.”  With a totalitarian sensibility, Porter suggested that some of these measures “will be, in some instances, strange and foreign to many Australians.  But they will become very important, I suspect, over the next couple of months.” 

Other suggestions, tips and responses have reached the level of the absurd.  New South Wales Health Minister Brad Hazzard (a name that could only be deemed unfortunate in these circumstances) has warned against shaking hands.  “At a time when we have a virus that appears to be reasonably active in its endeavours to get into our community … it will be sensible not to be handshaking.”  Not that Australians could not kiss, “but certainly you would be exercising a degree of care and caution whom you choose to kiss.”  Good for Hazzard to be discriminating in the matter.

Such disease chat has had its rushing effect.  Australians have engaged in a spree of panic buying, emptying supermarket shelves of toilet paper and other essentials. Infectious disease specialist Professor Peter Collignon is bemused by it all.  By all means, have that supply of critical medicines and a decent stash of over-the-counter products.  “You don’t need boxes and boxes of the stuff.”  As for food, Australia remained a net exporter of food.  “You’re not going to run out of food, you might not have same choice of foods but you won’t be left without.”

Such talk seems eminently sensible, and is bound to end up in the bin of pointy-headed expertise.  Consumers and citizens have succumbed to that other great and near incurable contagion: a loss of trust in information.  Can the figures identifying the virus be trusted?  Are the authorities engaged in their own sordid cover-up?  Panic and anxiety, helped to giddying proportions by rumour, have done their best to destroy any reassurance.

Even efforts to sound calm and measured risk upending apple carts.  The President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, gave an update on the spread of coronavirus in the European Union that did as much to disturb as inform.  “The ECDC (European Centre for Disease Prevention and Control) announced today that the risk level has risen from moderate to high for people in the European Union.  In other words, the virus continues to spread.”

The degree of concern has risen as much due to speed as the number of cases.  On Sunday, Italy registered a jump of some 50 percent of coronavirus cases.  Across the EU, there are 2,100 confirmed cases across 18 member states.

European Commissioner for Health and Food Safety Stella Kyriakides notes the difficulties in responding to COVID-19 but suggests that all states work collectively to resolve it. “Now is not the time for panic or misinformation, which fuels anxiety. We need to remain calm, focused and united.”  With each call for calm, anxiety is showing itself in different colours across the globe, becoming louder with each official statement.  The butterfly’s wings continue to flap, and the tornadoes continue to come.

*

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]

Units of the Russian Military Police entered the town of Saraqib in eastern Idlib following the second liberation of the town from al-Qaeda terrorists and Turkish forces. According to the Russian military, the deployment took place at 5:00pm local time on March 2 and was intended to provide security and allow traffic through the M4 and M5 highways. In fact, the Russians came to put an end to Turkish attempts to capture the town and cut off the M5 highway in this area.

At the same time, the Syrian Army repelled attempts of al-Qaeda and Turkish forces to capture the town of Kafr Nubl in southern Idlib and recaptured several nearby villages, including Hazarin and Dar al-Kabirah. According to pro-government sources, at least 15 units of military equipment belonging to Turkish proxies were destroyed in the recent operations. The Turkish side responded to the developments on the ground with a new batch of victorious statements.

According to the March 2 remarks by Defense Minister Hulusi Akar, the number of ‘neutralized’ Syrian troops since the start of Operation Spring Shield reached 2,557. This is approximately 350 Syrian soldiers higher than was claimed on March 1. The main question is: “Does the Turkish defense minister really believe in the numbers that he provides?” It probably would be useful to not make such claims personally. Thus, he would be able to avoid blushing with shame. If the Syrian Army really suffers such casualties in only a few days, Turkish-led forces would easily achieve their declared goal of expelling Syrian troops of southern and eastern Idlib.

In reality, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan is going to Moscow on March 5 in order to negotiate a ceasefire. “My only wish is to end this struggle with victory and prevent further bloodshed, with a permanent cease-fire. For this, we are using all our diplomatic channels, along with our struggle in the field,” Erdogan told a gathering of ruling Justice and Development Party officials.

So, just a few days ago supporters of the Turkish operation were claiming that the mighty Turkish forces had already defeated the Assad regime and would soon enter the cities of Damascus and Aleppo. Now, the same sources are admiring the clever and forward-looking policy of the Turkish leader not to escalate the situation any further.

It would appear that things are not going the Turkish way in Idlib. When Erdogan and Putin reach another ceasefire, which will formally put an end to Ankara’s goal to push the Syrian Army out of the recently cleared areas, the same sources will likely declare this a Turkish victory. The 2nd strongest army in NATO appeared to be not capable of defeating Syrian forces, which are exhausted by a nearly 10-year long conflict, without suffering unacceptable losses.

The balance of power in Greater Idlib has once again changed. If the Turkish Army does not achieve some unexpected breakthrough, for example the capture of Maarat al-Numan, immediately, the main efforts of Turkish diplomacy will likely be focused on reaching an agreement that would prevent a Syrian advance on Idlib. This city is the main stronghold of al-Qaeda and the last really large urban center in the hands of militant groups in the region. The fall of Idlib into the hands of the Syrian Army would destroy all Turkish hopes to solidify its own influence in this part of Syria.

However, even a Russian-Turkish deal on Idlib city will likely not put an end to the anti-terrorism efforts of the Syrian Army and its allies. The town of Jisr al-Shughur, located near the M4 highway, is among possible targets of the upcoming operations. The town is currently controlled by the Turkistan Islamic Party, an al-Qaeda-linked group consisting of foreigners. So, mainstream media outlets can start preparing to defend another group of ‘moderate rebels’ that would be oppressed by the brutal Assad regime.

*

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

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

From Monroe to Trump. US Sponsored Military Coups in Latin America

March 4th, 2020 by Elson Concepción Pérez

The current U.S. President again threatens military action against Venezuela and continues sanctioning governments and companies with ties to the Bolivarian Republic and Cuba

***

More than 200 years have passed since James Monroe became the fifth president of the United States. Unlike Donald Trump, he had been a soldier, lawyer, senator, governor and even Secretary of State. Trump, the country’s 45th President, a multimillionaire inexperienced in politics, has done nothing more than repeat what was said and done by the inventor of the “America for Americans” doctrine.

What is common in what happened in 1823 and what is happening today is that Monroe’s philosophy is being dusted off by Trump, to making a reality of the notion that the nations of Latin America are Washington’s backyard.

The latest threat to Venezuela of a possible military intervention, the recent coup in Bolivia under the auspices of the Organization of American States (OAS), the tightening of the blockade of Cuba, destabilization in Nicaragua, and open interference in the internal affairs of countries in the region, where democratic governments have set the standards for development and sovereignty, do not come as a surprise.

“Here in the Western Hemisphere we are committed to maintaining our independence from the intrusion of expansionist foreign powers,” Trump stated at the United Nations General Assembly in New York in 2018. “It has been the formal policy of our country, since President James Monroe, that we reject interference by foreign nations in this hemisphere and in our own affairs,” he added cynically.

In February 2018, then-Secretary of State for the Trump administration, Rex Tillerson, said,

“the Monroe Doctrine is as relevant today as it was on the day it was written.”

On that same date, another member of the President’s group of hawks, John Bolton, said in an article in The Hill, that Russian interference in Latin America could inspire Trump to reaffirm the Monroe Doctrine.

This is how this first term of office is going, for a President who intends to be re-elected next November.

This is a state in which, in 1904, President Theodore Roosevelt established that if a European country threatened the rights or property of U.S. citizens or companies in a Latin American nation, the government was obliged to intervene in the affairs of that country to remedy the situation.

In these cases, we must consider what leaders of the U.S. empire have understood and understand today, regarding the rights or properties of U.S. citizens or companies.” The Helms-Burton Act made their pretensions law.

Let us not forget the long list of U.S. interventions in Latin American nations, to make sure their colonial status was not threatened, including invasions, coups and blockades, and other hostile actions. While, at the time, Washington denied its role in overthrowing governments, documents declassified years later by their own institutions reveal the truth.

The U.S. website Bloomberg recently noted that the United States continues to consider the military option to overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.

In the February 21 article, an official of the Trump administration was quoted as saying,

“President Donald Trump is frustrated that pressure is building too slowly on Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro and is still considering military options in the country, including a naval blockade.”

Invoking Monroe and his “doctrine,” Trump issued threatening warnings to companies that continue to do business with Venezuela, including India Reliance Industries; Repsol of Spain; the U.S. oil company Chevron; and several Greek shipping companies.

The article continues citing the unnamed official, “The administration continues to pursue what he called the Trump doctrine to foster democratic governments throughout the Western Hemisphere, akin to the Monroe Doctrine, which warned against European colonization efforts in the Americas two centuries ago,” adding that “Venezuela, Cuba and Nicaragua remain impediments” to this plan. Not much has changed in 197 years.

U.S.-backed coups in Latin America and the Caribbean over the last 70 years. Photo: RT

In Context

US-backed Coups in Latin America and the Caribbean 1948-2019

Venezuela 1948 and 2002

  • November 24, 1948, President Rómulo Gallegos was deposed
  • Coup against President Hugo Chavez fails on April 11, 2002

Paraguay 1954

  • In May, General Alfredo Stroessner led a coup against President Federico Chaves and installed a bloody dictatorship

Guatemala 1954

  • In June, coup against Guatemalan President Jacobo Arbenz

Dominican Republic 1963

  • In September, President John Bosch overthrown

Brazil 1964

  • On March 31, a coup against President João Goulart, followed by 21 years of dictatorship

Argentina 1966 and 1976

  • In June of 1966, President Arturo Illia overthrown by a coup
  • In 1976 another coup took place, this time against President María Estela Martínez de Perón

Bolivia 1971 and 2019

  • On August 21, 1971, Hugo Banzer Suárez led a coup
  • Coup against re-elected President Evo Morales on November 10, 2019

Uruguay 1973

  • Juan Maria Bordaberry, with the support of the CIA, established a de facto government

Chile 1973

  • Military coup against Salvador Allende, led by Augusto Pinochet with full support of the CIA

El Salvador 1979

  • October 15, President Carlos Humberto Romero overthrown, causing a civil war that lasted 12 years and left at least 70,000 dead and thousands more missing.

Panama 1989

  • December 20, direct intervention by more than 20,000 U.S. soldiers to overthrow the President and massacre the civilian population

Peru 1992

  • On April 5, President Alberto Fujimori carried out a “self-coup” in his country, with the support of the Armed Forces

Haiti 2004

  • On February 29, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide forced to leave the country

Honduras 2009

  • In June, coup staged against President Manuel Zelaya

*

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

Source: RT News

Britain is circling the plughole. So many things are wrong on so many levels it’s difficult to know where to start. After the banks crashed the economy, austerity followed. One £trillion was added to the national debt. Half was thrown down the drain to appease banks that were threatening financial armageddon if they were not bailed out. The other half was thrown at the economy to stop an economic disaster that would have resulted in riots across the country. Ten years later, an austerity ravaged country is almost on its knees. And now this.

There is now a crisis everywhere you look. The NHS, housing and homelessness, policing, disabled, the vulnerable – it goes on and on.

Austerity inflicted deep cuts to local authorities who, in turn, were forced to cut social care. The yawning gap between demand and supply gets wider each year.  And the social care crisis starkly demonstrates that Britain is unable to look after its elderly.

At the other end of the struggle of daily life is another section of our society that is now in free-fall.

The UK has been accused of employing “inadequate” provision for children’s rights protection after it fell dramatically in global rankings for child rights.  Within two years, Britain’s world-class ranking has collapsed from 11th to 170th. Yes, you read that right – from 11th to 170th out of 181 countries. Last year, the plunge was to 156th and the plunge continues. The usual suspects for top slots are – Iceland, Portugal, Finland, Switzerland and Germany.

The UK now ranks among the bottom 10 global performers in the arena of improving rights of the child, after it achieved the lowest-possible score across all six available indicators in the domain of Child Rights Environment (CRE), according to the KidsRights Index. Afghanistan, a decades-long war-torn territory, now just handed back to the Taliban ranks just 11 places behind the UK.

The index is an annual ranking that measures to what extent children’s rights are respected worldwide, and especially which efforts these 181 ranked countries are enacting to improve the rights of children. Data is collated from Unicef and the United Nations Committee.

Serious concerns have been raised about structural discrimination in the UK, including Muslim children facing increased discrimination following recent anti-terrorism measures, and a rise in discrimination against refugee children in recent years.

In light of the findings, Lord Philip Hunt, shadow deputy leader of the House of Lords and shadow health spokesperson, accused the Government of “inactivity” and “inadequate service provision”, urging it to do more to protect the rights of the child.

Marc Dullaert, founder and chairman of the KidsRights Foundation, meanwhile urged the UK to treat non-discrimination as a policy priority and to speed up the process of aligning its child protection laws with the Convention on the Rights of the Child at both the national and devolved levels.

Discrimination against vulnerable groups of children and youths is severely hampering opportunities for future generations to reach their full potential,” Mr Dullaert said.

Since the Brexit vote in 2016, racism has been rapidly rising. Nearly three quarters from ethic minorities now report that they are facing discrimination. A nationwide study ten months ago showed that – “Ethnic minorities in Britain are facing rising and increasingly overt racism, with levels of discrimination and abuse continuing to grow in the wake of the Brexit referendum.”

Divisive rhetoric in public, encouraged by politicians has made matters dramatically worse with racial discrimination jumping almost 50 per cent in just three years. Both the Conservatives and Labour have been tainted by allegations of Islamophobia and antisemitism respectively and this only encourages racists in public.

This report from KidsRightsIndex simply feeds into the narrative that even if you’re a young vulnerable child, a refugee with legally protected status, it means nothing in modern-day Britain. This is the “hostile environment” in action that the government instigated, propagated and expanded that now persecutes even the most innocent.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

The American ruling class clearly fears that Bernie Sanders might become president of the U.S.. Due to his massive victory in the Democratic primary vote in the state of Nevada, and his ever-growing support across the U.S., the American intelligence agencies, establishment political figures, and corporate media have launched a concerted campaign aimed at destroying his campaign for the U.S. presidency. 

Based on lies, and no facts, they absurdly contend that Bernie Sanders is somehow associated with or supported inside the U.S. by the Russian government.  Typical is a front-page New York Times article under the headline  ‘Seeking Chaos, Moscow Places Its Bets in U.S.,’  Nothing in the article backs up this headline other than a series of statements attributed to unidentified ‘intelligence sources’ and others suggesting that ‘somehow’ Moscow supports Sanders.

In reality the American ruling class, including the Democratic and Republican party establishments, and their media accomplices, fear of Sanders has nothing to do with Russia.  They fear him because his campaign is based on a direct appeal to the interests of American workers, the vast majority of the American people, and  is opposed to their interests.

First, they fear that as president Sanders would actually try to enact his capitalist reformist program, which would – to a very limited degree – cut across their interests and power.  That program includes legislation to curtail the power of Wall Street and finance capital; reduce the power and wealth of the gigantic pharmaceutical and health industry through universal government medical insurance; and somewhat reduce the power of the military-intelligence system by reducing military expenditures and ending middle east wars.

Second, they fear him because they fear the American working class and he does not fear it; he considers it his political base.  His entire campaign and politics is based not on identity politics predicated on which religions, ethnicity, gender, or race people belong to; it is based on the opposite premise of uniting the vast majority of Americans based on their common identity as workers their common interests as members of the working class.

Third, they fear him because as president  it would be within the scope of his politics, or those of his supporters, to mobilize extra-congressional working class mass support for his limited program including mass demonstrations like a ‘march for social equality’ or a ‘march for universal health care’ or a ‘march against war’ in Washington.

This in turn might unleash social forces far beyond anything Sanders might intend, as his mission is to secure limited social reforms within capitalism.

To be clear, Sanders is not a socialist despite labeling himself as one.  He supports both the American capitalist state and its capitalist economy.  He talks of the  ‘billionaire class’ but favors only legislation which would reign it in to a limited degree but leave it, and finance capital intact.  Moreover, his past support for the war-monger and anti-working class campaign for president of Hillary Clinton, and his campaign for president through the democratic party are real stoppers.

But Sanders is not the charlatan as portrayed sometimes by socialists or others; he’s an old-fashioned reform minded, capitalist social democrat who thinks capitalism can be reformed and that the Democratic party can be reformed.  If he becomes the U.S. president, his limited program, which in no  way threatens the fundamental interests of the capitalist class, will nevertheless face formidable obstacles, including the democratic party itself, the military-intelligence apparatus, and a congress stuffed with millionaires who represent not the working class but finance capital and big business.

To deal with these obstacles, a president Sanders will face two stark choices.  He will need to either retreat step-by-step from his left-reformist program, or he will need to push through these obstacles through mass extra-congressional social  mobilization by him or his supporters, potentially including mass marches on Washington, mass meetings across the country, and novel uses of the internet such as a ‘vote for progress’ website inviting all workers to register their approval for the Sanders programs which would directly benefit them.

To be clear, Sanders role model is not real socialists or real socialism, past or present butt Franklin Roosevelt and Roosevelt’s 1930’s capitalist ‘New Deal’, which introduced the social security old age pension, legislation to make union organizing easier, and large-scale government employment to build U.S. infrastructure.  Sanders rhetoric rise and his programs and politics are derived to a large degree from Roosevelt’s.  It’s highly instructive to listen to Roosevelt’s First Inaugural speech to see where Sanders is coming from: see this.

*

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

My father, a well-educated lawyer with a very sophisticated mind, used to advise me to “keep it simple.” By simple he didn’t mean simplistic.  He meant fundamentally logical and to the point. So I will do that here and stick to some simple realities, now that understanding what is going on in the world has become an idiot’s game played by the corporate mass media to confuse people.

I have been writing about the dangers of technology for many years. Not all technology, of course, for the pencil I am writing this with is a technology, and an amazing and underappreciated one. I am referring to the techno-scientific, digital, high-tech sort, the world of computers, cell phones, genetic engineering, biological weapons development, etc.  You know, all the stuff that has made our lives easier.

Two of the major problems the world faces – world destruction with nuclear weapons and the poisoning of the earth’s ecology and atmosphere – are the result of the marriage of science and technique that has given birth to the technological “babies” (Little Boy and Fat Man) that were used by the U.S. to massacre hundreds of thousands of Japanese and now threaten to incinerate everyone, and the chemical and toxic inventions that have despoiled the earth, air, and water and continue to kill people worldwide through America’s endless war-making and industrial applications.

Technology and technique, the technical way of thinking that undergirds it, are what we should fear most, not the will-o’-the-wisps marched out daily by the corporate mass media to create fear and panic. Those are ghost fears that should only frighten children.  But as I have written before, most Americans are children, living inside a doll’s house of illusions and delusions while government and intelligence forces and their mass media accomplices play with them through technological propaganda.

For every problem caused by technology, a technological “solution” is always offered that creates further technological problems ad infinitum.  But since people have been taught to love technology, they embrace the alleged technological “solutions” that are necessitated by the problems caused by the original technology.  It’s a circle game.

In our technopoly, logical thinking has become illogical; cause and effect, means and ends have been inverted.  The causes of our problems are touted as the means to end them. These “solutions” are always offered with a straight face, as if they made perfect sense.  This is how societies operate when in the grip of myths.  In this case, the myths of science, progress, and history.  Such myths render the obvious invisible as they create a hopeless inevitability in people who can imagine no alternative and have been convinced that science is the secret to salvation and the means to the things they have learned to desire, including longevity and perhaps “immortality.” And these things have become the means to additional means in an endless loop from which, by definition, ends are absent.  As a result, the search for truth, celebrated as a goal of science, is slyly eliminated.  Keeping it simple becomes harder and harder.

The important point is that the entire system of propaganda works on fear that is promulgated via the electronic media: television, cell phones, and computers. It is pumped out non-stop.

The fear is the fear of death, the fundamental human fear that the powerful know how to manipulate to control people.

Death that can come at the hands of fabricated enemies, disease, or state forces that will get you if you step too far out of line. Russia, China, Iran, corona virus, Julian Assange, and Chelsey Manning being a few prominent recent examples of what to fear and what will become of you if you resist the fear-mongering and lies, and are brave.

Since today’s news is dominated by the fear of coronavirus, here is a partial list of other diseases that since 2003 we were told loudly and repeatedly would become pandemics and decimate the human race. Diseases to be very afraid of since they were coming for you if you weren’t very vigilant and forgot to wash your hands.

  • 2003 SARS
  • 2005 Avian Flu
  • 2009 Swine Flu
  • 2012 West Nile Virus
  • 2014 Ebola
  • 2016 Zika

Well, they didn’t, very far from it; they were like scam telephone calls that scare the gullible into believing the message that they will be immediately arrested if they don’t send $1,000 to Mr. X somewhere. But just like the color-coded terrorism warnings under George W. Bush, the pandemic alerts regularly pressed the panic button and kept fear in the air, until the panic balloon later burst under careful scrutiny, but at a point when most people had ingested the false fear of the earlier headlines and were not about to follow-up.

Now we have Coronavirus (COVID-19).  So beware.  Let us show you how to wash your hands and protect yourself.

Ten minutes viewing of any of the major television networks news shows is like entering a house of horrors at an amusement park.  After viewing one, you want to wear your football helmet and mask, go to bed, and never get up.  They ooze fear, as is their intent.

The game is both obvious and subtle.  Even while COVID-19 is hyped, here and there the media throw in exaggerated figures on the regular flu, as if to say: we are fair and objective; both are bad, even if the coronavirus might soon become a pandemic.

It’s akin to their saying Trump is really scary, but look how scary the socialist Sanders is.  You don’t want either.  You want the one we will tell you to want who will protect you.  Listen to us, for we are here to advise, so you will consent.

The news reports about the regular seasonal flu are most interesting.  If you peruse the media across all platforms, including alternative sources, you will see people repeating as fact the numbers of flu deaths in the U.S.A. so far this flu season (October 1, 2019 until today).

The numbers range from 12,000 to 18, 000 and higher, from CNN, CBS, NBC, etc.  Try it. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimates the “flu deaths” for this season will be 18,000 to 46,000.  However, if you dig down into the CDC figures and look at its table, which few do, you will see that the actual number of flu deaths claimed by the CDC for this season so far is 2,946. They also claim the number of cases is decreasing and this season doesn’t look particularly bad. (Go here, scroll down, and click on “View Data Chart”).

Isn’t that strange?  A bit of a simple discrepancy, wouldn’t you say?  Why would the CDC do that, and why would the media repeat it?

The CDC claims there will be 18,000-46,000 deaths this season but only 2,946 have so far died of the flu and the peak months for flu have ended.  Where are those 15,000-46,000 additional deaths going to come from?

What kind of game is going on here?

To repeat: the essential fear that the powerful use to manipulate and control people is the fear of death.  Death in many guises: physical, social, psychological, etc. But the fear of death must be used in a way that is very confusing and scrambles people’s thinking while it frightens them.

If we keep it simple and examine what there really is to fear, it is the growth of the sophisticated modern technology in the hands of governments and corporations that has destroyed privacy, poisoned people and the earth, created digital dementia on a vast scale, allowed propaganda to flourish as never before, and is poised to blow the world to smithereens with nuclear weapons.

Then, of course there is the biologic disease warfare research and development that the U.S.A. has been involved in since it brought the German scientists here after WW II (Operation Paperclip) to continue the work they did for Hitler.  Genetic research and the creation of virulent forms of viruses and bacteria became twisted into a system of science and medicine funded by the government to serve duel purposes that have become hard to distinguish.

So instead of panicking, perhaps it is better to ask some simple questions and seek simple answers.  Maybe start by checking the CDC data and then asking what those anthrax attacks following the attacks of September 11, 2001 were all about, and why the U.S.A. refused in the summer of 2001 to sign the Protocol to the 1975 Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) that would have added verification procedures to the BWC.  Maybe read Graeme Mac Queen’s eye-opening book, The 2001 Anthrax Deception.

Maybe see that the mass media reports about the coronavirus conceal more than they reveal.

Keep it simple and question.      

*

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

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

Featured image is from SHTFplan.com

March 2nd, was the birthday of Dr. Aafia Siddiqui. People may be forgiven (should they be?) for forgetting about Aafia since these seventeen birthdays of hers have gone by with her incarcerated, humiliated, tortured, and God knows what in one American gulag to another. But these seem to be ‘minor’ details right now.

In the brouhaha surrounding the US-Taliban ‘Peace Deal,’ the usual self-congratulatory political theatrics have been on full display. The post-9/11 Afghan theatre of the war OF terror has been the longest external war waged by the US in its entire history, putting aside the even longer internal genocidal war against indigenous Native Americans. The imperial war has lasted longer than both world wars combined.

Screenshot Urdu Point

The US/NATO war and occupation of Afghanistan offers a glaring case of what US Senator Fulbright (yes, the one who started the Fulbright program of scholarships and exchanges) called the ‘arrogance of power’ (of his country), his book being of the same title. The wealthiest and most powerful nation in the history of the world, with a war machine on steroids, invading and occupying for nearly two decades one of the poorest countries on the planet – and one which had already undergone two decades of uninterrupted internecine war in the prior two decades.

Applying the term arrogance here would be a gross understatement. Imperial state criminality and terror against just another ‘shithole’ (to quote the current ‘genius’ American president) nation would be more appropriate.

For those who suffer from historical amnesia and Western propaganda and lies – the both go hand in hand – some quick refreshing of our memory may be useful. There were no Afghans among the terrorists of 9/11. The Taliban government in Afghanistan both denounced the attack and was willing to cooperate with the Bush administration, according to all the rules of customary international law, if provided evidence by the US of involvement of terrorists located inside Afghanistan.

Image on the right: FBI composite image of Siddiqui for the FBI wanted poster. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

black-and-white headshot of dark-haired, unsmiling woman with dark eyes

But the Taliban and Afghan society as a whole had to learn the hard way what dozens upon dozens of ‘shithole’ countries of the Global South have experienced throughout the 20th and 21st century. That is, Uncle Sam requires no evidence, no compelling or even not-so-compelling rationale, and no permission or authorization from the UN or anyone, to effectively implement America’s third great holocaust in its short history – that being the war against the Third World. The first two holocausts, of course, being that against the indigenous population followed by that against black African bodies captured, brutalized, and enslaved.

But to be fair, there were some post facto – after the war had already begun on the Afghan people – justifications offered for why the US/NATO invasion was indispensable at this moment.

Three of the central reasons concocted were: 1) to get rid of the worst regime ever (the Taliban) with whom we will never negotiate; 2) to ‘liberate’ Afghan women from under the Taliban tyranny they live; and 3) to end the opium production completely because it ostensibly is so odious to ‘civilized’ American sensibilities.

Many liberals and much of the international community bought into this ‘savior complex’ syndrome in which the US takes such pride. The anti-war movement knew better. On all three fronts, the fraud and lies have been so nakedly exposed that Washington no longer even tries to articulate any type of justification for its fiasco in the land called the ‘graveyard of Empires.’

Those who the US said it will annihilate and never talk to are precisely the ones who Uncle Sam was humiliatingly forced to negotiate with now.

The plight of Afghan women, particularly outside of Kabul, is as bad if not worse than it was before the American invasion and occupation. Not to mention that Afghan women (and men, and children) don’t really get ‘liberated’ when bombs are dropping on their heads.

And perhaps the biggest scandal of all is that, at around the time of the US invasion, the UN had openly declared that the Taliban had dramatically reduced opium production because of their official policy of banning the production altogether.

Indeed, the most insidious deception that the Americans have played on this front is that the CIA, like in many of its other operations over the course of the past century, has benefitted enormously from the opium profits to fills its coffers for its rat lines that lead to its subversive and regime change clandestine activities all across the region. This is well-documented by now.

The American ‘war of revenge’ on Afghanistan was meant to be merely the first quick step to greater prizes in the heart of West Asia, including Iraq, Syria, and the Empire’s ‘golden calf,’ Iran. 9/11, as Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice disgustingly stated, presented an ‘opportunity.’ The world found out very quickly what she meant by this term. It was an ‘opportunity’ to maintain and deepen American imperial hegemony over the last remaining few ‘stubborn’ nations that don’t behave as ‘good Muslims’ like the House of Saud or the Sisi regime of Egypt. When the American empire asks these ‘good’ and ‘moderate’ Muslim regimes to jump, their enthusiastic and uniform response is: how high, master? Sadly, some like the Iranians don’t play that game and therefore imperial disciplining is necessitated for them and their ilk in the region.

The prolonged US presence in a war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Afghans and Pakistanis has been a power play to project waning American power against the growing multipolarity and strategic partnerships building in this crucial region. The central mission of the American imperial presence, with its satrap New Dehli, in Afghanistan became to sabotage and subvert the grand Eurasian integration plans by China, Russia, and Iran – the three crucial players in China’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). And one can add Pakistan and Turkey to that list as well. The American political establishment is only interested in militarism, wars, weapons, bases, etc., and cannot fathom regional and global projects that are not interested in this ludicrous madness. Countries of the Global South, and particularly those who are directly connected to the initiative of Eurasian integration, desire prosperity for their nations, not death and destruction – the latter which seems to the name of the game for the American empire.

Of course, now we have a US-Taliban ‘deal’ that will allow Trump and the Pentagon to conceal the fact of the most powerful military machine in human history being defeated by an ethnic Pashtun resistance that was steadfast in its resolve to evict the occupiers. How long the truce called for in the ‘deal’ will last is anyone’s guess, but the imperial ‘wounded tiger’ surely must be getting tired of reckless defeats and fiascos everywhere it touches these days. On the other hand, addiction to hegemony and war don’t go away easily.

Nevertheless, the concern of Afghans and Pakistanis who have been killed and whose societies have been devastated by this ‘Af-Pak’ theatre of the war OF terror, should centrally be: restorative justice. Justice for all the drone victims, families and communities bombed during weddings and funerals, humiliating night raids into people’s homes in villages and towns. Justice for those who have had to endure one of the most corrupt puppet regimes for two decades that doled out billions of dollars to its favored warlords and family/clan members, while the people were left hungry, without even semi-decent education and health care. Justice for those who have been displaced and killed in the hundreds of thousands in Northwest Pakistan because Uncle Sam needed Islamabad to conduct military operations against its own people. And justice most of all for those who have had to endure the torture chambers and gulags of American empire, from Bagram to solitary confinement in supermax prisons in the US.

One of the clauses of the ‘deal’ is a significant prisoner exchange. Roughly five thousand POWs are to be returned to the Taliban. There is one Pakistani woman who has shamefully been caught in the venality of this entire American project. This piece started by mentioning her birthday yesterday. Dr. Aafia Siddiqui should be at the very top of that list of brutalized prisoners for whom justice and dignity must immediately be restored by their release.

*

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. Junaid S. Ahmad is professor of religion and world politics in Lahore, Pakistan.

British government propaganda unit ran covert campaigns across the Middle East for several years at the height of the Cold War, distributing Islamic messages in a bid to counter the appeal of communism.

Recently declassified official papers show that the Information Research Department (IRD), a then-secret division of the UK Foreign Office, commissioned a series of sermons that were reproduced and distributed throughout the Arabic-speaking world.

The papers show that the unit also arranged for articles to be inserted in magazines published by Al-Azhar University in Cairo, “to ensure that every student leaves the University a resolute opponent of Communism”.

In an attempt to reach as wide an audience as possible, the IRD also published and distributed across the region a series of Arabic-language romantic and detective novels, within which anti-communist messages were embedded.

These stressed that Soviet communism was essentially atheistic in philosophy and practice, and claimed that Moscow aimed to sow political disorder and economic chaos in the Middle East.

Information Research Department

The papers also shed new light on the way in which the British government covertly controlled or influenced many of the radio stations and news agencies in the Middle East from the 1940s to the late 1960s. Some details of these operations became public after the IRD was shut down in 1977.

However, the latest tranche of declassified papers appear to show the IRD to have been particularly sensitive about what its officials termed “religious operations”, in which they attempted to utilise Islam as a bulwark against communism.

Marked Secret or Top Secret, many of the papers are being declassified after 50 or 60 years; nevertheless, some passages were blacked out by government censors before they were made public at the UK National Archives.

Subterfuge, bribery and sermons

The IRD was set up in 1948 in order to continue the work of a wartime body called the Political Warfare Executive. For the next 29 years it ran a number of newspapers, magazines, news agencies, radio stations and publishing houses, in order to spread unattributed anti-communist propaganda across much of the world.

Its favoured method, however, was to place stories in established newspapers and to covertly brief opinion formers. This was achieved on occasion by subterfuge or bribery, although early on, a senior IRD official, John Peck, warned that bribery might not always work.

“I have serious doubts about the value of bribery as a means of getting anti-communist articles in the press,” he wrote.

“I am told that except in Jordan and possibly in Syria the circulation of those Middle East newspapers which are open to bribery is small and their individual influence negligible.”

In the same memorandum, he summed up the reason for IRD material being distributed without attribution:

“However valid our arguments may be, the fact that they are our arguments makes them suspect to the Arabs. We can only overcome this difficulty by presenting the same arguments through an Arab intermediary.”

Despite Peck’s wariness, bribery continued to be used as a means of distributing propaganda material across the region.

Although financed through the same unpublished budget as Britain’s intelligence services, the newly-released papers show that the IRD also received funding from the oil industry.

“It is true that in the last year we have been receiving clandestine financial assistance from oil companies,” a memo to IRD director Ralph Murray, marked Top Secret, noted in 1954.

But the Middle East was seeing “the emergence of a state of total ideological warfare”, the author claimed. “And while such help is appreciated, the amount is completely inadequate to our vital needs.”

Information Research Department

The newly declassified papers contain a number of references to “religious operations”. Frequently these references are concerned with the financing of such propaganda campaigns, rather than the means of delivery. “You will note that we are including new budgetary provision for £1,000 to cover ‘Religious Operations’” is one typical entry.

Some details of the campaigns do emerge, however. In February 1950, for example, two years after the IRD was set up, its representative at the British embassy in Cairo informed London: “The Friday sermon has always been recognised as one of the most important way [sic] of spreading propaganda in the Moslem world.”

“We have now devised a scheme for ensuring that anti-Communist themes are adequately dealt with. A series of sermons has been written here.”

This was still happening 10 years later, as a top-secret memo from Beirut from August 1960 makes clear: “We hope to produce two short pamphlets or sermons a month on religious subjects. They will be written by Sheikh Saad al Din Trabulsi, formerly of the Beirut Moslem Tribunal (sharia) and now of Zahle Moslem Tribunal, who is well-known as a pious Moslem.”

“Two thousand copies of each would be distributed unattributably … throughout the Arabic-speaking world (less Iraq). Recipients will be Sheikhs, other leading Moslem personalities, Mosques and Muslim education establishments.”

The intermediary between the IRD and Trabulsi is named in the files as a man called Rivera, although this is possibly a codename.

Another intermediary between the IRD and individuals described as “religious operators” is named in the files as Talaat Dajani, a Palestinian refugee living in Beirut. Dajani later moved to London, where he received a medal of honour from the Queen in 1979, and died in 1992.

The whole Trabulsi operation, the IRD representative explained to London, would cost around 8,800 Lebanese pounds, or around £1,000 sterling, a year.

Information Research Department

Although Iraq was excluded from that campaign, the country was on occasion the subject of IRD religious operations. In 1953, for example, IRD headquarters wrote to its man in Baghdad, saying: “We would like to know more about your ‘pilot’ scheme for the covert dissemination of propaganda in the Shia holy places since it may suggest ideas which could be used outside Iraq.

“Is the scheme connected with the working party’s proposal to make Friday sermons prepared in Beirut available to certain Shia divines?”

IRD officials saw another chance to make use of “religious operations” in Iraq following the attempted assassination of the country’s prime minister, Abd al-Karim Qasim, as he was being driven through Baghdad in October 1959.

There had been a “remarkable religious revival” following the attempt, the unit noted. “Workmen engaged in demolition work near the site of the attempted assassination had discovered the tomb of a Moslem holy man; this story had been widely publicized and had given substance to the popular belief that the Premier had been miraculously preserved. It was agreed that there would be an advantage in giving wider circulation to the story.

“Religious stickers have been appearing in Baghdad and the possibility of augmenting them is to be considered.”

Disruption and influence operations

The following April, a conference of Middle East-based IRD officers was held in Beirut. The minutes of what was described as a “restricted session on covert propaganda” show that Ralph Murray “listed the targets at which we should aim to disrupt or influence”.

Those to be disrupted included communist parties and hostile propaganda agencies. This was at a time when printing presses inside Soviet embassies were thought to be producing 10,000 copies of a newspaper entitled Akhbar every day.

Those to be influenced, on the other hand, included young people, women, trades unions, teachers’ organisations, the armed forces and religious leaders.

The representative from the British embassy in Baghdad explained that Iraq “was now an important target for religious material”, at which point, the minutes say, IRD officers based in Amman and Khartoum “also pressed strongly for supplies of sermons and religious articles, which they said they could easily place”.

The files make clear that several governments in the region connived with the IRD and would assist in the distribution of sermons and the placement of newspaper and magazine articles.

The IRD’s man in Baghdad also “emphasised that the Iraqi army was an important target” and suggested that arrangements might be made for selected officers to visit the UK, with the trip appearing to be arranged by bodies with no clear connection to the British government.

He also noted that in Basra, the same press was being used to print both communist and non-communist newspapers, and said that “the judicious use of some financial inducement would probably make it possible to put the Communist paper out of business if that were thought to be desirable”.Information Research Department

Delegates were briefed on the propaganda efforts of other members of the Baghdad Pact: the Cold War alliance of Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Pakistan and the UK that was dissolved in 1979. The IRD enjoyed extensive contacts with Baghdad Pact governments, offering both propaganda materials and technical support.

“In practice,” the delegates were told, “only the Turks are really active, having achieved the publication in the Turkish press of 25-30 articles a month prepared by a writers’ panel.”

Finally, the secret conference was informed that HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] was running two newspapers published in Bahrain: al Khalij and its English-language sister paper, the Gulf Times.

One paragraph in the minutes of the session notes that delegates were told that these newspapers were “exceptional”, in that IRD “preferred to work through staff of established newspapers”.

These minutes are among the papers that have been declassified and handed to the UK National Archives. But, 60 years after the conference, the subsequent paragraph remains blacked out.

Nasser and the Suez crisis

From the end of the Second World War to the late 1960s, successive British governments appear to have used intelligence and propaganda in an attempt to preserve strategic and economic interests in the Middle East at a time when they were struggling to retain influence.

Earlier disclosures about the IRD’s activities have shown that while some senior British diplomats in the region were highly enthusiastic, others were sceptical, fearing that exposure would exacerbate anti-British sentiment.

This is exactly what did happen, at a time and place where the British were about to take their last fling of the imperial dice: in 1956, in Egypt.

The IRD had been highly active in Egypt from the organisation’s inception. As an IRD paper written in Cairo in 1950 noted: “Conditions in Egypt are such as to make it eminently suitable breeding ground for Communism.”

The author went on to highlight “acute maldistribution between rich and poor” and the concentration of land in the hands of a small proportion of the population.

Information Research Department

Nevertheless, he wrote:

“This paper deals with the use of British-inspired propaganda. It does not deal with the more important problem of positive action to remedy the social and economic conditions likely to assist the spread of Communism.”

Instead, the author explained, the IRD was targeting the students at Al-Azhar University on the grounds that “from among them come the Imams who preach the Friday sermon in every Egyptian Mosque; the teachers of Arabic in the secondary schools and all teachers in the village schools; and the lawyers specializing in Moslem law”.

The organisation was also arranging for “the production in drafts in English of short love or detective novels, or thrillers, embodying anti-Communist propaganda but following their local counterparts as closely as possible in presentation etc.

“The Information Department, Cairo, would arrange for the drafts to be rewritten in Arabic by local hacks, and for them to be published locally.”

The unit would also “investigate the feasibility of producing short love or thriller magazine stories (of about 2,000 words) with an anti-Communist twist”.

The jewel in the IRD’s crown in Cairo was the Arab News Agency (ANA), one of several media organisations that British intelligence had set up during the Second World War.

Like other news agencies and radio stations that had been established in Beirut, Tripoli, Sharjah, Bahrain and Aden, ANA came under the control of the IRD after that organisation was founded in 1948.

To those on the outside, ANA appeared to be part of Hulton Press, a large company owned by Edward Hulton, a Fleet Street media baron. In fact, Hulton had allowed his company to give cover to the IRD and Britain’s overseas intelligence agency, MI6.

As well as distributing genuine news stories, gathered by Egyptian and British journalists, the agency disseminated propaganda produced by IRD, and became a base for MI6 officers masquerading as journalists.

In March 1956, with relations between the UK and Egypt deteriorating sharply, the UK Foreign Office instructed the IRD to switch its focus away from communism and towards the government led by Gamal Abdel Nasser – who had been engaged in propaganda operations against the British for some years.

The following July, after Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal Company – taking control of the waterway that the British considered to be the jugular vein of their empire – the UK’s propaganda and espionage efforts under the cover of ANA rapidly picked up pace.

Anthony Eden, the British prime minister, had long been convinced that Nasser was under the influence of the Kremlin – although the British ambassador in Cairo, Humphrey Trevelyan, disagreed – and MI6 began considering whether the Egyptian president could be assassinated.

Poison gas was one favoured option; an exploding electric razor was another.

Instead, as the Suez Crisis began to unfold, Eden vetoed the murder plot and the British decided to engage in several months of psychological warfare in Cairo, followed by military intervention.

A powerful new radio transmitter was erected in Iraq, broadcasting programmes from Arabic stations around the region that were covertly under British control, an operation that was for a while given the codename Transmission X.

As the British, French and Israelis plotted to invade Egypt and occupy the area around the canal, a steady stream of IRD and MI6 propaganda specialists began to appear at the ANA’s offices in Cairo.

This had not gone unnoticed by the Egyptian government, however, and in August, just weeks before the invasions, all of the agency’s operations – news reporting, spreading propaganda and gathering intelligence – were brought to an abrupt halt.

Egyptian secret police raided its offices and the homes of several of its staff. Eleven Egyptians were accused of being spies working for MI6 officers based at the agency; one, Sayed Amin Mahmoud, a teacher, was executed, and his son, a naval officer, was jailed for life.

Two MI6 agents who helped to manage the agency were subjected to lengthy interrogation and jailed. Others were tried in their absence, and two British diplomats and four journalists were expelled.

However, the British head of the agency – who was also a correspondent for the Economist and the London-based Times newspapers, escaped arrest: it appears that the Egyptian government may have been feeding him disinformation, and wished to continue.

Information Research Department

In the event, IRD simply set up a new Arab News Agency, from offices in Beirut, with staff in London, Cairo, Amman and Damascus.

By 1960, according to one of the recently-declassified files, few people working at the agency’s Beirut headquarters were aware that it was controlled by the British government; IRD staff were warned “therefore to be cautious in their dealings” with them.

In March that year the senior IRD officer at the British embassy in Beirut wrote to London to say: “Of our secret information operations, I … attach the greatest importance to the Arab News Agency. There is no doubt they are doing the most useful work throughout the area and they run a good office here.”

Reuters and the BBC

The recently declassified documents also shed new light on the way in which in the 1960s the British government persuaded Reuters, the international news agency, to take over the operations run by two IRD fronts, Regional News Service (Middle East) and Regional News Service (Latin America). The relationship between Reuters and the IRD was first exposed in the 1980s.

The government funded these Reuters operations through the BBC. It began paying the BBC enhanced fees for its World Service operations, and the BBC in turn paid Reuters extra sums for receiving its news feed.

While the IRD accepted that it could not exercise editorial control over Reuters, the declassified papers show it did believe that it would gain “a measure of political influence”.

Some of the IRD’s Cold War activities in the Middle East and North Africa remain secret, however, with many of its old files remaining classified on national security grounds.

Not all of the papers on Reuters and the Arab News Agency have been transferred to the UK National Archive, for example. One dating from 1960, with the catalogue description “renegotiation of contract between Reuters and the Arab News Agency”, is among the IRD files that remain classified.

Another that has been withheld by the UK Foreign Office is known to contain papers from 1960 and is entitled “Information Research Department: Jordanian television”.

Other withheld files concern efforts to distribute IRD material through the Maghreb Arab Press news agency after it was set up in 1959, or have titles like “Information Research Department: Arab trade unions”.

Many of the titles of the classified IRD files are themselves classified: the UK National Archives catalogue simply lists them as “Title withheld”.

Reputational damage?

The United States was also an enthusiastic purveyor of propaganda in the Middle East throughout the Cold War. Material created and distributed by the US Information Service tended to promote the idea of common western and Islamic values rather than attack Communism.

The recently declassified files are all concerned with British campaigns, however.

With the IRD being shut down in 1977 – in part, because too many people had become aware of its existence and activities – two questions remain.

The first is: did their campaigns have an impact on people’s attitudes and behaviour?

Throughout the Cold War, many British diplomats in the Middle East were sceptical about the IRD’s efforts. Some argued repeatedly that communism had only limited appeal in the region, and that Arab nationalism posed a greater threat to the UK’s interests than Moscow.

Even in Iraq – which the IRD appears to have believed to be more susceptible to communist influence than Egypt – some of Britain’s envoys had their doubts.

One diplomat wrote from Baghdad to the IRD in 1955 to explain: “The Arabs have no means of checking the accuracy of our allegations about the iniquities of the Communist system … but they have the means, as they believe, of checking Russian propaganda about French and British wickedness in the Persian Gulf and North Africa.

“In our experience, it is barely possible to interest the politically conscious Iraqi in the Communist system at all.”

Looking back, a number of historians remain equally sceptical.

Vyvyan Kinross, author of Information Warriors, a forthcoming book about the battles for hearts and minds in the Middle East, believes that Eden’s attempts to demonise Nasser in 1956 left him looking hopelessly out of touch, and propelled Britain into disastrous military action.

The failed propaganda war contributed to “a general collapse of Britain’s reputation for honesty and fair dealing in the region”, Kinross says.

James Vaughan, lecturer in international history at Aberystwyth University in Wales, who has extensively studied western Cold War propaganda in the Middle East, concludes: “The history of British propaganda in Egypt demonstrates how the decline of British influence was a well-advanced phenomenon, several years before Nasser’s decision to nationalise the Suez Canal Company.”

The second question is: what happened after the IRD was closed in 1977?

An intriguing answer to this question was provided by Adnan Abu-Odeh, who served as information minister in the government of King Hussein of Jordan.

Abu-Odeh would have been on MI6’s radar at the time. He was Palestinian who had risen through the ranks of the Jordanian secret police and been handpicked for the job by the king.

At the time the kingdom was going through a major crisis, which became known as Black September, when the Jordanian Armed Forces attacked and expelled the PLO under the leadership of Yasser Arafat from the refugee camps in Jordan.

The crisis was resolved when Palestinian fighters known as the fedayeen were escorted to Syria.

In an interview with Middle East Eye in 2018, Abu-Odeh explained how he was sent to England in the early 1970s, to be trained by the IRD.

While working as an intelligence officer, Abu-Odeh said, he was approached by the country’s newly-appointed director of intelligence. “He said to me: ‘His Majesty wants you to go on a course in London at the IRD.’

“I said to him: ‘What is the IRD? I didn’t know.”

Later, he was sent back to England to study psychological warfare at a military academy.

“The king was preparing me to become minister of information, on the advice of MI6. The IRD taught me their tactics and methods.

“When I became minister of information, I trained one or two people how to do it.”

Although there is no confirmation in the recently declassified IRD files, it seems entirely possible that before it was disbanded, the organisation trained other government officials across 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.

Washington-led NATO’s War on Syria and Syrians

March 3rd, 2020 by Mark Taliano

Washington-led NATO and their allies support all of the terrorists in Syria, hence, the terrorists are appropriately named NATO terrorists. NATO has command and control (1) of all of the terrorists. Turkey, currently in the limelight for its supreme criminality, is a member of NATO.

The Caliphate Project (2) is appropriately named a “CIA Caliphate” again, since Washington is responsible for these terrorist gangs and their mission in Syria.

A significant part of the terrorist mission is “destabilization”. “Destabilization” means “to destroy”. The terrorists, in concert with the West, destroy everything.

One example would be civilian infrastructure. The terrorists have been committing war crimes for years now by destroying power and water plants, and the repair of these plants is further hindered because the criminal economic blockade that the West imposes on Syria impedes rehabilitation and rebuilding of said plants. Additionally, NATO terrorists have for years targeted and murdered workers who work on repairing NATO-destroyed infrastructure.

The Syrian Solidarity Movement reported in 2019 that,

“over 12,000 fellow union members were either killed or injured by terror groups in the last 8 years, and the fate of over 3000 kidnapped members is still unknown. Yet none of this is ever reported or relayed in western media.   Many of the workers were subjected to draconian and barbaric torture by the terror groups before they were killed, like the mutilation that happened to Issa Mahmood Hassan in Homs. Issa was a gas storage facility manager who was ambushed on his way to work and killed by armed militants belonging the so called “moderate rebels”. After severing his head from his body, they used his mobile phone to call his wife and describe in detail what they did to her husband. Other examples include the killing of railway workers while they were trying to repair the railway tracks between Aleppo and Hama in September 2011; the killing of electricians who were trying to repair electrical cables in Deir Ez-Zour and Homs and the atrocity committed in August 2012 by the so called “moderate rebels” in Al-Baba, in the North of Aleppo Province, where the rebels threw post office workers off the roof of their work building.” (3)

In the following interview, conducted by Vanessa Beeley in #Mhardeh Syria, Syrian Ali Haifa describes the hardships that all Syrians face as they confront the full spectrum terrorist warfare that NATO and its allies are inflicting on Syria.

The financial costs of restoring terrorist-destroyed electrical infrastructure alone is not insignificant:

The war on Syria is a war on every single Syrian citizen. It is a war in which the West and its allies are directly responsible for every death and all of the destruction.

*

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

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

Notes

(1) Manlio Dinucci, “Michel Chossudovsky: ‘with NATO from welfare al warfare’ ” International Press Agency, 23 April, 2019. (https://www.pressenza.com/2019/04/michel-chossudovsky-with-nato-from-welfare-al-warfare/) Accessed 1 March, 2019.

(2) Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “The Islamic State (ISIS), the Pentagon’s ‘Caliphate Project’ and the ‘Global War on Terrorism.’ ” Global Research, 20 February, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-islamic-state-caliphate-project-and-the-global-war-on-terrorism/5389530) Accessed 1 March, 2020.

(3) Syria Solidarity Movement, “Open Letter to trade unionists in support of brother Donald Lafleur, Executive Vice President, Canadian Labour Congress/ Syria Solidarity Movement.” 25 September, 2019. ( https://www.marktaliano.net/open-letter-to-trade-unionists-in-support-of-brother-donald-lafleur-executive-vice-president-canadian-labour-congress-syria-solidarity-movement/) Accessed 1 March, 2019.


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

Mark Taliano combines years of research with on-the-ground observations to present an informed and well-documented analysis that refutes  the mainstream media narratives on Syria. 

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

Fighting in northern Syria has escalated as Syrian forces retake the last remaining bastions of foreign-funded militants and encircle, cut-off, and in some cases catch in the crossfire their Turkish backers.

Turkey had been making some promising steps in the right direction since Washington’s disastrous proxy regime-change war in Syria began unraveling – yet it still maintains a problematic position inside Syrian territory, backing what are unequivocally terrorists and obstructing Syria’s sovereign right to recover and restore order within its own borders.

The latest and most dangerous manifestation of this untenable policy is the increasingly frequent and fierce clashes between Turkish forces occupying Syrian territory and Syrian forces themselves moving deeper into the northern Syrian governorate of Idlib.

The BBC in its article, “Syria war: Turkey will not let Syrian army advance in Idlib, says Erdogan,” would summarize the Turkish position amid recent hostilities, reporting:

Turkey will not let Syria’s government gain more ground in the opposition stronghold of Idlib province, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan says.

Mr Erdogan told reporters that Russian-backed pro-government forces were “driving innocent and grieving people in Idlib towards our borders”.

More than half a million civilians have fled their homes since the government launched an offensive in December.

Mr Erdogan’s warning came after eight Turkish military personnel were killed.

Indeed – hostilities in Idlib will undoubtedly drive fleeing militants and their families toward the Syrian-Turkish border and inevitably compound Turkey’s already large refugee problem. Yet this is not Syria’s doing, nor that of Syria’s Russian and Iranian allies. It is the doing of malign US foreign policy that Turkey had initially played a key role in facilitating – and at times still appears to be eagerly abetting.

The refugee crisis in Turkey itself was cynically used several times in the past by Ankara and its Western allies at the time for political leverage in demonizing Damascus and to justify more direct Western intervention against Syria.

But pursuing genuine peace was and still is the obvious solution to the refugee crisis – a solution Turkey has so far refused to fully commit to. Along with Turkey’s most recent attempt to cite the refugee crisis to justify its military presence in Syria is the Western media which is attempting to reuse years of propaganda to vilify Damascus and its allies, hoping to hinder security operations and drag out hostilities further.

Ironically and unfortunately – such attempts to hide behind humanitarian concern, protracting hostilities – will lead only to more loss of life.

Holding up the refugee crisis as an excuse to continue occupying Syrian territory and expand what is now becoming direct Turkish hostilities against Syrian forces will do little to justify Turkey’s current policy regarding Syria. It will also do little to improve the prospects of what are essentially unachievable objectives for the Turkish government and military – including maintaining its occupation of Syrian territory and its backing of militants operating there.

Turkish Forces Will Leave Syria – One Way or Another 

Turkish troops will not be able to remain indefinitely in Syria. Their proxies will eventually be liquidated and the positions of Turkish forces surrounded by Syrian forces. In many areas of Idlib this is already the case. Additional Turkish troops and supplies fed into losing battles and what is ultimately a lost war will only delay the inevitable undoing of Turkish interests in Syria.

Ankara could – on the other hand – begin aligning its policies with the reality of what is happening in Idlib and expand its cooperation with Russia and Iran regarding the Syrian conflict – incrementally withdrawing support from militant groups, encouraging them to disarm and surrender, and gradually handing over Turkish positions within Syria to the actual military, government, and people of Syria.

It is likely that Ankara realizes its position in Syria is untenable and is instead using the prospect of a painful and drawn-out conflict resulting from its refusal to withdraw as a bargaining chip to extract concessions from Damascus and its allies. Recent hostilities might also be an attempt to bluff Damascus in a bid to prevent further Turkish positions from being absorbed by Syria’s moving front line in Idlib.

Finding Turkey’s Place Amid Emerging Multipolarism  

Ultimately – Turkey’s decisions in the days, weeks, and months ahead – will further define the nation as it is perceived globally as its decades-long ties and subordinate role to the West fades and it forges a new position upon the global stage.

The malicious use of its lingering presence in northern Syria – a leftover of its complicity in the US-engineered proxy war that created the current conflict in the first place – would be unfortunate and would reflect poorly on Ankara and negatively impact its future international relations. It will impact not only its ties with the principal actors in the current Syrian conflict – but also its ties around the globe as nations seek to diversify away from aging and ill-intentioned hegemonies and toward nations of good faith.

Turkey faces a juncture where it must decide if it will move forward into the future with its increasing independence from the United States and NATO – but maintain the same style of malign statecraft as its Western allies – or find a constructive role to play among an emerging multipolar world.

Shelling and bombing Syrian forces inside Syrian territory is a poor start. It sets Turkey down another blind alley in terms of regional policy – making it more difficult for Syria and its allies to accommodate Turkey in any sort of constructive manner in a post-war regional architecture that will certainly favor Damascus and its allies. It will also complicate trust in the future should Turkey eventually accept this emerging architecture and seek to benefit from or contribute toward it.

Ankara has already come a long way from its initial support for US regime-change since the beginning of the Syrian conflict in 2011 to helping – even if sometimes reluctantly – end the deadly, protracted fighting in recent years. Only time will tell if Ankara will continue in this positive direction – meaning this recent confrontation in Syria is merely a temporary setback – or if Ankara is determined to cling to its increasingly untenable position in Syria at the cost of a risky conflict it will ultimately lose.

*

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

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

Turkey and Syria are in a state of undeclared war. Ankara shied away to declare the war officially and the scale of its operations is much lower than in the event of a full-scale open conflict. However, Turkish forces, including troops, battle tanks and artillery, illegally entered Greater Idlib, provided local al-Qaeda-linked groups with weapons and equipment, and together with them attacked the Syrian Army.

Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar had the audacity to describe these actions as self-defense efforts. He claimed that Operation Spring Shield, as Ankara calls its action in Idlib, was launched in response to the February 27 attack on Turkish troops and the operation is in his words “successfully” ongoing. Akar forgot to mention that the killed Turkish personnel were embedded with al-Qaeda members and already involved in attacks on forces of the Syrian government. This kind of hypocrisy is not surprising. Earlier, Turkish President Recept Tayip Erdogan claimed that the Turkish military had entered Syria under a request from the “Syrian people”; apparently he wanted to say al-Qaeda but forgot how to pronounce the names of the multiple Syrian affiliates of the group properly.

Therefore, official Turkish propaganda claims that the military action in Idlib started after February 27, while in reality clashes between Turkish-led forces and the Syrian Army have been ongoing since February 24. In the period from February 24 to March 1, the Turkish Army and radical militants captured Nayrab, Saraqib, and stopped the Syrian Army advance near Kafr Nabul recapturing several small villages near it. However, they were not able to achieve any military breakthrough on the ground.

The Turkish military tries to avoid sending its troops into an open fight. Rather, it employs waves of al-Qaeda members, including suicide bombers, supported by massive artillery and drone strikes as the main tool of warfare against the Syrians. According to the March 1 remarks by Defense Minister Akar, Turkish forces had destroyed a drone, 8 helicopters, 103 tanks, 19 armored personnel carriers, 72 artillery pieces and rocket launchers, three air-defense systems, 15 anti-tank weapons and mortars, 56 armored vehicles, nine ammunition depots, and neutralized 2,200 Syrian soldiers in the aforementioned period. Later on the same day, the Turkish Defense Ministry claimed that Turkey had shot down two Su-24 warplanes (later confirmed by the Syrian military) and destroyed 3 air defense systems operated by the Syrian government. The Turkish side even claimed that the Su-24 attack aircraft (which are designed for a close air support) were downed in response to an attempted attack on Turkish aircraft.

This remarkable nonsense highlights the scale and type of Turkish propaganda efforts regarding the conflict. Fully in the framework of this approach, the Turkish state blocked social media on February 27 in an attempt to hide Turkish casualties in Idlib. Tried to force Twitter and Facebook to remove photos of destroyed Turkish military equipment and ordered security raids in the Turkish branch of the Russian news agency Sputnik over its ‘wrong coverage’ of Idlib developments. Videos and photos showing Turkish soldiers and Turkish-backed militants involved in torturing and abusing captured Syrian soldiers come unnoticed by mainstream media or were described by Turkish sources as fake.

In a separate development, Turkish state media announced that Turkish artillery and drones had targeted the Al-Nayrab military airport, on the outskirts of Aleppo city.

In response to these actions, the Syrian military declared that it will shoot down hostile aircraft in Greater Idlib. The Syrian Air Defense Forces immediately turned this promise into reality engaging Turkish unmanned combat and reconnaissance aerial vehicles. According to Russian media, at least 6 Turkish drones were shot down. However, the visual evidence allows to confirm only one Anka combat drone downed in the area. When the video of the drone’s remnants first appeared online, Turkish-backed groups even claimed responsibility for the downing of aircraft claiming that it was a Syrian warplane. Later, they were forced to change the story.

On March 1, the Syrian Army and Hezbollah, that had recently suffered casualties in eastern Idlib, launched an attack on Turkish-led forces in the area of Nayrab. By the evening of that day, they have regained Kafr Battikh, Dadikh, San and Jawbas. They have also forced Turkish-backed militants to retreat from the eastern part of Saraqib. According to pro-government sources, at least 300 militants were killed or injured in the recent clashes in this area only. This number, as well as, those provided by Turkey is overestimated.

On March 2, units of the 25th Special Mission Forces Division (formerly the Tiger Forces) regained full control of Saraqib after the mighty Turkish Army and its al-Qaeda friends had fled the area.

The recent developments demonstrate that if Turkey continues avoiding employing its own troops in direct fighting, its forces appear to be not able to deliver a swift, devastating blow to the Syrian Army and achieve the goal declared by its top leadership: to force Syrian troops to retreat from all the areas liberated from al-Qaeda since October 2018.

It is likely that Turkey is trying to deliver as much damage as possible to strengthen its negotiating position before March 5, when Erdogan is set to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin to discuss the situation in the region.

At the same time, Turkey is trying to get support from the EU by sending migrants to Europe and blackmailing the bloc with a new migration crisis.

*

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

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

A dispute between the traditional hereditary chiefs of the Wet’suewet’en First Nation of Northern British Columbia and Government of Canada recently erupted over the construction of a TC Energy Coastal Gas pipeline through their unceded territories. This controversy is akin to countless unresolved disputes that have occurred in the New World since the days of first contact between First Nation peoples and “The White Man”, as the European colonizers from the Old World have been called by them ever since.

At the heart of the controversy is who has ultimate sovereignty over the ancestral lands of the original peoples and whose rules of law take precedence when it comes to the infringement of the inherent rights of humans and use and development of the earth’s finite natural resources. The original peoples have mostly long since been pushed off of their traditional lands and placed on Indian Act Band Council System ‘reserves’ or ‘reservations’ that some traditional native peoples liken to New World ‘concentration camps’ because of the severe deprivations they’ve suffered as a result.

Another critically-important issue embedded within this dispute regards the question of the Climate Crisis in both the New & Old World’s and whose rules of laws chiefly are responsible – traditional peoples or the colonizers – for addressing the basic issues of wise land use and management or mismanagement of its finite natural resources that either will lessen or contribute to the climate crisis in the future. The problem is that when constant exponential growth and profit is the main objective of governments and corporations, and expansion their constant goal, it’s not basically in their DNA, and never will be, to ever lessen the crisis.

So the question of how to solve the climate crisis, which may not ever be achievable given the perpetual growth model that mercilessly drives forward the modern world, continues to be a highly contentious one. Some government’s, like the United States and Australia, have set a bad example for other nations to follow by continuing to play the denial game that climate crisis doesn’t exist so they too can continue their corporate ‘business as usual’ way of life and continue to rape and pillage the earth’s finite resources and natural world. But it’s not only the on-going rape of Mother Earth that is in question here but the age-old male power game and sexism of men over women that also is at the heart of the issue. When any human culture so readily accepts the raping of their mother earth for her coveted hidden resources buried deep inside her it doesn’t represent a huge leap in consciousness for that culture to also readily accept the widespread act of raping its own women for their own imagined hidden treasures.

So it’s no great surprise that Men basically run most of the energy-mining-resource development corporations, joined by their counterparts in the political realm who every day continue to give a green light to not only continue the raping of Mother Earth but, tacitly, accepts the wholesale rape of women as part and parcel of conducting business as usual. The raping of Mother Earth and Women simply a dominant male way of looking at and seeing the world that they have dominated since the beginning of time.

One salient example of this dominant male attitude in the world was manifested during the Wet’suewet’en dispute by one Doug Sparrow, the General Manager and President of X-Site Energy Services, Ltd, of Alberta who created a ‘Rape Culture’ logo for his company’s hard hats that depicts the rape of the 17 year-old minor Greta Thunberg who has become the world-renowned symbol of the Climate Crisis protest movement. Doug Sparrow’s stated defense for arrogantly creating the logo is that it’s not a crime, using the rationale, “She’s Not a Child! She’s 17!” This type of cynicism is but one example of yet even more horrific blowback still to come against all those traditional First Nations activists and non-indigenous climate crisis protestors in world-wide movements like ‘Fridays For Future International’ and ‘Extinction Rebellion’ who dare to defy what all is happening?

The world’s mining and energy corporations in Canada already are attempting to put some distance between themselves and the gross actions of Sparrow by declaring “X-Site Energy Services Does Not Represent Alberta” But the message sent and the spin conveyed is clear. The White Man’s corporate world is scared. The spin of vicious corporate blowback already is in high-gear around the world against the actions taken by the Wet’suewet’en First Nations, their Mohawk Nation allies and non-indigenous climate crisis protesters like Greta Thunberg.

So the pre-eminent question that faces Canada and the rest of the world is how to define who will have ultimate sovereignty over the land and its resources, whose rules of law must take precedence in 2020 and beyond, and how the human race once and for all will finally face up to its responsibilities to address and resolve the grossly-imbalanced power relationships that exist between the consciousness of men and women in regard to the protection and preservation of both the earth and women’s precious resources?

Canada now is Ground Zero. Every nation must take its lead in one direction or the other. Whichever way this dispute plays out it’s a watershed moment for the human race and the earth. The bottom line for humanity to heal the earth and itself and make them both whole, perhaps for the first time in the modern era, the corporate world obviously must change its basic relationships with indigenous people, women, and the massive, painful changes that will have to be made and mutually accepted by every human being on earth. Yet, as things now stand, most colonizers resolutely continue to avoid discussing anything to do with ‘climate change’, women’s ‘equal rights’ or the same inherent equal rights for ‘Mother Earth herself’.

The White Man’s Corporate World Avoids the Reality of What It Is or Isn’t Doing

Constant closer attention now must be paid to the many absurd hypocritical actions constantly being created in the mainstream world by those who pay lip service to wanting to do something progressive to positively address all these issues but then do just the opposite. In the case of climate change and the inherent rights of the Wet’suewet’en Hereditary Chiefs righteously put forward, heated debates, both pro and con, about the need for more or less oil and gas pipelines nevertheless rage on.

Meanwhile, one can simultaneously see on every television set around the world, every minute of every day and nighttime too, during every sports cast, sports match, sit-com, major cultural event, and in every movie theatre around the globe during every pre-show entertainment, while moviegoers are held as captive audiences, the masses are constantly force-feed slick, sophisticated commercials that woo, cajole and brainwash them to buy every larger, more expensive, more resource development-driven flashy SUV’s, P/U trucks and slews of  unnecessary products that need still more and more oil and gas to produce and run. So it raises the big question, “How many more endless oil and gas pipelines will the world need in the future and how many more will have to trespass through the traditional lands of indigenous peoples?

It’s a somewhat sad yet cynical note to realize that the oil and gas that is making the modern  world possible is the collective residue of all the life forms – prehistoric tropical plant life, dinosaur’s and the like, that represent the ancient very primitive consciousness of earth’s pre-human world yet is now playing a key central role in the evolution of the modern human civilization that, since its discovery, has literally killed billions of innocent lives, destroyed countless countries, nations and peoples just to gain hegemony over this slimy prehistoric residue that, at the same time, is destroying the climate that may end up killing us all…And that will be the end of that!

In the meantime, as the We’suewet’en and their allies continue to press their case before the legal courts and larger court of world opinion far too many citizens in the general populace instead only continue to moan and groan about the unacceptable inconveniences now being caused to their daily lives by what those like the Wet’suewwt’en First Nation, their Mohawk allies and those in the Climate Rebellion Movement are seeking to do. They miss the essential point why so many other traditional peoples also are protesting so vociferously all around the world, who a naysayer corporate press otherwise constantly dismisses as zealots and radicals, yet are serving as critical point men and women showing us all the way forward, if, indeed, the Survival & Well-Being of All of Life is what is to be the operative directive of the future.

Resistance and hostility to their efforts represents the clearest example of the inflexibility of “The White Man’s” alien, rapacious way of life and its inability to see what its way of life or ‘way of death’ perpetually perpetrates.

The critically important dialectic that has begun in Canada between traditional and non-traditional people underscores the fact that if the bottom line and ultimate goal is a healthier more balanced planet earth and more livable way of life in the 21st century the human race is going to have to be prepared to yet suffer and endure still many more personal, cultural and economic privations and inconveniences than the few road and rail blockades, shipping backlogs, traffic snarls and upsets to tourism industry timetables then those that thus far have been caused by the dispute between the hereditary chiefs of the We’tsuewet’en Nation, Canadian Government and Corporate-Business world.

Someone who has the ear of the world’s political and corporate leaders has to talk some sense into them like a Dutch Uncleand get them to realize what we all must begin joining together to do in the world beyond demanding that the We’tsuewet’en and their allies simply stop and desist from their rail blockades.

If Shakespeare were alive today, this whole business would simply be more ‘grist for the mill’ to create yet some new pithy human drama that speaks truth to power and the human condition.

*

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.

Jerome Irwin is a Canadian-American activist-writer who, for decades, has sought to call world attention to problems of environmental degradation and unsustainability caused by excessive mega-development and the host of related environmental-ecological-spiritual issues that exist between the conflicting philosophies of indigenous and non-indigenous peoples. Irwin is the author of the book, “The Wild Gentle Ones; A Turtle Island Odyssey”, a spiritual sojurn among the native peoples of North America, and has produced numereous articles pertaining to: Ireland’s Fenian Movement; native peoples Dakota Access Pipeline Resistance Movement; AIPAC, Israel & U.S. Congress anti-BDS Movement; the historic Battle for Palestine & Siege of Gaza, as well as; innumerable accounts of the violations constantly waged by industrial-corporate-military-propaganda interests against the World’s Collective Soul.

Featured image is from Twitter/Krystalline Kraus

Strong Man Legacies: Egypt’s Late Hosni Mubarak

March 3rd, 2020 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Reviled strongmen of one era are often the celebrated ones of others.  Citizens otherwise tormented find that replacements are poor, in some cases even crueller, than the original artefact.  Such strongmen also serve as ideal alibis for rehabilitation: Look at who we have come to bury! 

Fittingly, Egypt’s late Hosni Mubarak was given that most traditional of rehabilitative occasions, a military funeral that served to sanitise and restore.  Unremarkably, the procession was led by the current President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, accompanied by Mubarak’s two sons, Alaa and Gamal. 

Mubarak, on coming to power in 1981 in the aftermath of his predecessor’s assassination, intended to die in office, a legacy of durable presidents that had marked the Arab world’s dynastic families.  During a three-decade rule, he survived various assassination attempts, contended, often brutally, with Islamic fundamentalism, and oversaw a vast imperium of cronyism.  The legal conditions were maintained by an emergency law passed in the aftermath of Anwar el-Sadat’s killing, permitting enormous latitude to the security services to arrest and detain individuals without charge and restrict the right to assembly.  Along the way, killings, torture and disappearances took place, with the Muslim Brotherhood proving to be a favourite target. 

His projection as a man of stability and order was sold to Western powers, which supported him with weapons and assistance; his abiding by the peace plan signed with Israel by his slain predecessor, helped.  But he was hardly a leader wedded to big picture visions for his country.  “We are waiting,” surmised the journalist Mohamed Hassanein Heikal in 1986, “for the unknown.” 

There was, for a time, some sense that Egypt might escape the orbit of military rule that had been the mainstay of the country since the Free Officers coup of 1952.  This was to come in the form of the “Arab Spring”.  The protests in Tahrir Square from January 25, 2011 seeking to oust Mubarak seemed to promise much.  Mubarak felt he could weather the bad mood and reject the demands that he and his family be investigated for corruption. “Egypt and I shall not be parted until I am buried in her soil,” he countered.  No fleeing was contemplated, no ignominious exit. 

More than 800 protesters lost their lives in ensuing violence, leading to Mubarak’s arrest on charges of murder and corruption.  He was subsequently tried and convicted, receiving a life sentence.  An appeals court overturned the verdict, leading to a retrial which saw his acquittal.  Thus began an effort to confect an image of a figure unjustifiably sinned against but restrained in retirement.  “I preferred to give up my post as a president, placing the interest of the nation and its people over any other interest and I chose to keep away from the political life, wishing all the best and progress for Egypt and its people within the period ahead.”

It was the easy, and frequently lazy assessment about the effects of the Arab Spring, often by a western media that needed to identify a revolution in the first place.  “Egypt was indispensable to the idea of an ‘Arab spring’,” Hugh Roberts would subsequently note, “and so it had to have had a revolution too.”

Arab Spring comparisons tend to be inevitable and often strained, but between, say, Tunisia and Egypt, key differences are evident. It can well be said that Tunisia had something of a genuine revolution, with its military cautious and resisting any broader blood lust.  But the military remained significant in Egypt for never being neutral, giving some appearance of backing the protesters. 

In 2013, the military’s influence was again evident with its termination of the discombobulated, fledging democracy and the suspension of the 2012 constitution.  Cunningly and devilishly, military officials gave the impression that they were merely aiding the protesters against the Morsi government, partners in democratic change against sectarianism. 

This proved short lived.  Officials from the Mubarak regime were returned; mass death sentences were passed and some 34,000 people jailed.  A brief hiatus followed in Egyptian-Western relations.  The US imposed a ban on the transfer of weapons and aid but el-Sisi proved charming enough to convince Obama administration to restore the $1.3 billion a year package.

El-Sisi is now seen to be a more violent and heavy-handed version of Mubarak, exemplified by such campaigns as those of Karim Hussein, whose “I’m Sorry, Mr President” Facebook page gathered millions of followers.  Last year, he was detained for 15 days on accusations of spreading false news and the misuse of social media.  The same follower had also described Mubarak as “a first-rate military man.  He was a commander during the 6 October War.  He should be treated like a commander before being a president.” 

Mubarak did achieve his goal of being buried in Egypt’s soil.  The officer legacy remains, as does the firm grip of military rule.  His tenure saw consolidation and centralisation to such an extent that genuine change was bound to be a herculean feat.  That feat never materialised, furnishing the historical record with the hiccup of Mohamed Morsi.  And the briefest of hiccups that proved to be. 

*

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]

While fretting over refugee children in freezing tents along Turkey’s border, or Nargis Fazili’s family fleeing Afghanistan across (see this), or lone migrant children caged in U.S. detention centers, we may barely register what happens to American children like Kaia Rolle; she’s a 6-year-old student at a not unusual neighborhood school in Florida.

I suppose we should feel grateful for the body cameras which most American police are now required to wear to document their on-the-job encounters. Some police videos are made available to the public; some are lost. One recently released records an incident last Septemberthe handcuffing of Kaia Rolle by policemen at her school. The manacled child was led to a squad car and, unaccompanied by any school official or relative, and taken to a detention center to be finger-printed and photographed. The video was likely edited to hide the child’s face, probably in compliance with a ‘civil-rights’ law that protects minors—thank you. But it illustrates enough for us to witness an all-too-common injustice.

It’s not the pleas of the weeping child that I find most disturbing; it’s the school staff’s passive witness to the child’s torture. None of the three women in the camera’s scope makes any attempt to protest, or to question the decision by we-don’t-known-whom, to subject the child to this unconscionable treatment.

To further emphasize the egregious behavior by the police, we hear one man –likely the school resource officer –chatting with the staff members without any hint of regret or hesitation about how he regularly arrests children. Arrests are a source of pride for him, it seems. “Six thousand arrests over 28 years”, he boasts, “the youngest, 7-years-old.” When informed that the latest victim is six, he quips: “She’s six; now that’s a record.” Dennis Turner is a policeman who, like many in his position, are hired after retirement as “school resource officers”.

These resource officers constitute a new class of law enforcement personnel employed by schools across America— they’re in my New York neighborhood schools too– our solution to school shootings, a nationwide policy to protect our children from gun wielding maniacs. While they wait for anything that threatens the school from outside, these officers are engaged in student discipline inside. Parents and school administrators, out of fear of armed assailants, are empowering these unsupervised, armed retirees and veterans of foreign conflict –men accustomed to manhandling mostly adult male suspects– to discipline troublesome children.

(In addition to their school salary, a wage often higher than teachers’, many of them enjoy a generous pension from their police or military service. What a boon for the profession of law enforcement!)

Attorney John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute’s warnings about our expanding police presence is so alarming that we are either too disturbed to register the details or we think he’s exaggerating. He is not.

Viewing this single video of an on-duty school guardian entrusted to protect children, one has to question how much more goes on that we are not privy to? And this in inside U.S.A. with its celebrated freedoms! (I cannot bear to imagine the experience of countless Iraqi and Afghan families subject to abuse by American military personnel.)

We are told Kaia was released and isn’t facing any charges. This doesn’t mollify me; nor am I gratified by the firing of that officer.)

The video of the child’s arrest is revealing about how the child is handled too. A school staff member calmly tells Kaia to “Go with them, baby girl.” As Kaia is handcuffed, we hear one officer gently say: “Come over here honey”, then “It’s not going to hurt”.

Later news clips of Kaia with her grandmother report that she is doing fine. That’s today. What about in the coming years?

This experience may embolden little Kaia to become an attorney or a civic leader, perhaps a policewoman to protect others from the cruelty she would never forget. Can we fault her, though, if she chooses violence as a way to defend herself when gentle people nearby fail her, or if they’re better informed about child victims of foreign aggression?

*

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.

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a New York based anthropologist and journalist. In addition to books on Tibet and Nepal, she is author of “Swimming Up the Tigris: Real Life Encounters with Iraq” based on her work in Iraq and the Arab Homelands. For many years a producer at Pacifica-WBAI Radio in NY, her productions and current articles can be found at www.RadioTahrir.org  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Six Year Old Kaia Rolle, Handcuffed by Orlando Police and Arrested: How Many More, and for How Long Is this America?
  • Tags: ,

There have been a number of harmful consequences as a result of the neoliberal era, which emerged in the late 1970s, taking off during the tenures of Ronald Reagan (US president, 1981-1989) and Margaret Thatcher (British prime minister, 1979-1990). There has been an explosion of private power, splintering of societies, destabilization of the financial system, and so on.

Neoliberal globalization has been an important factor too in political parties shifting further to the right, and succumbing to the power of increasingly dominant multinational corporations. This is most notable in America where the Republican Party (or organization) has moved so far off the spectrum that traditional republicans from previous decades would hardly recognize it today.

The US Democratic Party has also drifted noticeably to the right since the 1970s, and now holds roughly the same political position as the republicans of half a century ago. Such has been the rightward lurch in the political landscape that Bernie Sanders, who is somewhat to the left of today’s democrats, is considered a radical and almost extreme figure. Sanders’ policies, which are those of a New Deal democrat, resemble some of the ideals expressed by president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Sanders’ political stance would not have perturbed former republican leaders like Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Regarding the prevailing neoliberal ideology, it is in fact proving so malevolent that it has become an existential threat to mankind, though hardly reported. In early June 2017 Noam Chomsky, the renowned American scholar and scientist, said that neoliberalism is directly behind humanity’s failure to deal with its two greatest challenges: that of either dismantling the threat of nuclear war or addressing climate change, both of which are becoming more ominous.

Chomsky outlined that,

“it’s not just inequality, stagnation. It’s terminal disaster. We have constructed a perfect storm. That should be the screaming headlines every day. Since the Second World War, we have created two means of destruction. Since the neoliberal era, we have dismantled the way of handling them. That’s our pincers. That’s what we face, and if that problem isn’t solved, we’re done with”. (1)

The modern neoliberal era was formulated in America a little over 40 years ago, the world’s strongest economic and military power. The term itself, neoliberalism, is misleading as this ideology is neither based upon anything new or
liberal.

Neoliberalism was originally developed in Europe during the interwar period (1919-1938), among the many repercussions of the First World War (2). Thereafter, the more extreme version of neoliberalism that we see presently, was formed by American business communities and its elites; before inevitably spreading across the world as a result of Washington’s vast economic influence, courtesy of US-based financial institutions like the IMF and World Bank.

This assault unfolded principally in order to defeat popular activism that sprang up in the mid-1960s – with the American public, some entering political circles for the first time, railing against the crimes committed by US forces during the war in Vietnam, along with protests against domestic problems such as poverty and racism. This was viewed with deep concern by those occupying positions of power in Washington and New York. A swift response ensued by the establishment to put the people back in its place, so to speak, mainly through wide-scale use of propaganda techniques.

The population’s declining influence is having potentially deadly ramifications. Chomsky affirms that,

“The one barrier to the threat of destruction is an engaged public, an informed, engaged public acting together to develop means to confront the threat and respond to it. That’s been systematically weakened, consciously”; and he further recognizes, “So there’s the two existential threats that we’ve created, which might in the case of nuclear war maybe wipe us out; in the case of environmental catastrophe, create a severe impact, and then some”. (3)

The continued attacks on populations have worked extremely well for a small percentage, in both hemispheres. Wealth has accumulated in the top 1% of societies, and more broadly the top 10%. In the most powerful country, real wages for American workers are just slightly higher by comparison to mid-1960s levels.

The US, thanks to its government, military and scientific apparatus, was also behind the unwarranted creation in 1945 of nuclear bombs, the globe’s silent grim reaper. Moreover, America has constituted easily the largest producer of carbon dioxide emissions in history. This century, since 2006, has America been surpassed in its carbon production levels by China. Yet on per capita terms the Americans remain well clear at the top, having less than a quarter of China’s populace.

Neoliberalism is centred on greatly favoring the private sphere over that of the public, with the role of government curtailed and restricted. Social programs benefiting the masses are cut, finance is deregulated, trade unions are attacked and austerity measures applied, which are intentionally harmful and unnecessary as even IMF economists admit.

The mainstream press performs a central role in promoting neoliberal ideology (4). The media, influenced by corporate advertising, carefully reduce the scope of what is discussed, so as to further push their neoliberal beliefs.

Cardiff University’s Joanna Redden, an expert in assessing media content, wrote that “mainstream news coverage narrows and limits the way poverty is talked about in a way that reinforces the dominance of neoliberalism and market-based approaches to the issue”.

An in-depth study of the mass media for example in Ireland, the word’s largest corporate tax haven and a prominent neoliberal state, has revealed that major newspapers there all have a history of endorsing neoliberalism. This includes the most widely read dailies like the Irish Times and Irish Independent (5). Very rarely, however, is the word neoliberalism to be found in newspaper articles. It is obscured and left unclear.

Due to the particularly strong neoliberal influence in Ireland, it is no surprise that this small country produces very high emission levels, and has proven incapable of addressing it. Irish media support for neoliberalism is a trend seen in standard press coverage in other “free market states”.

The media are very often a reflection of a nation’s structure, mirroring the flaws of that system of which it is a central component. As part of the neoliberal agenda, the press have effectively been supporting our blind march to the precipice – with coverage of nuclear weapons at a minimum, and focus on climate change, though increasing in recent times, often diluted and put into a political context. (6)

Silly stories have been emanating for years about how Moscow supposedly swayed the US elections. These claims have done nothing to harm president Donald Trump’s increasingly secure position; his approval ratings are at a personal best 49%, and he is a strong favorite to be re-elected in November. The American public, rather than paying much attention to assertions of Kremlin interference, are far more worried about real crises like insufficient healthcare, unaffordable education, and poverty (7). Trump’s most dangerous policies, his attacks upon the environment and abandonment of nuclear weapons treaties, have received far less attention and criticism.

From the immediate years following World War II, humans have been under threat of destruction from nuclear weapons. The Danish-born scientist Hans M. Kristensen, a nuclear weapons analyst, revealed that during the Cold War,

“Every day, nuclear-armed warships of the US and Soviet navies were rubbing up against each other on the high seas in gung-ho displays of national determination. Some saw it as necessary for nuclear deterrence; others as dangerous nuclear brinkmanship. Many of those who were on the ships and submarines still get goosebumps when they talk about it, and wonder how we survived the Cold War”. (8)

When examining the level of incidents between American and Soviet nuclear-armed instruments of war, it is hard to fathom that it did not eventually result in disaster for the world. Some of these accidents date to the 1960s, and were just as potentially lethal as the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

Pertaining to climate change, the attempts so far by world governments to tackle the crisis have been wholly inadequate, with global carbon emissions now at an all time high. Neoliberalism has indeed been at heart of this impotence. Even a 1.5 Celsius rise will have troubling reverberations for extensive sections of the globe. Today, out of almost 200 countries worldwide, only two are on course to meet their climate obligations, by applying policies which can meet the goals in limiting global warming to 1.5 Celsius above pre-industrial age temperatures.

The two countries in question are in Africa: Morocco and The Gambia, both of which are situated in the continent’s north-west, and are firmly on a path towards dependence upon renewable energy, along with other strategies like large-scale reforestation. Morocco and The Gambia are anything but what can be considered affluent nations. This makes it all the more damning that the world’s rich countries, with ample resources at their disposal, have proven incapable of upholding their climate commitments.

The top 10 carbon producing states account for almost 70% of world greenhouse emissions (9). By themselves the globe’s two biggest emitters, China and the US, generate 43% of all known greenhouse gases. China, largely abandoning communist ideology since Mao Zedong’s death in 1976, is recording emission levels which are rising again. They rose by 2.6% in 2019, on top of a 2.5% increase for 2018. Still, with increasing focus on renewable sources in China, there are accounts that their emissions will peak by 2022 before falling off.

Dominating the neoliberal sphere are the hugely powerful, unaccountable corporations which control much of the international economy, dictating government policy formation in the United States, Britain, Ireland and elsewhere. An institutionalized requirement of big business is short-term wealth creation, something which corporate executives can go to desperate lengths in pursuing.

One can witness the spectacle of major automobile manufacturers, like Volkswagen and Nissan, deliberately falsifying emission levels in their vehicles (10); mostly due to the fact that low emission cars, less reliant on raw material consumption, are simply not as profitable to the fossil fuel industry.

There are about 1.5 billion vehicles in operation globally, which in total produce 20% of world carbon emissions. Of this, just six million consist of electric cars. Prospects of electric vehicles are discouraged by fossil fuel corporations like Shell and ExxonMobil, because they are not run on oil-based substances, therefore yielding less
profits.

ExxonMobil chief executive Darren Woods even stated last September that he did not understand why electric cars were needed at all. ExxonMobil, headquartered in Texas, are one of the world’s biggest carbon emitting companies. They create more emissions than the vast majority of countries on their own.

Neoliberalism has been a driving cause too in the degradation of ecosystems, with an alarming drop in animal species recorded since the 1970s alone. Perhaps the first government leader to highlight our planet’s environmental decline was Cuba’s president, Fidel Castro, someone seldom quoted outside of Cuba, and who said during a visit to South Africa in the autumn of 1998 that,

“Neoliberal globalization is rapidly destroying nature, poisoning the air and the waters, killing the forests, causing soil desertification and erosion, depleting and wasting the natural resources, changing the climate”. (11)

Castro was reiterating what he said six years before at the 1992 UN Earth Summit in Brazil, where among the presence of over 100 heads of state, he spoke in splendid isolation of the unfolding ecological catastrophe. Castro was addressing above an audience in the city of Durban, South Africa, a country at the time led by Nelson Mandela, a close ally of his Cuban counterpart.

Mandela was nevertheless a firm advocate of neoliberal policies which he implemented during his presidency, as the South African leader acknowledged in an interview with the experienced journalist John Pilger, who grilled him on the subject (12). Two decades following Mandela’s departure from office in June 1999, South Africa has today the highest level of inequality in the world, though he cannot be blamed for all of this.

In more recent times, by late 2018 a “60% decline” in animal species was widely reported by the media, who misread the facts, as the National Geographic magazine demonstrated (13). Yet there can be no doubt that animal numbers have been steadily declining overall, a symptom of the Anthropocene epoch in which humans are having a severe impact on planetary ecosystems.

Meanwhile, a ray of sunshine is breaking out on a dark horizon. There have been indications for some years that neoliberalism is in trouble. Growing protests against its ravages have been taking place around the globe, in Latin America, in Europe, in the Middle East. The public, as can be recalled, possesses a great deal of power, borne out by the hard-fought achievements gained in the past as a result of sustained activism.

*

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 Christopher Lydon, Noam Chomsky, “Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy”, The Nation, 2 June 2017, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DK5wNPu3jMJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1&vwsrc=0

2 Daniel Stedman Jones, “The American Roots of Neoliberalism”, History News Network, 18 March 2013, https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/151023

3 Christopher Lydon, Noam Chomsky, “Noam Chomsky: Neoliberalism Is Destroying Our Democracy”, The Nation, 2 June 2017, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3DK5wNPu3jMJ:https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/noam-chomsky-neoliberalism-destroying-democracy/&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1&vwsrc=0
4 T. J. Coles, “How Fake News Perpetuates Neoliberalism”, Renegade Inc., 22 December 2018, https://renegadeinc.com/fake-news-perpetuates-neoliberalism/

5 Sean Phelan, “Irish neoliberalism, media, and the politics of discourse”, Academia, 2009, https://www.academia.edu/2019948/Irish_neoliberalism_media_and_the_politics_of_discourse

6 Seán McCárthaigh, “Irish newspaper coverage of climate change low by European standards and ‘predominantly political’”, TheJournal.ie, 28 November 2019, Irish newspaper coverage of climate change low by European standards and ‘predominantly political’

7 Kristen Bialik, “State of the Union 2019: How Americans see major national issues”, Pew Research Center, 4 February 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/02/04/state-of-the-union-2019-how-americans-see-major-national-issues/

8 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/

9 Robert Rapier, “The World’s Top 10 Carbon Dioxide Emitters”, Forbes, 4 December 2019, https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:TAIHMX31K8YJ:https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2019/12/04/the-worlds-top-10-carbon-dioxide-emitters/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ie

10 Press Association, “‘Decisive court battle’ over Volkswagen emissions scandal set to begin”, BreakingNews.ie, 2 December 2019, https://www.breakingnews.ie/business/decisive-court-battle-over-volkswagen-emissions-scandal-set-to-begin-967835.html

11 Fidel Castro, “Address by Commander-In-Chief, Fidel Castro, To The 12th Summit Of The Non-Aligned Movement”, Fidel Soldado de las Ideas, 2 September 1998, http://www.fidelcastro.cu/en/citas-sobre/GLOBALIZATION

12 John Pilger, Freedom Next Time, (Black Swan; New Ed Edition, 4 Jun. 2007) p. 346
13 Elizabeth Anne Brown, “Widely misinterpreted report still shows catastrophic animal decline”, National Geographic, 1 November 2018, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/2018/11/animal-decline-living-planet-report-conservation-news/

Why Are Stocks Crashing?

March 3rd, 2020 by Mike Whitney

There are three main reasons why stocks are falling hard.

1– Uncertainty. It’s impossible for investors to gauge the economic impact of the rapidly-spreading coronavirus or its effect on stock prices. Investors buy stocks with the expectation that their investment will grow over time. In periods of crisis, when the environment becomes unfamiliar and opaque, expectations are crushed under the weigh of uncertainty. When expectations dampen, investors sell.

2– The Fed. Although investors have not faced a challenge like the coronavirus before, confidence in the Fed has remained surprisingly high. For the last 10 years, investors have seen multiple interventions by the Fed that were aimed at keeping Wall Street happy and stock prices high. Only recently have investors begun to doubt the Fed’s ability to stop the market slide by slashing rates or increasing liquidity. As more investors realize that the Fed does not have the tools to address a supply shock, the selloff is likely to accelerate.

3–Stock buybacks. In the last few years, stock prices have not been driven higher by institutional buyers or Mom and Pop investors. The rise is almost entirely attributable to share repurchases or stock buybacks as they are called. According to the Harvard Business Review, “In 2018 alone, with corporate profits bolstered by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, companies in the S&P 500 Index did a combined $806 billion in buybacks, about $200 billion more than the previous record set in 2007.” Coronavirus is dramatically impacting corporate earnings projections and many analysts are predicting recession. Shrinking revenues and profits will put a damper on the jet-fuel that had been pushing stocks higher.

The Ball is in the Fed’s Court

The pressure is building on the Fed to respond to the relentless 6-day stock market slide. In a Thursday article in the Wall Street Journal, former Fed governor Kevin Warsh appealed to the Fed to launch a coordinated response to the crisis with other central banks around the world. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“A central bank’s primary job is to offset major disturbances to the economy. Today, the novel coronavirus is a material risk to the economy. It represents an unexpected shock, and the Federal Reserve should lead the world’s central banks in taking immediate action.

In a coordinated move alongside the People’s Bank of China, the European Central Bank, the Bank of England, the Bank of Japan and others so willing, the Fed should announce a 0.25-percentage-point interest-rate cut and make clear it’s open-minded about further action. The Fed should also encourage other central banks to take appropriate simultaneous action to loosen monetary policy in their jurisdictions. Global action would help make the most of scarce policy ammunition.

More than a decade ago, then-Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke and his colleagues chose to act decisively. When confronted with a major economic shock, the Fed took extraordinary monetary-policy actions, often in coordination with other leading central banks. Acting sooner would have been better, but Mr. Bernanke’s leadership at the Fed was exemplary. Less appreciated but no less important, the Fed benefited from a rich inheritance: a strong, highly credible institution replete with a large reservoir of interest rates to cut and a modest balance sheet with space to grow.” (“The Fed Can’t Wait to Respond to the Coronavirus”, Wall Street Journal)

We think Kevin Warsh is being disingenuous. We think his plea is aimed at saving Wall Street not Main Street. Warsh is worried that the downdraft in stocks will trigger defaults by deeply-indebted financial institutions that will domino through the financial system severely impairing critical counterparties and precipitating another financial crisis. This is why is wants the Fed to act immediately even though he knows that interest rate cuts will have no material effect on a supply shock.

So what is a supply shock?

When the Fed slashes rates, it lowers the cost of money making it cheaper to borrow. When people or businesses borrow, they increase their spending which generates economic growth. This is how the Fed boosts demand by cutting rates. But rate cuts are not a panacea. They can’t, for example, resolve supply-chain disruptions in China that have been brought on by the coronavirus outbreak. Many market participants have not yet grasped this fact. Simply put: The Fed does not have the tools to fix this problem. Therefore, confidence in the Fed– to reverse the current selloff by cutting rates or adding liquidity– is misplaced. It’s misplaced because the approach will not work. If you are trying to fix your computer and the only tool you have is a sledgehammer, you are not going to have much success. This is the predicament the Fed is in.

Earlier this week, market analyst Mohamed El-Erian said, “Coronavirus cannot be countered by central bank policies”. This is the critical fact that investors must realize before settling on a strategy. Financial Times journalist Katie Martin expanded on El-Erian’s comments saying, “The expectation alone of monetary assistance may already be softening the blow…But anyone who can clearly articulate how easier policy can fix an economic pullback based on deaths, grounded flights, closed factories and ghost cities is very welcome to get in touch.”

Good point, in other words, cheap money and boundless liquidity is not a cure-all. A can of 30-weight oil might keep your ’98 Corolla running smoothly, but it’s not going to help your head cold. It’s simply not the right antidote. The Fed needs a remedy for supply disruptions, but doesn’t have one. Here’s more from an article at Marketwatch:

“It’s that threat of a supply shock — an unexpected change in the supply of a product or commodity — that is particularly unnerving for investors. They are more used to dealing with the occasional threat of negative demand shocks — an unexpected hit to demand for goods and services….

Big, negative supply shocks are rare, Nielsen noted, with the oil shocks of the early and late 1970s offering perhaps the most well-known examples.... The problem is that there’s little that looser monetary policy or additional fiscal stimulus can do to offset the impact because those stimulus measures work by boosting demand….

While demand has so far held up outside of China, the disruption to global supply chains running through China, Korea and, potentially, Japan is likely to take a toll on production, wrote Nuveen’s Nick. If Asian production stoppages worsen or continue well into the second quarter, a global supply crunch could hit the already weakening manufacturing sector, he said, with implications for jobs and the wider global economy.

Moreover, it comes in an environment where valuations for U.S. stocks and credit markets were “’priced to perfection’ or something close to it following the three Fed interest rate cuts last year and the resolution of various trade deals,” he said.” (“Stocks keep getting slammed because investors fear a ‘supply shock’ that central bankers can’t fix” , Marketwatch)

Until this Monday, investors had been brushing aside the negative news on the coronavirus confident that the Fed would save market as it had done so many times before. Now more people are beginning to see that the so called “Fed Put” will not work this time, that the Fed will not be able to put a floor beneath stock prices because it doesn’t have the power to do so. The realization of the Fed’s limitations is going to weigh heavily on stocks which had been “priced to perfection” but are presently retracing their steps downward until prices are more consistent with fundamentals and the rapidly-deteriorating economic data.

Here’s a quote from an article by Caroline Baum at Marketwatch which helps to underscore the Fed’s impotence in dealing with a supply shock:

“The Fed can’t produce parts for automobile manufacturers across the globe that are dependent on intermediate-goods imports from China. It can’t reopen factories in Hubei Province, the epicenter of the coronavirus outbreak. It can’t provide needed factory workers for plants in locked-down areas of China. And it can’t create alternate supply chains as a substitute for China’s role as manufacturer to the world.

A Fed rate cut is not the prescribed antidote for a negative supply shock. In fact, “the only reason you would cut rates now is if you’re the central bank of the S&P 500,” said Jim Bianco, president of Bianco Research, using a moniker the Fed abhors.” (“Why the Fed can’t defend the economy against the coronavirus outbreak”, Marketwatch)

There’s no doubt that the Fed will cut rates and perhaps even take more extreme measures like monthly purchases of individual stocks and ETFs. But the chance of stocks roaring back into record territory like they did in the heady pre-coronavirus days, are infinitesimally small. The contagion has not even spread to the United States yet, and look at the mayhem it has created. The virus has exposed the essential fragility of a market system that depends on the endless meddling of outside actors whose only objective is to transfer trillions of dollars in wealth to their voracious constituents on Wall Street.

So where is the bottom for stocks that have been grossly inflated for more than 7 years due to extreme monetary easing, below market rates, and regular infusions liquidity?

We don’t know, but we suspect there’s still a long way to go. As economist Nouriel Roubini said in a recent article in the Financial Times, “Investors are deluding themselves about how severe the coronavirus outbreak will be. Despite this week’s big sell-off in equity markets, the worst is yet to come.”

NOTE: Thursday’s 1,190 point rout was the Dow Jones’ biggest one day loss in history. Benchmark 10-year Treasury yields tumbled to an all-time low of 1.26%.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Pre-election polls showed a likely dead heat between Netanyahu’s Likud party and lead challenger Benny Gantz’s Blue and White party.

Both parties were projected to win 33 of 120 Knesset seats. A 61-seat majority coalition is required to form a government.

Vote counting continues on Tuesday. Exit polls projected Likud to win 36 or 37 seats to Blue and White’s 34.

With coalition partners, Netanyahu’s Likud is expected to have 59 Knesset seats — two short of a ruling majority, based on early vote counting. See an update below.

Ahead of efforts by him and Gantz to try cobbling together enough support to form a new government, impasse continues following Israel’s third general election since last April.

It’s unclear whether either leading candidate can break it.

An update with over 90% of votes counted gives a Likud-led coalition a 59 – 54 seat margin, still two seats short of a ruling majority — Likud winning 36 seats, Blue and White 32.

Joint List is projected to win 15 seats, an historic high for an Arab party. Yet in apartheid Israel, it’s powerless.

Privileged Jews run things for their own self-interest, how things work in the West and most other countries.

In Israel, ordinary Jews and Arab citizens have no say over how the country is governed. Dirty business as usual wins every time elections are held.

As vote counting continues, further updates will follow later on Tuesday. It’s too early to know if either leading candidate can form a ruling majority, but based on exit polls and vote counting so far, Netanyahu is ahead.

Despite facing bribery, fraud and breach of trust charges, his trial beginning on March 17, conviction likely meaning prison time, more Israelis supported him over alternative candidates.

What does that say about the Israeli electorate? Do enough of its members favor continuity over the rule of law?

Do they support Netanyahu’s leadership they know over a former IDF chief of staff with no political experience?

Post-election analysis will provide insight into how a prime minister facing serious criminal charges outdid his rivals.

According to Haaretz editor-in-chief Aluf Benn, victory for a Likud-led “bloc will permanently cripple the rule of law in Israel, under the guise of ‘judicial reform’ and ‘reining in the High Court of Justice.”

In a separate editorial, Haaretz warned of the danger if a new government is formed under “power-hungry (Netanyahu) who has lost all restraint and who seems determined to keep his seat forever,” adding:

Above all, he seeks so-called “judicial reforms…to save him from facing justice, from the humiliation of appearing in court and perhaps even from imprisonment.”

If he manages to remain prime minister, he’ll “destroy” what remains of “the rule of law” in Israel.

“(A) wave of persecution against civil servants and politicians, prosecutors and judges, who will be labeled enemies of the state and be forced have to prove their loyalty to the ruler (who’s) above the law.”

Indicting him on bribery, fraud and breach of trust, major civil charges, attorney general Mendelblit denounced him strongly, saying:

He and his wife engaged in “an improper relationship” with individuals from whom they “received (special) favors” — actions amounting to a “serious and ongoing conflict of interest,” adding:

He “took advantage of the bribe offered him…us(ing) his power as prime minister to receive personal favors, while fundamentally harming the integrity of the public service and trust.”

His “conduct deeply and profoundly harm(ed) the rule of law, moral integrity and public trust.”

If he remains prime minister and avoids accountability, he’ll likely be unrestrained to do what he pleases because who’ll stop him.

Civil charges against him pale in comparison to his high crimes of war, against humanity, and slow-motion genocide against long-suffering Palestinians.

Nor does he face accountability for years of undeclared war on Syria and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, as well as partnering with US wars — the world community largely turning a blind eye to his Nuremberg-level high crimes.

A Final Comment

The Jerusalem Post reported that absentee ballots from soldiers and others will be counted Tuesday night local time, adding:

“Legally, the final results do not need to be published until next Monday.”

Here’s where things stand with over 90% of votes counted:

“Likud: 1,210,939 voters – 36 seats predicted

  • Blue and White: 1,085,932 voters  –  32 seats predicted
  • The Joint List: 536,028 voters  –  15 seats predicted
  • Shas: 320,999 voters  –  10 seats predicted
  • UTJ: 255,159 voters  –  7 seats predicted
  • Yisrael Beytenu: 242,218 voters  – 7  seats predicted
  • Labor-Gesher-Meretz: 235,934 voters  – 7  seats predicted
  • Yamina: 208,638 voters  – 6 seats predicted
  • The Right-religious bloc has 59 seats
  • The Center-Left bloc has 39
  • The Joint List has 15
  • Yisrael Beytenu has 7”

Turnout was 71% of registered voters.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from The Jerusalem Post

Whereas:

On January 9, 2020, Radio Canada’s flagship newscast “Enquête” reported on the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” held at the Meech Lake Government Complex on January 31 and February 1, 2003;

No Haitian officials were reportedly invited to the private meeting. Officials from the United States, France, Canada, and the Organization of American States in attendance reportedly discussed the replacement of Haiti’s elected government, the UN intervention, and the re-creation of the Haitian military, consistent with events that occurred 13 months later;

Investigation suggests that the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti” gave rise to the “Core Group”, an alliance of foreign ambassadors in Port-au-Prince that many Haitians believe to be the real power behind President Jovenel Moïse;

Ten years after the earthquake, there is a demand for accountability for alleged misuse of relief funds during the same period when Haiti is said to be effectively under the rule of the so-called “Core Group” that is said to have brought to power the governments of Martelly and Moïse, who are accused of corruption and repression.

We, the undersigned, citizens and residents of Quebec and Canada, ask the House of Commons: 

1. To publish all documents related to the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”;

2. To hold a hearing of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development to determine the precise ins and outs of the “Ottawa Initiative on Haiti”, including the link with the “Core Group”.

Click here to sign the petition.

*

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 Ottawa “Initiative on Haiti”: Petition to House of Commons
  • Tags:

The US and the Taliban signed an historic peace deal on Saturday in the Qatari capital of Doha which sets the timeline and conditions for the full withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan, with this landmark agreement giving credible reasons for observers to be cautiously optimistic about its prospects of success but also containing within it several key loopholes that deserve to be analyzed more in depth so as to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the possible pitfalls that could capsize this pivotal accord.

An Historic Accord

The US-Taliban peace deal that was signed on Saturday in the Qatari capital of Doha is an historic agreement which sets the timeline and conditions for the full withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan. The State Department published the entire text of this four-page document on its website, and it should certainly be reviewed by observers who want to read it in totality from a primary source instead of risk being misled by some of the more opinionated “reporting” about it in both the Mainstream and Alternative Media.

In a nutshell, the US committed to scaling down its military presence in the country over the next couple of months prior to the complete withdrawal of it and its allied coalition’s forces within 14 months in exchange for the Taliban ensuring that their homeland’s soil is never used to host any individual or group who harbors the intention to harm America or its allies. The deal also includes some vague details about the need to initiate an intra-Afghan peace process in parallel with the ongoing international one, which will in turn be rewarded by the US beginning to lift its sanctions on the Taliban and lobbying the rest of the world to follow suit as well.

Ending The “Endless War”

The very fact that the Trump Administration reached such a pragmatic agreement with the Taliban to end America’s longest-running war despite his pledge on the 2016 campaign trail to be merciless towards groups that he regards as “radical Islamic terrorists” speaks to just how serious he is about keeping his promise to “end endless wars” such as the one in Afghanistan in order to focus more on his “America First” vision. It took a lot of political will for him to go through with this decision and acknowledge that his plan to “Make America Great Again” doesn’t mean that America will always win all wars. For a variety of reasons, Trump inherited a losing war that he was unable to turn around, so the best possible option was to end it in as “controlled” and “face-saving” of a manner as possible, which is exactly what the deal aims to achieve. Considering the ongoing election season, it was also a shrewd political move to improve his appeal among voters by finally doing what most Americans have wanted for a while now, which is extricate their military from the land-locked country and let others do the dirty work instead if they’re so inclined.

Cautious Optimism

It’s for these reasons of realistic military-strategic necessity and self-interested political calculations that observers are justified in being cautiously optimistic about the the deal’s prospects for success despite the difficulty in initiating the next pivotal step of the (possibly Moscow-hosted) intra-Afghan peace process, especially since Afghan President Ghani refused to recognize the agreement’s provision mandating the release of Taliban prisoners first. Trump and the Taliban have evidently established enough trust with one another for the President to publicly declare that he intends to meet with its leaders sometime soon, so the aforementioned challenge will probably be surmounted after Washington puts considerable pressure on Kabul in the coming future. Before going any further, it deserves to be mentioned that last weekend’s historic peace deal couldn’t have been possible without the crucial behind-the-scenes support of the global pivot state of Pakistan, which played an irreplaceable role in this process that stands in stark contrast to India’s self-interested opposition to peace. If everything goes according to plan, then “The Taliban Peace Deal Will Redefine The Regional Balance Of Power” and subsequently facilitate Pompeo’s strategy for strengthening American influence in Central Asia through economic means instead of military ones like it’s thus far failed to do.

“Legal” Loopholes

These envisaged outcomes are ambitious, but far from certain because of a few loopholes contained in the Afghan peace deal which might prove to be troublesome further down the line. The first concerns the possible failure of the intra-Afghan peace process, which could indefinitely delay the US’ promise to begin lifting international sanctions on the Taliban, thereby making the group understandably restless and prone to reverting back to its militant ways out of desperation to advance its interests at all costs. That would deal a disappointing death to this promising peace plan, but can still be avoided and therefore shouldn’t be too worrisome of a scenario for the moment at least. What’s more concerning, however, is the undefined nature of three key provisions within the agreement, namely the relationship between “private security contractors” and “the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners”; the nature of the “threat to the security” of “the United States and its allies” that the Taliban is committed to thwarting from individuals and groups alike; and exactly what constitutes an American “ally” in the first place.

The Problem Of “Private Security Contractors”

In sequential order, Part One of the accord stipulates that “The United States is committed to withdraw from Afghanistan all military forces of the United States, its allies, and Coalition partners, including all non-diplomatic civilian personnel, private security contractors, trainers, advisors, and supporting services personnel within fourteen (14) months following announcement of this agreement”. On the surface, this sounds like all American, allied, and coalition personnel serving as “private security contractors” must withdraw, but it’s not clear whether this also includes third-country nationals working for such firms headquartered in those three categories of states (the US, its allies, and the coalition) or if these “first-country nationals” can continue working in Afghanistan provided that they’re employed by a firm that isn’t based in any of those aforementioned categories. This issue will have to be clarified in the future in order for no “unexpected disagreements” to arise which could either be provoked by the anti-Trump “deep state” and its Indian allies or exacerbated by them in order to scupper the peace plan.

“Threats” To “Allies”

The second and third loopholes concern the nature of the “threat to the security” of “the United States and its allies” that the Taliban is committed to thwarting as its part of the deal. The words “threat” and “security” are extremely vague and therefore subject to broad interpretation, and it’s also confusing that the word “ally” isn’t defined either since this could either mean the US’ NATO partners with whom it’s formally allied or could potentially be expanded to include its “Major Non-NATO Allies” like Pakistan, which is threatened by Indian-backed terrorist groups in Afghanistan such as the “Baloch Liberation Army” and the TTP (popularly described as the “Pakistani Taliban” by the Western Mainstream Media). Although the argument can be made that the US won’t refuse to implement its responsibilities under the Afghan peace deal just for the sake of ensuring Pakistan’s security in the event that the Taliban fails to make effective progress in defeating these two State Department-designed terrorist groups which pose no credible threat to America’s domestic security, it should be remembered that the US’ grand strategic goal of relying on economic means to expand its post-war regional influence would be jeopardized if the destabilization of Pakistan endangers the viability of N-CPEC as a future international trade corridor to Central Asia.

Concluding Thoughts

Considering all of the above, the expectation is nevertheless that the US and the Taliban will sort out the “legal” loopholes in their peace agreement and therefore pave the way for a new future for Afghanistan. Washington has considerable leverage over Kabul and can compel it to its bidding under ever-intensifying amounts of pressure, and while some in the American “deep state” share the concerns of their Indian counterparts about the consequences of Trump’s deal, they probably won’t succeed in scuppering the accord given the hard-earned trust that’s been established between the President and the group’s leaders over the past year of negotiations. Upon sorting out the uncertainty surrounding the future of all “private security contractors” in the country and clarifying the extent to which the Taliban must ensure Pakistan’s security from Indian-backed but Afghan-based terrorist groups, the long-awaited peace will become a much more realistic prospect than ever before, thus heralding a new era of regional geopolitics that will undoubtedly shape the course of the ongoing New Cold War.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Featured image is from OneWorld

Intravenous vitamin C is already being employed in China against COVID-19 coronavirus. I am receiving regular updates because I am part of the Medical and Scientific Advisory Board to the International Intravenous Vitamin C China Epidemic Medical Support Team. Its director is Richard Z. Cheng, MD, PhD; associate director is Hong Zhang, PhD.

Among other team members are Qi Chen, PhD (Associate Professor, Kansas University Medical School); Jeanne Drisko, MD (Professor, University of Kansas Medical School);

Thomas E. Levy, MD, JD; and Atsuo Yanagisawa, MD, PhD. (Professor, Kyorin University, Tokyo). To read the treatment protocol information in English: click this (Protocol in Chinese is here).

Direct report from China

OMNS Chinese edition editor Dr. Richard Cheng is reporting from China about the first approved study of 12,000 to 24,000 mg/day of vitamin C by IV. The doctor also specifically calls for immediate use of vitamin C for prevention of coronavirus (COVID-19). See this.

A second clinical trial of intravenous vitamin C was announced in China on Feb. 13th. In this second study, says Dr. Cheng,

“They plan to give 6,000 mg/day and 12,000 mg/day per day for moderate and severe cases. We are also communicating with other hospitals about starting more intravenous vitamin C clinical studies. We would like to see oral vitamin C included in these studies, as the oral forms can be applied to more patients and at home.” Additional information here.

And on Feb 21, 2020, announcement has been made of a third research trial now approved for intravenous vitamin C for COVID-19.

Dr. Cheng, who is a US board-certified specialist in anti-aging medicine, adds:

“Vitamin C is very promising for prevention, and especially important to treat dying patients when there is no better treatment. Over 2,000 people have died of the COIV-19 outbreak and yet I have not seen or heard large dose intravenous vitamin C being used in any of the cases. The current sole focus on vaccine and specific antiviral drugs for epidemics is misplaced.”

He adds that:

“Early and sufficiently large doses of intravenous vitamin C are critical. Vitamin C is not only a prototypical antioxidant, but also involved in virus killing and prevention of viral replication. The significance of large dose intravenous vitamin C is not just at antiviral level. It is acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) that kills most people from coronaviral pandemics (SARS, MERS and now NCP). ARDS is a common final pathway leading to death.

“We therefore call for a worldwide discussion and debate on this topic.”

News of vitamin C research for COVID-19 is being actively suppressed

Anyone saying that vitamin therapy can stop coronavirus is already being labeled as “promoting false information” and promulgating “fake news.” Even the sharing of verifiable news, and direct quotes from credentialed medical professionals, is being restricted or blocked on social media. You can see sequential examples of this phenomenon at my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/themegavitaminman .

Indeed, the World Health Organization (WHO) has, literally, met with Google and Facebook and other media giants to stop the spread of what they declare to be wrong information. See this.

Physician-directed, hospital-based administration of intravenous vitamin C has been marginalized or discredited. Scientific debate over COVID-19 appears not to be allowed.

Ironically, Facebook, blocking any significant users’ sharing of the news of approved vitamin therapy research, is itself blocked in China by the Chinese government. As for the internet, yes, China has it. And yes, it is censored. But, significantly, the Chinese government has not blocked this real news on how intravenous vitamin C will save lives in the COVID-19 epidemic. Here is the protocol as published in Chinese.

Medical orthodoxy obsessively focuses on searching for a vaccine and/or drug for coronavirus COVID-19). While they are looking for what would be fabulously profitable approaches, we have with vitamin C an existing, plausible, clinically demonstrated method to treat what coronavirus patients die from: severe acute respiratory syndrome, or pneumonia.

And it is available right now.

*

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 IMF’s actions has a direct impact on the fate of hundreds of thousands of women like Hiruni in Sri Lanka.

For years, the IMF has been pushing for an end to customs barriers protecting local producers, whether farmers, fishermen, artisans or others. This is one of the reasons why Hiruni and others like her can no longer make a living out of what they produce. The IMF, together with the World Bank and other international institutions, also promotes the deregulation of the banking sector and micro-credit. It supports the right of credit companies to set the rates they want, in the name of “freedom” of prices and the market.

This is why Hiruni and so many others have to pay exorbitant interest rates. The IMF, in collaboration with other international institutions, put pressure on governments to privatize or close down public credit banks which were providing loans at reasonable, usually subsidized rates (i.e. without making profits), which the IMF and the World Bank abhor.

This is another reason why Hiruni and others cannot find credit from government sources.

To complete this negative picture, one must add several conditionalities imposed by the IMF’s credit policy handed out to Sri Lanka like so many other countries.

The IMF wants the government to reduce the public deficit by cutting social spending and reducing government staff. As a result, Hiruni and millions of people in Sri Lanka witnessed the free education and health care drastically eroded.

Indeed, Sri Lanka is one of the few countries where health and education are still free in principle, but the austerity measures imposed by the government in complicity with the IMF mean that the real cost of education (including primary education) and basic health is constantly rising, as school books and medicines have to be paid for, and parents are also being pushed into private education and health care to escape the falling public service. Therefore, poor families have to go into debt with micro-credit agencies to meet school and health expenses. And it is women who are most directly affected since they are primary responsible for ensuring education and health for their children.

The list of neo-liberal measures recommended by the IMF, having a disastrous impact on the daily lives of millions of people in Sri Lanka and hundreds of millions worldwide is enormous.

And this will only change if the people get rid of the IMF by electing such political forces in the government that have the will to bring radical solutions that ensure respect for social justice, the enjoyment of human rights and respect for nature.

Current IMF policy in Sri Lanka

In 2016, the neo-liberal government of Sri Lanka appealed to the IMF, which in return pledged $1,600 million in credit on the condition that it would follow the IMF’s recommendations. This programme is still being implemented and the balance sheet is entirely negative.

On 7 February 2020, an IMF visit to Sri Lanka was concluded. The press release of the Washington-based institution is highly significant

(https://www.imf.org/en/News/Articles/2020/02/07/pr2042-sri-lanka-imf-staff-concludes-visit-to-sri-lanka ).

The IMF states that the government’s decision to set a maximum interest rate of 35% on micro-credit loans can only be temporary because the distortion (sic!) of the functioning of the financial market must be avoided. It should be noted that the government set such a ceiling as it was under pressure from the streets.

Thousands of women, victims of micro-credit and its abusive rates, had mobilized in the North of the country to demand that interest rates should not exceed 25% (which remains an extremely high rate since the inflation rate is only 4%). Setting the maximum interest rate at 35% is a limited concession made by the government in view of the scale of the social drama and the risk of extending the mobilizations. It should also be noted that in a very clear report, the United Nations independent expert on debt and human rights sounded the alarm about the dramatic situation experienced by the very many victims of micro-credit in Sri Lanka. His report, written after completing a field mission, was damning for the government, financial institutions and other foreign donors. He called on the governments to act

(https://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=23482&LangID=E).

(https://lk.one.un.org/news/end-of-mission-statement-un-independent-expert-on-the-effects-of-foreign-debt-and-human-rights/).

The government had tried to justify itself by claiming that it was pursuing a policy of poverty reduction

(https://www.mfa.gov.lk/sri-lankas-statement-on-the-report-of-the-independent-expert-on-foreign-debt-and-human-rights/ and

https://www.mfa.gov.lk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/Statement.pdf ).

It should also be noted that the independent expert followed with keen interest, the proceedings of the 7th South Asia CADTM workshop held in Colombo in April 2018

(https://www.cadtm.org/Colombo-Declaration-on ;

https://www.cadtm.org/South-Asia-New-creditors-and-new-forms-of-debt-peonage ; https://www.cadtm.org/Damning-testimonies-of-microcredit)

The Sri Lankan social movements had submitted to him a public document at the time of his visit in August 2018

(https://www.cadtm.org/Submission-to-the-Independent-Expert-on-foreign-debt-and-human-rights-By-Civil).

As a result of various forms of pressure exerted on it, the government set a maximum rate of 35%. Although this rate is still completely exaggerated and must be characterized as usurious, the IMF has the audacity to state in its press release of 7 February 2020 that it is necessary to soon restore the right to freely set rates!

The IMF also calls on the government to end as soon as possible the moratorium on the payment of debts of small and medium-sized enterprises. It must be said that following the terror attacks of April 2019, tourists have deserted Sri Lanka for months, which has damaged the economy and in particular small and medium enterprises. In order to prevent an increase of bankruptcies, the government has decreed a suspension of payment of their debts and it is this measure that the IMF is also asking to be cancelled soon.

In addition, the IMF calls on the government to continue austerity measures and the underhand and gradual privatization of state-owned enterprises. This applies in particular to SriLankan Airlines, the oil company and the electricity company

(see https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/CR/Issues/2019/11/04/Sri-Lanka-Sixth-Review-Under-the-Extended-Arrangement-Under-the-Extended-Fund-Facility-and-48787).

The IMF calls on the government to deepen international trade liberalisation and measures to attract foreign investment. The negative consequences of this policy are well known.

The volume of Sri Lanka’s public debt has risen sharply over the past three years and now exceeds 90% of GDP. It should be recalled that the current IMF arrangement dates back to 2016.

However, between 2016 and the end of 2018, public debt increased by 30%. This means that IMF action has actively contributed to the increase in Sri Lanka’s debt, increasing the country’s dependence on foreign and domestic lenders. Although a small part, debt in the form of sovereign securities issued in foreign financial markets has doubled in volume. In percentage terms, it has increased by 50 per cent.

The IMF is banging its fist on the table to call on the government to implement a firmer policy of austerity in public spending.

Hiruni, like the overwhelming majority of Sri Lanka’s population, has no fair expectations from the IMF.

The CADTM, which held its 8th South Asia Regional Workshop in Colombo in February 2020, supported the struggle of victims of government and IMF policies. The UN Independent Expert on Debt and Human Rights sent a message to the CADTM workshop participants that addresses the substantive issues

(https://www.cadtm.org/Message-from-Juan-Pablo-Bohoslavski-the-UN-expert-on-Debt-and-Human-Rights-to).

It should be noted that, in addition to the fatal agreements with the IMF, the deadly action of the Trump Administration also plays a significant role in the deterioration of the living conditions of a large majority of the Sri Lankan population. One of the channels of Washington’s intervention is a federal agency created in 2004, called the Millennium Challenge Corporation, which has been active in Sri Lanka since April 2019.

(see https://www.mcc.gov/where-we-work/country/sri-lanka).

It assigns good or bad ratings to the countries in which it operates (see https://www.mcc.gov/who-we-fund/scorecard/fy-2019/LK). Its deleterious action is combined with that of USAID, the other federal agency that strongly encourages further job insecurity in Sri Lanka (so that the IMF does not deal with it directly).

The European Union is not to be outdone. Its investment bank, the EIB, actively supports micro-credit enterprises that exploit and despoil hundreds of thousands of women in Sri Lanka. It should also be noted that the so-called ethical European private bank Triodos also invests in the microcredit business in the country

(https://www.lankabusinessonline.com/tripartite-finance/).

Of course, we must not forget China, for which Sri Lanka occupies a geo-strategic position in terms of trade routes. China is building a number of ports without taking into account the preservation of the environment, and it is doing so while putting Sri Lanka into debt. China is not giving a gift either.

CADTM joins Hiruni and all those who, like her, have finally decided to resist. For after having been a passive victim, Hiruni joined the action of active resistance like many other women who demonstrated in Colombo on 27 February 2020 to request that the government respond to their demands.

*

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 CADTM.

Eric Toussaint is a historian and political scientist who completed his Ph.D. at the universities of Paris VIII and Liège, is the spokesperson of the CADTM International, and sits on the Scientific Council of ATTAC France. He is the author of Debt System (Haymarket books, Chicago, 2019), Bankocracy (2015); The Life and Crimes of an Exemplary Man (2014); Glance in the Rear View Mirror. Neoliberal Ideology From its Origins to the Present, Haymarket books, Chicago, 2012 (see here), etc.

All images in this article are from CADTM

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on IMF “Economic Medicine” Imposed on Sri-Lanka: Inhuman at the Micro and Macro Levels
  • Tags: , ,

In unexpected news today, the small West African country of Sierra Leone has withdrawn recognition of the so-called independence of Kosovo. This now means that of the 193 UN member states, only 92 countries recognize the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo, putting the illegitimate country into a minority of recognition. The head of Serbian diplomacy also explained that 96 countries do not recognize Kosovo, while five countries are in a fluid stance, i.e. mostly recognize Kosovo, but no longer have much support for Kosovo.

The news was revealed by Serbian Foreign Minister Ivica Dačić, who is on an official visit today to the African country that is located on the Atlantic Coast. Sierra Leone is now the 18th state to withdraw recognition of Kosovo as an independent state since 2017.

“It is with great pleasure that I can show a note from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs stating that Sierra Leone is withdrawing recognition of Kosovo as an independent state and will respect the results of the dialogue, with the mediation of the EU and the UN,” Dačić said. “This means Kosovo no longer has a majority in the UN.”

He continued to explain that this “recognition” of Kosovo’s independence was of particular importance for Belgrade. This deals a powerful blow to Kosovo, not so much that Sierra Leone holds great diplomatic influence, but rather for the first that the African country was among one of the first countries to recognize Kosovo’s independence in 2008. Dačić said he had successful talks with Sierra Leonese President Julius Maada Bio in the country’s capital of Freetown and that it was agreed that bilateral relations, which had been stalled for years, will be improved. Bio is expected to visit Serbia in June.

Prior to Sierra Leone, Kosovo independence recognition was withdrawn by Suriname, Togo, Ghana, Nauru, the Comoros, São Tomé and Príncipe, Guinea-Bissau, Burundi, Liberia, Lesotho, Grenada, Madagascar, the Commonwealth of Dominica, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Palau and Central African Republic. Only last night Serbian President Aleksandar Vučić told reporters that after meeting with U.S. National Security Advisor Robert O’Brien, he expected new withdrawals of recognition of the self-proclaimed Kosovo in the near future.

Vučić and President of Kosovo Hashim Thaçi met on Monday at the White House. According to a statement by Vučić, two presidents had “the usual talks” that resolved and progressed nothing. However, with Freetown withdrawing their recognition of Kosovo, it appears that Vučić knew this was going to occur and is alluding that there are more states ready to withdraw their recognitions.

The Greater Albanian project is accelerating as Kosovo’s statehood is in question. Kosovo-born Albanian Minister-in-office for Europe and Foreign Affairs Gent Cakaj and the Foreign Minister of Kosovo Glauk Konjufca in a meeting last month discussed the establishment of common economic space for free movement of people, goods and capital between Albania and Kosovo, as well as sharing embassies around the world. Although this is yet to occur, it is likely that because Kosovo now has minority recognition according to Dačić, Albania and Kosovo are likely to speed up this process of integration. With a minority recognition of Kosovo’s independence and Vučić alluding that there will be more recognition withdrawals, the legitimacy of Kosovo’s independence from Serbia is becoming increasingly tedious and will legitimize the reincorporation of the breakaway province, which is considered Serbia’s heartland.

The U.S. historically has been indifferent to a Greater Albania project that incorporates further areas of Serbia, as well as Greece, Montenegro and North Macedonia. The U.S. has had no need to support such a project as Greece, Montenegro and North Macedonia are subservient states to Washington. Serbia on the other hand serves as a bulwark to U.S. hegemony in the Balkans and is the most Russian-friendly state in the region, meaning Washington fully backs Kosovo’s illegal declaration of independence. Kosovo’s return under Serbian sovereignty challenges U.S. control of the Balkans, suggesting that Washington may not oppose the incorporation of Kosovo into the Albanian state.

For this reason, Serbia should not give up its current policy of pushing states to withdraw their recognition of Kosovo’s independence and Belgrade must maintain that Kosovo is an integral and historical part of their country. Serbia must continue its diplomatic campaigning to have more states withdraw their recognition of an independent Kosovo. With this achieved, Belgrade will have secured legitimacy to pursue all options necessary, including military, to prevent Kosovo from ever incorporating itself into Albania instead of Serbia.

Today marks a historic day when one of the first states to recognize Kosovo’s independence has now withdrawn it. However, this also spells a dangerous time for Serbia as Kosovo can start behaving in more irrational ways to maintain their illegal independence and resort back to terrorism as it had in the 1990’s and 2000 under the banner of the so-called Kosovo Liberation Army. We can expect Belgrade to secure more withdrawals of recognition, meaning that it is only a matter of time until Kosovo is finally reincorporated into Serbia, striking a massive blow to the U.S. as it will lose a region that has been extremely loyal to it.

*

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

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 Kosovo’s Legitimacy Receives Massive Blow After Another Withdrawal of Recognition
  • Tags:

In National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood (2017), Dr. Matthew Alford and Tom Secker offer convincing proof that the US Department of Defense, CIA and FBI have for decades used various means to manipulate content and even deny production of certain Hollywood projects, often using “national security” as a pretext to censor film and television. The real aim of these operations, according to the authors, is to advance “violent, American-centric solutions to international problems based on twisted readings of history.”

Alford is a Teaching Fellow at the University of Bath in England. He is also the author of Reel Power: Hollywood Cinema and American Supremacy (2010). Secker is a private researcher who runs spyculture.com—an online archive about government involvement in the entertainment industry.

Their book argues that the US military has had an influential relationship with Hollywood products since its earliest days. Alford and Secker point out that the Home Guard (reserve forces outside the National Guard) provided tanks for “the infamous feature film [D.W. Griffith’s] Birth of a Nation (1915), in which black slaves revolt against their masters, before the Ku Klux Klan ride in on horseback to save the day.”

Using the Freedom of Information Act, the authors gained access to files that exposed the extent of government censorship in films between 1911 and 2017. The DOD (Department of Defense, or Pentagon) provided military equipment and “advice,” and even allowed members of the military to make appearances, in exchange for some degree of control over the content of 814 films.

The authors continue, “If we include the 1,133 TV titles in our count, the number of screen entertainment products supported by the DOD leaps to 1,947. If we are to include the individual episodes for each title on long-running shows like 24, Homeland, and NCIS, as well as the influence of other major organisations like the FBI, CIA and White House then it becomes clear that the national security state has supported thousands of products.”

Alford and Secker offer the Transformer movie franchise (2007-2018 so far, most of it directed by Michael Bay) as an example of how the DOD reinforces its “national security” interests by using different “under the table” methods of influencing the making of what was (and still is) considered to be pure entertainment.

Normally, filmmakers have to send drafts of the script to the DOD along with their request for material support. Not so with the makers of Transformers. The DOD paid the filmmakers to gain “very early influence over the scripts” by giving them the most military assistance in filmmaking history, e.g., “twelve types of Air Force aircraft and troops from four different bases.” The second Transformers film was provided with $150m F-22 fighters.

Peter Cullen in Transformers (2007)

The authors rightly conclude that the Transformers franchise is anything but “apolitical,” and is, in fact, an example of what’s come to be known as “war pornography.” The unstated but intentional message to the audience is to “trust in officialdom” to “bring ’em home” from foreign wars and invasions, no matter the number of human beings, American or otherwise, soldier or civilian, who are killed in the process.

When the authors turn to investigating the CIA’s influences on movies, they work from available facts and information in regard to three different eras: 1943-1965, 1966-1986 and 1986 to the present. While the CIA has censored or interfered with far fewer movies, its repressive methods and means, fittingly, are even more insidious.

During the immediate postwar period, officials of the newly formed CIA worked, according to Alford and Secker, “to ensure that Hollywood films did not depict them in any form.” Meanwhile, the agency, from its establishment, was busy “recruiting assets within the highest levels of the film industry and using them to spy on Hollywood and to add and remove material from movie scripts.”

Image on the right: Jan Sterling in Nineteen Eighty-Four (1956)

The film versions of George Orwell’s Animal Farm (1954, John Halas and Joy Batchelor) and Nineteen Eighty-Four (1956, Michael Anderson) exemplify the kind of movies that the CIA would be expected to censor. Indeed, film scholars, our authors point out, have long been aware that both adaptations “were directly affected by the CIA.” In the case of Animal Farm, the changes to the film’s ending were designed to encourage revolts against “communist dictatorships,” i.e., the various Stalinist regimes in the USSR and Eastern Europe, “ironically just as, in the real world,” Alford and Secker point out, “the CIA was overthrowing the democratically elected governments in Iran and Guatemala and launching operations against Sukarno’s independence government in Indonesia.”

The CIA discovered the effectiveness of working through agents—or Hollywood figures who would act as agents—during the Cold War period. As an example, the authors reveal that Luigi Luraschi, the head of censorship at Paramount Studios, regularly contacted “an anonymous individual” at the CIA to inform him of Paramount’s ability and willingness to alter films to conform to US government interests.

Among the many Paramount movies from which scenes were added or deleted—intended to improve the image of American society—include the apparently innocuous Sangaree (Edward Ludwig), The Caddy (Norman Taurog) and Houdini (George Marshall), all released in 1953, and Strategic Air Command(Anthony Mann), from 1955. The latter was changed to ensure that America did not appear as “a lot of trigger-happy warmongering people.”

Sean Connery and Rik Van Nutter in Thunderball (1965)

In 1961 the CIA suffered its “first high profile failure” during the attempted invasion of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs, an operation aimed at overthrowing the Castro government. One of the CIA’s responses to the debacle was to turn to movies to improve its image. Nowhere was this more apparent than in Thunderball (Terence Young, 1965), the James Bond film based on the novel by Ian Fleming (a friend of CIA director Allen Dulles), featuring a number of positive references to the agency, and the first movie with a likable CIA character, Felix Leiter (Rik Van Nutter).

1966-1986: Richard Helms, who began working in intelligence in 1943 and who served as CIA director from 1966-1973, presided over what appeared to be a less intrusive relationship with Hollywood. Alford and Secker ask, “But was all as it seemed?”

Two films from this period—Topaz (Alfred Hitchcock, 1969) and Three Days of the Condor (Sydney Pollack, 1975)—portrayed the CIA as a ruthless intelligence agency that sent “murderous villains,” i.e., CIA agents, out into the public. The authors hypothesize that the agency may have welcomed the “more menacing” image that these and other films presented. They write that if there really was “tacit CIA approval for the Condor script, it would suggest that the CIA was actually at ease with being represented in such threatening terms. The final scene of the film rationalises the CIA’s criminal activity, as ultimately it is only the Agency that appears able to protect the flow of oil that is vital to the nation’s survival.”

Robert Redford in Three Days of the Condor (1975)

Alford and Secker point out that Helms, who was dismissed as CIA chief by President Richard Nixon in early 1973 (due in part to Helms’s refusal to help cover up the developing Watergate scandal), spoke with star Robert Redford “for hours” on the set of Condor in 1975.

The authors’ notion that the CIA was deliberately cultivating a “tough-guy” image is probably correct, but providing at least a brief history of Nixon’s firing of Helms and the surrounding developments, including the state of “the flow of oil,” would have strengthened their arguments and enlightened the reader.

1986-present: Top Gun (Tony Scott, 1986) proved to be a successful promotional film for the US Navy—in the year following the movie’s release, “Navy recruitment figures saw a spike of 16,000, and enlistment for naval aviators jumped 500 percent.” This success, according to Alford and Secker, caused the CIA to change its means of manipulating Hollywood. In fact, the CIA was taking advantage of a reactionary political and cultural atmosphere, one of whose central events was the collapse of the Eastern European Stalinist regimes and the dissolution of the Soviet Union between 1989 and 1991.

After building a relationship with author espionage-thriller writer Tom Clancy, the CIA allowed adaptations of two Clancy products, Patriot Games (1992) and Mission Impossible (1996), to be the first movies filmed at the CIA’s Langley headquarters in two decades.

Other celebrity links quickly followed, giving the CIA control over the development of a number of films. In his capacity as CIA’s Entertainment Liaison Officer (ELO), Chase Brandon, a 25-year veteran of CIA operations and cousin of Hollywood star Tommy Lee Jones, helped give the spy agency influence over the production of a number of films, such as The Bourne Identity(Doug Liman, 2002) , The Sum of All Fears (Phil Alden Robinson, 2002—also based on a Clancy Cold War potboiler) and The Recruit (Roger Donaldson, 2003). Brandon’s role as ghostwriter of the last film has been verified. The Recruit, as the authors note, is intended to counter political concerns, such as the CIA’s apparent failure to predict the 9/11 attacks, and to promote the Agency’s “number one priority, terrorism.”

Perhaps the most surprising and disgraceful of the authors’ findings is the number of Hollywood performers who have, in one way or another, shilled for the CIA and the US military. Robert De Niro (who had left-wing parents and should know better), Tom Cruise, Dan Aykroyd, Dean Cain, Will Smith, Claire Danes, Kevin Bacon, Patrick Stewart and Mike Myers are among those who have publicly visited Langley headquarters. “George Clooney and Angelina Jolie have worked on films with the CIA.” Ben Affleck, a friend of Rwandan dictator Paul Kagame, and star in the aforementioned CIA and DOD-assisted The Sum of All Fears, told an interviewer that “Hollywood is probably full of CIA agents.”

A “Case Studies” section allows the authors to scrutinize more closely the influence of the military-intelligence apparatus on 14 contemporary films in different genres, including James Cameron’s Avatar (2009); Mike Nichols’s Charlie Wilson’s War (2007); Robert Zemeckis’s Contact (1997); Terry George’s Hotel Rwanda (2004); Seth Rogen-Evan Goldberg’s The Interview(2014); The Kingdom (2007) and Lone Survivor (2013), both directed by Peter Berg; William Friedkin’s Rules of Engagement (2000); and Paul Greengrass’s United 93 (2006).

(The WSWS, without of course knowing the specific role of the military and CIA in every case, sharply criticized each of the films on this list that we reviewed.)

A detailed examination of these films brings to light the fact that most of them promote a common underlying ideology, that “American military supremacy is fundamentally benevolent.”

Tom Hanks and Philip Seymour Hoffman in Charlie Wilson’s War (2007)

In the case of Charlie Wilson’s War, the CIA advanced this ideology by deleting scenes from the script that portrayed Soviet goodwill during their occupation of Afghanistan, e.g., in one of several scenes removed from the script, a “maverick CIA operative” described Russian soldiers gathering Afghan refugees together in a semi-circle and teaching them how to read and write. Iron Man (2008) follows a familiar Hollywood plot line to prove the benevolence of American domination. Initially, Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) is a stereotypically rich playboy, but his capture and imprisonment change him almost instantaneously into a heroic figure who, as Iron Man, uses sophisticated equipment to kill “generic Muslim terrorists,” just as the Pentagon was doing. The US Air Force rewarded the filmmakers by providing aircraft and airmen as extras, along with script and technical advice. Alford and Secker observe that “Air Force Captain Christian Hodge, the Defense Department’s project officer for the production, commented that the ‘Air Force is going to come off looking like rock stars.’” The Case Studies section concludes with a consideration of the relationship between various government departments and agencies, especially the CIA, and the work of Clancy and directors Oliver Stone and Paul Verhoeven.

While the authors note that Clancy is hardly a “laudable figure politically,” the Hollywood versions of his novels removed whatever anti-establishment elements they contained, and shifted them in the direction of misleading “people about real events and political dynamics while portraying the security state as the only answer to a dangerous and hostile world.”

Alford and Secker rather generously refer to Verhoeven’s “politically subversive trio of movies”—the sci-fi trilogy of Robocop, Total Recall, and Starship Troopers. The latter film, according to Verhoeven, got past the censors “because nobody [at Sony Pictures] ever saw it,” due to the fact that Sony was turning over management “every three or four months.”

Veteran filmmaker Oliver Stone had no such luck. After the release of Snowden, about whistleblower Edward Snowden, Stone spoke of his inability to find American financing for the movie, according to the authors, his “first major political movie in 21 years.” Stone commented, “It’s a very strange thing to do [a story about] an American man, and not be able to finance this movie in America.”

Stone faced censorship from multiple US government departments and agencies as well as a dry well when looking for American financing of any movie that was not sympathetic to US imperialist policies.

At times, the authors fail to bring enough historical background to their statements and assertions, although a valuable Endnotes concludes the book. The critical subject matter, about which the American public knows next to nothing, deserves an even larger study.

Overall, National Security Cinema: The Shocking New Evidence of Government Control in Hollywood offers a clearly written presentation of a Hollywood industry and government departments and agencies that are, indeed, intent on delivering more and more “war propaganda.” Until they are stopped, “we will,” to quote the authors, “continue to live and die in a military-industrial nightmare.”

*

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.

Are Dems Rigging Things for Biden?

March 3rd, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

The hugely corrupted US political process is too debauched to fix, ordinary Americans with no say over how they’re governed.

Elections when held are political theater. Back-room deal-making decides things, not voters.

Going to the polls is a waste of time when so-called elections always turn out the same way under one-party rule with two right wings.

In 2016, Hillary’s Dem party takeover robbed Sanders of the nomination as standard bearer he  likely would have won if things were fair.

The process was like holding a world series or super bowl with only one team represented.

Sanders never had a chance and knew it. Are things now manipulated the same way in the race to be Dem standard bearer in November?

Based on his voting record, along party lines most often, Sanders assures continuity if elected to the nation’s highest office.

Yet he’s likely seen not safe enough by Dem party bosses and monied interests backing them.

Despite holding a sizable lead over other Dem aspirants and Trump in an average of national polls, showing him more popular than rivals for the nation’s highest office, things are being manipulated against him to benefit Biden.

Notably ahead of Super Tuesday, Buttigieg and Klobuchar dropped out of the race, their announcements timed to boost Biden’s chances in Tuesday voting — one of many ways the US political system is rigged.

Reportedly Obama and other Dem insiders pushed Buttigieg and Klobuchar to drop out and endorse Biden.

On Monday, they appeared separately with the former vice president to back him — timed ahead of Tuesday primaries in 14 states, including California and Texas, with 1,357 of 3,979 delegates at stake.

Their sellout to party bosses, likely in return for special favors offered, likely boosts Biden’s Super Tuesday chances at Sanders’ expense.

Key is whether Warren will drop out, endorse him, help his campaign, and make it a three-candidate race.

Late entrant/super-rich Bloomberg will likely stay the course as long as he sees a chance to buy the Dem nomination.

A billion here, a billion there thrown at the race is pocket change for a figure worth about $55 billion, according to Forbes magazine.

Dem party bosses likely see him as an alternate choice against Sanders if popular support for Biden fades in upcoming primaries.

For now, establishment Dems are publicly endorsing the former vice president — not Obama so far, remaining publicly neutral despite clearly favoring Biden over Sanders.

According to NBC News, “(p)eople close to Obama said the former president has been keeping close tabs on the race.”

“They said the signal has been sent in the past 36 hours that he sees Biden as the candidate to back, and they don’t need Obama to say it publicly or privately.”

Separately, NBC News said sources close to Bloomberg explained that he’s “test(ing) the theory” that Biden won’t be nominated.

So he’s not bowing out of the race at this time even though aware of long odds against him. Based on polls so far, he may not win a single state.

Longstanding establishment figure Biden as US senator and vice president since 1973 reflects virtually everything disturbing about dirty business as usual in Washington.

He never met a US war of aggression against a nonthreatening nation he didn’t wholeheartedly endorse.

Hostile to people of color and the nation’s poor, he’s militantly pro-Wall Street, pro-the military, industrial, security complex, pro Big Oil and Big Pharma.

He supports the humanly destructive war on drugs and US gulag prison system, operating domestically and abroad.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act he championed led to the imprisonment of millions of Black and Latino Americans — largely for illicit drug possession and other nonviolent offenses.

He once argued that Roe v. Wade (a woman’s right to choose, to maintain sovereignty over her own body) “went too far,” adding:

“I don’t think that a woman has the sole right to say what should happen to her body.”

He backed the notorious Hyde amendment, prohibiting federal funding for abortions.

He supported the anti-consumer 2005 Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act.

It notably made federal and private student loan indebtedness non-dischargeable, debt bondage relief through bankruptcy unattainable.

He backed the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, repealing Glass-Steagall. The 1930s law separated commercial from investment banks and insurers, among other provisions, curbing speculation — unleashed by this deplorable legislation.

He also backed the 2000 Commodities Futures Modernization Act — preventing regulatory oversight of derivatives and leveraging. It made Wall Street more of a casino, operating on only the house wins rules.

He supported all post-9/11 police state laws — while opposing Net Neutrality.

He never met a tax cut for corporate America and high net-worth households he didn’t endorse.

He’s militantly hostile to all sovereign independent states on the US target list for regime change.

He supports monied interests exclusively over the public welfare he disdains.

Based on his deplorable political record, he’s the worst of all Dem aspirants — a warmaker, not a peacemaker, an anti-progressive, not a man of the people, a shill for powerful interests exclusively, a Hillary clone with a gender difference.

*

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.

Brazil on the Brink of Environmental Collapse

March 3rd, 2020 by Lucas Leiroz de Almeida

A MV Stellar Banner ship with almost 300 thousand tons of iron ore is stuck on the Brazilian coast, just over 10 kilometers from the coast. There is a great risk of sinking, as its hull is on the verge of breaking. In addition to ore, there is an immense fuel load, with 3,500 tons of residual oil and 140 tons of distilled oil. It can be one of the greatest environmental disasters in Brazilian history. 

The case would be tragic in isolation; however, environmental disasters in Brazil have been practically unceasing in recent years. The ship, interestingly, serves the Vale Company, the same company that was responsible for the disasters in Mariana (2015) and Brumadinho (2018), both in the interior of the state of Minas Gerais and which resulted in the death of almost 300 people. In both cases, tailings dams broke in the areas explored by mining, destroying two historic cities of Brazil, which have not yet been restored. The victims’ families remain homeless and without compensation – Vale has never been legally held responsible for the tragedies.

To fully understand these cases and the whole controversy surrounding the company Vale, we have to analyze a little of Brazilian political history. “Vale” was the name adopted by the company after its privatization. Before, it was called “Vale do Rio Doce” and was a state-owned mining company, founded in the 1940s by former president Getúlio Vargas, who saw it as an important stage in Brazilian national development. The decades had passed and the political rivalry between the nationalist defenders of Getúlio Vargas and the liberals has been intensified. The getulists wanted to preserve the public companies created by the ex-president to develop the country; liberals wanted to privatize them and subordinate the country economically to international economic elites. In 2007, the privatization of the Vale do Rio Doce was finally concluded, and the company came to be called “Vale”, being now a publicly traded company, operating worldwide and with shares traded on the world’s main Stock Exchanges.

It is precisely from the moment of its privatization, that Vale begins to drop the quality of its services, ceasing to be a central point of the Brazilian economy to become a truly murderous and mercenary company. In 2012, Vale was elected by the “Public Eye People’s” as the worst company in the world in regard to human rights and the environment.

Three years later, there was the incident in Mariana, considered until today the biggest environmental disaster in the Brazilian history, which, in addition to deaths and general destruction, caused the extinction of a large and important river in the region. Three more years passed and the company repeated its actions in the city of Brumadinho, killing an even greater number of people. In 2019, in another episode involving the company, approximately 500 people had to be forcibly removed from their homes due to a warning about possible breakdown of new dams. The collective evacuation in the city of Barão dos Cocais, also in the state of Minas Gerais, caused a huge disturbance to the population that remains homeless and prevented from returning to their residence, while more than a year has passed and nothing has been done to remedy the problem, with the homeless population and the environment waiting for yet another disaster.

Now, we have a new chapter happening involving the company and its environmental and social neglect. The ship belongs to the South Korean company “Polaris Shipping”, which was contracted by Vale to transport iron ore from Brazil to China. The ship is stranded and almost sinking in the coast of the state of Maranhão, in northeastern Brazil. Images captured by the Brazilian Navy detected a series of oil stains in the regions around the stranding. According to Brazilian authorities, there is no defined containment plan yet.

Why is Vale still involved with impunity in so many scandals and environmental disasters? How does a company “internationally awarded” with the “Oscar of environmental shame” continue to operate freely in Brazil, being involved in at least three tragedies in five years? Why has Vale never been punished? What prevents Brazilian authorities from restricting the activities of a company that has already killed hundreds of Brazilians?

The answer lies in other data: Vale is one of the main controllers of the Brazilian National Congress. Its political influence is immense, with several parliamentarians at its disposal. After the incidents of Mariana and Brumadinho, a survey organized by the Brazilian newspaper “Estadão” revealed that the company had already donated around US $ 19 million to Brazilian deputies, senators, governors and candidates for the Presidency of the Republic. Such donations were a key point in a major institutional corruption scheme in which politicians were bribed for failing to pass strict environmental laws, which to some extent “hurt” Vale.

Now, we see the results of the environmental neglect of neoliberalism: yet another environmental tragedy is approaching in Brazil. There will be more victims and the social and environmental impact will be even greater than that of previous crises. And this will not be the last tragedy, as Vale will probably go unpunished again.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

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

Global Research Needs Your Help To Curb Disinformation

March 3rd, 2020 by The Global Research Team

Curbing the tide of disinformation being pumped out by powerful and well-funded mainstream media is a considerable and costly challenge. Global Research operates on a shoe-string budget and does not accept funding from outside sources. This allows us to maintain complete independence in terms of what we decide to publish, but also means that without our reader’s support we would sink.

Our reader feedback has been an invaluable source of encouragement, motivation, and growth. But Global Research also needs your financial support and help. If you value the coverage we bring you on a daily basis, free of charge, please consider making a donation or becoming a member by clicking below:

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


Thank you for supporting independent media.

The Global Research Team

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Research Needs Your Help To Curb Disinformation

Os Estados Unidos subiram o alerta do Coronavírus para a Itália, do nível 3 (“evitar viagens não essenciais”), elevando-o para 4, para a Lombardia e Veneto (“não viajar”), o mesmo que para a China. A American Airlines e a Delta Air Lines suspenderam todos os voos entre Nova York e Milão. Os cidadãos USA que vão à Alemanha, Polónia e outros países europeus, no nível de alerta 2, devem “adoptar precauções acrescidas”.

Há, no entanto, uma categoria de cidadãos USA isentos dessas normas: os 20.000 soldados que começam a chegar dos Estados Unidos aos portos e aeroportos europeus para o exercício Defender Europe 20 (Defensor da Europa 20), o maior destacamento de tropas USA, na Europa, nos últimos 25 anos. Compreendendo os que já estão presentes, participarão em Abril e Maio, cerca de 30.000 soldados USA, apoiados por 7.000 dos 17 países membros e parceiros da NATO, entre os quais, a Itália.

A primeira unidade blindada chegou do porto de Savannah, nos EUA, ao de Bremerhaven, na Alemanha. Em resumo, chegam dos USA a 6 portos europeus (na Bélgica, Holanda, Alemanha, Letónia, Estónia) 20.000 peças de equipamentos militares. Outras 13.000 peças são fornecidas pelos depósitos pré-posicionados pelo US Army Europe (Exército dos EUA, na Europa), principalmente na Alemanha, Holanda e Bélgica. Tais operações, informa o US Army Europe, “requerem a participação de dezenas de milhares de militares e civis de muitas nações”.

Chega, ao mesmo tempo, dos USA a 7 aeroportos europeus, o grosso do contingente dos 20.000 soldados. Entre estes, 6.000 da Guarda Nacional, provenientes de 15 Estados: Arizona, Flórida, Montana, Nova York, Virgínia e outros. No início do exercício, em Abril – comunica o US Army Europe  – os 30.000 soldados USA “espalhar-se-ão por toda a região europeia” para “proteger a Europa de qualquer ameaça potencial”, com clara referência à “ameaça russa”.

O General Tod Wolters – que comanda as forças USA, na Europa e, ao mesmo tempo, as forças da NATO como Comandante Supremo Aliado na Europa – assegura que “a União Europeia, a NATO e o Comando Europeu dos Estados Unidos trabalharam em conjunto para melhorar as infraestruturas”. Isto permitirá que os comboios militares se movam rapidamente, ao longo de 4.000 km de rotas de trânsito. Dezenas de milhares de soldados atravessarão as fronteiras para realizar exercícios em dez países. Na Polónia chegarão a 12 áreas de treino, 16.000 soldados USA com cerca de 2.500 veículos. Os pára-quedistas USA da 173ª Brigada, estacionados em Veneto e os italianos da Brigada Folgore, estacionados na Toscana, irão à Letónia para um exercício conjunto de lançamento de bombas.

O Defender Europe 20 está a ser efectuado para “aumentar a capacidade de instalar rapidamente uma grande força de combate dos Estados Unidos na Europa”. Portanto, desenvolvem-se com horários e procedimentos que tornam praticamente impossível sujeitar dezenas de milhares de soldados às regras de saúde do Coronavírus e impedir que, durante os períodos de descanso, entrem em contacto com os habitantes. Além do mais, o US Army Europe Rock Band realizará uma série de concertos gratuitos na Alemanha, Polónia e Lituânia, que atrairão um grande público. As 30.000 tropas USA que “se espalharão pela região europeia” estão, de facto, isentas das normas preventivas sobre o Coronavírus que se aplicam aos civis. Basta a garantia dada pelo US Army Europe de que “estamos a monitorar o Coronavírus” e que as “nossas forças estão de boa saúde”.

Ao mesmo tempo, é ignorado o impacto ambiental de um exercício militar de tal envergadura. Participarão tanques USA Abrams, pesando 70 toneladas e com armadura de urânio empobrecido, que consumem 400 litros de combustível por 100 km, produzindo forte inquinamento para obter a potência máxima.

Em tal situação, o que fazem as autoridades nacionais e as da União Europeia, o que faz a Organização Mundial da Saúde? Além de tapar a boca e o nariz, colocam a máscara sobre os olhos.

Manlio Dinucci

Artigo original em italiano :

30 mila soldati dagli Usa in Europa senza mascherina

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Trinta mil soldados vindos dos USA na Europa, sem máscara

30 mila soldati dagli Usa in Europa senza mascherina

March 3rd, 2020 by Manlio Dinucci

Gli Stati uniti hanno alzato l’allerta Coronavirus per l’Italia a livello 3 («evitare viaggi non essenziali»), portandolo a 4 per Lombardia e Veneto («non viaggiare»), lo stesso che per la Cina. Le American Airlines e le Delta Air Lines hanno sospeso tutti i voli tra New York e Milano. I cittadini Usa che vanno in Germania, Polonia e altri paesi europei, a livello 2 di allerta, devono «adottare accresciute precauzioni».

C’è però una categoria di cittadini Usa esentata da tali norme:  i 20.000 soldati che cominciano ad arrivare dagli Stati uniti in porti e aeroporti europei per l’esercitazione Defender Europe 20 (Difensore dell’Europa 2020), il più grande spiegamento di truppe Usa in Europa degli ultimi 25 anni. Compresi quelli già presenti, vi parteciperanno in aprile e maggio  circa 30.000 soldati Usa, affiancati da 7.000 di 17 paesi membri e partner della Nato, tra cui l’Italia.

La prima unità corazzata è arrivata dal porto di Savannah negli Usa a quello di Bremerhaven in Germania. Complessivamente arrivano dagli Usa in 6 porti europei (in Belgio, Olanda, Germania, Lettonia, Estonia) 20.000 pezzi di equipaggiamento militare. Altri 13.000 pezzi sono forniti dai depositi preposizionati dallo US Army Europe (Esercito Usa in Europa), principalmente in Germania, Olanda e Belgio. Tali operazioni, informa lo US Army Europe, «richiedono la partecipazione  di decine di migliaia di militari e civili di molte nazioni».

Arriva allo stesso tempo dagli Usa in 7 aeroporti europei il grosso del contingente dei 20.000 soldati. Tra questi 6.000 della Guardia Nazionale provenienti da 15 Stati: Arizona, Florida, Montana, New York, Virginia e altri. All’inizio dell’esercitazione in aprile – comunica lo US Army Europe  – i 30.000 soldati Usa «si spargeranno attraverso la regione europea» per  «proteggere l’Europa da qualsiasi potenziale minaccia», con chiaro riferimento alla «minaccia russa».

Il generale Tod Wolters – che comanda le forze Usa in Europa e allo stesso tempo quelle Nato quale Comandante Supremo Alleato in Europa – assicura che «l’Unione europea, la Nato e il Comando europeo degli Stati uniti hanno lavorato insieme per migliorare le infrastrutture». Ciò permetterà ai convogli militari di spostarsi rapidamente lungo 4.000 km di vie di transito. Decine di migliaia di soldati attraverseranno le frontiere per effettuare esercitazioni in dieci paesi.In Polonia arriveranno, in 12 aree di addestramento, 16.000 soldati Usa con circa 2.500 veicoli. Paracadutisti Usa della 173a Brigata di stanza in Veneto e italiani delle Brigata Folgore di stanza in Toscana andranno in Lettonia per una esercitazione congiunta di lancio.

La Defender Europe 20 viene effettuata per «accrescere la capacità di dispiegare rapidamente una grande forza di combattimento dagli Stati uniti in Europa». Si svolge quindi con tempi e procedure che rendono praticamente impossibile sottoporre decine di migliaia di soldati alle norme sanitarie sul Coronavirus e impedire che, nei turni di riposo, entrino in contatto con gli abitanti. Per di più la US Army Europe Rock Band terrà in Germania, Polonia e Lituania una serie di concerti a ingresso libero che attireranno un grande pubblico. I 30.000 soldati Usa, che «si spargeranno attraverso la regione europea», sono di fatto esentati dalle norme preventive sul Coronavirus che invece valgono per i civili. Basta l’assicurazione data dallo US Army Europe che «stiamo monitorando il Coronavirus» e che «le nostre forze sono in buona salute».

Viene allo stesso tempo ignorato l’impatto ambientale di una esercitazione militare di tale portata. Vi parteciperanno carrarmati Usa Abrams, pesanti 70 tonnellate con corazze di uranio impoverito, che consumano 400 litri di carburante per 100 km producendo forte inquinamento per erogare la massima potenza.

In tale situazione, che cosa fanno le autorità Ue e nazionali, che cosa fa l’Organizzazione mondiale della Sanità? Si mettono la mascherina, oltre che su bocca e naso, sugli occhi.

Manlio Dinucci

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on 30 mila soldati dagli Usa in Europa senza mascherina

Palestine and Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan

March 2nd, 2020 by Dr. Zuhair Sabbagh

Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan, was officially unveiled, on 28 January, 2020, at the White House, by both American President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The Plan, also known as “Deal of the Century”, dealt with a number of important issues but concentrated on three aspects: political, security and economic affairs. Out of its 181 pages, 54 pages were dedicated to the plan’s economic component, while the rest dealt with the other issues.[1]

It should be pointed out that the Plan was authored by a team headed by two American attorneys: Trump’s son in law Jared Kushner, and Trump’s former real estate lawyer Jason D. Greenblatt, two pro-Trump White House assistants.

The following article aims at providing critical analysis of parts of the “Peace to Prosperity” Plan. Consequently, it will concentrate only on three aspects: (a) Colonial Verbiage (b) International Law and Sovereignty and (c) The Proposed Palestinian “State”.

(a) Colonial Verbiage

Trump’s Plan should not be judged only by what ideas it contains, but also by both its terminology and by what it tried to conceal. The purposeful omissions by the authors of a number of realities inside the Colonized Palestinian Territories (CPT) revealed how, through the use of colonial verbiage, the authors attempted to twist realities and advance hazy assumptions.

Analysis of the style of language the authors used in this Plan reveals the following. The word ‘Vision’ was repeated 96 times while the term ‘security’ was repeated 165 times. Israeli 53-years old belligerent occupation of the Palestinian territories was described by the authors as a “security footprint”, while Israeli colonial settlers in the West Bank were called “Israeli residents”. The 12-years old tight Israeli military siege on the Gaza Strip, and the Israeli occupation, two familiar and internationally accepted terms, were never used by the authors.

Apparently, this American plan was focused on the Israeli version of “security”, an issue that will be dealt with later. It should be pointed out that Israeli settlers inside the West Bank call themselves Jewish settlers, so does the Israeli media which reports their shooting of Palestinian civilians, their plunder of Palestinian-owned land and their daily burning and cutting of Palestinian olive trees. Even Israeli politicians call them Jewish settlers or pioneer settlers. The Plan leaves us in the dark and the authors do not inform us how Israeli settlers were converted into Israeli residents?

Furthermore, the Plan and its authors are completely tilted to Zionist colonial interests. One indicator for this bias is a statement given by the so-called Special Representative for International Negotiations Jason Greenblatt. He has frequently criticized Palestinian leaders for their policies and rejection of the Trump administration’s efforts. When asked why he does not voice similar criticism of Netanyahu’s government policies, he responded by saying: I did not find “anything to criticize.”[2]

(b) International Law and Sovereignty

In the course of their ‘prolonged occupation’, the Zionist authorities annexed the occupied territories of both the Syrian Golan Heights and East Jerusalem. The present Israeli government expressed its intention to annex additional territories of the West Bank, namely the Jordan valley and all the illegal colonial settlements that were created in the West Bank in the period 1967-2020. Consequently, one should ask: can the Israeli authorities legally carry out this political measure and acquire a sovereign title over these occupied territories?

According to Michael Lynk[3], a well-known Canadian expert in International Law, they definitely cannot. Lynk elaborated his expert opinion in a research entitled “Prolonged Occupation or Illegal Occupant”, in which he argued that,

In the modern world, an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to conquer, annex or gain sovereign title over any part of the territory under its occupation…This prohibition has been made clear by both the 1907 Hague Regulations, and the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention.[4]

This same prohibition was formerly stated by the United Nations Security Council which, in November 1967, has endorsed the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or by force, a position that was repeatedly adopted by the UNSC on at least nine occasions, most recently in December 2016.[5]

To begin with, International Law constitutes the only reliable and internationally accepted measure for issues of belligerent occupation and sovereignty. It is important to emphasize that when a foreign army occupies a foreign territory; sovereignty is suspended but never annulled. Lynk pointed out that any territorial annexation by the occupant cannot become valid and legal and should be measured by the principal instruments of international humanitarian law, namely the 1907 Hague Regulations, the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention and the 1977 Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions.[6]

Initially, the authors of the “Peace to Prosperity” Plan dealt with the issue of sovereignty in a peculiar and bizarre way. They argued that:

Sovereignty is an amorphous concept that has evolved over time. … The notion that sovereignty is a static and consistently defined term has been an unnecessary stumbling block in past negotiations. Pragmatic and operational concerns that effect security and prosperity are what is most important.[7]

In accordance with this twisted and strange legal opinion, the authors of the Plan decided that Israeli sovereignty can be freely granted to the Israeli occupant on any part of the occupied Palestinian territories. Therefore, they endorsed Israeli annexation of two Palestinian territories: East Jerusalem and all the Zionist colonial settlements inside the West Bank.

From the very beginning, the authors who emphasized that their Plan “is security-focused”[8] contemplated that “The Jordan Valley, which is critical for Israel’s national security, will be under Israeli sovereignty…”[9] Even, after the establishment of the proposed Palestinian “state” and according to the Plan, Israel will still have “security responsibility”[10] inside the territory of this “state”.

When it comes to the issue of “security”, it should be emphasized that the Israeli army is one of the strongest armies in the world. According to the Military Strength Ranking index of Global Firepower, “Israel comes behind the standard military powerhouses of the United States, Russia, China, India and European powers Germany, the UK and France…”[11]

Historically speaking, Zionist justifications for conquests, plunder, violence and repression have been repeatedly projected by Zionist leaders as “historical rights”, “security needs”, and fight against Palestinian “terrorism”. These euphemisms constituted Zionist attempts to camouflage the colonial relationship that developed inside historical Palestine.

Consequently, the term “security”, is a classical Zionist euphemism that has been in use by Zionist politicians and military analysts, throughout the colonization period. It has frequently been used as a blanket phrase, designed to cover up and justify a number of Zionist settler colonial acts, policies and activities such as: colonial settlements, territorial annexations, expropriations of Palestinian-owned land and water resources, Gaza Strip siege, torture of Palestinian prisoners, targeted killings of Palestinian leaders, the so-called “security barrier” (Separation Wall), the arrest of Palestinian small children, and the shoot to kill policy.

Actually, all these Israeli measures and many other war crimes were all carried out by the Zionists for dubious “security reasons”. They were implemented, by successive Zionist governments, inside the Colonized Palestinian Territories and were justified by false security pretensions. Several UN and International resolutions have repeatedly condemned these violations.

Therefore, Zionist Israel has no “vital security needs” inside the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. In reality, it has colonialist interests cloaked as “vital security needs”.

In short, President Donald Trump who trampled on previous UN resolutions, declarations, treaties and principles, has appointed himself as an international bogus real state arbiter.  He granted what he does not legally own, namely the colonized Golan Heights and parts of the colonized West Bank, to the Zionist settler colonialists who neither legally own these territories.

In order to justify this grand land robbery that lacks any lawful title to ownership, the Plan authors call “sovereignty an amorphous concept” and completely devastate the existence of the internationally accepted International Law.

Accordingly, we should ask:  Who decides what is a valid legal claim of a belligerent occupant on an occupied territory? The only concrete and legally correct answer is International Law. Therefore, the authors’ worthless claims are null and void.

According to Michael Lynk, the Canadian International Law expert,

In the modern world, an occupying power cannot, under any circumstances, acquire the right to conquer, annex or gain sovereign title over any part of the territory under its occupation. This is one of the most well-established principles of modern international law and enjoys universal endorsement.[12]

Moreover, this principle has been confirmed by the UNSC resolution 242 in November 1967, which has endorsed the principle of “the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory” by war or by force on at least nine occasions, most recently in December 2016.[13]

Furthermore, the authors of “Peace to Prosperity” plan mentioned that,

“Since 1946, there have been close to 700 United Nations General Assembly resolutions and over 100 United Nations Security Council resolutions in connection with this conflict. …These resolutions have not brought about peace…”[14]

The authors did not mention that the 100 resolutions adopted by the United Nations Security Council were not implemented because of the numerous American vetoes that were casted by the American representative at the UNSC in favor of Israel, and because of the American backing of Israeli colonial policies pursued by Israel’s various governments inside the CPT.

(c) The Proposed Palestinian “State”

The so-called Palestinian “state”, envisioned by the Trump’s Plan, looks very much like a bizarre collection of disjointed land enclaves. The attached map reveals the proposed “state” as composed of countless number of land pieces, spread out inside both of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and lacks any territorial contiguity. As stated by the Plan, these enclaves will be connected together by “… an innovative network of roads, bridges and tunnels that enables freedom of movement for the Palestinians”[15]. Moreover, these pieces of land happened to be the densely populated territories of cities, towns and villages, that are not colonizeable, therefore, are not desired by the Israeli colonial annexationists.

In addition, the proposed “state” lacks genuine sovereignty and is surrounded by clusters of Israeli colonial settlements. It will have no borders with Jordan or Egypt and its airspace, sea shore and exits will be under permanent Israeli military control. Furthermore, it will be fully demilitarized with no army but a local police force.[16]

Moreover, the proposed “state” will include imposed limitations that give it a fictitious sovereignty. The Plan:

“… necessarily entails the limitations of certain sovereign powers in the Palestinian areas (henceforth referred to as the “Palestinian State”) such as maintenance of Israeli security responsibility and Israeli control of the airspace west of the Jordan River…”[17]

Other related future tasks of the Zionist authorities inside the proposed Palestinian “state” were described in the document as “security responsibility” and “security challenges”.

As anticipated by the Plan, the proposed “Palestinian State” will have security forces that encompass the following tasks.

“…The mission of the State of Palestine’s security forces will be public order, law enforcement, counterterrorism … border security, protection of government officials and foreign dignitaries, and disaster response…”[18]

As it appears by the Plan, American support for the establishment of a “Palestinian state” would be conditional and comes after Palestinian leaders embrace “peace” under the following Zionist conditions:[19]

  • Recognition of Israel as a Jewish state,
  • Rejecting terrorism in all its forms,
  • Carrying out special arrangements that address Israel’s vital security needs,
  • Building effective institutions,
  • Choosing pragmatic solutions.

In short, after renouncing the Palestinian legitimate national rights, Palestinian leaders must adopt the Zionist political agenda which is based on meeting Israel’s colonialist interests, hidden by the so-called Israeli “security needs”. In return for this total national capitulation, the Palestinians will receive “…more than $50 billion in new investment over ten years…”[20] and in return for their cooperation, the Jordanian, Lebanese and Egyptian governments will get a total of $22,857 billion[21], in grants and loans[22], but mostly subsidized loans, paid in the course of a ten years period. 

The South African Bantustans and the Israeli Zionistan

It should be pointed out that the politico-military and economic relationship that was developed by Israel, in the last 53 years, inside the CPT is described by the authors as a “security footprint”. One wanders, what kind of audacity the authors assumed when they summarized 53 years of Israeli brutal settler colonial rule by calling it “security footprint”? Perhaps they thought that they can easily succeed in covering up an ugly reality that has been numerously condemned by UN resolutions, the overwhelming majority of states in the world and by International Law experts?

The Palestinian-ruled areas inside the WBGS were described by various terms as “self-rule areas”, “autonomous areas”, “Palestinian Cantons”, “internal colonial regime” and Palestinian “Bantustans”.

Actually, these terms are misnomers that are inadequate and reveal a lack of a concise term to describe precisely these entities. These entities can best be described as “Zionistans”. Consequently, a Zionistan[23]could be defined as: a territory set aside by Israel for the indigenous Palestinians and given municipal independence while ensuring their political and economic subordination to Israel. These Zionistans were gradually established in the period 1993-2020, as racially segregated entities in the West Bank and previously in the Gaza Strip. Later on and in 2005, Israeli Prime Minister Erik Sharon decided to dismantle Israeli colonial settlements from the Gaza Strip.

When compared, these entities are similar to the system of Apartheid that was applied in South Africa until it collapsed in 1994.

The Proposed “State” of Palestine

Source: White House Staff, “Peace to Prosperity”, https://www.whitehouse.gov, retrieved on 10 February 2020, p.46

It is imperative to recall that the description of Apartheid was given to these Zionistans by two Israeli Prime Ministers, Ehud Olmert[24] and Ehud Barak[25], and by an American Secretary of State John Kerry[26]. US President Jimmy Carter was bold enough to use it for the tile of his 2006 book “Palestine: Peace or Apartheid”.[27]

Apparently, these Israeli and American politicians were able to foresee the destiny of Zionist colonial realities on the ground and knew for sure the close similarities between the Israeli Zionistan project and the South African Bantustan project. The parallel they drew was meant to pose a warning to the Zionist colonialists that once they start implementing their colonialist scheme, they will unleash an accelerated process of its inevitable destruction.

The following map shows the locations of the 10 Bantustans along the borders of South Africa. When compared to Trump’s map, one can easily notice the close similarities between the two maps. Both, the Zionistan entity and the Bantustan entity, are composed of disjoined enclaves, lack territorial contiguity, reveal racial segregation, and show a bizarre creature that can never survive.

Source: “Black homelands (“bantustans”) in apartheid South Africa, 1986”, http://upload.wikimedia.org, retrieved on 13 February, 2020.

This colonial solution was tried by Apartheid South Africa. It lasted for fifteen years but South Africa could not market, anymore to the world, its Bantustans as African independent entities. On 27 April 1994 this Apartheid regime collapsed. As a result, these Bantustans were re-encorporated into the new nine provinces of a democratic South Africa.[28]

Concluding Remarks

US arrogant president Donald Trump appointed himself as an international real estate arbiter, granting what remained of the Palestinian homeland to Zionist colonization and justifying Israeli illegal annexation of the colonized territories of both East Jerusalem and the Golan Heights.

Judged by its declared aspirations, timing and content, the Trump’s “Peace to Prosperity” Plan cannot be a peace plan because it proposes a detailed colonialist set of assumptions that were tailored by its authors to fit the exact measures of the Israeli ongoing Zionistan project. In actuality it looks more like an archaic Roman diktat that aims at the liquidation of the option for the two-state solution to the Palestinian-Zionist Conflict.

Moreover, Trump’s “Progress to Prosperity” Plan has used the impact of colonial settlements, in order to impose a colonial solution to a colonial problem. The authors of the “Progress to Prosperity” should be reminded that Israel is using a solution that has totally failed in Apartheid South Africa and it can never succeed in Palestine, because a colonial solution cannot be permanent nor stable since it contains the internal potential for its own demise.

*

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

Notes

[1] White House Staff, “Peace to Prosperity”, https://www.whitehouse.gov, retrieved on 10 February 2020

[2] Diamond, Jeremy, “Trump peace plan author: ‘I haven’t found anything to criticize’ Israel over”, CNN, https://edition.cnn.com, 26 June, 2019

[3] Michael Lynk is an associate professor at the Faculty of Law, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada. In March 2016, the United Nations Human Rights Council appointed him as Special Rapporteur for the situation of human rights in the Palestinian Territory occupied since 1967 (ZS).

[4] Lynk, Michael, “Prolonged Occupation or Illegal Occupant?”, https://www.israelpalestinelawsymposium.ca. Retrieved on: 13 February 2020.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] “Peace to Prosperity”, op. cit. p. 9

[8] Ibid. p. 4

[9] Ibid., p. 13

[10] Ibid., p.3

[11] Winston, Alex, “Israel drops a slot in 2019 Military Strength Ranking, still behind Iran”, https://www.jpost.com, 12 August, 2019.

[12] Lynk, Michael, op. cit.

[13] Ibid.

[14] “Peace to Prosperity”, op. cit., p. 5

[15] Ibid., p.7

[16] Ibid., p. 22

[17] Ibid., p. 3

[18] Ibid. p. 22

[19] Ibid., p.8

[20] Ibid., p. 19

[21] Ibid., p. 97

[22] Ibid., p. 98

[23] Zionistan is a concept that was coined by me to describe the Apartheid-like entity that Israeli settler colonialists have developed inside the colonized West Bank in the period 1967-2020.

[24]  McCarthy, Rory, “Israel risks apartheid-like struggle if two-state solution fails, says Olmert”, https://www.theguardian.com, 30 November 2007.

[26] Beaumont, Peter, “Israel risks becoming apartheid state if peace talks fail, says John Kerry”,  https://www.theguardian.com, 29 April 2014.

[27]  Ibid.

[28]  Ibid.

Featured image is from Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs/Flickr

I have received dozens of emails from people in several countries who report an increase in, or initial onset of, electrical sensitivity symptoms when high-speed fiber optic internet is installed in their neighborhood. How could this be? Isn’t wired fiber optic internet, which uses light to transmit large amounts of data at incredibly high speeds, supposed to be safer and healthier for everyone?

The issue is that fiber optic internet service does not only use light to transmit data. The high-speed fiber optic data must be converted to electrical signals before the data can be transmitted to the home on the existing copper cable or phone line DSL. Those electrical signals, which carry our internet data, are not inherently problematic because they are in a very narrow frequency range and don’t typically radiate from the cable or phone lines.

However, there can be a significant problem with the high-speed fiber optic converters out at the street (or in the home with some newer fiber systems) that create these electrical data signals. This is because the converters are not designed with low-EMI emissions in mind. Thus, their power supplies and operation can generate high amounts of wide-spectrum EMI (electromagnetic interference). This inadvertent EMI then piggybacks on the copper cable and phone lines into our homes where it can radiate from every copper wire. This EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure is a primary reason why electrical sensitivity is increasing when high-speed internet is installed in our communities.

Fortunately, there are solutions to this issue. Here are a few:

1.)  If electrical sensitivity symptoms increase all of a sudden with a new internet provider (for example, switching from Comcast Xfinity to AT&T), go back to your original provider right away. There is likely an EMI issue with their fiber optic converters that is impacting your home. I have seen several people get better by switching back to their original internet providers (this is with all wireless disabled).

2.)  Continue internet service with a non-fiber optic provider as long as possible. Many communities have multiple internet service companies to choose from. Consider this EMI issue when choosing your service.

3.)  Select the lowest bandwidth internet package available. This may reduce the EMI transmitted into your home and reduce the EMI created from the modem/router within your home. In most areas, even the most basic package is much faster than you will need to stream movies on Netflix or Amazon. Choose a package at or below 100 Mbps and stay away from 1 or 10 Gbps packages, which will likely add more EMI to your home.

4.)  Disconnect the existing cable and telephone lines in your home from the cable provider. This will prevent EMI from the fiber optic infrastructure from conducting along the cable and telephone lines in your walls. You could still have a data connection brought to your residence, but have it in just one area of your home. You will be able to control the EMF exposures in your home more easily if every copper wire is not radiating EMI.

5.)  Consider filtering the EMI before it comes into your home. Genisco Filters is a company that specializes in this issue. Send me a message for more information on EMI filtering options.

6.)  Use your own low-bandwidth cable modem. The two primary sources of EMI from high-speed internet service are the fiber optic converters at the street and the cable modem within your home. The cable modem can also add EMI to the electrical wiring of your home, so you want this to be clean as possible. Unfortunately, the modem provided by your internet provider will often produce high amounts of EMI, along with WiFi. The non-WiFi modems that seem to work best for electrically sensitive families include the Arris models TM822R, SB6141 and SB6183.

7.)  If you experience increased electrical sensitivity at your computer after high-speed fiber optics are installed in your neighborhood, consider installing your own fiber optic system between your cable modem and computer. This idea may seem counterintuitive, but it will create an EMI barrier between your computer and your internet provider’s system. I will outline how you can easily do this in my next article.

8.)  Consider that the high-speed fiber optic networks being installed in our communities will be used as the backbone for 5G wireless installations. Every cellular antenna on a light or utility pole needs a fiber connection to operate. As award-winning science journalist B. Blake Levitt points out in this article, fiber optic systems can be used as a Trojan horse for 5G installations in our communities. Thus, living in an area without fiber infrastructure can both reduce the EMI coming into your home and prevent you from having a cellular antenna like these installed directly outside your home. I will discuss this aspect of 5G further in an article to be published in October.

While microwave radiation from wireless technology and magnetic & electric fields from electrical wiring are critically important, EMI is equally problematic for human biology. It’s a part of the EMF spectrum that gets very little attention. However, it is a major contributor to electrical sensitivity and poor health. Hopefully this article will help you understand and reduce an important source of EMI in your home – the fiber optic internet infrastructure that is becoming common throughout our communities.

*

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 Why Do Fiber Optic Installations Increase Electrical Sensitivity?

During the late 1960s and the 1970s, the University of Dar es Salaam in the East African state of Tanzania was a center of Marxist thought on the continent.

After the overthrow of Convention People’s Party (CPP) of Ghana on February 24, 1966 which was founded and led by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the ideological thrust of the African Revolution shifted to other geo-political regions. Nkrumah’s emphasis on African unification and socialism had drawn the ire of United States imperialism and its allies.

The Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was able to coordinate and facilitate a military and police led coup against the CPP installing a pro-western regime which brought Ghana back into the sphere of world capitalist system both ideologically as well as politically. During that same year, Dr. Walter Rodney, having completed a Ph.D. in historical studies at London University, took a teaching position at University of Dar es Salaam where he researched and wrote his most famous work, “How Europe Underdeveloped Africa”, published in Tanzania in 1972.

With so much interest in Socialism and Pan-Africanism, the origins of the world movements against capitalism and imperialism would be an important topic pursued by young scholars and their students. Consequently, a coterie of intellectuals and students in Tanzania debated fiercely the character of the struggle for socialism during this period and the character of the Ujamaa system inside the country itself.

President Julius Nyerere was given the Kiswahili name of “Mwalimu” meaning teacher. This had been his occupation prior to leading the independence movement in Tanzania to independence in 1961.

Nyerere realized that it was not enough to just become an independent state that the society had to be liberated from the economic and political legacies of colonialism. In 1967, the Arusha Declaration was issued by the ruling Tanzania African National Union (TANU) which outlined the need to build socialism in the largely agricultural country. (See this)

Julius Nyerere and Kwame Nkrumah leaders of the Tanzanian and Ghanaian Revolutions in Africa

The Arusha Declaration was widely read and analyzed in this era. Its very existence was bolstered by the presence of organizing and educational structures established in Tanzania by the leading national liberation movements on the continent such as the Mozambique Liberation Front (FRELIMO), the Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU), Southwest Africa People’s Organization (SWAPO), African National Congress (ANC), among others.

Rodney, who was born in the South American nation of Guyana in 1942, had grown up in a progressive working class family which was committed to educational achievement. He would attend the University of the West Indies and later travel to London to research and write his dissertation on the impact of the Atlantic Slave Trade in West Africa’s Guinea coast.

Lectures Series Addressed Broad Scope of Russian Revolutionary Historical Questions

The existence of these lectures had been spoken of by former students and instructors at the University of Dar es Salaam for many years. Those who lived through the early 1970s when the lectures were delivered awaited their official publication by the Walter Rodney Foundation in 2018.

Rodney’s daughter, Asha, writes in an introductory statement to the book that:

“Most dedications are written by the author to someone or something that was important to the book’s creation. Who or what Walter Rodney would have written here was taken from us when his life was violently snatched from us at the age of thirty-eight. It has taken us the sum of his lifetime, another thirty-eight years, to publish this book. So, given this task, I dedicate this book to Walter Rodney, who brilliantly penned these lectures; and to his immeasurable mind and thirst for knowledge that made this work possible.”

These lectures are divided into nine categories with the first being “The Two World Views of the Russian Revolution” where the author examines the historical approaches to the Bolshevik Party which are either sympathetic and supportive or condemnatory. He raises the question as to why should African people be hostile to the revolutionary tradition when objectively they have faced similar problems which engulfed Russia at the turn of the 19thand 20thcenturies.

Rodney states in this introductory lecture:

“As it is, we know for a fact how prejudiced and distorted Europe’s view of Africa has been. We know that European capitalism and imperialism continue to have our exploitation as their main objective. There is, therefore, every reason to be suspicious of the Western European (and American) view of the Soviet Revolution, and there is every reason to seek an African view.” (p.3)

Later in parts two and three, he reviews “The Russian Regime and the Soviet Revolution” along with “Marx, Marxism and the Russian Left.” Marxism as a revolutionary body of intellectual work and political practice had existed since the mid-to-late 1840s when Karl Marx and Frederick Engels joined forces during a period where industrial capitalism was emerging as the dominant mode of economic production.

Citing Marx and Engels in their writings on Western Europe and Russia, Rodney concludes that the bourgeois historical critique which argues that what became Soviet society was not conducive to the building of scientific socialism is refuted by the actual writings of the two activist-scholars. Simply because the proletariat and capitalist classes did not constitute the majority in Russia in 1917 and in subsequent years during the early phases of the revolution does not mean that the general principles of historical and dialectical materialism are not applicable.

An entire chapter of the book of lectures examines Leon Trotsky as an historian of the Russian Revolution. Later Rodney discusses the concepts of democracy and its application to the Bolshevik revolutionary seizure of power in late 1917.

These chapters serve as a means for chronicling the intellectual and political attacks on the Bolsheviks after the October Revolution. A comparative analysis is put forward on the views of V.I. Lenin, the main architect and organizer of the revolutionary seizure of state power in Russia, Karl Kautsky, the German theoretician and literary executor of Marx and Engels, along with Rosa Luxemburg, the Polish and German left social democrat and later communist who debated with Lenin for years over the right of nations to self-determination, land redistribution to the peasantry and issues related to revolutionary democracy such as the dissolution of the Constituent Assembly  by the Bolsheviks.

Kautsky of course, received a scathing attack by Lenin when the German writer charged the Bolsheviks with undemocratic practice and extended his support to the Mensheviks. Rodney’s views on these important historical questions indicate a position quite sympathetic to Lenin and the developing Soviet state.

The final three chapters are of extreme importance in relationship to the lessons of the Russian Revolution and their significance to developments in Africa during the later decades of the 20thcentury when many of the national liberation movements and post-colonial states adopted Marxism-Leninism as methodology and ideology which could provide guidance in both defeating colonialism, settler-colonialism and imperialism as well as constructing a socialist society.

These final lectures are entitled: “Building the Socialist State”, “The Transformation of Empire” and “The Critique of Stalinism.” Rodney explains in his evaluation of the historical treatment of the peasantry in the Soviet Union under leader Joseph Stalin by western oriented capitalist scholars, noting:

“Underlying bourgeois historical writings on this issue is the assumption that the capitalist system is infinitely superior. Indeed, at most points of the evaluation, there is the implied comparison, especially since the whole object of the Cold War propaganda was to set up the capitalist system as a superior one. It is therefore very relevant to inquire how capitalism treated peasants. The answer is quite revealing. In Eastern Europe, the peasant was bounded off his land….. Outside of Europe, wherever Europeans established capitalist farming, they did so by expropriating the land of the indigenous peoples and often they virtually committed genocide. The latter applies with most force to the United States, while examples of crude treatment of the indigenous landowners are also to be found in South Africa, Australia, New Zealand, Kenya and Algeria.” (p. 123)

Relevance of the Russian Revolution Today

It has been over a century since the advent of the Bolshevik Revolution. The Russian and Soviet Revolutions were instrumental in providing political models and material assistance for other popular upheavals and socialist transformations in Korea, China, Vietnam, Cuba, Ghana, Algeria, Angola, Mozambique, Tanzania, Namibia, South Africa, among other geo-political regions.

Since the collapse of the socialist states in Europe and the Soviet Union during the late 1980s until 1991, bourgeois scholars and political figures have utilized this phenomena to attack the theoretical underpinning of Marxism-Leninism as being inherently undemocratic, impractical and even contrary to human nature. Socialism in China, Cuba, Vietnam, Venezuela, Bolivia and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) are often castigated for the purported lack of individual freedom and prosperity.

Yet capitalist societies have become more unequal in the 21stcentury with the broadening gap between the wealthy and the working class. Imperialist wars throughout Asia, Africa and Latin America have created enormous social dislocation while creating the conditions for unprecedented environmental degradation which endangers the very existence of the planet and humanity. The advances made in Cuba, Venezuela, China, the DPRK and Vietnam is routinely overlooked while the ideological Cold War propaganda against these societies continues unabated.

The publication of these lectures so many years later makes a profound contribution to the historical evaluation of the Russian Revolution and its importance in the modern period.

*

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

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

The US came to Afghanistan to stay, the same is true for all its war theaters by occupation and/or installed puppet regimes serving its interests.

Afghanistan’s troubled history goes back centuries. John Pilger explained that “no country has been abused and suffered more, and none has been helped less than Afghanistan.”

If hell on earth exists, it’s headquartered in Afghanistan — with many global affiliate locations in the modern era, largely because of endless US wars by hot and other means.

For centuries, Afghans endured what few can imagine. Marauding armies besieged cities, slaughtered thousands, and caused vast destruction.

In the 19th century, Afghans were victimized by “great game” struggles between imperial Britain and czarist Russia — a time of endless war, destruction, occupation and human misery, continuing from then to now, notably post-9/11.

Wherever the US shows up, endless wars and mass destruction follow, the human toll of no consequence.

According to Gideon Polya,

“the horrendous carnage of the (post-9/11) US War on Terror (launched in Afghanistan caused) the deaths of 32 million Muslims abroad (by violence or imposed deprivation) and the preventable deaths of 27 million Americans at home inescapably linked to the fiscal perversion of committing to a $7 trillion long-term accrual cost of killing millions of Muslims abroad.”

The true cost is likely three-fold or more higher because of unaccounted for multi-trillions of dollars by the Pentagon since the 1990s.

“Bush, Obama and Trump are indeed American-killing US presidents,” Polya stressed, adding:

“(S)erial war criminal (Trump warned) that “no place is beyond the reach of American might.”

“The US-imposed, 4-decade Afghan Holocaust and Afghan Genocide is to continue under more draconian rules of engagement.”

Since the 1990s, Polya estimated six million preventable Afghan deaths, millions more refugees, an entire population emmiserated, largely post-9/11.

Since US aggression against North Korea in 1950, he estimates around 40 million preventable deaths and tens of millions of refugees.

Since WW II, the US invaded or otherwise attacked “52 countries.”

“American exceptionalism means that the US is disproportionately  involved in…existential threats (to) humanity” — notably possible nuclear war that could destroy all life forms on earth.

The notion of first strike with these weapons that’s stated in US National Security Strategies from Bush/Cheney to Obama to Trump should terrify everyone everywhere.

What’s unthinkable is possible because of US rage to control planet earth, its resources and populations.

The so-called Trump regime/Taliban peace agreement isn’t worth the paper it’s written on.

Time and again throughout US history, it breached treaties, conventions, and agreements — clear proof that its ruling regimes can never be trusted.

The notion of the US agreeing to peace and an end to its occupation of Afghanistan is pure illusion.

The deal calls for reducing numbers of US and allied forces in the country in the coming months, withdrawing entirely in 14 months, including abandonment of Pentagon bases that cost billions of dollars to build and maintain.

Earlier drawdowns of US forces in the country were followed by increased deployments — troops in a so-called advisory and counterterrorism capacity.

Pentagon terror-bombing continued throughout the war.

In mid-2017, with around 8,400 US forces in Afghanistan, Trump OK’d increasing their numbers, then-US war secretary Mattis saying:

“This assures (that the Pentagon) can facilitate our missions and nimbly align our commitment to the situation on the ground (sic),” adding:

“Our overall mission in Afghanistan remains the same, to train, advise and assist the Afghan forces so they can safeguard the Afghan people and terrorists can find no haven in Afghanistan for attacking us or others (sic).”

The Trump regime’s Afghan strategy put no limit on the number of US forces in the country.

US policy under Bush/Cheney, Obama and Trump has nothing to do with safeguarding the Afghan people or denying terrorists a safe haven — elements the US created and supports in all its war theaters and elsewhere.

Trump’s claim about “working to finally end America’s longest war and bring our troops back home” awaits its moment of truth in the coming weeks and months — the illusion of ending over 18 years of war in Afghanistan likely to be dispelled.

Whether Pentagon and allied troops stay or leave, the CIA maintains a private army of paramilitaries in the country that serve US interests.

They’re staying, not leaving, including ISIS, al-Qaeda, and likeminded jihadists to be deployed to the country at the discretion of Langley and the Pentagon.

Afghanistan’s strategic value to the US includes its vast resources and its geographical location near Russia and China.

The US wants both countries encircled with Pentagon bases. It wants oil and gas pipelines constructed across Afghanistan.

It wants opium production continued for heroin manufacture and distribution to world markets — a key revenue source for Western banks and the CIA.

It wants control over the country continued under pro-Western puppet rule.

It wants endless war waged in multiple theaters, serving its imperial agenda, feeding its military, industrial, security, media complex.

Restoration of peace and stability in its war theaters defeats its interests, why new millennium wars rage — threats invented to continue them endlessly.

Restoration of peace and stability to Afghanistan is likely to last no longer than an invented US pretext to breach what was agreed on.

All US wars are based on Big Lies and deception. The possibility for either of its war party wings turning a page for world peace and stability is virtually nil.

Longstanding US history shows it’s a warrior nation — how its been from inception against its native people to today against humanity at home and abroad.

*

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 The Illusion of Restoring Peace and Stability in Afghanistan
  • Tags:

The word ‘corruption’ cannot fully embrace how this insulting megalomaniac is tearing apart our country, our democratic practices, and our moral norms. Who will put a stop to this president’s corrupt rampage against the American people?

***

Delusionary, dictatorial Donald Trump is drunk on power. Trump’s monarchical and lawless actions are a clear and present subversion of our Republic and its Constitution. As soon as the impeachment trial ended and Trump was acquitted by the Senate’s supine Republican courtiers (except for Senator Mitt Romney), vengeance flooded Trump’s fevered mind.

Ignoring warnings from his advisors, Trump is lashing out in all directions, unleashing torrents of foul-mouthed tweets. Note with alarm how this American Fuhrer is consolidating control and using his presidential power to smash all opposition. Remember that last July Trump declared “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.” He wasn’t kidding, America.

Trump is shocking his current appointees—in addition to those who have quit or been fired in purges.  Without evidence, he is accusing the intelligence agencies and the FBI of conspiring against him! Trump has attacked both the Justice Department and Attorney General William Barr because of the sentencing recommendations by four DOJ prosecutors for convicted criminal and Trump advisor Roger Stone. Barr, a Trump toady, was shaken. Barr said it would be impossible for him to do his job if Trump kept interfering.

As Mark Green and I depicted in our new bookFake President: Decoding Trump’s Gaslighting, Corruption, and General Bullsh*tloser Trump always retaliates against opponents by charging fraud, fakery, and crookery. Trump’s intimidation of others is amplified by the media that gives no right of reply to Trump’s targets.

What is most troubling are the silences of the countervailing forces that Americans have a right to rely on to fight Trump the tyrant.

Post acquittal, Trump has doubled down on his numerous impeachable offenses (see the Congressional Record from December 18, 2019, page H 12197). But Democrats, who control the House, are not doubling down on their impeachment investigations. Instead, they are following orders from Speaker Pelosi and standing down.

Trump regularly attacks the judges who rule against him or dare to challenge his illegal acts. Yet there is only silence by the many judge’s associations and the many bar associations. The American Bar Association, which has over 194,000 members, remains asleep. All of its members, so-called “officers of the court,” are attorneys and should understand their responsibilities to uphold the rule of law.

Trump’s Party has a long history of vicious voter suppression (chronicled in the new documentary, Suppressed: The Fight to Vote, by Robert Greenwald). These anti-democratic actions should be considered serious crimes. However, the members of the National Association of Secretaries of State (NASS) are largely unprepared to protect voter rights and accurate counting of votes. Some Secretaries of State are aiding and abetting these electoral crimes. Current Georgia Governor Brian Kemp used his power as Georgia’s Secretary of State to suppress black voters, cheating his way to the Governor’s mansion in 2018.

Trump is now doing what all dictators do when they take power: he is purging the civil service of any critical voices of those who simply want to do their jobs. These civil servants made the “mistake” of enforcing health and safety laws that the supreme leader wanted to go unenforced to benefit the President’s big corporate buddies and donors. The government employee unions are not doing enough to fight back and explain what Trump the tyrant is doing to harm people—Trump voters and anti-Trump voters alike. Trump and his cronies are making America more dangerous again by scuttling protections that reduce deaths, injuries, and illnesses.

Whether it is the air you breathe, the water you drink, the vehicles you ride in, or the toxins in your workplace, Trump’s corporatist wrecking crew is running federal agencies into the ground. While corporate outlaws fill Trump’s coffers and hotels with riches, he gives them huge tax escapes and starves infrastructure. The word “corruption” cannot fully embrace how this insulting megalomaniac is tearing apart our country, our democratic practices, and our moral norms. Protections for children, the elderly, veterans and workers are all on Trump’s chopping block.

Who will stand up to this horrible bully who is intent on rolling back America’s gains and the anti-monarchy purpose of the American Revolution itself? Some in the media will sound the alarm. Sensing this threat, Trump interfered with government procurement to tilt a large contract away from Amazon because Jeff Bezos owns The Washington Post, which has run many articles about Trump’s rampage. Trump’s Republican campaign committee just filed a loser suit against The New York Times. Whether Trump wins or loses, the intimidation of the media is his goal.

These tactics are working on Chairman Jerome Powell and the Federal Reserve, according to former Fed insiders. As a result, the Federal Reserve has stayed committed to lowering interest rates to the detriment of savers. Intimidation is also working on the House of Representatives Democrats, who abhor the lives ruined by the savage sexual predator. Sadly, these lawmakers are not demanding a House Judiciary investigation of Trump’s treatment of women. Credible tort lawsuits are being delayed by Trump’s lawyers.

The cowardly silence of Barack Obama is the most stunning. In his extraordinary new book, The Triumph of Doubt, that names names, former head of Occupational Health and Safety Agency (OSHA), Dr. David Michaels, documents “President Trump’s desire to reverse anything the Obama administration did—if Obama supported it, Trump would do the opposite no matter what the consequences.”

The results are more mercury and diesel particulates in your lungs, more deadly methane accelerating climate disruption, and more coal ash for your children to breathe. Trump’s administration is even failing to adequately invest in medical science, which could save you. Until the coronavirus came along, Trump demanded serious funding cuts for the Centers for Disease Control; these funding cuts were thwarted by Congress. Even more damning, the Trump administration fired the U.S. pandemic response team to save money! The CDC’s annual budget is equal to a mere three days spending by the Pentagon, whose budget Trump bloats.

So where is Obama? Critiquing music, making movies, attending NBA all-star festivities, and readying for March Madness. Obama is thoroughly enjoying himself. What about also using his high political poll ratings and his massive Twitter following (which is far larger than Trump’s) to combat Trump’s actions? If not for the wellbeing of the American people, Obama should at least want to protect his legacy.

If Obama remains so carefree in the critical months before November, he will need a sign beside the exhibits to be displayed at his forthcoming presidential library: REPEALED BY TRUMP.

From Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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.

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest books include: To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn’t Too Late to Reverse CourseHow the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on American Führer: Delusionary, Dictatorial Donald Trump Is Drunk on Power
  • Tags: ,

A New Milestone

President Trump’s unprecedented decision to retain his business interests while serving in the White House set the stage for a deluge of conflicts of interests between the government and the Trump Organization. From the beginning of President Trump’s administration, CREW has endeavored to track these conflicts, which pit President Trump’s personal and financial interests against those of the nation as a whole, and this week, President Trump reached a new, disgraceful milestone: He has racked up 3,000 conflicts of interest during his time in office.

Throughout his three years as president, Trump has used his office to praise and promote his resorts and golf courses. Foreign governments have granted long sought-after trademarks to his businesses, opening up new avenues of profit for his company. And by showing up at lavish fundraisers and political events, President Trump has also granted unparalleled access to his administration for wealthy political donors and special interest groups that spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year to hold events at his properties. These examples, and many others, are all included in Trump’s growing tally of conflicts.

In contrast to his promise that a strict separation would be enforced, President Trump has established his private businesses as an extension of his White House⁠—by visiting them and rewarding their customers with access to, and sometimes jobs within, his administration. Meanwhile, the Trump Organization has embraced the image, and as a result, patronizing the president’s businesses has become an unregulated and unaccountable tool of influence for special interests and foreign governments seeking to influence the White House.

CREW defines a conflict as any interaction between the Trump Organization and the government and between the Trump Organization and those trying to influence the Trump administration. Additional information about our methodology is available here.

Political Allies Frequent Trump Properties

In recent months, Republican officials have stepped up their support for Trump in the way he likes best: by flocking to his eponymous properties, often for lavish events that boost the president’s businesses. Through frequent visits and relentless promotion, Trump has made it very clear that the best way to curry favor with him is by visiting one of the many properties that he still owns and profits from as president.

Even during President Trump’s impeachment, when members of Congress were supposed to be acting as impartial investigators and jurors in his trial, visits to Trump’s properties actually spiked compared to prior months.  Fifty-five members of Congress visited Trump properties 78 times in between House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opening of the impeachment inquiry on September 24th and Trump’s acquittal by Senate Republicans on February 5th.

Overall, since President Trump took office, Lindsey Graham has been Trump’s most loyal patron in Congress with 21 visits, followed by Kevin McCarthy and Rand Paul at 16, Mark Meadows at 13, and Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz with 10 each.

Many visits from members of Congress occurred during political fundraising events. Three significant political events took place in the midst of the impeachment debates: the Take Back the House 2020 fundraiser, attended by 15 Representatives (including a couple of members from House committees involved in impeachment), Senate Leadership Fund’s private dinner event, and the National Republican Senatorial Committee’s Save the Senate retreat, attended by nine Senators.

In addition to making visits, some members of Congress have taken to social media to express support for Trump and compliment his properties. Representatives Jody Hice and Paul Gosar fawned over Trump’s Mar-a-Lago Club with a series of tweets where they called the club “amazing” and “off the hook.” Representative Thomas Massie has similarly gushed over the president’s D.C. hotel.

It’s no secret that the Trump hotel in D.C. is a sanctuary for conservative politicians and professionals who have or who seek ties to the administration. On the night that Senate Republicans acquitted Trump of charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, his supporters converged at the hotel to celebrate. CREW tracked 15 members of Congress and administration officials present that night.

White House and executive branch officials are also frequent visitors. Several have even hosted personal events at the D.C. hotel. Most recently, the wedding of White House officials Stephen Miller and  Katie Waldman brought 22 other Trump administration officials—including the President and Vice President Mike Pence—to the Trump hotel. Together, the newlyweds were the fifth and sixth Trump officials who are known to have gotten married there since 2017.

Departing administration officials Tony Sayegh and Sarah Huckabee Sanders both had their going away parties at the hotel last year. Sanders’ party in particular brought a whopping 38 officials to the President’s prized property. In August, the Washington Post reported that Attorney General Bill Barr booked the hotel for his annual holiday party, though he was forced to reschedule due to negative press coverage. While it is unclear whether the party actually occurred, Barr put down a $10,000 deposit to book the venue—putting money right into his boss’s pocket.

Of course, the most frequent visitor is Trump himself. During his campaign for office he criticized Obama for making golf outings and told the press that if elected, he would “rarely leave the White House because there’s so much work to be done.” In December of 2015, Trump blasted President Obama for reports suggesting he had played 250 rounds of golf during nearly seven years in office, but since his inauguration just three years ago, President Trump has made 267 visits to the golf courses that he owns and profits from.

Trump has made it clear that while traveling he prefers to stay at his own properties, regardless of his destination. On his recent trip out to the west coast, the president insisted on staying at his Las Vegas hotel each night of his trip, despite having speaking engagements in California, Colorado, and Arizona. This is not the first time that Trump has derailed his travel plans to stop at one of his properties. Trump made a pit stop at his Hawaii resort in 2017 before traveling to Asia, and in 2019 he stayed at his Doonbeg golf course, hundreds of miles out of the way of meetings in the U.K. and France.

Special Interests and Political Groups Pay Trump for Lavish Events

Political groups and special interests have held 78 and 117 events, respectively, at Trump properties since the president took office. These often afford the hosts and attendees something that other venues don’t have: Access to top Trump administration officials, and even the President. Trump himself has attended 30 events at his own properties.

While the Trump hotel in Washington is far and away the most frequently booked venue out of all of Trump’s businesses, political groups and special interests have held events at 12 different Trump properties. In the last four months alone, Trump Victory, a political group that raises money for the RNC and the Trump campaign, has held political events at four different Trump properties, and the RNC held one at a fifth. Over the same period, political groups linked to Republican House and Senate leadership gathered members of Congress for events at the Trump hotel in Washington.

Two April 2018 recordings released last month by the lawyer representing an indicted Giuliani associate provided a rare look behind the scenes of these events. In one recording from a dinner held by a pro-Trump super PAC called America First Action at the Trump D.C. hotel, donors representing natural gas, steel, and other interests are heard lobbying Trump directly for their personal business interests during a dinner at the Trump hotel in Washington. That same super PAC held its seventh event at a Trump property this month. Naturally, President Trump stopped by.

President Trump’s visit to the hotel was a stroke of luck for another group there that night. The Texas Trucking Association was in Washington for a lobbying event, and staying at the president’s hotel. The group posted a video of Trump passing through the lobby and shaking hands with hotel customers on Twitter, adding that the encounter “made our members day” as well as an open invitation to the president to “talk trucking.”

In addition to President Trump himself, no private event venue in Washington can offer access to Trump administration officials like the Trump hotel can. Cabinet members have visited the hotel to attend events with special interests or wealthy political donors no fewer than 28 times—in essence, giving special interests and major donors access to powerful people in the president’s orbit, while the president himself personally profits from the event.

The federal government and government-linked groups have hosted events at the Trump hotel in Washington, bolstering the appearance that the president’s properties are an extension of his administration. The Commerce Department held a holiday party at the Trump hotel in 2017, and an Army Battalion gathered there for an event last year. According to documents obtained by CREW, government funds were used to pay a deposit to the hotel for that event, although they were reimbursed through ticket sales and private fundraisers.

In November, The 45 Alliance, a pro-Trump dark money nonprofit, hosted a reception for Trump officials “to connect with fellow President Trump appointees and celebrate your continued dedication and service.” Housing and Urban Development Secretary Ben Carson is reported to have addressed attendees—from behind a Trump Hotel podium no less.

Trump Customers Get Special Treatment From His Administration

What do Trump customers get from all of their patronage? Nominations to federal positions and promotions to higher ones, the chance to “shadow rule” a federal agency, and opportunities to weigh in to President Trump on myriad official questions by just hanging around. An anonymous former White House official told the Washington Post that “anyone who can get within eyesight changes the game” at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private club that costs $200,000 to join. Even club guests out of Trump’s sight are given “listening time” from White House aides, per President Trump’s orders. In spite of their access to the president and his administration, the White House has insisted that the names of club members should be kept secret.

Members of President Trump’s clubs have also been given sneak previews of upcoming administration action. In December, he hinted to guests at Mar-a-Lago that he would be taking a “big” action involving Iran “soon.” Days later, his administration announced that Iranian military official Qassem Soleimani had been killed. Last year, Mar-a-Lago patrons overheard President Trump grumbling about his then-national security advisor John Bolton, a few months before his ouster from the White House.

Prospective Trump officials have also appealed to President Trump through his businesses. Earlier this year, the Wall Street Journal reported that President Trump’s nominee to lead the Export-Import Bank, Kimberly Reed, saw the president at his Trump National Golf Club near Washington, D.C. and approached him about not having been confirmed yet. She was confirmed soon after. As Judy Shelton sought Trump’s nomination to the Federal Reserve board, she conducted a series of high-profile interviews from the lobby of his D.C. hotel and even booked an expensive suite there. On multiple occasions, she has expressed being open to having an international conference at Mar-a-Lago.

Taxpayer Money Flows to the President’s Properties

In August, President Trump used his platform at the G-7 conference in France to announce that his administration would likely hold the next year’s summit at his own Trump Doral resort near Miami. In October, the administration made the announcement official. The Trump Organization released a statement saying that it would be “honored” to host the meeting. Days later, President Trump caved to pressure from the public, lawmakers, and watchdog groups who objected to the conflict of interest and announced the G-7 would take place elsewhere.

While originally floating the idea of hosting the G-7 at his own property, President Trump claimed that the choice was based largely on other members of the government, including the Secret Service, expressing a preference for his Doral resort. Records obtained by CREW contradicted that claim, showing that the Trump resort was added for consideration at the last minute and the Secret Service expressed hesitation about “challenges” the location would present.

During an interview after the President first teased having the G-7 at his own resort, Eric Trump objected to conflicts of interest concerns by claiming having it there would be less expensive for taxpayers than any other venue. “We’d be doing it for nothing,” he told Yahoo News. That’s consistent with other statements he’s made about how the Trump Organization bills the government where he’s claimed that the Trump Organization doesn’t make any money from government business.

Contrary to Eric Trump’s claims that the Trump Organization bills the government “at cost,” documents obtained by the Washington Post show the Trump Organization charging the Secret Service far more. The documents show the Trump Organization has billed the government up to $650 per night to stay at Mar-a-Lago, and that the government paid Trump’s private businesses nearly half a million dollars between January 2017 and April 2018.

No Border Walls For Trump Conflicts

Trump’s presidency has not stopped the Trump Organization from continuing to do business in foreign countries. Those ties call into question whose interests—the American people’s interests or Trump’s personal financial interests—drive the Trump administration’s foreign policy.

Late last year, CREW discovered that one of Trump’s companies applied for two trademarks in Argentina for “real estate affairs” and building construction, suggesting that plans for a Trump Tower Buenos Aires might be moving forward. These were the first trademarks that Trump has applied for in the country since his election.

A closer look showed that the timing of the applications closely coincided with Trump administration action on tariffs in Argentina. After the trademark opposition period ended, Trump lifted tariffs on steel and aluminum from Argentina and a few other Latin American countries. Soon after the application was granted Trump reinstated the tariffs, defending his actions on Twitter by claiming that Argentina had manipulated their currency.

Trump’s international conflicts of interest span the globe to Indonesia, where the daughter of one of his business partners has assumed a high ranking role in the Indonesian government, thus directly linking Trump’s business to a foreign government. Angela Tanoesoedibjo was appointed in October to a position which gives her power over tourism in the country. Tanoesoedibjo’s father owns and operates one of Indonesia’s largest real estate conglomerates, MNC Group, which is building two Trump-branded developments in the country. In one meeting between government officials and her father’s Trump-connected company, an official brought up a property MNC Group is developing that will have Trump-branded aspects.

Conclusion

President Trump’s time in office has been an ethical disaster. While previous administrations have taken every precaution to avoid the appearance that the president’s official actions could be tainted by their private business interests, President Trump has instead done the exact opposite, blatantly and regularly using his office for his own financial gain. Three-thousand conflicts of interest later, President Trump has sent a clear message to special interests, foreign governments, and others trying to influence the federal government that his presidency is effectively for sale.

Instead of providing oversight or enforcing a higher standard, members of his administration and Republicans in Congress have condoned President Trump’s ethical abuses by taking their business to his properties and rewarding special interests who do the same with official access. Some have gone so far as to use their official platforms to give Trump businesses free advertising. Their abdication of responsibility has served to embolden President Trump, whose presidency is devolving into a cash grab that erodes ethical norms every time he visits his properties, promotes the Trump Organization, or bills the Secret Service top-dollar to stay at his foundering resorts.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Disgraceful Milestone: Trump’s “Conflicts of Interest”
  • Tags:

In the race to become Dem party standard bearer in November, Bernie Sanders leads rival aspirants — despite Biden now close behind in delegate count after his Saturday South Carolina primary win.

Do Dem party bosses consider Sanders not safe enough to assure dirty business as usual?

Israel clearly prefers Trump over any Dem rival for his unprecedented Jewish state support, dismissive of Palestinian rights, his agenda leaving no doubt about where he stands.

Israel’s Ambassador to the UN Danny Danon  in his AIPAC conference address, ripped Sanders for calling Netanyahu a “reactionary racist,” saying:

“We don’t want (him) at AIPAC. We don’t want him in Israel. Anyone who calls our prime minister a ‘racist’ is either a liar, an ignorant fool or both.”

According to critics, Danon’s extremism makes hardline Netanyahu look almost moderate by comparison.

Hours later, Sanders responded to Danon saying:

“I am not anti-Israel…but what we need in this country is a foreign policy that not only protects Israel but deals with the suffering of the Palestinian people as well.”

A Netanyahu source said Danon’s AIPAC remarks “were not coordinated with the prime minister.”

Former Israeli diplomat/expert on Jewish state relations with the US Nadav Tamir slammed Danon, saying:

His remarks are “a clear and frustrating example (of) the difference between a diplomat and a politician.”

“Whoever is willing to deepen the rift between Israel and the vast majority of the (Dem) party, to weaken the bipartisan basis of Israel’s special relationship with the US and to alienate the vast majority of US Jewry in order to gain popularity within his party, should not be allowed to serve as a diplomat.”

Over the weekend, AIPAC head Howard Kohr also denounced Sanders, saying:

“Any leader who energizes their political movement by demonizing Israel is not a friend of Israel.”

Sanders declined to address the AIPAC conference, days earlier saying:

“I remain concerned about the platform AIPAC provides for leaders who express bigotry and oppose basic Palestinian rights.”

“For that reason I will not attend their conference. As president, I will support the rights of both Israelis and Palestinians and do everything possible to bring peace and security to the region.”

Bloomberg is the only Dem aspirant addressing the conference in person. Biden and Klobuchar delivered video messages.

Ahead of March 3 Super Tuesday primaries in 14 states, including California and Texas, with 1,357 of 3,979 delegates at stake (excluding 771 unelected superdelegate that could decide the race), Pete Buttigieg suspended his candidacy — despite appearing to have legs following his Iowa caucuses showing.

Was his withdrawal based on doing poorly in South Carolina, finishing a distant 4th with singe-digit support?

Or knowing he lacks enough support to be Dem nominee, did he time his announcement ahead of Super Tuesday with 34% of elected delegates at stake — aimed at helping Biden at the expense of Sanders?

According to Real Clear Politics, an average of polls conducted from February 22 – 29 shows Sanders way ahead of Biden in California by a 33.7% – 15.3% margin — followed by Warren with 14.7% support, Bloomberg with 13.3%, and Buttigieg trailing way behind with 7.7% backing.

In Texas, Sanders has an 8.9% lead over Biden in second place. He’s ahead in Virginia, Massachusetts, Maine, Colorado, Utah, and Vermont, his home state.

He trails Biden narrowly in North Carolina, trails Klobuchar in Minnesota by six points, her home state.

Biden is ahead in Oklahoma by one point over Bloomberg, Sanders 8 points behind.

In Arkansas, Bloomberg leads Biden by one point, Sanders by 4 points.

Will Biden’s South Carolina win and Buttigieg dropping out Sunday gain support for the former vice president on Super Tuesday?

Or is support for Sanders in most Super Tuesday states likely to hold one day before voters go to the polls?

An average of national polls conducted from February 19 – 27 shows Sanders leading Biden by 10.8 points, Bloomberg by 13 points, other Dem aspirants way behind — according to Real Clear Politics.

Sanders has strong support among young and working-class voters as well as Latinos, why he’s way ahead in California and Texas polls — Biden an establishment favorite.

If he stays close to Sanders in upcoming primaries over the next few months, superdelegates could assure his nomination as Dem standard bearer — even though Sanders may have a better chance to defeat Trump in November.

With Buttigieg out of the race, Dem party bosses are lining up behind Biden’s candidacy, aiming to boost him over Sanders ahead of Super Tuesday and what follows.

If the Vermont senator makes a strong showing Tuesday as polls indicate, he’ll regain momentum lost over the weekend with many more primaries to go before the July nominating convention.

One of more candidates doing poorly on Tuesday could drop out the race.

If Warren bows out, her supporters could shift to Sanders. Support for Bloomberg and Klobuchar could swing to Biden if they drop out ahead.

It’s still early in the race. Much can happen between now and the July nominating convention.

*

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.

Turkey and Israel continue their aggression against Syria in an increasingly overt and direct manner – and at the cost of what little if anything remained of either nation’s regional or international credibility.

Now there is news of violence erupting in southern Syria in Daraa along the Syrian-Jordanian border in a replay of the initial US-engineered proxy war initiated against Damascus in 2011 and confirms that the US – the common denominator linking Turkish, Israeli, and Jordanian aggression – is still hard at work attempting to perpetuate the Syrian conflict and reverse its flagging fortunes amid it.

Dividing Syrian Forces

The violence in southern Syria will likely be augmented by flashpoints elsewhere in a bid to divide and distract Syrian forces from their ongoing operations and successes in northern Idlib.

This helps expose that the ongoing confrontation between Turkey and Syria isn’t ultimately being engineered in Ankara or on behalf of Turkish interests – but instead in Washington and on behalf of US interests.

This may explain why Turkey’s otherwise dead-end foreign policy has not been altered to reflect the interests of Turkey both immediately or in the intermediate to long-term future – and instead appears to be a last-ditch and desperate attempt to win Washington’s all-but-lost proxy war against Damascus.

Renewed Propaganda Blitzkrieg 

The violence in Syria’s south is independent of Turkey’s operations in the north – but is clearly being coordinated to aid Turkey’s aggression.

Likewise – a renewed propaganda blitz has been organized across the Western media to help enhance the political impact of continued aggression against Damascus.

There are still columns published across the Western media by writers representing organizations funded by Western governments calling for regime change in Syria and the obstruction of reconstruction until this happens.

There are also attempts to use the West’s protraction of this conflict and the resulting humanitarian impact to further demonize and pressure the Syrian government. Turkey – in addition to its continued aggression within Syrian territory – has once again leveraged refugees – releasing them into Europe to fan the flames of public fear in the West.

This is not to gain Western support for Turkey’s military operations in Syria – as Turkey’s operations are carried out on behalf of the West’s own machinations. Instead – another manufactured and exploited refugee crisis is meant to garner public support from the Western public so that Western governments can more aggressively involve themselves alongside their Turkish, Israeli, and other terrorist proxies.

Futility 

Ultimately this is a replay of all the same tricks used since 2011. The difference now is US and its proxies hold less territory in Syria – fewer cards politically upon the global stage – and face an entrenched Russia and Iran who have grown adept at countering US-fuelled violence and political ploys within and beyond Syria.

This recent renewal of aggression against Syria is more likely a last-ditch effort to extract concessions before the final and inevitable conclusion of the conflict – with all but total war being capable of overthrowing the Syrian government and removing Russia and Iran from their growing positions of influence within Syrian territory.

Complacency is the biggest enemy. Until every square inch of Syrian territory is liberated and its borders fully secured – the war will continue and the threat it poses to the Syrian state and its people will endure – however unlikely the nation’s complete ruination may be.

*

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, Land Destroyer Report.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Flashpoints in Southern Syria Seek to Divide/Distract Syrian Gains in Idlib
  • Tags: , ,

The spokesperson for the Islamist party of Turkey’s President Tayyip Erdogan has called upon all of NATO to go to war against Syria for Syria’s having killed dozens of Turkey’s troops in order for Syria to defeat Turkey’s invasion and military occupation of Syria’s Idlib Province, which borders on Turkey. Going to war against Syria would mean going to war also against Russia, which is in Syria to protect Syria’s sovereignty over its own territory.

If the United States accepts that Turkish proposal, this could lead to World War III.

Darius Shahtahmasebi reported for Russia’s RT News on the morning of February 28th,

Turkey is calling for NATO’s protection after 33 of its soldiers were killed in an apparent Syrian airstrike in Idlib, allegedly while fighting in terrorist ranks. In the regional chaos that ensues, only one player stands to gain.

Speculation over what’s to come next has seen #article 5 trending on Twitter in the hours following the attacks, after Omer Celik, spokesman for Turkey’s ruling AKP party, indicated to reporters in Ankara that he was looking at requesting formal NATO protection against Damascus and, by proxy, the Russian air force.

“We call on NATO to [start] consultations. This is not [an attack] on Turkey only, it is an attack on the international community. A common reaction is needed. The attack was also against NATO,” Celik told Turkish media.

Article 5 of the NATO treaty says an attack on one member is an attack on them all.

The US State Department also condemned the attack, stating that it stands by its “NATO ally Turkey.” It further stated that it continues to “call for an immediate end to this despicable offensive by the Assad regime, Russia and Iranian-backed forces.” Never one to let us down, the US envoy to NATO Kay Bailey Hutchinson also told journalists that “everything is on the table.”

This is the opportunity for U.S. President Donald Trump to join his opposition, Democratic Party’s, and even his own Party’s, hate-Russia campaign, “by unleashing World War III, if he wants to”. (For example, it was a unified Congress, both Parties, that forced him, on 17 July 2018, to reverse himself and say that Russia had assisted in his having become the U.S. President. He needed to be forced in order to say he agreed with that statement.)

Internally, within Islamist-ruled Turkey, the official Anadolu Press Agency sub-headlined one English-language news report, “Crisis in Idlib has crossed all limits, says presidential spokesman after regime attack martyrs 33 Turkish troops” and opened,

“Turkey’s presidential spokesman on Friday called on the international community to take measures to de-escalate tensions in Syria after dozens of Turkish soldiers were martyred in a late night attack by the regime forces.”

No mention was made, about those ‘martyrs’, that this had occurred in Syrian territory, where Turkish forces were invaders and military occupiers, and that the ‘regime’ they referred to is Syria’s committedly and ideologically secular, non-sectarian, Government, which is the only internationally recognized Government that Syria has (but from which Islamist Turkey is now trying to seize Syria’s Idlib Province and to include it within Turkey’s own territory).

By 7PM Turkish time on Friday the 28th, Firat Kozok of Bloomberg News headlined “Turkey Says It Has No Choice But to ‘Loosen’ Stance on Refugees” and reported that

Turkey is pressed by developments in Syria’s Idlib and has no choice but to “loosen” its policy of preventing refugees from travelling on to Europe, President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s communications director Fahrettin Altun told reporters in Ankara.

“If Idlib falls, then millions of Syrian refugees will try to escape to Turkey and Europe. Turkey no longer has the possibility to provide resources for and help these people,” Altun said.

This is applying pressure upon the European member-nations in NATO to either join Turkey’s now very hot war against both Syria and Russia, or else to become faced with Turkey’s release of the tens of thousands of ‘rebels’ (mainly jihadists) whom Turkish forces in Syria’s Idlib Province have been protecting against military fire from Syria’s Army and from Russia’s Air Force. 

For further details see: “Turkey Now Claims Syria’s Idlib Province as Turkish Territory”  by Eric Zuesse, Global Research, February 28, 2020

UPDATE:

On February 28th, the German Government news-agency Deutsche Welle (DW) bannered “Idlib: ‘I’d rather suffer bombs than Assad’” and provided an extensive interview by telephone with someone in Idlib who says that she supports democracy and tolerance of all religions and is determined to overthrow the present Government of Syria. If her pro-democracy, anti-jihadist, allegations are honest, then she is an extraordinary exception for Idlib, as has been documented by the periodic polls that the British polling firm Orb International took throughout Syria and reported during 2014, 2015, 2016, and 2018. For examples:

In the 2014 report (page 12) only 4% of the people sampled in Idlib said that they supported “The Assad Government.” This was far lower than the percentages in any other Syrian province. 52% supported either “armed opposition” or “Violent religious extremist groups.” This was far higher than in any other province except ISIS-controlled Raqqah, where it was 59%.

In the 2015 report (page 7), 35% of the people sampled in Idlib said that al-Nusra (al-Qaeda in Syria) was a “Completely positive influence”; an additional 35% said it was a “Somewhat positive influence.” That 70% support for al-Qaeda was by far the highest found in any of Syria’s provinces.

If the person who was at the other end of that DW phone-call was authentic, then she was anything but representative of the people in Idlib. 

At around 10 AM Eastern time in the U.S. on the 28th, Turkey’s Daily Sabah newspaper headlined “Erdoğan and Putin may meet next week, Kremlin says”, and reported that “Erdoğan and Putin spoke over the phone Friday to try to defuse tensions that rose significantly in northwestern Syria after 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian regime airstrike.” Either Erdogan is trying to find a face-saving way out of his huge gamble, or Putin is trying to prevent WW III, or both. An hour later, that newspaper bannered “Turkey determined to remove Assad regime from Syria’s Idlib, Erdoğan tells Trump.” Why is it that a country can proudly proclaim in a headline that it will commit international aggression in blatant violation of international law and yet not be roundly damned by the publics in all countries for doing such a vile thing?

At around noon, U.S. Eastern time, on the 28th, Turkey’s TRT World bannered “NATO and the West’s dereliction of duty in Syria and Turkey” and opened: “If the West and NATO continue on the path they have chosen, it will allow Vladimir Putin to reshape the post-Soviet world order in his image.” After trying to scare Europe’s leaders by threatening to overwhelm them with maybe hundreds of thousands of released jihadists who have been basically penned-up in Idlib, Erdogan was trying to appeal to those leaders’ obligations to NATO, America’s anti-Russian military alliance.  

At around 1:30 PM U.S. Eastern time on the 28th, Britain’s Guardian headlined “Nato expresses ‘full solidarity’ with Turkey over Syria airstrikes”but NATO chief “Stoltenberg offered no immediate promise of assistance to Turkey,” and the article went on to report that the UK and five of its allies would bring the matter to the U.N. Security Council on Friday night (where Turkey’s demands would even more certainly go nowhere). The reality of Stoltenberg’s statement (which had been issued at 12:33 Eastern time) was a total humiliation to Erdogan’s fantasies that because of his country’s NATO membership he could get the U.S. to invade Russia. Stoltenberg gave the standard NATO hate-talk against Russia and its allies, however, saying that “Allies condemn the continued indiscriminate air strikes by the Syrian regime and its backer Russia in Idlib province.” Even when a NATO member engages in clear-cut foreign aggression in violation of the U.N. Charter’s prohibiton against that, and explicitly violating the International Criminal Court’s “Crime of Aggression”, NATO will spew its standard hate-propaganda against the countries that were and are victims of that blatantly illegal aggression by the NATO member-country. Notwithstanding NATO’s sometimes diplomatic language, it is — after Russia ended its side of the Cold War in 1991 — basically an extremely dangerous militarized hate-organization, of which every one of its member-nations should be profoundly embarrassed to belong.

*

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.

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

Britain’s Political Trajectory

March 2nd, 2020 by True Publica

For years now, as regular readers of Truepublica will know, I have consistently warned that Britain will be moving from a system of liberal democracy towards authoritarianism and that it would only take a few short years to achieve. As we moved through the discord and division of the EU referendum from 2016, I also took the view that a new form of ideology would be looking to usurp Britain’s system of governance, with its constitutional checks and balances, having been vandalised by right-wing autocrats. This might very well end with a form of ‘guided democracy’ – or another way of putting it, a de facto autocracy.’ More qualified people are slowly coming to the same conclusion.

In Britain, we have never had jackboots marching down our high streets and so we are too trusting of events. We Brits do not believe that such extremes could possibly take hold. Authoritarianism has many veils and not all of them come with uniforms and insignia but in the end, with its variances, it amounts to the same. But don’t take my word for it, the experts are more worried than me.

Phil Syrpis is Professor of EU Law at the University of Bristol Law School. He wrote in a recent article for the London School of Economics that:

He (Boris Johnson) has sought, in a range of ways, to minimise Parliamentary scrutiny of his actions. He has plans for the judiciary, both in terms of its composition, and its ability to hold the government to account via judicial review. He attacks the BBC and the civil service. He treats the devolved governments with barely disguised contempt. Institutions which serve as ‘checks and balances’ against executive power are systematically undermined because they might object to things he might want to do. It seems that we are dealing with a Prime Minister who is interested in power for power’s sake.”

Syrpis goes on to say:

We have a Prime Minister who rejects scrutiny and constraint. He is showing himself to be reckless about the consequences of his actions, and uninterested in the people and business groups most affected by his policies. All the while, he is constructing a narrative that he is delivering ‘the will of the people’, standing up for ‘our’ interests in the face of the threats created by others. For now, it appears to be working.”

These thoughtfully measured words demonstrate something that is dawning on many. That Boris Johnson wants to increase executive power in order that he can push through his version of Brexit – whatever that might be. And under the cover of Brexit – most people in Britain are not seeing what else is going on.

Nicholas Reed Langen is a long-established expert on the British Constitution and writes for The Justice Gap and Project Syndicate. He surmises that in one of the world’s oldest democracies, Boris Johnson is moving executive power towards what he terms a ‘constitutional dictator.’ He does, however, go one step further in reviewing the trajectory of Johnson’s ambitions:

In attempting to imbue the executive branch with near omnipotence, both Johnson and Trump are aligning themselves with a view that bears a striking resemblance to that of the twentieth-century German jurist Carl Schmitt.

It shouldn’t be under-estimated what is being said here. Schmitt was a well known, highly respected 20th-century political philosopher – a conservative German political theorist and in the end, a prominent member of the Nazi Party. He wrote extensively about the effective wielding of political power. His work has been a major influence on subsequent political theory, legal theory, continental philosophy and political theology, and remains to this day both influential and controversial due to his close association and juridical-political allegiance with Nazism. I am not suggesting the Boris Johnson is a Nazi – only that many leaders have taken this philosophy and applied it in varying grades of intensity.

Some have argued that neo-conservativism, the same form of economic management brought to us in the UK and USA by Thatcher and Raegan was indeed heavily influenced by Schmitt. It is interesting that the judicial theory espoused by Schmitt during the war years have since led to modern-day ideologies such as the ‘war on terror‘ and substantial interference of international law such as the Geneva Convention. We have all seen this with the introduction of unlawful combatant status, indefinite imprisonment, rendition, torture and mass surveillance programmes – all of which mimic his writings and all of which were practised (wholly or in part, legally or otherwise) in Britain and America.

In both cases, Johnson and Trump are following a Schmittian playbook, defending the constitutional legitimacy of their preferences by claiming that they are channelling the true voice of the people.”

Both Sypris and Langen see the fraudulent alignment of “the will of the people” and gaining executive power to deliver fictitious benefits to them.

I have said for a long time now that the implications of this current political trajectory of the right-wing is really very worrying. Before Brexit, political scandals were pretty much restricted to expenses, corporate corruption and/or sexual indiscretions. Today, no-one cares because the new norm is all of that plus mass propaganda campaigns based around misinformation, breaking electoral laws, soliciting dark money from anonymous sources, raids on judicial and legislative restraints and blatant media coercion and threats. All of that has been proven as the current government strategy of control.

Thomas Piketty’s seminal book ‘Capital in the 21st Century’ states emphatically that “no government programme could be sustained without an apparatus of justification” – this is what we are seeing right now.

At the centre of Boris Johnson’s administration is a desire to take a wrecking ball to the pillars that uphold institutional order in Britain – just as Schmitt would have endorsed. Britain is now gliding down a dangerous and dimly lit tunnel with a T-junction in complete darkness – to be reached (so we are told) on the last day of 2020. Which way will Britain be led – toward liberal democracy with economic restraints via the EU or an illiberal corporatocracy escorted by authoritarianism? It’s extraordinary to think that in this most dangerous of moments we, the public, are not allowed to know.

The latter could easily lead Britain quite rapidly to a dystopian scenario in which a prime minister would be imbued with Schmittian powers such as stripping rights from British citizens and foreign residents and to overthrow and dismantle the UK’s political and economic model of the last five decades – all accompanied by the soundbites of the ‘will of the people.’ To keep up appearances, we would still have elections and courts, national newspapers and broadcasters – but they would be neutered, as is the ongoing battle to achieve just that right now. Public dissent will be policed and controlled and the judiciary’s power to challenge No10 Downing Street completely restrained. Even the resignation of Sajid Javid and his replacement highlights the fact that scrutiny within government is fading quickly.

As Langen says – “Parliament would be relegated to the position of a mere bystander … the implications of this philosophy for the legislature are alarming. But those for the courts are even more distressing.”

German Politician Ralf Fücks warns in an interview that –

The idea that one can separate democracy and freedom from one another has deep roots, precisely in the German history of ideas. In 1923 Schmitt in his famous criticism of parliamentarians attempted to separate out democracy and liberalism. His enemy is liberalism, democracy he abridged down to the rule of the people. Even bolshevism and fascism are for him possible forms of democracy.”

Just type into your web browser the keywords “Boris Johnson dictator” and news articles from all over the UK, Europe, America – even the Middle East and India have already proclaimed the arrival of a quasi- dictatorship in Britain after the proroguing of parliament and subsequent December plebiscite. From the Irish Times to Germany’s Deutsche Welle, the world has gasped in horror as Britain’s characterful and mostly balanced polity has been replaced with an apathetic and disrespectful ringleader surrounded by dubious courtiers of political zealotry.

Philip Sargeant is an applied linguist at The Open University, specialising in the relationship between language, politics and social media. He concludes in an article for Democratic Audit that for all the soundbites, and the campaigns of misinformation that have got us to this moment, populists like Boris Johnson – “have little real interest in engaging with the complexities of the challenges their societies face.” And Britain has a lot of challenges to face, the imminence of Brexit is just one of them.

Make no mistake, Britain has chosen to take a sinister hard-right turn led by a radical faction of ideologues. It’s a trajectory, it’s leading somewhere – that’s the real worry.

*

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.

South Carolina Primary: What Does It Mean?

March 2nd, 2020 by Dr. Jack Rasmus

What are the political ‘takeaways’ from yesterday’s South Carolina primary? In just few words: not many.

None that change the fundamental dynamics that have in play throughout the primaries in general thus far to date.

Biden bought himself some time, at the expense of Bloomberg and the other mainstream candidates like Klobuchar, Steyer, and Buttigieg.

Steyer & Buttigieg Drop Out

Although having come in third, Tom Steyer announced first thing next day that he’s dropping out of the race.

Then, in a bombshell of sorts, Buttigieg announced his departure from the race today as well.  It was strange that he reaffirmed early in the day his intent to stay in the race to the end. Then, at day’s end, abruptly announced he was dropping out. What’s behind the about face? Most likely, the dozens of billionaires who began footing Buttigieg’s campaign bill in December decided to pull their funding at mid-day. Was it just because the boy wonder from Indiana had no chance of winning the nomination? That was true from the beginning. It’s always been hard to imagine how a small town Indiana mayor of 38 could ever be a real candidate.

Buttigieg was kept in the race this far, funded by the three dozen or so billionaires, in order to pull the youth vote from Sanders. Or so it was possibly reasoned. Having failed that, the moneybags today, a day after South Carolina, decided to stop writing him checks.  It is likely their decision was also to refocus money to Biden, now that South Carolina injected some life support into his campaign.

The money moves around, as it bets on the next possible long shot, or as the strategy of the moneybag wing of the Democrat Party shifts from splitting Sanders delegate votes in the primaries to concentrating the money game on the horse they think best to beat Sanders.  Bloomberg doesn’t need the funding…yet. So the money shifts from Buttigieg to Biden.

Klobuchar Next!

Expect the same to happen within days, perhaps hours, to the other ‘centrist’ female candidate intended to shift votes from Sanders based on gender, rather than youth. Amy Klobuchar will go next, and quickly. Not much else to say about that.

Biden Taken Off Political ‘Life Support’

Biden had to win by a large margin. He did, with around 48% to Sanders’ 21%. All the rest falling far behind, including Bloomberg and, even further, Warren.

Biden’s last minute surge can be attributed to the ‘pull out the stops’ by the Democratic party leadership and the moneybags behind them. On the surface this was reflected in the various last minute endorsements from the Party elite, from outside the state as well as within by leading black political leaders in state.

Older black voters in South Carolina (and true of much of the South) tend to follow the recommendations of their black politicians, community leaders, and churches. Younger black voters not so much. While that phenomenon is typical of the South, it is less so of other states. It won’t be repeated significantly in California, New York, and elsewhere. Biden won’t have any black vote in his pocket beyond South Carolina.

The important point about the South Carolina black vote, which comprises 60% of all Democrat voters in South Carolina yesterday, is that Biden won most of the over-35 black vote. But Sanders won a clear majority of the under-35 black vote. That youth black vote in South Carolina made up only 18% of the potential black vote. So it was an older generation of blacks that dominated the total black vote and voted for Biden. Sanders reportedly won the 18% under-30 black youth vote.

That divide within the black vote in the state may suggest that the churches, community organizations, and black political elite in the state may be losing hold on the younger voters. That may be the takeaway. (Latinos in the state make up only 3% of all Democrat eligible voters, so Sanders’ support there made little difference).

Another takeaway is that the analysis of the black vote and Biden’s margin of victory shows is that the main dynamic in play throughout the Democratic primary season continued in South Carolina despite Biden’s win: i.e. Sanders continued to rally the ‘youth’ vote behind him–including blacks, Latinos, and others; in contrast, Biden’s support derived from the older crowd. It’s reflective over all of a major youth-not youth division within the Democrat party that may, in the end, sink it. For the party leadership is clearly aligned with the older voter than the younger.

Generation v. Class Divide (Or Both?)

On the other hand, that there is a major ‘generational divide’ within the Democratic Party may be more appearance than essence. The South Carolina black youth v. black elders split—a reflection of a similar generational divide elsewhere in the country—may actually be covering up something more fundamental. It may all appear generational, but the real divide is economic and class. Working class youth, students, and young adults vs. a mix of older, better well off middle age boomers-silent generation voters, many of whom are not working class unlike the youth who are virtually all so.

Black, Latino, or white, the youth movement behind Sanders is overwhelmingly working class: whether low-paid employed, underemployed working multiple jobs, or student.

They are the millennials, the GenXers, and now GenZers, who have been, and continue to be, devastated by economic policies that have been in effect from Obama through Trump, and now intensifying under the latter.

They carry most of the economic burden of low paid, no benefits, no job security service jobs. They are the vast majority of the uninsured, or trying to get by on bare bones Medicaid coverage, or who manage to obtain some lower cost ACA coverage (in some states) albeit with $1,000 or more deductibles. They are the new class of the indentured working class, with student debt totaling more than $1.6 trillion. They are the most heavily burdened with accelerating rental costs, having to triple and quadruple up together to share apartments, or else return home to parents, to secure accommodations. The thought of home ownership isn’t even on their imagination radar. They are the students who are sleeping in their cars, frequenting community food banks, or even ‘dumpster diving’ outside restaurants to make ends meet. They are the hundreds of thousands of ‘Dreamers’ who have virtually given up on either party allowing them US citizenship. They are inner-city youth hustling by whatever means necessary to get by day to day and week to week. They are the millions who have graduated from college and can’t find meaningful work that pays the bills—let alone the exorbitant interest charges on their student loans.

Formerly cynical or hopeless, they are the heart of those flocking to the Sanders movement. And it is not race or gender or other difference—easily manipulated by media and politicians—that drive their attraction to Sanders. It is economic. For them it is about someday maybe getting real affordable medical coverage, or relief from the crushing weight of student debt, or access to affordable education, or ending the prospect of being locked in for a lifetime of minimum or below-minimum wages, or being able to assume an independent adult existence. And Sanders’ ‘Green New Deal’ offers the hope at least of turning around the growing climate crisis and a world in which they and their children will almost certainly have to pay a high price in which to live.

That is the meaning of the fundamental dynamic behind the primaries, and indeed the election of 2020 in general. South Carolina’s primary and the win for Biden hasn’t changed that.

Hey, Red-Baiting Works!

Another immediate ‘takeaway’ from the South Carolina primary is that Democratic Party leadership will now conclude that bashing Sanders as ‘socialist’, unelectable, incapable of ensuring ‘down ballot’ Congressional victories, or similar scare tactics works.  They’ll now conclude such charges helped put Biden over in South Carolina. And those big donors who threatened publicly to vote for Trump if Sanders was the nominee will also believe their threats worked. That means Sanders can expect even more intense bashing during Super Tuesday and after; and we can expect even more threats of big campaign donors bolting from the party in the general election from Super Tuesday contests to the Party convention in June.

Bloomberg Unfazed

Although the immediate fallout from South Carolina is Tom Steyer and Buttigieg,  Bloomberg was only superficially wounded. Mike has billions of bucks to buy the best and quickest political medical repair to his campaign. He’ll conclude that South Carolina is an ‘outlier’ primary with little significance to other state Super Tuesday primaries coming up. In that he’s correct.

It remains to be seen this coming week, and Super Tuesday, how much South Carolina has impact the campaigns of Warren. For reasons having to do with the unique black vote in South Carolina noted previously, South Carolina’s outcome signifies little for her campaigns as well. However, if she doesn’t perform at or near Sanders’ totals—which is highly unlike—she’s the next to go sometime between Super Tuesday and June convention.

Warren vs. Bloomberg (Or Is It Sanders?)

What became very apparent in the pre-South Carolina Primary debate last wing was Warren began attacking Sanders even as she continued her telling critique of Bloomberg. Warren can’t move ‘right’ and peel away votes from either Biden or Bloomberg. She may accrete some votes from Klobuchar but that’s insufficient to make a difference. Watch her therefore turn her critique more toward Sanders during Super Tuesday, especially in states like California. But her problem strategically is she’s like Poland—caught between Russia and Germany. And the battle between the two real contending forces will soon run her over. She may last longer than Pete, Amy and Tom. But not much.

South Carolina: All ‘Sound and Fury, Signifying Nothing’

The obvious takeaway always there is that South Carolina means next to nothing for the general election.  The Democrats, whomever their nominate, stand no chance whatsoever in getting the electoral votes in Republican South Carolina.

The same applies to most of the other southern ‘red states’, which are now locked into the Republican camp due to years of successful gerrymandering and voter suppression that went un-confronted by Democratic Party leadership under Obama.  And that means a lock-in for Trump in the electoral college from those states. A couple ‘long-shot’ possible exceptions may be Virginia or Florida (a longer shot). But Democrats can forget North Carolina and Texas where they’ve been dreaming of possible general election upsets.

The election will still come down, as in 2016, to the swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, and maybe Arizona. The general election will be determined there, as it was in 2016.  And it was Hillary Clinton’s virtual abandonment of working class voters in these states that ‘turned’ the 70+ electoral votes to give Trump victory in 2016. To repeat that: working class votes.

So the story is who best—Biden, Bloomberg, or Sanders—can turn out enough youth, under-35 working class voters to offset older, more comfortable voters, non-working class and older working class, staying with Trump in 2020. I’m referring to those ‘comfortables’ who have benefitted from Trump’s massive $4 trillion plus business-investor tax cuts, from the record $1.2 trillion a year in stock buybacks and dividend payouts under Trump in both 2018 and 2019, those who shared some crumbs from the lion’s share subsidies from Trump’s $28 billion dollar direct subsidies to big Agribusiness, from Trump’s ‘green light’ to big Pharma to continue to gouge consumers, from the $300 billion increase in defense goods government purchases, and from the deregulation of bankers, insurance, coal, oil and other climate crisis contributing companies.

What matters is who can turn out the working class and youth vote in the swing states? Not in South Carolina. Is it Sanders, or the candidate of the Democrat Party leadership, big donors, and moneybags? That’s still likely Bloomberg, although Biden may surprise now that big money is flowing his way again as well. And the other ‘centrist’ candidates—Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Steyer—are being defunded and pushed out of the race to concentrate votes in favor of Biden or Bloomberg.

But Sanders may not even get the chance. Already pressuring is building within the party to commit the 500 plus Special Delegates held in reserve by the party leaders, to be released on the second ballot of the upcoming party convention in Milwaukee on behalf of the party leadership’s preferred (read: corporate) candidate. That’s still likely to be Bloomberg. Bets are Biden won’t replicate his ‘special case’ South Carolina victory. And, except for Sanders, the rest of the field are already ‘has beens’ and ‘also rans’. They’ll drop like flies, one after the other, in the wake of Super Tuesday and the run-up to the June party convention.

Should Sanders’ momentum continue through Super Tuesday, don’t rule out the party releasing Super Delegates (who are mostly Congressional representatives and Senators) before the convention. But before that we’ll hear the party big guns come out against Sanders—Bill Clinton and Barack Obama and, if necessary, Pelosi and Shumer.

And that will be the death-knell of the Democratic Party as we know it.

So from this point on the race is Sanders vs. whoever prevails in the ‘race within the race’, i.e. between Biden-Bloomberg.

*

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, Jack Rasmus.

Dr. Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020. He blogs at jackrasmus.com. His website is http://kyklosproductions.com and twitter handle, @drjackrasmus.

Russia is pushing back the Turkish Army in Idlib. As the Turks broke through the Syrian Arab Army’s (SAA) defence the latter called for air assistance from Russia. The fighters came and victory was the SAA’s. With that all uncertainty is gone. Russia will keep its promise of maintaining the integrity of the Syrian state, even when an “ally” is attempting to force her to break that promise. Relations with difficult Turkey is no reason for Russia to betray a decades-old major ally inWest Asia.

After all, to all intents and purposes, Ankara is proving to be an unworthy ally irrespective of the benefits given and promised. Appeased many times — including the intentional downing of a SU-24 Russian fighter in 2015 near the Syria-Turkey border; and the assassination of the Russian envoy to Turkey. But Turkey appeared to straddle both East and West. Trump was defied and the purchase of the Russian S-400 air defence system went through. However, many saw that sale as Putin’s foolishness knowing that President Erdogan was not a man of his word. And, it has been reported that apparently, Ankara is threatening to deploy the S-400 against Syria in the current conflagration. Thus proving the skeptics correct.

But if others are suspicious of Erdogan, surely it is safe to assume that President Putin must have taken this into consideration before selling the S-400 to Turkey, especially given the rocky history between these two countries. Surely Putin is not so naive as to think that appeasement and Erdogan’s debt for the rumoured early warning of the American backed coup against Erdogan bought him the latter’s undying loyalty?

Are regional hegemonic ambitions worth the high stakes gamble? If not hegemony, what is the likely cause of Erdogan pushing Moscow to bare its fangs? Are the Kurds such a threat that controlling their territory in Syria is not something that Ankara can compromise on?

The fight is progressively becoming more dangerous — note that Turkey remains a NATO member — and now Ankara has persuaded Washington to back it. As of a week ago the fighting has reached a new intensity as a result.  The Turks are fighting the SAA on the ground and the Russians in the air.  This could further escalate if Ankara can persuade other NATO members that it is being attacked by Russia thus taking the war to a whole new level. History shows that NATO has long looked for war with Russia. In recent years the impression is that NATO is satisfied that Russia has been effectively encircled and can be defeated.

These possibilitiesof escalation, all parties involved are well aware of. Hence the intense diplomacy between Ankara and Moscow. Fact on the ground shows nothing less than the victorious SAA winning back most territories around Idlib held by the terrorists. Nevertheless peace is being denied the Syrians by the unending interference of the US and its allies and Turkey appears nothing less than a staunch US ally in preventing Syria a total victory around Idlib, while the US determinedly occupies the oil rich Syrian territories in Deir Ezzor in far eastern Syria.

It seems ludicrous, therefore, to view Turkey as a Russian ally any longer. Not only has Turkey not delivered her part of the Sochi de-escalationagreement, Ankara has openly threatened Damascus. The Ankara position is one where the invader is wanting the invaded to embrace being invaded. Syria is, at pain of invasion, not allowed to kill the invading soldiers.

Russia was not amused. Not something Ankara expected thinking instead that “neither Russia nor Syria would seek to escalate the fighting in Idlib to include force on force engagements with a NATO member,” writes Scott Ritter.

Erdogan has also been reported as saying ”Turkey will not allow the Syrian government to take control of the province (Idlib). Which is then what the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov described as the “worst case scenario”.

Diplomatically, all this boils down to the “need to implement everything that our leaders (Putin and Erdogan) have agreed upon,” said Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister. Is this possible, when one party has decided to renege on its responsibilities? Ankara has not been coy about its unwillingness to meet its obligations. Rather, Ankara has done a Trump, renege on its obligations.

It is true to say that even a whiff of Syrian victory at reclaiming her territories has brought on tactics to impede a resolution. The US would airlift out terrorist groups friendly to her only to return them to battle. In certain instances the US allies have acted as air cover for the terrorists as in the 2016 Deir Ezzor air raid which killed 50 Syrian Army and allied troops, which the US claimed was accidental. This particular airstrike facilitated the terrorists’ advance on the Syrian position.

Is peace, then, possible for Syria given the powers ranged against her, powers with no compunction to resort to any move, legal or otherwiseto thwart Damascus?Even the battle hardened SAA with years of experience are kept fighting against any number of groups of terrorists acting as proxies. When the SAA wins they are threatened with retaliation.

It would appear that a Russian intervention of the sort that puts paid to any terrorist victory is the only way. But then the armies of other nations will step in to try a push back of the victorious SAA from their ownSyrian territories as if they had no right to them. A total and final victory cannot but come from a determined strike against invading forces. But as Idlib has proven Syria cannot be restored intact without Russian support. The question then is, are the powers, NATO et al, edging towards  a World War? One does get the impression that at this time the US and its NATO allies are erring towards thebelief that they can win such awar.

And, Russia has overtly taken a no-nonsense posture. Is the world walking straight into the perfect storm given adverse global economic conditions compoundedby the impact of the Covid-19 virus now already menacing the world?

*

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

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of the International Movement for a JUST World (JUST).

Analysis of the 2019 Bolivia Election

March 2nd, 2020 by Jack R. Williams

On October 20, 2019, Bolivia held its third general election under its 2009 constitution. Nine presidential candidates competed in the presidential election, but early polling indicated a likely two- way race between President Evo Morales of the Movimiento al Socialismo (MAS-IPSP) and former president Carlos Mesa of Comunidad Ciudadana (CC).

On the day of the election, the unofficial, preliminary count (trep) stopped at 7:40 PM, with only around 84% of the tally sheets (actas) that would be counted in the official count (computo) counted. On October 21 at 18:29, after the OAS Electoral Observation Mission in Bolivia requested a resumption of the trep, electoral officials announced updated results with 95 percent of actasprocessed. Morales’ margin in the updated results exceeded 10 percentage points. The OAS releaseda statement expressing concern about a “change in the trend” between results before and after the stopping of the trep on October 20[4].

In the final tally of the computo, Morales’s margin of victory would rise to 10.56 percentage points over CC candidate Mesa. Bolivian presidential elections require a 10 percentage point lead over the runner-up, and the change in the margin of victory in favor of Morales following the trepinterruption was characterized as surprising and of “deep concern” by the OAS, thereby creating theimpression that fraud in favor of MAS-IPSP had likely taken place.

We find that Morales’s victory can be explained by his voter support before the preliminary vote count halted. Through three analyses of the vote prior to the cutoff at 84% of the vote count, we find the final result can be explained by a pattern in the vote count prior to the cutoff of the trep. Therefore, we cannot find quantitative evidence of an irregular trend as claimed by the OAS.

The Trend for MAS-IPSP before the Cutoff Matches the Final Count

Figure 1 plots the margin for MAS-IPSP by the percent of the final vote verified for the presidential and legislative Elections. Earlier in the vote count and prior to the stopping of the trep, there was a trend in the presidential vote count in favor of MAS-IPSP. As seen, despite early results in favor of CC, the margin for MAS-IPSP began to rise as early as 10% of the way through the vote count. Following 20% of the vote, the trend in favor of MAS-IPSP is constant. Further, early vote reporting is highly variable as the number of actas is extremely low.

Further, the results seen in the trep are mirrored in the computo, which saw no interruption in the verification of vote totals. Figure 2 displays how votes in the legislative election and presidential election initially favored CC, but as more votes were counted they began to favor MAS-IPSP.

Precincts with Actas Remaining Favored Morales’s MAS-IPSP

The goal of this study is to determine the extent to which the final vote results for Morales can be explained from analyzing the first 84% of precincts alone. In this analysis, we would expect that the margin of victory for Morales would be similar in actas within the same precinct whether they were verified before or after the closing of the preliminary count.

When the trep halted, precincts with actas remaining to be counted already highly favored Morales. Figure 3 shows that the precincts with actas remaining on average supported Morales by a 19.8 percentage point margin before the cutoff.

The margin in the right column of Figure 3 is an average by precinct and does not account for the varying size of precincts, nor does it account for the small percentage of precincts with no actas counted before the interruption. Given that, we thought it would be useful to see individual trends in reporting for precincts before and after the halting of the trep. 58.11% (N=2805) of precincts reported all actas before the cutoff, 11.29% (N=545) of precincts reported no actas before the cutoff, and 30.59% (N=1477) of precincts reported actas both before and after the cutoff.

Figure 4 analyzes those precincts that reported both before and after the halting of the trep. There is a strong relationship within precincts between voting margins reported before and after the cutoff, with the change in the trend nearly intersecting at zero in the figure. This provides a strong indication that within precincts there was no clear change in favor of a single party after the trep interruption.

Despite no change in the parties’ margins before and after the cutoff, we do see an increase in the overall margin for Morales in this group from 7.29 percentage points before the cutoff to 20.12 percentage points after the cutoff. This results from three trends in the group of precincts that reported before and after the cutoff. First, CC-favoring precincts on average reported 41% more votes than Morales-favoring precincts prior to the cutoff, while those Morales-favoring precincts reported 7% more after the cutoff. Of the 1477 precincts that reported before and after the cutoff, 66% of those precincts favored Morales. Finally, precincts favoring Morales supported him on average by 46 percentage points, while those favoring CC did so only by around 28 percentage points both before and after the cutoff.

Considering the strong relationship between precinct margins, we estimate the margin of votes verified after the interruption based on the actas that were counted before the interruption from the same precincts. We estimate Morales’ margin in the 13.78% of votes in those actas to be 19.12 percentage points. We can therefore estimate an increase in Morales’ margin by 1.59 percentage points, from 7.87 at 84% of final vote counted to 9.46 percentage points at 97.78% of vote counted[5].

Unfortunately, we cannot make this comparison for precincts that had no actas reported at the time the trep stopped. If we isolate the results from precincts that were reported only after the 84% cutoff, we arrive at a dataset that is 2.22% of the vote remaining in the presidential vote. If we add the 2.22% of vote remaining in the final count to our calculated margin, we find that Morales needed a 27.68 percentage point margin over Mesa in that final 2.22% to surpass the 10 percent margin and avoid a runoff[6].

As the precincts that reported only after the cutoff are small and had no more than 2,694 total votes, we subset precincts to the 73.39% (N=3533) of them that reported votes before and had no more than 2,694 total votes. We split the precincts into those that favor Morales or favor Mesa, and impute the total number of votes for both based on the change in the votes cast by precincts from the dataset in Figure 5. Using any precinct with less than the maximum number of votes cast in the last 2.22% of vote remaining, we can predict a 29.42 percentage point margin for Morales in the last 2.22% of the vote and a final margin above the 10 percentage point requirement to avoid a runoff.

Morales Could Expect at Least a 10.5 Percentage Point Margin Based on the Results before the Cutoff

In the figure below, we simulate the final vote margin for Morales given the vote trends that occurred before the trep vote count halted. We run 1000 simulations on what the vote margin between Morales and CC might be, given the vote trends that occurred in the same localities and municipalities as the precincts yet uncounted. We find that Morales could expect at least a 10.5 percentage point lead over the CC, and on average a more than 10.3 percentage point lead over CC.Therefore, the results suggest that Morales’s victory can be explained by his electoral performance before the trep vote count halted.

Following our reproduction of the OAS results and simulations of what the Morales vote share might be given his earlier voter support, we cannot find evidence of an irregular trend. First, there isno actual “drastic jump” in voter support for Morales at the halt in the trep count of the vote. Insofar as the second place winner placed close to Morales, their support spiked only during the very first initial votes counted in the trep. Further, if one estimated the Morales winning margin only given his performance against the other parties prior to the halt in the trep vote count, his victory margin can be entirely explained by how well he did before the halt in the trep vote count.

Conclusion

The OAS’s claim that the stopping of the trep during the Bolivian election produced an oddity in the voting trend is contradicted by the data. While there was a break in the reporting of votes, the substance of those later-reporting votes could be determined prior to the break.

Therefore, we cannot find results that would lead us to the same conclusion as the OAS. We find it is very likely that Morales won the required 10 percentage point margin to win in the first round of the election on October 20, 2019.

*

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.

Jack R. Williams and John Curiel are Researchers, MIT Election Data and Science Lab.

Notes

4. Organization of American States (OAS). 2019. “Statement of the OAS Electoral Observation Mission in Bolivia.”https://www.oas.org/en/media_center/press_release.asp?sCodigo=E-085/19

5. This is the arithmetic for solving the change in the overall margin: all reported before cutoff (margin = .08853, votes = 1922419) unfinished reported before cutoff (margin = .07288, votes = 3230560) unfinished reported after (predicted margin = 19.12, votes = 845560)

𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑡 97.78% 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = (. 08853 × 1922419 + . 07288 × 3230560 + 19.12 × 845560) (1922419 + 3230560 + 845560)

𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛 𝑎𝑡 97.78% 𝑐𝑜𝑢𝑛𝑡 = 0.09457

6. This is the arithmetic for solving the required margin to surpass 10 percentage points: all reported before cutoff (margin = .08853, votes = 1922419)

unfinished before cutoff (margin = .07288, votes = 3230560)
unfinished after cutoff (margin = .201184, unfinished after votes = 845560)

all reported after cutoff (margin = ?, votes = 136286)

(𝑎×𝑎𝑛+𝑏×𝑏𝑛 +𝑐×𝑐𝑛+𝑑×𝑑𝑛)=𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑔𝑖𝑛(𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒)

𝑎 = (𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑣𝑜𝑡𝑒 × .10−𝑏 ×𝑏𝑛−𝑐 ×𝑐𝑛−𝑑 × 𝑑𝑛)𝑎𝑛

𝑎 = (6134825 × .10 – .08853 × 1922419 − . 07288 × 3230560 − .201184 × 845560) 136286

𝑎 = 0.2768113

MIT Study Finds No Evidence of Fraud in Bolivian Election that Resulted in a Coup

By Dave DeCamp, March 02, 2020

Back in November 2019, former Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in a coup after claims of election fraud from the Organization for American States (OAS). A new MIT study into the October 20th presidential election does not support the conclusions of the OAS and casts further doubt on the already flimsy claims. Much damage has already been done, Morales fled the country, members of his Movimento al Socialismo (MAS) party have been arrested, and dozens of his supporters were shot and killed by police in the unrest that followed the coup.

Jeremy Corbyn’s Silence During Julian Assange’s Extradition Hearing

By Chris Marsden, March 02, 2020

Throughout the four-day proceedings in London, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his closest allies, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, along with every single Labour MP, have kept their mouths firmly shut. Their silence was tantamount to collusion in a monstrous political show trial, aimed at silencing a publisher and journalist who has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Turkey and Syria Are at War Without a Declaration of War

By Paul Antonopoulos, March 02, 2020

Although Turkey has supported anti-Syrian government forces, especially terrorist organizations  like ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra and Turkistan Islamic Party, since the very beginning of the Syrian War in 2011, no declaration of war has ever been announced between the two neighboring countries. Russia became militarily involved in 2015 and its intervention saw the quick defeat of ISIS and the recovery of large swathes of the country back into Syrian government control, as well as a partnership emerging with Turkey to discuss the Syrian crisis.

Canadian Media Lies About Venezuela

By Alison Bodine, March 01, 2020

Canada’s public media the CBC long-ago entered the ranks of yellow journalism when it comes to its reporting on Venezuela.  However, two recent reports, in particular, one on CBC radio’s “The Current” and the other a CBC News article by reporter Evan Dyer, weigh heavy on the sensationalism and light on facts. Filled with unsubstantiated claims, right-wing pundits parading as “pro-democracy” advocates and unchallenged declarations by the government of Canada officials, once again, the CBC firmly establishes their role as the mouthpiece of the government Canada.

Why Not Sanders? He’s “Far Too Risky”

By Robert Fantina, March 01, 2020

An article on CNN on February 25 discusses the fear and apprehension of ‘moderate’ Democrats about the possibility of Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders winning the Democratic presidential nomination. “This is playing into Trump’s hands!” they lament. “Downstream candidates will be adversely impacted” they moan. They wring their hands and proclaim that “The Party will lose the House!”

They all say that Sanders is far too risky. Democrats must nominate some middle-of-the-road, namby-pamby, white, male candidate to oppose Trump. That, they state, is the only possibility of victory.

Thailand Protests: “Students” Fight to Save Washington’s Billionaire Proxy

By Tony Cartalucci, March 01, 2020

“Long Live Democracy!” cried “student” protesters at Thailand’s Thammasat University as local and Western media organizations reported “hundreds” gathered to decry the disbanding of Thai political party, Future Forward.

However, the Western media’s eager support for the small mob complete with quotes of support from the US Embassy in Bangkok should be the first clue that it has little to do with actual democracy or Thailand’s best interests and more to do with bolstering Western proxies in Thailand and boosting waning Western influence in Thailand, and across wider Asia vis-a-vis China.

China is Confronting the COVID-19 Epidemic. Was It Man-Made? An Act of of Bio-warfare?

By Peter Koenig, February 29, 2020

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID19, has as of this date killed about 3,000 people and infected some 87,000 around the globe, the vast majority of them in China. The virus has spread to at least 56 countries.

The new coronavirus, 2019-nCoV, also called COVID-19, has as of this date resulted in more than 3,000 deaths and infected more than 80,000 people Worldwide, the vast majority of them in China.


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: MIT Study Finds No Evidence of Fraud in Bolivian Election that Resulted in a Coup

Iran: Regime Change by Coronavirus?

March 2nd, 2020 by Andrew Korybko

The consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak in Iran will exacerbate the Islamic Republic’s ongoing economic crisis and bring it even closer to political collapse than ever before, the outcome of which is unwittingly being facilitated by the government’s mismanaged response to this disease as a result of the narrative corner that it’s backed itself into for “politically correct” reasons, which worryingly raises the question of whether or not regime change might be just around the corner if this dire situation isn’t soon brought under control.

Iran’s Unprecedented Isolation

Iran is unprecedentedly isolated after all of its neighbors temporarily closed their borders with the Islamic Republic as a result of its COVID-19 outbreak, which is exacerbating the country’s ongoing economic crisis and bringing it even closer to political collapse than ever before. It doesn’t inspire any confidence either that several officials have contracted the disease, including the Deputy Health Minister who earlier assured everyone that the virus was under control. One of its former ambassadors, who was also an influential cleric, even died from it too, and parliament is now suspended for the rest of the week out of an abundance of caution. The very fact that so many government representatives have caught the contagion gave rise to speculation that it’s really a bioweapon that was secretly unleashed against the Islamic Republic in order to carry out regime change there, though while that outcome is certainly possible, it’s less clear whether this would be the result of an “American-Zionist conspiracy” or simply due to the government’s mismanaged response to this disease.

The COVID-19 Crisis In The Islamic Republic

It’s unknown at this time how so many officials got infected, but it wouldn’t be inconceivable that they or those close to them (whether family members or co-workers for example) might have caught it from people who had previously been in the People’s Republic, be they Chinese, Iranian, or third-country nationals (such as businessmen or students). Qoms is, after all, a major pilgrimage site, so it could have been the case that infected Iranians went there to pray for their and their compatriots’ health but inadvertently spread the disease to everyone around them prior to showing any symptoms that would have otherwise convinced them to self-quarantine. However the outbreak ended up transpiring, there’s no question that it’s become extremely severe to the point where it’s one of the worst in the world right now, so much so that Russia became the first country to temporarily restrict the entry of all Iranians except for those with diplomatic, business, humanitarian, and transit visas just as it earlier did in regards to the Chinese. Furthermore, President Putin pledged aid to the Islamic Republic in order to help it contain this crisis, confirming without a doubt that the situation there is very serious.

Backed Into A Narrative Corner

Surprisingly, however, the Iranian government doesn’t officially regard this as a crisis, nor can it without risking a self-inflicted blow to its “political legitimacy”. The Ayatollah earlier blamed “negative propaganda” about the virus for the country’s lowest turnout since the 1979 Islamic Revolution during last month’s parliamentary elections, so acknowledging that there is indeed a problem would confirm that this “negative propaganda” was indeed correct all along. Even in the event that the argument is put forth that the situation didn’t become that dire until recently (thus negating the claim that the “negative propaganda” was accurate at the time), the question then arises of whether or not the government was scapegoating supposed fearmongering about the virus in order to cover up for voters boycotting the polls due to their disagreements with many “reformist” (“moderate”) candidates’ controversial disqualifications in the run-up to the election. Either way, Iran has backed itself into a narrative corner for “politically correct” reasons and is thus unable to adequately confront this contagion without harming its leadership’s interests.

The Political Calculations Behind The “Cover-Up”

Part of the reason why Iran has thus far downplayed the scope and scale of this growing health crisis is because it feared the outcome that’s already been imposed upon it, namely its neighbors shutting down all of their borders with it and therefore exacerbating the ongoing economic crisis. The Iranian economy has never been this weak as a result of the US’ unilateral sanctions and credible threats to impose “secondary” ones upon all those who refuse to comply with its demands, hence why India, hitherto one of Iran’s largest energy partners, dutifully complied with its new military-strategic ally and cut off the Islamic Republic from billions of dollars of much-needed revenue since last year. There might have also been unstated concerns among the ruling elite that doing anything that might be (mis)interpreted as “provoking panic” could worsen the economic crisis through “panic buying” that would leave its shelves bare, possibly generate protests, and overall portray the country as being on the brink of political collapse even more than it already is.

Has The Point Of No Return Been Passed?

Whatever its motivations might have been, it’s becoming increasingly clear that drastic action is needed in order for the country to survive these interconnected crises. The health crisis is worsening the economic one, which is in turn affecting the political crisis, especially since some officials have already contracted the disease, thus creating a circular crisis of sorts that dangerously appears to be self-sustaining. This is made all the more worrisome by the fact that the authorities have backed themselves into a narrative corner for “politically correct” reasons and are thus unable to adequately respond to the health component of this crisis. Nothing can be done for the foreseeable future about the economic dimension since it’s out of Iran’s hands, but improving the health metrics by more effectively containing the virus after finally taking it as seriously as it should have been to begin with might eventually help. As long as the health and economic crises continue to worsen, then it’s almost inevitable that another political one will erupt en masse as well, particularly if more officials fall victim to this virus, thus raising the risk of eventual regime change by coronavirus, not by any “conspiracy”.

*

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

This article was originally published on OneWorld.

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

Back in November 2019, former Bolivian President Evo Morales was ousted in a coup after claims of election fraud from the Organization for American States (OAS). A new MIT study into the October 20th presidential election does not support the conclusions of the OAS and casts further doubt on the already flimsy claims. Much damage has already been done, Morales fled the country, members of his Movimento al Socialismo (MAS) party have been arrested, and dozens of his supporters were shot and killed by police in the unrest that followed the coup.

The claims of election fraud stem from a 24-hour pause of the preliminary count system on election day. The counting was paused after 84 percent of the votes were tallied, at the time it showed Morales leading his closest opponent Carlos Mesa by just under eight percent. When the counting resumed the next day, Morales’ lead increased to over 10 percent. In Bolivia’s election system, a candidate is required to have over 40 percent of the votes, and a 10 percent lead to their nearest opponent to prevent a runoff vote.

The OAS claims that during this 24-hour pause in the preliminary count, manipulations occurred that resulted in Morales taking a large enough lead to prevent the runoff vote. The new MIT study examined the data and concluded, “The OAS’s claim that the stopping of the trep (preliminary count) during the Bolivian election produced an oddity in the voting trend is contradicted by the data … Therefore, we cannot find results that would lead us to the same conclusion as the OAS. We find it is very likely that Morales won the required 10 percentage point margin to win in the first round of the election on October 20, 2019.”

The MIT study was commissioned by the Center for Economic Policy and Policy Research (CEPR). The CEPR conducted their own study on the election shortly after it happened that found “no evidence that irregularities or fraud affected the official result that gave President Evo Morales a first-round victory.” In a press release that came out with the MIT study, CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot said, “The OAS greatly misled the media and the public about what happened in Bolivia’s elections, and helped to foster a great deal of mistrust in the electoral process and the results.”

The MIT researchers wrote an article in The Washington Post on their findings. The OAS angrily responded to the article and said the researchers ignored the OAS findings in their final report on the election and focused mostly on the preliminary report.

After the OAS released their preliminary report on the election in November 2019, Morales agreed to hold fresh elections and even said he would replace members of the electoral board that were responsible for the alleged fraud. These concessions were not enough for Morales’ opposition, who, along with the military, demand Morales step down. Morales fled to Mexico and eventually ended up in Argentina, where he was granted asylum.

At least 35 people were killed, and 700 were wounded in the post-election day unrest. Most of those killed and wounded were Morales supporters who protested against the coup. Bolivia has a large indigenous population, and Morales being the country’s first indigenous president, has much support in the community.

Morales’ resignation was celebrated in Washington. In a statement, President Trump called it “a significant moment for democracy in the Western Hemisphere.” Florida Senator Marco Rubio also celebrated the news and said, “Morales was illegitimately holding on to power in Bolivia after the recent presidential elections.” Rubio’s statement doesn’t make much sense, considering Morales’ term was not set to end until January.

Rubio, along with the OAS, expressed doubt over Morales’ victory by a ten percent margin before the final votes were tallied. On October 21st, Rubio tweeted,

“In Bolivia all credible indications are Evo Morales failed to secure necessary margin to avoid a second round in Presidential election. However some concern he will tamper with the results or process to avoid this.”

Leaked audio recordings of coup plotters discussing their plans surfaced shortly after election day and was reported on by many Spanish-language media outlets. Among the topics discussed was the support the plotters had from US Senators Marco Rubio, Bob Menendez, and Ted Cruz, who would be willing to push for economic sanctions against Bolivia if Morales stayed in power. A report from The Grayzone shows that some of the military officials involved in these conversations attended WHINSEC, a military training school in Fort Benning, Georgia, formerly known as the School of the Americas (SOA).

The SOA is a notorious training ground for coup plotters and human rights abusers of Latin America. For example, graduates of the SOA took part in the 1981 El Mozote massacre in El Salvador, where a US-backed death squad slaughtered over 800 civilians. After being connected to such atrocities, and years of bad publicity, the SOA changed its name to WHINSEC. Antiwar activists still keep a close eye on the school. SOA Watch is a grassroots organization that publishes data on the school’s graduates.

Morales expelled the US Agency for International Development (USAID) from Bolivia in 2013. US media outlets portrayed it as a paranoid move, but documents released in 2009 show that USAID poured millions of dollars into anti-Morales opposition groups and programs from the time he was a presidential candidate in 2004. After Morales was elected at the end of 2005, those efforts were ramped up, USAID focused on decentralization and separatist projects in Eastern Bolivia. In January, President Trump waived a restriction on US assistance to Bolivia, paving the way for USAID to reenter the country.

The US-government funded National Endowment for Democracy (NED) maintains a strong presence in Bolivia. In 2019, the NED spent nearly one million dollars on programs like, “Monitoring the National Election Process,” “Promoting an Informed Electorate,” and “Providing Independent News and Election Information.”

Like Venezuela, Bolivia is rich in natural resources and sits on one of the world’s largest lithium reserves. As the world becomes more reliable on batteries and electronics, lithium may replace oil as the most sought-after resource. This fact certainly gave Washington some motivation to kick out a leftist president who would likely nationalize lithium.

The OAS also plays its part in advancing Washington’s policies in Latin America. While the OAS consists of 35 member states, it is mostly funded by one member, the US. Since January 2019, the US and its allies have been pushing hard to oust Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro. Before Juan Guaido declared himself interim president of Venezuela in January 2019, the OAS Permanent Council agreed “to not recognize the legitimacy of Nicolas Maduro’s new term as of the 10th of January of 2019.”

Under Morales, Bolivia remained one of the few OAS countries that still recognized Maduro as president of Venezuela. That changed rather quickly once right-wing Senator Jeanine Anez declared herself acting president of Bolivia. One of Anez’s first moves was to recognize Juan Guaido as the “legitimate” president of Venezuela.

Since Anez took office, many members of Morales’ MAS party have been arrested or are wanted by authorities. The most common charge the party members face is related to claims of election fraud. New presidential elections are set to take place on May 3rd, and the candidate leading the polls is Luis Arce, a member of the MAS party. The government of Jeanine Anez just opened a corruption case against Arce, in a move many see as an attempt to hinder his presidential run. It is tough to say what the future holds for the people of Bolivia, but it looks like the post-coup government is going to make every effort to keep the MAS party from power.

In 2017, Bolivia’s supreme court ruled against term limits, paving the way for Morales to run for a fourth term. The court’s ruling went against a referendum that was held in 2016, where Bolivians voted in favor of term limits in a close vote of 51-49. Whether or not Morales’ bid for a fourth term was legitimate is certainly up for debate, but that is a discussion for Bolivians to have.

It appears Morales was thrown out for false claims of election fraud, and while the post-coup government has the support of the OAS and Washington, it is unlikely much will be done to rectify it. The US has a long bloody history of overthrowing governments in Latin America, and these policies continue today through organizations like the NED and USAID. What President Trump called “a significant moment for democracy” was just the result of modern-day imperialism in Latin America.

*

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

Dave DeCamp is assistant editor at Antiwar.com and a freelance journalist based in Brooklyn NY, focusing on US foreign policy and wars. He is on Twitter at @decampdave.

Last week, Julian Assange was subjected to an extradition hearing brought by the Trump administration to bring the WikiLeaks founder to the United States to face Espionage Act charges carrying a 175-year prison sentence.

Throughout the four-day proceedings in London, Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn and his closest allies, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell and Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott, along with every single Labour MP, have kept their mouths firmly shut. Their silence was tantamount to collusion in a monstrous political show trial, aimed at silencing a publisher and journalist who has exposed US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq.

Assange’s defence team detailed Washington’s conspiracy to silence him by any means necessary. The proceedings also revealed how the British courts and Boris Johnson’s Conservative government are prepared to trample on basic democratic and legal rights to ensure that Assange is sent to the US and silenced forever.

The extradition hearing had a Kafkaesque character. On February 24, Assange took his seat at Belmarsh Magistrates’ Court in a bulletproof glass box. He could barely hear his legal team outlining his defence against extradition. The bulk of the world’s press, stuck in a porta-cabin grandly described as a “media annexe,” could also barely hear or follow events.

For the defence, Edward Fitzgerald QC made a powerful presentation insisting that the US extradition request was illegal because it was demonstrably politically motivated. He detailed the extraordinary level of criminality involved in the US vendetta against Assange, including the methods employed by Spanish security firm US Global on behalf of the CIA to monitor every movement of the award-winning journalist during his political asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy.

Private and privileged conversations between Assange and his lawyers and doctors were filmed, even in the toilet, so that he was forced to sleep in a tent in his bedroom to protect his privacy.

More devastating still were the revelations of an unnamed Spanish whistle-blower, “witness 2,” that the US had plotted to kidnap and possibly kill Assange.

“There were conversations” between the CIA and UC Global head David Morales “about whether there should be more extreme measures contemplated, such as kidnapping or poisoning Julian Assange in the embassy,” Fitzgerald told the court. This included suggesting that the embassy door could be left open to make a kidnapping look like it could have been “an accident.”

Day two began with reports that Assange was handcuffed 11 times and stripped naked twice by prison guards on the opening day of proceedings, while his legal documents were confiscated. He was moved to five different cells. Despite this grotesque interference in the right to a fair trial, presiding judge Vanessa Baraitser declared that she had “no jurisdiction” over Assange’s treatment in detention.

The next day, she informed the court that Assange was “medicated” and might have “difficulty following proceedings.” In response, Assange approached the glass panels separating him from the body of the court, telling the head of his legal team, Gareth Peirce, that he was under constant surveillance: “I cannot communicate with my lawyers or ask them for clarifications without the other side seeing … What is the point of asking if I can concentrate if I cannot participate?”

The defence requested Assange be allowed to sit in the body of the court, but Baraitser rejected their written submissions, ruling on the final afternoon that Assange must remain in a dock encased in reinforced glass when the hearing resumes in May.

Fitzgerald cited the medical opinion of Professor Michael Kopelman that, “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” and of Doctor Sondra Crosby that, “It is my strong medical opinion that the extradition of Mr. Assange to the United States will further damage his current fragile state of health and very likely cause his death.”

This is the corrupt and depraved British legal system that Corbyn, McDonnell, et. al. refuse to challenge. Their public rationalisations are politically criminal.

On February 20, McDonnell visited Assange at Belmarsh. He called Assange’s plight “the Dreyfus case of our age.” At the same time, he insisted that “when the hearings start they will be sub judice and it will be difficult to raise it in the House of Commons…”

McDonnell was advancing the contemptible rationale which he and Corbyn—and their pseudo-left political allies—would use to justify their own cowardice and lack of political principle.

Jeremy Corbyn is the leader of the Opposition. He could have raised Assange’s fate in Parliament every single day, informing millions that he was being tried in a kangaroo court and that his fundamental democratic rights were being abused by a judge whose verdict has been decided in advance. He should have called for every worker and young person in Britain and internationally to demand an immediate end to the legal travesty at Belmarsh and for Assange to be freed.

What would the courts have done in response? Threaten him with prosecution or arrest? A genuine workers’ leader would have told the judiciary, “Just you dare try it!”

If any action had been taken against Corbyn, this would have been the most incendiary move since Charles I entered Parliament in January 1642 seeking to arrest five members of the Commons and precipitating the English Civil War. It would have unleashed a wave of protest throughout the UK that would have galvanised mass support for Assange’s freedom.

But Corbyn and McDonnell are not only too fond of their own skins to throw down the gauntlet to the judiciary. They are servants of the same capitalist masters as Baraitser and are bitterly opposed to any mobilisation of the working class to thwart the machinations of British imperialism.

Corbyn kept quiet on Assange for years after becoming Labour leader, until April last year when Assange was illegally dragged out of the Ecuadorean Embassy. He briefly opposed extradition to the US, before supporting extradition to Sweden on manufactured sex allegations. He then resumed his silence for 10 months, including during December’s general election campaign, before again breaking it briefly on February 12.

The media barely and selectively reported last week’s trial. Over the weekend, Socialist Equality Party campaign teams in the UK found that many workers and youth did not even know it was taking place. Corbyn is politically responsible for this dangerous situation.

Against the efforts of the official Don’t Extradite Assange campaign, and its political leaders such as John Rees and Tariq Ali, the World Socialist Web Site, the International Committee of the Fourth International and the Socialist Equality Parties have warned repeatedly that Assange’s freedom cannot be won by relying on such false political friends as Corbyn and McDonnell or by extending the slightest confidence to Britain’s courts. As we wrote on February 13:

“Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader has been an object lesson in the impossibility of fighting for democratic rights and against war by supporting or peddling illusions in the Labour Party and its ‘left’ representatives. It has demonstrated that the fight to block Assange’s extradition, secure his freedom and defend civil liberties requires the development of an independent movement of the working class—the vast majority of the population—directed against the entire official political set-up.”

We appeal to our readers to contact the WSWS and take part in the global campaign to free Julian Assange and heroic whistle-blower Chelsea Manning. Meetings must be called in every workplace, school, college and university demanding Assange’s and Manning’s immediate and unconditional freedom, the withdrawal of the US extradition request and full compensation for the decade-long state vendetta against them. Their lives depend on the intervention of the working class. There is no time to lose.

*

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.

Turkey Sacrifices Their Own Troops to Protect Al-Qaeda?

March 2nd, 2020 by Matthew Ehret-Kump

After 33 Turkish troops were killed in a Syrian army offensive on February 27 amidst the current Russia-backed campaign to liberate Idlib, Erdogan responded by laying the blame entirely on Russia and Syria – successfully avoiding all mention of the uncomfortable fact that Turkey has been protecting radical terror networks not only in Idlib but across Syria as a whole for years.

During this time, Islamist forces within Turkey favorable to Assad’s overthrow have been attempting to play a complex game of geopolitics for which they are totally unqualified.

Turkey in over its head

One of the most wild-card members of NATO, Turkey had originally been preparing itself to gain entry into the European Union with the promise of being granted local control across the Middle East as a loyal member of the New World Order. This ambition for a revived Ottoman Empire made Erdogan an enthusiastic proponent of regime change in the Middle East, and as journalist Eva Bartlett has documented for years, resulted in Turkey’s role as supplier of logistics, military hardware, training and monetary support to the various terrorist groups masquerading as anti-Assad regime freedom fighters.

When this policy nearly resulted in Turkey being wiped off the map after shooting down a Russian jet in Syrian airspace on November 24, 2015 (the claims that it had flown into Turkish airspace have long been debunked), Erdogan began to change his tune first sending a letter of apology to Putin on June 27, 2016, whereby it began to change its behaviour dramatically. For this shift in policy, Turkey was thanked by Washington with a nation-wide coup d’etat effort launched by followers of the strange CIA-asset Fethullah Gülen on July 15, 2016.

This hefty serving of humble pie brought a dose of sanity to Turkey which toned down its pro-regime change rhetoric, opened up diplomatic channels with Syria and Russia, cut down many of its ISIS supporting operations (especially its role as primary purchaser of oil stolen by ISIS from Syrian oilfields), and settled with a more benign role in the region… but not entirely.

Part of the 2017 Astana negotiations (and later Russia-Syria-Turkey-Iran negotiations in Sochi) involved Turkey’s establishment of 12 military observation posts in Idlib province which increased Turkey’s already significant Idlib military installations to 29.

What they were doing there was never addressed in the western press but in 2017 Brett McGurk, Special Presidential Envoy for the Global Coalition Against ISIL stated at a Middle East Policy forum that “Idlib province is the largest al-Qaeda safe haven since 9/11.” In a rare moment of cogency in 2014 even rambling Joe Biden admitted that Turkey was a major sponsor of ISIS (for which he was duly slapped and then apologized). All signs of that sort of honesty have long disappeared from Biden’s mind, leaving Tulsi Gabbard as the only presidential figure today who has raised this uncomfortable fact.

In opposition to Ankara’s demands that the current anti-terrorist Idlib operation be halted going so far as to threaten war with Russia, Syrian-Russian forces have continued full speed with great success knowing that if this last zone of insurgents is cleansed then all remaining terrorist threats to the region can be properly addressed and reconstruction can begin. It isn’t a secret that this reconstruction would be guided in large measure by a new partnership with Russia and China in the region which have offered billions of dollars, and engineering assistance for years guided by the Belt and Road Initiative. The BRI’s designs run directly through Iran, Iraq and Syria- all of whom would be transformed by this multi-trillion dollar initiative.

Returning to the crisis today

In response to Ankara’s howling threats, Russia’s Foreign Ministry responded by clearly making two points: 1) Turkey has avoided following through on its part of the 2018 Sochi agreement on Idlib which demanded a separation of terrorists from moderates which it entirely failed to do and 2) Turkish military made no effort to convey their location which is odd considering an active military operation was in place. Either way, as Lavrov stated “the Syria Army certainly has [the] full right to retaliate and suppress the terrorists.”

In response to the Turkish deaths, Ankara invoked Article 4 of NATO convening a meeting of all 29 Ambassadors of NATO allies which he hoped would result in a no-fly zone over Idlib and Patriot air defence backing. To increase the pressure, Erdogan even tried to blackmail NATO allies by playing the immigrant card by permitting for the first time in four years an opening of their northern frontier to the millions of Syrian refugees who wish to go to Europe by land and sea. After the 2015-2016 immigration crisis that saw millions of refugees flood into Europe from war-torn nations of Syria and Libya, Turkey agreed to close its northern frontier in resulting in 3.7 billion Syrian refugees in camps suffering through cold winters, low sanitation levels and often food scarcity.

Erdogan’s threats didn’t result in his desired outcome as NATO merely released a written message of condemnation of the offensive, but nothing more. To this point, military analyst Scott Ritter commented that “At a time when NATO is focused on confronting Russia in the Baltics, opening a second front against the Russians in Syria is not something the alliance was willing to support at this time.”

It is unknown how Europe will respond to this new onslaught of refugees, but the fact is there isn’t much they can do to turn back Russian and Syrian forces or sabotage the success of the Idlib operation at this point in the game. If European countries wish to get the best results to this long drawn out game, the best thing they could possibly do is accept the flux of immigrants with open arms and ignore Ankara’s cries of indignation. By giving Russia and Syria the space to properly extinguish terrorism from Idlib, the Middle East will come that much closer to genuine stabilization and full reconstruction can begin. This in turn would create a positive dynamic of growth and stability that would usher in a homecoming of Syrian refugees living abroad who would proudly take part in their nations’ rebirth.

*

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.

End Torture and Medical Neglect of Julian Assange

March 2nd, 2020 by Doctors for Assange

On Nov 22, 2019, we, a group of more than 60 medical doctors, wrote to the UK Home Secretary to express our serious concerns about the physical and mental health of Julian Assange.1

In our letter,1 we documented a history of denial of access to health care and prolonged psychological torture. We requested that Assange be transferred from Belmarsh prison to a university teaching hospital for medical assessment and treatment. Faced with evidence of untreated and ongoing torture, we also raised the question as to Assange’s fitness to participate in US extradition proceedings.

Having received no substantive response from the UK Government, neither to our first letter1 nor to our follow­up letter,2 we wrote to the Australian Government, requesting that it intervene to protect the health of its citizen.3 To date, regrettably, no reply has been forthcoming. Meanwhile, many more doctors from around the world have joined us in our call. Our group currently numbers 117 doctors, representing 18 countries.

The case of Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, is multifaceted. It relates to law, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, journalism, publishing, and politics. It also clearly relates to medicine. The case highlights several concerning aspects that warrant the medical profession’s close attention and concerted action.

We were prompted to act following the harrowing eyewitness accounts of former UK diplomat Craig Murray and investigative journalist John Pilger, who described Assange’s deteri­ orated state at a case management hearing on Oct 21, 2019.4,5 Assange had appeared at the hearing pale, underweight, aged and limping, and he had visibly struggled to recall basic information, focus his thoughts, and articulate his words. At the end of the hearing, he “told district judge Vanessa Baraitser that he had not understood what had happened in court”.6

We drafted a letter to the UK Home Secretary, which quickly gathered more than 60 signatures from medi­ cal doctors from Australia, Austria, Germany, Italy, Norway, Poland, Sri Lanka, Sweden, the UK, and the USA, concluding: “It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health. Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care). Were such urgent assessment and treatment not to take place, we have real concerns, on the evidence currently available, that Mr Assange could die in prison. The medical situation is thereby urgent. There is no time to lose.”1

On May 31, 2019, the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, reported on his May 9, 2019, visit to Assange in Belmarsh, accom­ panied by two medical experts: “Mr Assange showed all symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”7On Nov 1, 2019, Melzer warned, “Mr. Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life”.8 Examples of the mandated communications from the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture to governments are provided in the appendix.

Such warnings and Assange’s presentation at the October hearing should not perhaps have come as a surprise. Assange had, after all, prior to his detention in Belmarsh prison in conditions amounting to solitary confinement, spent almost 7 years restricted to a few rooms in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. Here, he had been deprived of fresh air, sunlight, the ability to move and exercise freely, and access to adequate medical care. Indeed, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention had held the confinement to amount to “arbitrary deprivation of liberty”.9

The UK Government refused to grant Assange safe passage to a hospital, despite requests from doctors who had been able to visit him in the embassy.10 There was also a climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care in the embassy. A medical practitioner who visited Assange at the embassy documented what a colleague of Assange reported: “[T]here had been many difficulties in finding medical practitioners who were willing to examine Mr Assange in the Embassy. The reasons given were uncertainty over whether medical insurance would cover the Equadorian Embassy (a foreign jurisdiction); whether the association with Mr Assange could harm their livelihood or draw unwanted attention to them and their families; and discomfort regarding exposing this association when entering the Embassy. One medical practitioner expressed concern to one of the interviewees after the police took notes of his name and the fact that he was visiting Mr Assange. One medical practitioner wrote that he agreed to produce a medical report only on condition that his name not be made available to the wider public, fearing repercussions.”11

Disturbingly, it seems that this envi­ ronment of insecurity and intimi­ dation, further compromising the medical care available to Assange, was by design. Assange was the subject of a 24/7 covert surveillance operation inside the embassy, as the emergence of secret video and audio recordings has shown.12 He was surveilled in private and with visitors, including family, friends, journalists, lawyers, and doctors. Not only were his rights to privacy, personal life, legal privilege, and freedom of speech violated, but so, too, was his right to doctor–patient confidentiality.

We condemn the torture of Assange. We condemn the denial of his fundamental right to appropriate health care. We condemn the climate of fear surrounding the provision of health care to him. We condemn the violations of his right to doctor–patient confidentiality. Politics cannot be allowed to interfere with the right to health and the practice of medicine. In the experience of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, the scale of state interference is without precedent: “In 20 years of work with victims of war, violence and political persecution I have never seen a group of democratic states ganging up to deliberately isolate, demonise and abuse a single individual for such a long time and with so little regard for human dignity and the rule of law.”7

We invite fellow doctors to join us as signatories to our letters to add further voice to our calls. Since doctors first began assessing Assange in the Ecuadorian embassy in 2015, expert medical opinion and doctors’ urgent recommendations have been consistently ignored. Even as the world’s designated authorities on arbitrary detention, torture, and human rights added their calls to doctors’ warnings, governments have sidelined medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health. This politicisation of foundational medical principles is of grave concern to us, as it carries implications beyond the case of Assange. Abuse by politically moti­ vated medical neglect sets a dangerous precedent, whereby the medical profession can be manipulated as a political tool, ultimately undermining our profession’s impartiality, commit­ ment to health for all, and obligation to do no harm.

Should Assange die in a UK prison, as the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture has warned, he will effectively have been tortured to death. Much of that torture will have taken place in a prison medical ward, on doctors’ watch. The medical profession cannot afford to stand silently by, on the wrong side of torture and the wrong side of history, while such a travesty unfolds.

In the interests of defending medical ethics, medical authority, and the human right to health, and taking a stand against torture, together we can challenge and raise awareness of the abuses detailed in our letters. Our appeals are simple: we are calling upon governments to end the torture of Assange and ensure his access to the best available health care before it is too late. Our request to others is this: please join us.

We are members of Doctors for Assange. We declare no competing interests. Signatories of this letter are listed in the appendix.

*

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

Notes

1. Doctors for Assange. First letter to the UK Government. Concerns of medical doctors about the plight of Mr Julian Assange. Nov 25, 2019. https://medium.com/p/ ffb09a5dd588 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

2. Doctors for Assange. Second letter to the UK Government. Re: medical emergency –
Mr Julian Assange. Dec 4, 2019. https://medium.com/p/d5b58bca88 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

3. Doctors for Assange. First letter to the Australian Government. Re: medical emergency – Mr Julian Assange. Dec 16, 2019. https://medium.com/p/e19a42597e45 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

4. Murray C. Assange in court. Nov 22, 2019. https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/ archives/2019/10/assange­in­court/ (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

5. Pilger J. John Pilger Julian Assange could barely speak in court! Oct 23, 2019. https://youtu.be/ GLXzudMCyM4 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

6. Agence France Presse. Julian Assange’s health is so bad he ‘could die in prison’, say 60 doctors. Nov 25, 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/ media/2019/nov/25/julian­assanges­health­is­ so­bad­he­could­die­in­prison­say­60­doctors (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

7. UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. UN expert says “collective persecution” of Julian Assange must end now. May 31, 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=24665 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

8. UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. UN expert on torture sounds alarm again that Julian Assange’s life may be at risk. Nov 1, 2019. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=25249 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

9. UN Human Rights Office of the High Commissioner. The Working Group on Arbitrary Detention deems the deprivation of liberty of Mr Julian Assange as arbitrary.

Feb 5, 2016. https://www.ohchr.org/EN/ NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews. aspx?NewsID=17012 (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

10. Love S. Access to medical care, a human right, must also be guaranteed to Julian Assange. June 22, 2018. https://blogs.bmj.com/ bmj/2018/06/22/sean­love­access­medical­ care­must­guaranteed­julian­assange/ (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

11. Dr [Redacted]. Medical report, evaluation of Mr Assange. Nov 10, 2015. https://file. wikileaks.org/file/cms/Psychosocial%20 Medical%20Report%20December%202015. pdf (accessed Feb 13, 2020).

12. Irujo JM. Russian and US visitors, targets for the Spanish firm that spied on Julian Assange.
Oct 9, 2019. https://english.elpais.com/elpais/ 2019/10/04/inenglish/1570197052_180631. html (accessed Feb 13, 2020).


Appendix – Signatories

Dr Victoria Abdelnur MD Specialist in Integrative Trauma Therapy (Germany and Argentina)

Dr Mariagiulia Agnoletto MD Specialist in Psychiatry ASST Monza San Gerardo Hospital, Monza (Italy)

Dr Vittorio Agnoletto MD Università degli Studi di Milano Statale, Milano (Italy)

Dr Talal Alrubaie Psychiatrist and Psychotherapist MBChB MSc MD (Austria)

Dr Sonia Allam MBChB FRCA Consultant in Anaesthesia and Pre-operative Assessment, Forth Valley Royal Hospital, Scotland (UK)

Dr Norbert Andersch MD MRCPsych Consultant Neurologist and Psychiatrist, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (retired); Lecturer in Psychopathology at Sigmund Freud Private University, Vienna-Berlin-Paris (Germany and UK)

Dr Marianne Beaucamp MD Fachärztin (Specialist) in Neurology & Psychiatry Psychoanalyst and Psychotherapist (retired), Munich (Germany)

Dr Thed Beaucamp MD Fachärztin (Specialist) in Neurology, Psychiatry & Psychosomatic Medicine Psychoanalyst and Psychotherapist (retired), Munich (Germany)

Dr Margaret Beavis MBBS FRACGP MPH General Medical Practitioner (Australia) Dr David Bell Consultant Psychiatrist and Psychoanalyst, London (UK)
Dr Wilfried Benik, General Medical Practitioner (Germany)

Dr Ernst Berger MD Univ. Prof., Specialist for psychiatry and neurology, Specialist for child psychiatry, Psychotherapist, Former head of Human Right Commission of Austrian Ombudsman Board MUW Klinik f. Kinder- u. Jugendpsychiatrie (Austria)

Dr Brenda Bonnici, B Pharm (Hons), M Pharm (Regulatory Affairs), PhD (Neuropharmacology); Consultant Patient Information (Switzerland)

Mr Patrick John Ramsay Boyd (signed John Boyd) MRCS LRCP MBBS FRCS FEBU Consultant Urologist (retired) (UK)

Dr Hannah Caller MBBS DCH Paediatrician, Homerton University Hospital, London (UK)

Dr Franco Camandona MD Specialist in Obstetrics & Gynaecology E.O. Ospedali Galliera, Genova (Italy)

Dr Stephen Caswell Clinical Psychologist BSc (Hons) MSc PGDip DClinPsych (UK)
Dr Sylvia Chandler MBChB MRCGP BA MA General Medical Practitioner (retired) (UK)

Dr Arthur Chesterfield-Evans M.B., B.S., F.R.C.S.(Eng.), M.Appl.Sci.(OHS), M.Pol.Econ., Former CEO of the Sydney Peace Foundation (Australia)

Dr Marco Chiesa MD FRCPsych Consultant Psychiatrist and Visiting Professor, University College London (UK)

Dr Carla Eleonora Ciccone MD Specialist in Obstetrics & Gynaecology AORN MOSCATI, Avellino (Italy) Dr C Dassos General Practitioner M.B., B.S. (Australia)
Dr Richard Davies MPsych (Clinical)/PhD, Clinical Psychologist (Australia)
Dr Chrissa Deligianni MD Pediatrician (Greece)

Dr Owen Dempsey MBBS BSc MSc PhD General Medical Practitioner (retired) (UK)

Dr H R Dhammika MBBS Medical Officer, Dehiattakandiya Base Hospital, Dehiattakandiya (Sri Lanka)

Dr Peter Diamond M.D. Anesthesiologist, Connecticut (United States)

Dr Flavia Donati MD Specialist in Psychiatry and Psychoanalyst (Rome, Italy)

Dr Tim Dowson MBChB MRCGP MSc MPhil Specialised General Medical Practitioner in Substance Misuse, Leeds (UK)

Dr Donal Duffin MB MRCP (London) MRCGP Consultant Physician NHS (retired) (UK) Dr Iris Eggeling, Specialist in Diagnostics (Radiology and Nuclear Medicine) (Germany)

Miss Kamilia El-Farra MBChB FRCOG MPhil (Medical Law and Ethics) Consultant Gynaecologist, Essex (UK)

Dr Leif Elinder, Medical Doctor, Specialist in Paediatric Medicine (Sweden and New Zealand) Dr Beata Farmanbar MD General Medical Practitioner (Sweden)
Dr Brian Foresman MD, Board certified, General Surgery (United States)

Dr Tomasz Fortuna MD RCPsych (affiliated) Forensic Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, Adult Psychotherapist and Psychoanalyst, British Psychoanalytical Society and Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, London (UK)

Dr C Stephen Frost BSc MBChB Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (Stockholm, Sweden) (UK and Sweden)

Dr Peter Garrett MA MD FRCP Independent writer and humanitarian physician; Visiting Lecturer in Nephrology at the University of Ulster (UK)

Dr Martin Gelin, Dental Surgeon, (Sweden and Australia)

Dr Rachel Gibbons MBBS BSc MRCPsych. M.Inst.Psychoanal. Mem.Inst.G.A Consultant Psychiatrist (UK)

Dr Bob Gill MBChB MRCGP General Medical Practitioner (UK)

Elizabeth Gordon MS FRCS Consultant Surgeon (retired); Co-founder of Freedom from Torture (UK)

Professor Derek A. Gould MBChB MRCP DMRD FRCR Consultant Interventional Radiologist (retired): BSIR Gold Medal, 2010; over 110 peer-reviewed publications in journals and chapters (UK)

Dr Jenny Grounds MD General Medical Practitioner, Riddells Creek, Victoria; Treasurer, Medical Association for Prevention of War, Australia (Australia)

Dr Andrew Gunn MBBS BA MAPhil FRACGP, General Medical Practitioner, Senior Lecturer at University of Quensland, Former Editor of New Doctor, National Treasurer of the Doctors Reform Society (Australia)

Dr Sonia Henry BPhty MBBS, General Medical Practitioner, Published Author (Australia)

Dr Barbara Hinkelmann, Pediatrician, Neonatologist, Senior Consultant (Germany and Sweden)

Dr Paul Hobday MBBS FRCGP DRCOG DFSRH DPM General Medical Practitioner (retired) (UK)

Dr William Hogan MD, Specialist in Internal Medicine (United States)

Dr Richard House, Psychotherapist (retired), Chartered Psychologist, AFBPsS Cert.Couns (UK)

Dr Vivek Jain, Primary Care Physician, Clinical Instructor, (Psychiatry residency training graduate) (United States)

Mr David Jameson-Evans MBBS FRCS Consultant Orthopaedic and Trauma Surgeon (retired) (UK)

Dr Bob Johnson MRCPsych MRCGP Diploma in Psychotherapy Neurology & Psychiatry (Psychiatric Institute New York) MA (Psychol) PhD (Med Computing) MBCS DPM MRCS Consultant Psychiatrist (retired); Formerly Head of Therapy, Ashworth Maximum Security Hospital, Liverpool; Formally Consultant Psychiatrist, Special Unit, C-Wing, Parkhurst Prison, Isle of Wight (UK)

Dr Lissa Johnson BA BSc(Hons, Psych) MPsych(Clin) PhD Clinical Psychologist (Australia) Dr Anna Kacperek MRCPsych Consultant Child and Adolescent Psychiatrist, London (UK)

Dr Kerstin Käll, MD, PhD, specialist in psychiatry, working mainly in addiction medicine at the Psychiatric Clinic, University Hospital, Linköping (Sweden)

Dr Sujeewa Indrajith Karunananda, MBBS, MD (Psychiatry) Acting Psychiatrist, District Base Hospital, Medirigiriya (Sri Lanka)

Dr Ove Johansson, Chief Medical Doctor (Överläkare), formerly at the Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden)

Dr Cath Keaney BSc MBBS DCH FRACGP (Australia)

Dr Jessica Kirker MBChB DipPsychiat MRCPsych FRANZCP MemberBPAS Psychoanalyst and Consultant Medical Psychotherapist (retired) (UK)

Dr Anne Lemaire General Medical Practitioner (Belgium and Portugal)

Dr Alberto Gutiérrez Mardones, PhD, Chief Medical Doctor (Överläkare), Karolinska University Hospital (Sweden)

Dr Robert Marr MD, MBBS, Master of Public Health, FFPHM, General Medical Practitioner and Public Health Doctor (Australia)

Dr Willi Mast MD Facharzt für Allgemeinmedizin, Gelsenkirchen (Germany)

Dr Daniel McQueen, MRCPsych, Consultant Psychiatrist, Child and Family Department, The Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust Tavistock Centre (UK)

Dr Janet Menage MA MBChB General Medical Practitioner (retired); qualified Psychological Counsellor; author of published research into Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (UK)

Professor Alan Meyers MD MPH Emeritus Professor of Paediatrics, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts (United States)

Dr Salique Miah BSc MBChB FRCEM DTM&H ARCS Consultant in Emergency Medicine, Manchester (UK)

Dr Carine Minne FRCPsych Consultant Psychiatrist in Forensic Psychotherapy; Psychoanalyst, London (UK)

Dr David Morgan DClinPsych MSc Fellow of British Psychoanalytic Society Psychoanalyst, Consultant Clinical Psychologist and Consultant Psychotherapist (UK)

Dr Helen Murrell MBChB MRCGP General Medical Practitioner, Gateshead (UK)

Professor Marcello Ferrada de Noli, Med Dr (Psychiatry, PhD), Professor Emeritus. Former head of Research group on International and Cross-Cultural Injury Epidemiology, Karolinska Institute, Sweden. Formerly Research Fellow, Harvard Medical School. Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights -SWEDHR (Sweden)

Dr Alison Anne Noonan MBBS (Sydney) MD (Rome) MA (Sydney) ANZSJA IAAP AAGP IAP Psychiatrist, Psychoanalyst, Specialist Outreach Northern Territory, Executive Medical Association for Prevention of War (NSW) (Australia)

Dr Maria Ntasiou, MD, Pulmonologist, director in primary health (Greece)

Dr Michael Orgel MD, Specialist in Addiction (retired), former Chief of Medical Services, Haight Ashbury Free Medical Clinic Drug Detox and Aftercare Project, San Francisco, US; former Medical Director, Community Drug Dependency Services, Bay Community NHS Trust, Lancaster, England; former Consultant in Substance Abuse NHS Lothian, Edinburgh Community Drug Problem Service and Edinburgh Harm Reduction (UK and United States)

Dr Lena Oske, Medical Doctor, Specialist in General Medicine, Skåne Health Services (Sweden)

Dr Alison Payne BSc MBChB DRCOG MRCGP prev FRNZGP General Medical Practitioner, Coventry; special interest in mental health/trauma and refugee health (UK)

Dr Peter Pech MD Specialist in Diagnostic Radiology (sub-specialty Paediatric Radiology), Akademiska Sjukhuset (Uppsala University Hospital), Uppsala (Sweden)

Dr Tomasz Pierscionek MRes MBBS MRCPsych PGDip (UK)

Professor Allyson M Pollock MBChB MSc FFPH FRCGP FRCP (Ed) Professor of Public Health, Newcastle University (UK)

Dr Efstratios Prousalis General Dental Practitioner, DDS 2008, Aristotle University, Thessaloniki (Greece)

Dr Joseph M. Pullara MD Hospitalist Physician Olympic Medical Center and Emergency Medicine Physician Forks Community Hospital Washington (United States)

Dr Luc Quintin MD PhD, Staff Anesthesiologist-Intensivist (retired), Senior Investigator (retired) Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (France)

Dr Abdulsatar Ravalia FRCA Consultant Anaesthetist (UK)

Dr. med. Ullrich Raupp MD Specialist in Psychotherapy, Child Psychiatry and Child Neurology; Psychodynamic Supervisor (DGSv) Wesel, Germany (Germany)

Professor Anders Romelsjö, Med Dr (PhD), Professor Emeritus. Formerly at the Department of Social Medicine, Karolinska Institute, Sweden. Vice-Chair, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights -SWEDHR (Sweden)

Dr Maria Rossi MD Specialist in Nephrology San Gerardo Hospital Monza (retired) (Italy)

Professor Andrew Samuels Professor of Analytical Psychology, University of Essex (recently retired); Honorary/Visiting Professor at Goldsmiths and Roehampton (both London), New York and Macau City Universities; Former Chair, UK Council for Psychotherapy (2009–2012); Founder Board Member of the International Association for Relational Psychoanalysis and Psychotherapy; Founder of Psychotherapists and Counsellors for Social Responsibility (UK)

Dr Stephanus Schmiedel, Neurologic Rehabilitation (Germany)

Professor Thomas G. Schulze MD, Institute of Psychiatric Phenomics and Genomics (IPPG), University Hospital, LMU Munich; President of the International Society of Psychiatric Genetics; Member of Executive Committee of the World Psychiatric Association; former President of the American Psychopathological Association (Germany)

Mr John H Scurr BSc MBBS FRCS Consultant General and Vascular Surgeon, University College Hospital, London (UK)

Dr Peter Shannon MBBS (UWA) DPM (Melb) FRANZCP Adult Psychiatrist (retired) (Australia) Dr Walter Siegrist, FMH, Specialist in Internal Medicine (Switzerland)

Dr Gustaw Sikora MD PhD F Inst Psychoanalysis Fellow of British Psychoanalytic Society Specialist Psychiatrist (diploids obtained in Poland and registered in the UK); Psychoanalyst; currently in private practice (UK and Poland)

Dr Lars Sjöstrand, Consultant Psychiatrist, Addiction Center Stockholm (Beroendecentrum Stockholm) (Sweden)

Dr Wilhelm Skogstad MRCPsych BPAS IPA Psychiatrist & Psychoanalyst, London, United Kingdom (UK and Germany)

Dr John Stace MBBS (UNSW) FRACGP FACRRM FRACMA MHA (UNSW) Country Doctor (retired), Perth (Australia)

Dr Jill Stein M.D., Internist, Lexington, Massachusetts, Green Party nominee for President of the United States in the 2012 and 2016 elections (United States)

Dr Derek Summerfield BSc (Hons) MBBS MRCPsych Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, Institute ofPsychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, King’s College London (UK)

Dr Rob Tandy MBBS MRCPsych Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy & Psychoanalyst; Unit Head, Psychoanalytic Treatment Unit, Tavistock and Portman, London; City & Hackney Primary CarePsychotherapy Consultation Service, St Leonard’s Hospital, London (UK)

Dr Noel Thomas MA MBChB DCH DobsRCOG DTM&H MFHom General Medical Practitioner; homeopath; has assisted on health/education projects in six developing countries Maesteg, Wales (UK)

Dr Philip Thomas MBChB DPM MPhil MD Formerly Professor of Philosophy Diversity & Mental Health, University of Central Lancashire; Formally Consultant Psychiatrist (UK)

Dr Gianni Tognoni MD Istituto Mario Negri, Milano (Italy)

Dr Jean-Pierre Unger MD DTM&H MPH PhD, Associate Professor Emeritus at the Institute of Tropical Medicine, Antwerp, Visiting Professor at the University of Newcastle (Belgium and UK)

Dr Sebastião Viola Lic Med MRCPsych Consultant Psychiatrist, Cardiff (UK)

Dr Peter Walger MD Consultant, Infectious Disease Specialist, Bonn-Duesseldorf-Berlin (Germany)

Dr Sue Wareham OAM MBBS General Medical Practitioner (retired) (Australia)

Dr Elizabeth Waterston MD General Medical Practitioner (retired), Newcastle upon Tyne (UK)

Dr Victor John Webster, Surgeon (Upper GI laparoscopic) MB BS (Adel) FRCS(Eng) FRACS (gen surg) Cert HST (RACS Eng) (retired) (Australia)

Dr Steinar Westin MD PhD, Professor of Social Medicine and former General Practitioner (Norway) Dr Eric Windgassen MRCPsych PGDipMBA Consultant Psychiatrist (retired) (UK)
Dr Pam Wortley MBBS MRCGP General Medical Practitioner (retired), Sunderland (UK)

Dr Matthew Yakimoff BOralH (DSc) GDipDent General Dental Practitioner (Australia)

Dr Rosemary Yuille BSc (Hons Anatomy) MBBS (Hons) General Medical Practitioner (retired), Canberra (Australia)

Dr Jelena Zagorcic MD, General Medical Practitioner (retired) (Serbia)

Dr Felicity de Zulueta Emeritus Consultant Psychiatrist in Psychotherapy, South London andMaudsley NHS Foundation Trust; Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer in Traumatic Studies, King’sCollege London (UK)

Dr Paquita de Zulueta MBBChir MA (Cantab) MA (Medical Law & Ethics) MRCP FRCGP PGDipCBT CBT Therapist and Coach; Senior Tutor Medical Ethics; Honorary Senior Clinical Lecturer, Dept of Primary Care & Population Health, Imperial College London (UK)

Whitewashing the West’s Disastrous War in Libya

March 2nd, 2020 by Ted Galen Carpenter

A new report from the United Nations bluntly conveys the extent of the continuing chaos in Libya and the suffering it has caused. Yacoub El Hillo, the U.N. humanitarian coordinator for Libya, stated that the impact on civilians of the country’s nine-year internecine war “is incalculable.” That horrible situation is the long-term outcome of U.S. and NATO actions, and it is well past time that guilty officials are held accountable for their disastrous policies.

Libya has been an arena of strife ever since the United States and its NATO allies helped insurgents overthrow Moammar Gaddafi’s regime in 2011. But the U.N. report suggests that matters have grown noticeably worse over the past year. In the spring of 2019, the Benghazi-based Libyan National Army (LNA), led by one-time CIA asset Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar (sometimes spelled Hifter), launched a military offensive against the U.N.-recognized Government of National Accord (GNA), based in Tripoli. Haftar’s attack initially seemed likely to prevail, but it soon bogged down and a bloody stalemate ensued.

The Libya conflict has increasingly become a proxy war involving Middle Eastern powers and Russia. Haftar receives weapons, funds, and other backing from several countries, most notably Egypt and the United Arab Emirates. In addition to the diplomatic and financial support it gets from the U.N. and most Western governments, the GNA is obtaining ever-stronger backing from Turkey. Earlier this month, Ankara significantly escalated its involvement when its parliament authorized the deployment of Turkish forces to Libya. Russian mercenaries are already fighting there on behalf of Haftar.

The stakes are higher than just a mundane struggle for political power. Libya sits atop Africa’s largest supply of oil and natural gas, worth tens of billions of dollars. Both the LNA and GNA have maneuvered to use that oil as a weapon against the opposing side.

U.S. policy seems muddled and ambivalent. Washington still recognizes the GNA as Libya’s “legitimate” government, but the Trump administration has sent mixed signals. After a telephone call between Trump and Haftar in April 2019, the U.S. seemed implicitly to back the LNA’s offensive against Tripoli. More recently, U.S. officials called on Haftar to halt the offensive. Yet when peace talks between the GNA and LNA broke down, the administration sent U.S. Ambassador to Libya Richard Norland to meet with Haftar even before contacting the Tripoli regime it officially recognizes.

There is little question that today’s Libya is a chaotic mess. Once again, however, Western news outlets are trying to portray a complex foreign conflict as a contest between good and evil. Journalists are intensifying their hostility towards Haftar, designating him as the villain. The Guardian warns that Libya’s ugly violence will continue so long as outside governments continue to back Haftar. (Apparently, external meddling on behalf of the GNA and its allied, often Islamist militias does not have a similar effect.) The New York Times appears to have seized the lead in the media campaign to discredit Haftar. In recent weeks, several prominent stories in the Times have highlighted his authoritarianism and brutality.

The one thing most members of the Western media establishment remain unwilling to do, however, is explain how the current chaos in Libya began—much less who was responsible for the tragedy. Such convenient amnesia continues a long-standing pattern.

In late 2017, Western reporters belatedly discovered that a slave trade of captured black Africans had become a feature of “liberated” post-Gaddafi Libya. A devastating account by Ben Norton, an analyst with Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), documented the mainstream media’s ongoing willingness to minimize American and NATO responsibility. In particular, Western journalists largely ignored that war’s connection to the resumption of slave trading. “The American and British media have awakened to the grim reality in Libya, where African refugees are for sale in open-air slave markets,” Norton observed. “Yet a crucial detail in this scandal has been downplayed or even ignored in many corporate media reports: the role of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in bringing slavery to the North African nation.”

NATO supported an array of rebel groups in Libya, Norton noted, “many of which were dominated by Islamist extremists and harbored violently racist views.” Yet journalists “have largely forgotten about the key role NATO played in destroying Libya’s government, destabilizing the country and empowering human traffickers.” Moreover, even the few news reports that acknowledge NATO’s complicity “do not go a step further and detail the well-documented, violent racism of the NATO-backed Libyan rebels who ushered in slavery after ethnically cleansing and committing brutal crimes against black Libyans.”

Norton singled out a 2017 CNN report for criticism. Despite the flashy multimedia features, he noted, “something was missing: The 1,000-word story made no mention of NATO, or the 2011 war that destroyed Libya’s government, or Muammar Qadhafi, or any kind of historical and political context whatsoever.” The same omission occurred in a series of subsequent CNN news stories about human trafficking in Libya, as it did in plenty of stories in other publications.

Recent news accounts about instability and repression in Libya show a similar desire to avoid discussing the destructive impact that NATO’s policies have had. The otherwise excellent, detailed article in the February 20, 2020 New York Times, which documented the oppression of Haftar’s forces, devoted only one sentence to NATO’s role: “[Libya] has been in turmoil since an Arab Spring revolt and NATO’s intervention toppled Colonel el-Qaddafi nine years ago.” And that was in a nearly 2,000-word article.

When they participate in this conspiracy of silence, journalists shirk their duty as watchdogs alerting the public to government incompetence and misconduct. Whatever the Obama administration’s motives and goals in launching the military intervention that ousted Gaddafi, the results have been indisputably catastrophic. Yet Obama, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and key advisers such as Susan Rice and Samantha Power still refuse to acknowledge their blunders or apologize to the suffering Libyan people. It is time for the media to stop aiding and abetting such an evasion of responsibility. Stories about the current turmoil in Libya need to provide a clear picture of the shameful historical context.

*

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.

Ted Galen Carpenter, a senior fellow in security studies at the Cato Institute and a contributing editor at The American Conservative, is the author of 12 books and more than 850 articles on international affairs. His 2019 book, Gullible Superpower: U.S. Support for Bogus Foreign Democratic Movements, contains a chapter on the 2011 U.S.-led regime-change war in Libya and its consequences. 

Turkey and Syria Are at War Without a Declaration of War

March 2nd, 2020 by Paul Antonopoulos

Although Turkey has supported anti-Syrian government forces, especially terrorist organizations  like ISIS and the Al-Qaeda affiliated Al-Nusra and Turkistan Islamic Party, since the very beginning of the Syrian War in 2011, no declaration of war has ever been announced between the two neighboring countries. Russia became militarily involved in 2015 and its intervention saw the quick defeat of ISIS and the recovery of large swathes of the country back into Syrian government control, as well as a partnership emerging with Turkey to discuss the Syrian crisis.

However, this now appears to be well and truly over. Oleg Zhuravlyov, chief of the Russian Center for Reconciliation of the Opposing Parties in Syria, said on Sunday that the Syrian government was forced to declare the closure of airspace over Syria’s northwest Idlib province. However, it was his following comment that sent social media into a frenzy with speculation that Russia would begin attacking jets illegally operating in Idlib.

“In such conditions, the command of the Russian taskforce cannot guarantee safety of flights by Turkish planes over Syria,” said Zhuravlyov.

Many people have interpreted this as Russia threatening Turkish jets. This is not the case, and rather, Russia is warning Turkey that it will not restrain the Syrian Army in attacking the Turkish military, especially after Turkey downed two Syrian jets yesterday. It was a tense day, even though no Syrian pilots were killed.

The day saw six Turkish drones downed and then in the early morning, Turkish ambulances were seen at the Syrian-Turkish border point to retrieve dead and wounded Turkish soldiers after a Syrian Army attack on a military convoy at Qamenas near Sarmin in Idlib countryside. All this happened yesterday on the first day after a deadline set by Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan ended which demanded the Syrian Army to withdraw to positions it held earlier in the year.  Although Turkey has not declared war on Syria, there is little doubt that the two countries are now at war and Russia will do little to restrain the Arab country from defending its territory.

The Syrian army command announced on Sunday that the airspace over the northwestern part of the country is now closed. The situation in Idlib escalated after Turkish-backed and Al-Qaeda affiliated Hayyat Tahrir al-Sham launched a large-scale attack on Syrian government forces on February 27, with the Syrian army striking back in retaliation and killing 36 Turkish soldiers and wounding another 30. Immediately afterwards, Russia took steps to ensure a short ceasefire to enable Turkey to recover the bodies of their fallen and wounded.

Moscow has expressed concern over Ankara’s support for terrorist organizations in Idlib. In addition, Russian President Vladimir Putin first conducted trilateral talks with French President Emmanuel Macron and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, and then with Erdoğan, who described the implementation of the agreement with Sochi as the main condition for the settlement in Idlib. This has been problematic as Erdoğan has refused to stop supporting terrorist organizations in Idlib as set out by the Sochi agreement. In turn, Putin expressed concern over the increase in terrorist activity in the province, while also noting the need for unconditional respect for Syria’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

Turkey has blamed Russia for the at least 50 Turkish soldiers killed in February alone, testing Moscow’s patience with Ankara, especially with Erdoğan showing his arrogance after asking Russia to step aside and allow Turkey to engage against Russia’s Syrian allies directly. Although Ankara has received verbal backing from Washington, it is unlikely that Turkey would receive backing from NATO because of the asymmetric weaponization of illegal migrants that Erdoğan unleashed against Greece.

Greece on Friday blocked a joint communique from NATO being announced on Friday night that intended to support Turkey in its war against Syria. This came to the anger of the U.S., UK, Germany and France, pushing the case further that Russia needs to prioritize Greece as relations rift with Turkey. This is especially necessary as relations have broken down so badly that the Turkish military are writing “With Love for Putin” on Turkish bombs destined for Syria.

Although NATO wanted to show a united front against Russia and support Turkey against Syria, it was unable to do it because of Greece’s veto. Despite not having international legitimacy or making a declaration of war, there is little doubt that Turkey is at war with Syria directly now, rather than in an indirect manner like in previous years.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Third Israeli Election Heading for Impasse Again?

March 2nd, 2020 by Stephen Lendman

On Monday, Israelis are voting for the third time since last April, impasse occurring twice before, what may happen again this time.

According to the latest pre-election polls, Netanyahu’s Likud party and lead challenger Benny Gantz’s Blue and White each are predicted to win 33 of 120 Knesset seats.

A 61-seat majority coalition is required to form a government. What neither leading party achieved twice before may be repeated a third time following voting on Monday.

Likud and Blue and White each appear a few seats short of cobbling together a ruling majority.

Anti-Gantz mudslinging defined Netanyahu’s campaign. After voting on Monday, Gantz slammed his chief rival saying:

“I hope that today will be the day that we change the tune, stop the mudslinging (and) stop the lying,” adding:

“Hopefully on this day we will begin the process of healing and begin living together with each other.”

Voting in Occupied Jerusalem, Israeli president Rivlin said “(t)his is normally a festive day, but the truth is that I don’t feel celebratory.”

“I only feel a sense of deep shame…We don’t deserve another awful and grubby election campaign like the one that ends today, and we don’t deserve this never-ending instability.”

“We deserve a government that works for us.” Like the US and other Western countries, it only “works” for Israel’s privileged class.

The vast majority of its Jewish citizens have no say over how they’re governed.

Israeli Arabs and Occupied Palestinians are ill-served and abused by ruling authorities controlling their lives.

Gantz earlier and ahead could easily cobble together a ruling coalition by including Joint (Arab) List Knesset members in it.

Instead he refused to ally with Arab representatives twice before — supporting apartheid rule like all Israeli regimes from inception.

Joint List leader Ayman Odeh said governance serving all Israeli citizens equitably is impossible “without a partnership between Arabs and Jews.”

According to polls, his party is projected to win a record-high 14 or 15 seats — making him a potential kingmaker if Gantz agreed to included Joint List in a ruling coalition with portfolios for the first time in Israeli history.

The Times of Israel cited unnamed analysts who believe that Gantz “may try to mold a minority coalition backed by the Joint List from the outside,” how this might work not explained.

Odeh said for Gantz to have Joint List ruling coalition support, he must “change direction” — what never happened before in Israel politically.

Arab Knesset members are treated like potted plants — with no power to serve their constituents.

Opening Monday at 7:00 AM local time, over 10,000 polling stations will stay open until 10:00 PM, 6,453,255 registered voters eligible to cast ballots.

On Sunday, Haaretz editors slammed Netanyahu. Calling him Israel’s “mudslinger-in-chief,” they “demand(ed) that he retire from public life,” adding:

“It’s hard to find words to describe the toxic stink that wafts from the political sewage Netanyahu, his associates and his family are channeling into the public fields.”

“There is not enough space to cover the entirety of mudslinging in Netanyahu’s sewer politics.”

“In the battle for the premiership, Netanyahu has stopped at nothing in demeaning his political rivals, delegitimizing them to the point of dehumanizing anyone perceived as standing in his way to another term.”

“That includes methodical, consistent incitement against Israel’s Arab citizens, Arab lawmakers and the legitimacy of the Arab vote.”

“How many more shovelfuls of muck must Israelis endure…from the messiah of hatred, incitement and lies…”

More the same filled the strongly worded denunciation of Netanyahu by Haaretz editors, wanting an end to his “poisonous rule on Monday.”

*

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.

Muslim Haters Flock Together

March 2nd, 2020 by Eric Margolis

President Donald Trump’s 36-hour whirlwind visit to India this past week was designed to show Americans just how adored abroad their president really is.

Unluckily for Trump, his campaign stop at this behemoth nation of 1.3 or 1.4 billion proved a fiasco.

First came the terrifying Chinese coronavirus that so far has killed less people than the weekly toll on China’s dangerous roads, but the whole world went into a panic. The US stock market, the underpinning of Trump’s popularity at home, took a crash dive even though the all-knowing president-physician assured Americans that the Wuhan virus was only a cold.

VP Mike Pence, who believes in Adam and Eve and Noah’s Ark, was put in charge of combating the new virus.

Next, anti-Muslim riots led by Hindu fanatics in India left large numbers of mostly Muslims dead or injured. A not very well briefed Trump had just lauded India for its harmonious communal relations. The riots were sparked by a virulent anti-Muslim immigration bill enacted by hard-line Hindu Prime Minister Narendra Modi that has caused distress across the nation.

But all was not lost. Trump signed a deal to sell $3 billion of US arms to India and got a visit to the Taj Mahal. He will very likely want a copy built in Washington. The parade-loving president also viewed a fine display in Delhi of Indian martial prowess.

The latest US military helicopters will be sold on credit to India. They could be particularly useful in the high mountain regions along India’s tense northern borders with Pakistan and China.

US President Trump and India’s Prime Minister Narendra Modi are both flaming populist leaders who play to two popular passions: hatred of Muslims and fear of China. Muslims make up roughly 14% of India’s billion-plus population, or some 172 million people.

Trump and American hawks dream of unleashing India against China. India and China have a long, disputed, ill-demarcated border across the high Himalayas and Karakoram mountains that divide them. They are rivals over Tibet, Ladakh and Burma, and Nepal, Sikkim and Bhutan. India and Pakistan have already fought three wars over Kashmir. But Indians are clever and cautious and will not allow the US to push them into a big war against China.

For more on this topic, my geopolitical analysis of the region, ‘War at the Top of the World,’ is available through Amazon and used by general staffs, intelligence agencies, and universities.

As I’ve long warned, this little-known but highly strategic Himalayan region, the source of India’s and Pakistan’s major rivers, could well spark nuclear war between them – possibly joined by China. Many Americans could not even find Kashmir on a map and care nothing about a war there that could ignite a nuclear conflict and contaminate the entire globe.

But none of this matters at election time. Trump wants to show he is beloved by the outside world.

He has now forged a very close alliance with the Muslim-hating PM Modi, who is the front man for India’s powerful Hindu fundamentalist organization, the RSS, which was modeled in the 1920’s after Mussolini’s Fascists. Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who is denounced as a ‘Jewish fascist’ by many on Israel’s left, has joined Trump and Modi in a de facto anti-Muslim rightist alliance.

At the same time, India has drawn very close to Israel, its principal supplier of arms and nuclear technology. Israel has opened doors for India across Washington. Interestingly, in a quid pro quo almost totally ignored by US media, the Trump White House has allowed massive Indian immigration to the US. There are now an estimated four million Indian immigrants in the US. Most are Hindus. They are designed to offset Muslim immigration and sway US politics in Trump’s favor.

There is nothing new in his immigration game. The Democrats encouraged large numbers of Latino and Irish immigrants who reliably voted for them. Many of the Indian immigrants are educated and fairly well-off. They cluster in IT, banking and journalism, bringing much value to both fields.

Instead of heightening tensions between India, Pakistan and China, the US should be helping calm India’s ethnic riots and promoting a fair settlement over the Kashmir dispute that has dragged on since 1947. Photo ops of the Taj Mahal are not going to help.

*

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

Featured image is from Syria News

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Muslim Haters Flock Together

Bad Medicine: Symbolic of the moral and intellectual decay at the White House, a photo shows Vice President Mike Pence and his team trying to pray away the coronavirus.

On social media, conservative Christians cheered at the embarrassing photo showing Vice President Pence and his coronavirus team wallowing in ignorant superstition and willful ignorance.

For example:

And:

According to EurAsia Review, the official White House photo by D. Myles Cullen depicts Vice President Mike Pence meeting with the President’s Coronavirus Task Force earlier this week in the West Wing of the White House.

Commenting on the story, Hemant Mehta at Friendly Atheist notes:

It’s not a joke when people say these Republicans are trying to stop a virus with prayer. What else did anyone expect? Science? Reason? Something sensible? Of course not.

While it is disturbing and heartbreaking to know that the man in charge of protecting the nation from the coronavirus would resort to something as useless as prayer, it is not surprising. In fact, it is no secret that Pence is a radical religious extremist.

Indeed, Pence is a terrible choice to lead any scientific or medical endeavor. The man is a dangerous Christian extremist who rejects science in favor of religious superstition.

Pence believes that creationism should be taught in public schools.

When serving as a congressman, Pence made it clear that he opposes evolution, and believes that only creationism (intelligent design) provides a “rational explanation for the known universe.”

Pence thinks the government should pay for gay conversion therapy.

In 2015, as Governor of Indiana, Pence allowed an HIV outbreak to spread, choosing prayer over a clean needle exchange. As a result of Pence taking the time to “pray on it,” citizens of his state suffered and died.

In addition to rejecting evolution, promoting gay conversion therapy, and allowing a deadly HIV epidemic to spread by choosing prayer over science, Pence has also claimed that condoms are “too modern and too liberal.”

Bottom line: Conservative Christians cheer while reasonable people are horrified at the sight of Pence’s team trying to pray away the coronavirus.

Weep for the nation.

*

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: Photo Shows Pence Team Trying To Pray Away Coronavirus (Image via Facebook)

The Federal government wants Canadian corporations to profit from Ethiopia’s minerals.

During his recent trip to the Horn of Africa country Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced negotiations on a Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Agreement (FIPA). As I detailed in this article, bilateral investment treaties with African countries are overwhelmingly designed to solidify the position of Canadian mining interests.

Alongside the Prime Minister, the Canadian Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) deployed a week-long “Business Mission to Ethiopia.” Mining was one of three industries cited in their release about the mission. TCS officials regularly assist mining firms with market assessments, problem-solving, contacting local officials, etc. “The TCS plays a pretty big role,” explained Ben Chalmers, senior vice‑president Mining Association of Canada in April. Trade commissioners “stand behind us and give us the additional credibility that being associated with the Government of Canada abroad brings.”

On other occasions in recent years Ottawa has shown interest in shaping Ethiopia’s burgeoning mining sector. International trade minister Jim Carr met Ethiopia’s Minister for Mining at the 2019 Prospectors & Developers Association of Canada conference in Toronto. In 2016 Global Affairs Canada launched a $12.5 million “Strengthening Education in Natural Resource Management in Ethiopia”, which was designed “to improve the employability of people … in natural resource fields like geology, mining and engineering. It works through universities and technical institutes to improve the quality of programs, align them more closely with the needs of the private sector.”

Concurrently, Global Affairs put up $15.3 million for a unique five-year collaboration between the Canadian International Resources and Development Institute (CIRDI) and Ethiopia’s Ministry of Mines. That initiative was to modernize licensing system and includes support for a geological survey. CIRDI and the Ministry of Mines also collaborated on a short marketing booklet titled “5 reasons Ethiopia is the mining investment destination you’ve been looking for”, which describes “Ethiopia’s virtually untapped, diverse and vast mineral resources.” It also lauds “improving government policies and regulations” that have put Ethiopia “on the radar screen of international mining investors.”

Two weeks ago, CIRDI Director Isabeau Vilandre and Ethiopia’s Minister for Mining participated in the African Mining Indaba conference in Cape Town, South Africa. According to the event publicity, it was a “presentation on opportunities in the Ethiopian mining sector and its critical role in the country’s home-grown economic reform.”

Housed at the University of British Columbia, Simon Fraser University and Polytechnique Montréal, CIRDI was established by the Stephen Harper government to advance Canada’s massive international mining sector. In 2012 the Canadian International Development Agency put up $25 million for CIRDI, which then International Development Minister Julian Fantino told a Mining Association of Canada meeting would “be your biggest and best ambassador.”

At the end of November Ethiopia announced new mining regulations. A Financial Post story headlined “Ethiopia vows to remove barriers to investment in mining” lauded the Canadian backed mining legislation. The story noted, “Ethiopia’s current law guarantees the government just a 5% minimum equity stake in projects – less than in many African countries.”

Canadian companies have shown interest in Ethiopia. The President & CEO of the Canadian Council on Africa(CCAfrica), a corporate lobby group, visited Addis Ababa recently to meet the Minister of Mines. Ethiopia’s state-owned airline sponsored and participated in CCAfrica’s “Unleashing Canadian Mining Ecosystem” conference in January, marketing a regular flight between Toronto and Adidas Ababa to the extractivist crowd. (At the start of the month CCAfrica and CIRDI announced a “Strategic Partnership”.)

Canadian firms are exploring a number of projects in a country that’s begun to throw its territory open to foreign mining firms. Vancouver based East Africa Metals has three gold and precious polymetallic licenses in the country.

On its site CIRDI lists “Who Benefits” from its project in Ethiopia. It claims the “Ultimate” beneficiaries are “the citizens of Ethiopia.” Justin Trudeau would make a similar claim about his push for a bilateral investment treaty and Ottawa’s mining projects in Ethiopia. It wouldn’t be true. He wants corporate Canada to profit from Ethiopia’s resources.

*

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.

Canadian Media Lies About Venezuela

March 1st, 2020 by Alison Bodine

Canada’s public media the CBC long-ago entered the ranks of yellow journalism when it comes to its reporting on Venezuela.  However, two recent reports, in particular, one on CBC radio’s “The Current” and the other a CBC News article by reporter Evan Dyer, weigh heavy on the sensationalism and light on facts. Filled with unsubstantiated claims, right-wing pundits parading as “pro-democracy” advocates and unchallenged declarations by the government of Canada officials, once again, the CBC firmly establishes their role as the mouthpiece of the government Canada.

CBC’s Lies and Manipulations Against Venezuela

The January 28 report on Venezuela on The Current could have been shortened to the 30 second sound clip from the Foreign Affairs Minister of Canada François-Philippe Champagne that was played near the beginning of the report –

“You have to look at the economic hardship that people are living. You have to look at the environmental disaster that is going on now with the illegal mining of gold. You have to look at the humanitarian crisis that is going on. We think that there will be about six million displaced by the end of the year. So everything that we’re seeing suggests that we should redouble our efforts. The solution needs to come from the region. We will work with the region, but I think the president would tell you that with Canada’s support, we’re going to look ahead to restore democracy in Venezuela.”

The economic and humanitarian crisis, environmental disaster, restoring democracy, Minister Champagne said them all. The other 16 minutes of the program had nothing further to offer, in terms of reporting or analysis because these are the buzzwords that mark the depth of mainstream media coverage on Venezuela.

Minister Champagne also fails to mention one word, one which the mainstream media has also willfully neglected to include in any of their reporting – sanctions. Neither he nor the entire episode of The Current bothers to mention that the governments of Canada, the United States, and the European Union have all imposed illegal and immoral sanctions and blockade on the people of Venezuela. So much for an objective discussion on the government of Canada’s Venezuela policies and actions.

And who the CBC invite to the program to comment on the government of Canada’s foreign policy with Venezuela?

First, Mr. Galloway welcomed Yvon Grenier, as a “professor of political science at St. Francis Xavier University in Antigonish, Nova Scotia”. Supposedly presenting him as an intellectual authority figure, with an objective point of view, the CBC neglected to mention the title of his most recent book – “Culture and the Cuban State, Participation, Recognition, and Dissonance under Communism (2017),” or his position as a fellow at the right-wing Brian Mulroney Institute of Government, which recently hosted Stephen Harper’s former Chief of Staff as a “honoured guest speaker.”

Cleary, his position on the government of Venezuela, which continues to allocate a large part of its budget to social programs, is not the kind of government Mr. Grenier would support.

The Current did play the words of the NDP deputy foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, including her comment that “What concerns me most is the idea that by meeting with Guaidó that the prime minister is taking a side and is putting his nose where it doesn’t belong” (which he clearly is).

However, Matt Galloway allowed Professor Grenier to dismiss her statement with a mere one-sentence repetition of what he had already said – that Guaidó is a legitimate President and the government of Canada is right to intervene – in so many words. Yet again, the pundits go unchallenged, and an audio clip that could have led to critical thought and discussion about Canada’s warmongering foreign policy was cut off before it could begin.

Next, Mr. Galloway welcomed Maryhen Jimenez, as a “lecturer in political science at the University of Oxford who has studied the Venezuelan opposition movement,” to the program. Her introduction was slightly more revealing of her bias, but it omitted the focus of her research “explore uneven patterns of opposition coordination in autocracies…” Of which, her biography continues, Venezuela is one of her countries of study. Matt Galloway started the report on Venezuela with “It was just over a year ago that Juan Guaidó declared himself interim president following national elections widely considered to be fraudulent,” so inviting Ms. Jimenez, who bases her research on the idea that Venezuela is an “autocracy” is fitting.

It’s almost as if the producers for The Current looked for two guest speakers with the most similar perspective as possible – if it was a position against the government of President Maduro.

CBC Silences the Voices of Those Who Acknowledge the Legitimacy the May 2018 Presidential elections o

Now, it might be considered understandable that former U.S. President Jimmy Carter, who declared the election system in Venezuela the “best in the world,” might have been hard to reach for comment. However, there are many people from Canada, including the author of this article, that was in Venezuela as elections observers when President Maduro was re-elected in May of 2018.

It seems out of the question that the CBC would ever get comments from any of the millions of people in Venezuela that support the Bolivarian revolutionary process and President Maduro. However, there are journalists, academics, unionists, students, and workers right here in Canada that could attest to how the United Nations and 75% of countries around the world recognize President Maduro, not the U.S. puppet Guaidó, as the President of Venezuela. People who could talk about how President Maduro received 68% of the vote, which represented a higher percentage of votes from the entire electorate, then either Trudeau or Trump received in their last election. Venezuelan Canadians who could comment on how the government of Canada refused to let them vote from within Canada in the Venezuelan Presidential election. Even someone that could remind the CBC and their “expert” guests that Guaidó never ran in any election to be President of Venezuela. Undoubtedly, one of us would have been available, had anyone from the CBC asked.

If The Current and the CBC intended to discuss the government of Canada’s foreign policy towards Venezuela – they indeed should have reached out to someone directly impacted by Canada’s sanctions against Venezuela. Only a week before this report, Venezuela Olympic athlete Alejandra Benítez was denied a visa to Canada under these cruel and arbitrary sanctions. Alejandra Benítez’s had hoped to compete in the Montreal Grand Prix, a fencing competition that is a qualifying event for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. But, her chances of making it to the Olympics were quashed because she was Venezuela’s Minister of Sports from 2013-2014. Indeed, she would have been happy to share her story with people in Canada.

Instead, The Current didn’t even bother to pretend that they are providing balanced reporting that is in opposition to the line of the Liberal government. The Trudeau government’s policy towards Venezuela is a playbook lock in step with the United States’ objective to bring about the overthrow of the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro. For all intents and purposes, the CBC is in support of these anti-democratic and anti-human policies.

CBC Ignores U.S. and Canada Sanctions on Venezuela

Now, undoubtedly, the CBC would work harder to present more than rhetoric on Venezuela in their articles. Well, not if the article “Canada considers new international push to oust Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro,” by veteran CBC journalist Evan Dyer is of any indication. This 1500-word article could also be summed with a short quote from the government of Canada.  Justin Trudeau’s, “I commend Interim President Guaidó for the courage and leadership he has shown in his efforts to return democracy to Venezuela, and I offer Canada’s continued support. Canadians stand with the people of Venezuela in their pursuit of free and fair elections, and basic human rights” would do just fine.

In 1500 words, Mr. Dyer managed to parrot nearly every lie about the government of President Maduro that has become the mainstay of the mainstream media war against Venezuela, especially when it comes to the election of Luis Parra as the President of the National Assembly in Venezuela on January 5. Guaidó is not President of the National Assembly anymore. Yet, Mr. Dyer continues the CBC’s shameful trend of presenting the point of view of Venezuela’s counter-revolutionary opposition as objective fact – all the while presenting the government of Canada’s intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela as a foregone conclusion that is immune to any critical thought.

Much the same as The Current, Mr. Dyer couldn’t be bothered to mention U.S., Canada, and European Union sanctions in his article. How could he dare bring up the words “humanitarian crisis” without referencing a report by economists Mark Weisbrot and Jeremy Sachs of the Center for Economic Policy Research, which documented the deadly impact of the over 350 sanctions since 2015. According to their findings, these sanctions killed an estimated 40,000 people from 2017-2018. As Alfred de Zayas, a United Nations Independent Expert, wrote in his 2018 report from his mission to Venezuela to the UN Human Rights Council, “Modern-day economic sanctions and blockades are comparable with medieval sieges of towns with the intention of forcing them to surrender. Twenty-first-century sanctions attempt to bring not just a town, but sovereign countries to their knees.” It appears these types of reports are of no use to the CBC.

This pro-war, “news” article, would be a much better fit in the opinion page of any major corporate newspaper or website.

With manipulative coverage such as this, how is it that the CBC can continue to claim that they operate on the principle that “All employees of CBC News, as well as the content they create, must respect the principles of accuracy, fairness, balance, impartiality, and integrity as expressed through the Journalistic Standards and Practices”?

The Media War Against Venezuela Continues

It is not just the CBC, major corporate media in the U.S. and Canada is decidedly attempting to manufacturer consent for the pro-intervention stance of Trump and Trudeau through lies and manipulations. A study by the non-profit organization FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting) found that in the three months between January 15 and April 15, 2019, there were “no voices in elite corporate media that opposed regime change in that country… zero opinion pieces in the New York Times and Washington Post took an anti-regime change or pro-Maduro/Chavista position. Not a single commentator on the big three Sunday morning talk shows or PBS NewsHour came out against President Nicolás Maduro stepping down from the Venezuelan government.”

Is it a mere coincidence that the CBC upped its slanderous coverage about the democratically elected government of Venezuela just as Guaidó was about to touch down in Ottawa? No way.

The CBC is a crucial part of maintaining the dog and pony show that Prime Minister Trudeau created around the arrival of Juan Guaidó to Canada on January 27, 2020. They made sure that people in Canada were unprepared to question the perfect selfie and the friendly exchange between Trudeau and Guaidó. Their profoundly inadequate, one-sided and manipulative coverage on Venezuela has silenced millions of people in Venezuela that support the Bolivarian revolutionary process and the democratically elected President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro.

U.S./Canada Hands Off Venezuela!

The CBC has proven time and time again that they are unwilling to question the government of Canada’s sanctions and intervention in the internal affairs of Venezuela. They have refused to introduce even a shred of critical thought against the campaign led by the United States to overthrow the President of Venezuela, Nicolas Maduro, and reverse the tremendous gains of the last 20 years of the Bolivarian revolutionary process.

This professional neglect by the CBC, and other mainstream, capitalist media, elevates our responsibility as poor, working and oppressed people in Canada and the United States. We must unite together to create our own media and use all the means at hand to end U.S.-led intervention, blockade, and threats against the sovereign and independent country of Venezuela!

*

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

Originally published: Volume 14, Issue 2 of Fire This Time newspaper (www.firethistime.net)

Alison Bodine is a social justice activist, author and researcher in Vancouver, Canada. She is the author of “Revolution and Counter-Revolution in Venezuela” (Battle of Ideas Press, 2018). Alison is coordinator of the Fire This Time Movement for Social Justice Venezuela Solidarity Campaign in Vancouver and is also a founding member of the Campaign to End U.S./Canada Sanctions Against Venezuela. @alisoncolette. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.