Global Research

As a sovereign nation, the Wet’suwet’en have the right to live in balance with their lands and waters and have a responsibility to defend their culture, language, and lifeways.

In 1985, we exercised our right and responsibility to protect Haida territory at Athlii Gwaay Lyell Island. At the time, our nation received support from allies and friends around the world. Their words, prayers, and acts of solidarity strengthened our stand and helped to protect this cherished place. Today, the Wet’suwet’en are exercising their jurisdiction in the same way.

The Wet’suwet’en are living on their lands and upholding ancestral laws to protect their territory for future generations. As a nation, we are allies in this commitment to defend our lands and waters. The proposed Coastal GasLink project could result in LNG tankers travelling through Haida territorial waters. Their stand is our stand, and together we have great strength.

The Government of Canada has joined the international community in adopting the United Nations Declaration of Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). UNDRIP recognizes that Indigenous peoples have the right to free, prior and informed consent regarding any project that affects their lands, territories or resources.

The Haida Nation calls upon the Canadian Government to uphold its commitment to Indigenous peoples, reconciliation, and UNDRIP by meaningfully recognizing and respecting Wet’suwet’en authority to make decisions on projects that impact the wellbeing of their people and way of life.

Guudang ‘láa ad yahguudang dang.ad id kuuniisii,

With gratitude and respect to our ancestors,

Gaagwiis Jason Alsop, President of the Haida Nation

10 January 2019,
Haida Gwaii

Source: www.haidanation.ca

***

Solidarity Statement in support of Unist’ot’en Camp and the Wet’suwet’en Nation

by BC Teachers’ Federation

The BC Teachers’ Federation reaffirms our solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en Nation. As a union committed to the Truth and Reconciliation’s Calls to Action and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, we call on the governments of BC and Canada, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Coastal GasLink Pipeline to respect the position taken by the Wet’suwet’en Hereditary Chiefs. They are insisting upon respect for Indigenous sovereignty as they have never ceded their jurisdiction to the lands they have governed and have been stewards of for millennia. All five clans of the Wet’suwet’en Nation have unanimously opposed all pipeline proposals. Forcibly removing peaceful land defenders from their traditional unceded lands is in violation of the UN Declaration.

Our provincial government recently passed a bill that states they will honor the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Actions speaks louder than empty promises that First Peoples have faced for decades. If the leaders of our province and country are truly committed to reconciliation and honouring the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, then immediate action is required. Elected leaders must act now by negotiating with the respected leaders of the Wet’suwet’en Nation who hold the inherent right to self-determination including the right to defend their lands.

The 45,000 members of the BC Teachers’ Federation stand in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en peoples and demand that the government of BC and Canada uphold their responsibilities laid out in the Supreme Court Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision of 1997. We stand as witnesses at this historic moment when our governments must make a choice to uphold this court decision or continue the ongoing legacy of colonization.

In solidarity, BC Teachers’ Federation

Source: www.bctf.ca

***

National Farmers Union in Solidarity with Wet’suwet’en Land Defenders

The National Farmers Union (NFU) stands in solidarity with Indigenous land protectors. We support initiatives by Indigenous People including the Unist’ot’en and Wet’suwet’en to resist resource extraction and energy projects that disrupt their Indigenous food and governance systems and interfere with the health of their lands, territories, and communities.

The NFU supports the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peopleand urges the Canadian government to implement the Truth & Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action.

Coastal GasLink is attempting to force construction of a Liquid Natural Gas pipeline through unceded Wet’suwet’en territory. On February 6, 2020 the RCMP entered the territory and began arresting members of the Wet’suwet’en, forcibly removing land defenders, dismantling the barricades set up to protect their territory, and denying journalists access to witness and record the RCMP’s activities.

These actions, carried out with support of the BC and federal governments, are clearly in violation of Canada’s commitments to reconciliation, against the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People(UNDRIP) which Canada formally adopted in 2016, and in contravention of the Supreme Court of Canada’s 1997 Delgamuukw-Gisday’wa decision recognizing that the Wet’suwet’en people, as represented by their hereditary leaders, had not given up rights and title to their 22,000km² territory. We agree with and support the Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs’ governance systems and their their inherent right to govern their territory through the Unist’ot’en camp and the Gidimt’en checkpoint.

Disturbed by the “forced removal, disproportionate use of force, harassment and intimidation” and “escalating threat of violence” against Indigenous peoples who oppose the pipeline, the UN Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in January, 2020 called for the immediate suspension of work on the Coastal GasLink pipeline until free, prior and informed consent is obtained from Indigenous peoples.

The Wet’suwet’en have not given free, prior and informed consent to the construction of a pipeline through their lands.

The decisions directing the RCMP to enter Wet’suwet’en territory and remove its defenders using force, and denying journalists access to witness their actions are condemned by Canadians from coast to coast to coast. In accordance with UNDRIP and our ongoing commitment to act in solidarity with Indigenous Peoples, we must inform ourselves and deepen our understanding of Indigenous sovereignty. We therefore denounce the repression of peaceful protesters, including Indigenous land protectors, and express our support for the rights of people to engage in acts of civil disobedience in defence of the preservation of water, air, land and wildlife for future generations.

We urge the governments of Canada and BC to uphold our commitment to the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), and respect Wet’suwet’en Law by withdrawing the RCMP from Wet’suwet’en Nation and cancelling Coastal GasLink’s permits.

Source: www.nfu.ca

***

Statement on Arrests of Wet’suwet’en Land Defenders and Solidarity Protesters

by Greenpeace

In response to the dozens of arrests of Indigenous Land Defenders and solidarity protesters made by the RCMP and other law enforcement organizations today and last week, Greenpeace Canada Executive Director Christy Ferguson said:

“Over the past five days, we’ve seen people from all walks of life take to the streets, blockade ports, occupy government buildings and even interrupt rail service across the country in solidarity with the Wet’suwet’en people, who are being forced to put their lives on the line in an effort to protect their territory and their rights.

“People across Canada are right to be disturbed by what the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and Union of BC Indian Chiefs have calledexpanding and unreasonable powers of the RCMP, who are criminalizing Land Defenders, denying Indigenous Peoples access to their territory, and limiting media freedom to document the raids. The cross-Canada protests in solidarity with Wet’suwet’en have helped to keep national attention on the injustices happening on their territory. It’s the kind of vital role that peaceful protest has played throughout history in bearing witness and pressuring politicians to do what is right, not what is convenient.

“As B.C. Premier John Horgan prepares to open a new session of the Legislative Assembly with the Speech from the Throne, and as Prime Minister Trudeau campaigns abroad for a seat on the UN Security Council, we’d like to remind them of their duties to guarantee Indigenous rights, freedom of the press and the right to peaceful protest – core tenets of any healthy democracy.”

Notes

Article 10 of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), which has been ratified by the Canadian government and which the B.C. government has adopted into provincial law, states: “Indigenous peoples shall not be forcibly removed from their lands or territories. No relocation shall take place without the free, prior and informed consent of the Indigenous Peoples concerned and after agreement on just and fair compensation and, where possible, with the option of return.”

Greenpeace Canada, 10 February, 2020

Source: www.greenpeace.org

***

Solidarity Statement from Professors and Scholars in Support of the Wet’suwet’en People

We are writing to express deep gratitude to the Wet’suwet’en people who have been acting with formidable vision and strength to defend their people and territories from pipeline development, and have been facing violent incursions from RCMP and industry for doing so. They have been holding this line for years and caring for the lands and waters for countless generations. For us and for many others, the Unist´ot´en camp represents resurgence, reconnection, creativity, and relationship to the land. The long-term struggle of the Wet´suwet´en is a legitimate, legally sanctioned struggle for rights, autonomy and sovereignty on their unceded territories. These efforts benefit all Canadians. We send our deepest thanks.

We are also writing to denounce the actions of the federal government, the bc government and the RCMP. We ask that the illegal work on Unist’ot’en territory by Coastal GasLink be immediately stopped. We request that the federal and provincial governments respect Indigenous rights as outlined in our constitution, in countless court rulings, as well as the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous people (UNDRIP) and ‘Anuc niwh’it’en (Wet’suwet’en law). We ask that Canadian leaders and politicians stop militarization, stop communicating false or biased information, and stop dividing communities. We reject the current campaign of disinformation, particularly statements that claim that all communities have signed on to the pipeline, which disregard the very important question of disputes over jurisdiction of territories between band councils and hereditary governance. In the Delgamuukw trial, the hereditary chiefs of the Wet´suwet´en were recognized as the rightful title holders, and their underlying sovereignty over the territory was established by Canada´s highest court. We urge both federal and provincial governments to understand the crucial distinction between consultation and consent, and to act accordingly.

We firmly oppose the Trans-Canada pipeline project and other extreme energy projects being developed that are threatening Indigenous lands. According to the latest scientific evidence there is still some possibility that catastrophic climate change can be slowed or arrested, but this goal requires an immediate phase-out of fossil fuel infrastructure (Millar et al., 2017, Smith et al., 2019). And we request the Governments heed the call of scientists who have made it clear that new fossil fuel infrastructure present the source of the world’s most threatening emissions, and would carry us toward dramatic increases in global temperature (Davis et al., 2010).

This applies to natural gas production and transport, because it also locks in fossil fuel use. The world needs to move straight to renewable energy sources, and as quickly as possible. Natural gas must not be seen as a transition fuel that will “bridge the gap” between high and low-carbon energy systems (Stephenson et al. 2012). Shale gas development and its related infrastructure will have very serious impacts not only on the territories of the Indigenous peoples that inhabit the province of British Columbia, but on areas of extraction in the northeast, along the territories and watersheds the pipeline will cross, and particularly on coastal communities, salmon habitat in rivers, and the remaining marine life in the Salish Sea and K̲andaliig̲wii (the Hecate Straight), that all will be impacted by increased tanker traffic.

Current governance processes have failed to adequately protect environment and treaty rights (Garvie & Shaw, 2016). To meet Canada’s climate targets and Canada’s commitments to reconciliation, the Canadian government needs to stop forcing gas pipelines violently through Indigenous lands.

We are also writing to encourage all Canadians to actively support the Wet’suwet’en People as they continue to demonstrate their commitment to protect their lands and waters. The most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report has warned that we have only 12 years to meet the challenge of limiting increasing temperatures to 1.5 degrees (IPCC, 2018). Even at this historic juncture, we see no sign that our existing governments are capable of dealing with the current challenges all Canadians face. The twin crises of climate chaos and rising inequality are getting worse, not better. Research shows that substantial and swift transformation of our societies will be necessary in order to meet our climate and reconciliation goals (Scoones et al., 2015); however, our current economic and political systems are failing to heed these calls and move us toward a sustainable and just future. This is because these very economic and political systems facilitate the accumulation of wealth through the continued seizure of Indigenous land and the pillaging of the natural world. We cannot leave it to these failing systems to guide us.

What is needed is inspired visions and new systems that are able to guide us toward a much more just and sustainable future. The Wet’suwet’en people, and other communities defending their lands and waters across the world, are showing us better systems of decision making, along with better ways of living together and with the land. Our best hope for justice and sustainability in Canada lies with communities like the Wet’suwet’en nation, who take their relationship and responsibilities to their lands and waters so seriously that they will risk all they have to defend it. Our hope also lies with the many Canadians respecting and actively supporting the rights of these Indigenous communities to take care of their territories.

The Unist’ot’en camp houses a healing center, envisioned as a space to heal from the trauma suffered by so many First Nations in Canada due to colonial and extractivist violence. Projects such as the Trans-Canada pipeline perpetuate this violence. To invade this camp, to disrupt this space of healing, is particularly unconscionable. Canadians have pledged to work toward reconciliation to try to heal the injustices borne by Indigenous peoples; and this healing must also include the lands which we all inhabit. To begin to heal these relationships, the kind of violence seen recently in BC must end.

Support the Wet’suwet’en People: unistoten.camp/supportertoolkit.

List of signatories so far.

*

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.

Sources

• Davis, S. J., Caldeira, K., & Matthews, H. D. (2010). “Future CO2 emissions and climate change from existing energy infrastructure.” Science, 329(5997), PP. 1330-33.
• Garvie, K.H. and Shaw, K., (2016). “Shale gas development and community response: perspectives from Treaty 8 territory, British Columbia.” Local Environment, 21(8), pp.1009-28.
• Millar, R.J., Fuglestvedt, J.S., Friedlingstein, P., Rogelj, J., Grubb, M.J., Matthews, H.D., Skeie, R.B., Forster, P.M., Frame, D.J. and Allen, M.R. (2017) “Emission budgets and pathways consistent with limiting warming to 1.5 C.” Nature Geoscience, 10(10), p.741.
• Scoones, I., Leach, M.,and Newell, P., eds. (2015). The politics of green transformations. Routledge.
• Smith, C.J., Forster, P.M., Allen, M., Fuglestvedt, J., Millar, R.J., Rogelj, J. and Zickfeld, K. (2019). “Current fossil fuel infrastructure does not yet commit us to 1.5°C warming.” Nature Communications, 10(1), p.101.
• Stephenson, E., Doukas, A. and Shaw, K. (2012). “Greenwashing gas: Might a ‘transition fuel’ label legitimize carbon-intensive natural gas development?” Energy Policy, 46, pp. 452-59.
• IPCC (2018). Summary for Policymakers of IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of 1.5°C approved by governments, at www.ipcc.ch.

Entering Singapore’s Changi Airport gives the visitor a glimpse of a mask fetish.  Security guards wear it.  As do the nurses and the various personnel who man cameras like anti-aircraft batteries, noting the approaching passenger in transit with due suspicion.  The passenger, in turn, wishes to avoid showing anything that might be construed as a suspect symptom.  Whatever you do, do not cough, splutter or sweat in nervousness.  Best to wear a mask then: neither party can accurately gauge the disposition of the other.

Witnessing the profusion of disease paraphernalia furnishes us a salient reminder that opportunity lurks where fears of a pandemic lie.  Pharmaceutical companies await a rush for certain drugs that might come in handy battling the next pathogen; producers of equipment that might stem the advantage of the viral monster tick off orders to satisfy demand.  In the case of the Coronavirus, now given its “novel” title as COVID-19, a global symbol of its stretch and influence, actual or otherwise, is the face mask. 

In parts of Southeast Asia and in China, the mask was already ubiquitous.  Preventing particles and dirt from entering the respiratory system, such layers provide a modicum of protection against such undue inhalation.  But the coronavirus “business” has seen their purpose obscured in favour of solutions that are, at best, varnished hopes or selfish aims.   

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration, for instance, insists in a factsheet on respiratory infection control that,

“Surgical masks are not designed to seal tightly against the user’s face.  During inhalation, much of the potentially contaminated air can pass through the gaps between the face and the surgical mask and not be pulled through the filter of the mask.” 

The advisory does, however, claim that using surgical masks “may reduce the risk of infectious disease transmission between infected and non-infected persons”, conceding that “historical information” on their effectiveness in controlling, for instance, influenza, remains limited.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has also warned against donning the facemask in unnecessary circumstances.  “CDC does not recommend the people who are well wear a facemask to protect themselves from respiratory viruses, including 2019-nCoV.  You should only wear a mask if a healthcare professional recommends it.”  Only those exposed to the virus and showing symptoms should wear one.  Those involved in providing health services, be they health workers “and other people who are taking care of someone infected with 2019-nCov in close settings (at home or in a health care facility)” are also encouraged to wear them.

Similar views can also be found in assessments from biosecurity wonks such as Professor C. Raina MacIntyre of the Biosecurity Program at the Kirby Institute based at the University of New South Wales.  In a co-authored piece for The Conversation, MacIntyre takes some gloss off the use of such preventive measures by noting that surgical masks “do not provide a seal around the face or filtration of airborne particles, like those that may carry coronavirus.”  But some “limited barrier against you transferring the virus from your hand to the face, or from large droplets and splashes of fluid” is provided.

The aims behind such use are distinct.  Use them for evacuation flights out of the disease zone.  Use them in cities where ongoing transmission is taking place.  But in areas where there is no crisis to speak of, extensive use or stockpiling by members of the general public can only be deemed to be disproportionate.  In the words of MacIntyre and her co-author Abrar Ahmad Chungtai, “countries where transmission is not widespread and there are only a handful of cases being treated in hospital isolation rooms, masks serve no purpose in the community.”   

Again, as with their colleagues in the field of medical science, the issue was different for those at the coal face of disease prevention.  Health workers had to be preserved; “if they get sick or die, we lose our ability to fight the epidemic.”

The literature on the effectiveness of such masks can be found, though littered with the necessary caveats that come with the field.  A study examining facemask usage and effect in reducing the number of influenza A (H1N1) cases published in 2010 used mathematical modelling to conclude that, “if worn properly”, they could constitute “an effective intervention strategy in reducing the spread of pandemic (H1N1) 2009.”

The central purpose, then, is for the mask to act as some sort of diligent disease concierge: to keep the germs in while ensuring that particles and matter, be they dust or blood, are kept out.  But commercial instinct is indifferent to such nuances.  Where there is money to be made and social media accounts to be co-opted, along with those vulgar irritants known as “influencers”, the issue is making the product appealing, not questioning it use.   

A profusion of online images show the scantily clad, the demure, the enticing, sporting the masks as they pose.  Companies such as AusAir stress local design and themes in their production: Tasmanian lavender, eucalypt varieties.  A similarity with other protective devices – flavoured prophylactics, for instance – can be drawn.  There is no reason not to be fashionable when being protected, though it lends a certain crassness to the whole enterprise.  Monetised as such, the masks have become accessories rather than necessities, notably in countries least affected.  The mask, for instance, can serve to cover perceived facial imperfections or even emotions in the public gaze.  The medical quack has been replaced by the fashion guru.   

To that end, the medical mask has spurred a global surge in demand.  A shortage in supply has eventuated, causing more than a mild panic.  In 2009, a similar shortage of masks was precipitated by the influenza H1N1 pandemic, despite WHO recommendations against general public use.  The shortage has had a somewhat nasty effect of running down what is available for those practitioners who need them in their ongoing work with patients.  As in instances of war and conflict, the opportunists and profiteers have made their inevitable, and dreaded appearance.  

*

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

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

For the first time in about 8 years of the war, Syrian government forces have established control of the entire M5 highway, which runs from the border with Jordan through Damascus, Homs and Hama to Aleppo.

During the first half of February 12th, the Syrian Army and Iranian-backed militias recaptured the Rashidin 4 district from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other foreign-backed al-Qaeda enthusiasts in western Aleppo. By the end of the day, pro-government troops had taken control of Khan Asal and entered the villages of Abu Shalim, Wadi Shuha andWadi Al-Kabeer. The Syrians also attacked “moderate beheaders” in Kafr Nuran, but were not able to break their defenses there. The interesting fact is that on February 10 army positions in the nearby area of Kafr Halab became a target of at least two suicide bombing attacks. Apparently regular suicide bombings conducted by members of Idlib groups are a strong signal of their democratic ideology.

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and its comrades complain that the ‘Assad regime’ successes in western Aleppo were the result of dirty tricks, such as the massive usage of artillery, air power, heavy military equipment and unexpected manoeuvres.

Yet, Turkish artillery support and military equipment did not help them to regain the initiative near Saraqib, in eastern Idlib. Idlib groups announced a major advance there on February 11 and attacked the village of Naryab. A supposed MANPAD missile launched from the area of Turkish positions in Qaminas shot down a Syrian military helicopter killing all on board. The Turkish Defense Ministry even officially announced that Naryab had been cleared of ‘Assad forces’ and claimed that 51 ‘regime fighters’ had been ‘neutralized’, and that 2 tanks, a gun position and a weapon depot belonging to the Syrian military had been destroyed in Idlib clashes. However, victorious tweets did not help and Turkish-led forces got clobbered by the evening. The Syrians restored full control over the town. According to pro-government sources, up to 40 militants were killed there. Several airstrikes also hit joint positions of Turkish troops and Idlib militants near Qaminas. The damage and casualties caused by these strikes remains unclear.

At the same time, the city of Idlib itself appeared to be a target of several airstrikes. According to reports, 6 civilians were killed. Over the past years, Idlib rebels have successfully learned how to place their military positions, weapon depots and HQs in close proximity to civilian infrastructure.

The US and other NATO members that broke a few lances with Turkey over its operations against Kurdish groups in northern Syria, its participation in the Astana format, the S-400 deal and other cooperation projects with Iran and Russia, are now hurrying to show their ‘decisive support’ for the Erdogan government.

The NATO secretary general condemned ‘Assad attacks’ on Turkish troops. Mike Pompeo said that the US would stand by its “NATO ally Turkey” and announced that Jim Jeffrey was going to Ankara “to coordinate steps to respond to this destabilizing attack.” In response, the Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar asked NATO allies for “concrete” moves to stop the ‘Assad aggression’. The only issue is that the most likely concrete move by the “allies” will be to slap Turkey on the back and advice to send more Turkish troops to die on behalf of al-Qaeda-linked Idlib groups.

*

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

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

The latest incident in London was so entirely preventable that it is difficult to describe it as anything less than deliberate.

In yet another headline-grabbing terror attack – an armed man in south London left several injured – some seriously – with the suspect himself killed at the scene by police.

Entirely predictable was the fact that the suspect named as Sudesh Amman – was a known terrorist – having been previously arrested, tried, and imprisoned for terror-related offenses, only to be inexplicably released early.

The London Telegraph in its article, “Streatham attack knifeman named as Sudesh Amman who had a previous terror conviction,” would report regarding his earlier conviction that:

Alexis Boon, then head of the Metropolitan Police Counter Terrorism Command, said at the time of his conviction that Amman had a “fierce interest in violence and martyrdom”.

He explained: “His fascination with dying in the name of terrorism was clear in a notepad we recovered from his home. Amman had scrawled his ‘life goals’ in the notepad and top of the list, above family activities, was dying a martyr and going to ‘Jannah’ – the afterlife.

Also predictable was the fact that this known terrorist would once again menace the public – being only the most recent example in a string of headline-grabbing terror attacks carried out by similar suspects similarly known to police and intelligence organizations, but otherwise inexplicably allowed to menace the public.

Major terror attacks in France and Belgium were likewise carried out by suspects entirely known to local police and regional intelligence organizations.

Not only are these suspects known to Western authorities, but they are also affiliated with Western-sponsored terrorist organizations most notably Al Qaeda, its various franchises, and the so-called Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) which have for nearly a decade served as proxies in Western-engineered regime change wars aimed at Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Iran, and beyond.

The latest incident in London was so entirely preventable that it is difficult to describe it as anything less than deliberate.

It is only a matter of time before politicians begin spinning and exploiting the incident – using it to shape policy both foreign and domestic – allowing analysts to better understand why such an entirely preventable act of violence was allowed to unfold nonetheless.

From London to Paris: The West’s Self-Perpetuated Terror 

As seen in nearly every terror attack in recent years both in Europe and North America including high-profile incidents like the “Charlie Hebdo shooting” and the Garland, Texas attack, the alleged suspects all have one common thread – they were all already under the watch of security agencies for years, some even imprisoned one or more times for terror-related and/or other violent offenses, some even having traveled overseas to fight alongside Western-backed terrorists in Libya, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, and beyond.

The Guardian in an article titled, “France passes new surveillance law in wake of Charlie Hebdo attack,” admitted then that the French government alone had over 1,400 people under watch, including hundreds of terrorists who have recently returned from fighting alongside Western-backed terrorists in Syria, Iraq, and Yemen.

Among these monitored potential risks were in fact the suspects behind the “Charlie Hebdo shooting.”

Slate Magazine would report in their article, “The Details of Paris Suspect Cherif Kouachi’s 2008 Terrorism Conviction,” that:

Kouachi was arrested in January 2005, accused of planning to join jihadists in Iraq. He was said to have fallen under the sway of Farid Benyettou, a young “self-taught preacher” who advocated violence, but had not actually yet traveled to Iraq or committed any acts of terror. Lawyers at the time said he had not received weapons training and “had begun having second thoughts,” going so far as to express “relief” that he’d been apprehended.

Kourachi and his brother would be reported to have traveled to the Middle East to receive training from Al Qaeda, then to have fought in Syria in a war backed in part by France, before returning home and carrying out their grisly terror attack, all while being tracked by French intelligence.

Another in his series of remarkable books, Andrew J.Bacevich has written an interesting, coherent, and timely work, The Age of Illusions. In a clear fashion it describes how Donald J. Trump is not the cause of current U.S. problems both foreign and domestic, but is the cumulative result of the decline of the U.S. 

Trump is “a mere bit player” in the overall scheme of schisms in the U.S. domestic scene.  He is a “transitory figure who simultaneously embodied and laid bare the accumulating contradictions of American life.”  Throughout the work, Bacevich introduces Trump as a background noise to unfolding events, a narcissistic self promoter.

The work starts with the post war era and a quick look at a few of the important players of that time.  He transits into discussing Nixon and Reagan as they lead into the presidency of George H. W. Bush and the sudden unexpected collapse of the Soviet Union.  From that event, Bacevich argues that the elites of the time “devised – and promulgated – a new consensus consisting of four elements.”

Four elements

These four elements carry throughout the rest of the book.  They are easily recognized by readers following current events.

First mention goes to globalization which he describes as “globalized neoliberalism…all about wealth creation:  Unconstrained corporate capitalism operating on a planetary scale.”  The second element is global leadership, “a euphemism for hegemony or, more simply still, for empire”,  supported by “unchallengeable military might” or as set out by the neocons, “full spectrum dominance.”  The third element is freedom used in the context of “the removal of constraints maximizing choice”  both in domestic politics and human behaviour and in global politics with corporate freedom above and beyond governments and people.  Bacevich’s final element is presidential freedom, with the “Oval Office accorded quasi-monarchial prerogatives and granted quasi-monarchial status.”

This system was used in such a way that it “squandered the advantages it had gained by winning the Cold War.”  While this is arguable as it worked for some – the elite corporatists and politicians – it did not work for the average citizen.

End of history

After discussing the ideas of Rudyard Kipling, Frederick Turner, and Alfred Thayer Mahan, all who promoted using “American power on an increasingly expansive scale,” the book focuses on Francis Fukuyama’s influential piece, “The End of History?”.  The essay is of the genre of writing “that captures something essential about the moment in which they appear, while simultaneously shaping expectations.”

Fukuyama’s essay had two attributes:  first its “sheer grandeur…a big argument…to explain everything; the second was that it “certified what the United States had professed to stand for all along.”  He “articulated an all-purpose justification for the American project precisely as the prior justification [the Soviet Union] was about to expire.”

The presidents

The presidents that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union are examined and critiqued in the context of the four elements of globalization, global leadership/military dominance, freedom, and presidential freedom.  The 1992 election, Bush against Clinton, was “a campaign foreshadowing the future trajectory of American politics and culminating with Donald Trump’s election as president twenty-four years later.”

Before actually looking at the presidents records he reprises the four elements in contemporary i.e. 1990s, perspective.  He discusses one of my favorites, Thomas Friedman, whose writing is described as “The promotion of globalization included a generous element of hucksterism.”  His discussion of global leadership includes the view that ties leadership into effectively leading with the military, full spectrum dominance.

The third element of freedom was “now expressed in a determination to remove limits on personal autonomy while discarding restrictions rooted in tradition and religious belief,” with an increasing role of technology in shaping those new limits and boundaries and the removal of “The last remaining constraints on the operation of global capitalism.”  The losers were cultural conservatives in the first case, and the average citizen in the latter case – but that did not mean that they disappeared or stayed out of the picture.

As for the president, he became a demi-god, the leader of the “free world”, the most powerful man in the world.  “They all promoted globalized neoliberalism and supported militarized hegemony.”

Within these elements and as per Fukuyama, the U.S. had proven its supremacy and was set to endure, to be the leader of the globe, thus the end of history.

And their legacies

In spite of all the hype, the jargon, and hubris from the politicians and the mainstream media, Bacevich’s analysis of the presidential legacies clearly demonstrates how each succeeding leader reinforced the four elements and each time increased the negative effects of U.S. policies both domestically and in foreign affairs.

In an interesting self critique, he speaks of his own role in having his views solicited by various state and media personnel.  He realized later that “virtually all of this was theater…pretending to debate matters that were not in actuality up for discussion….All the chatter served one purpose only,” as a distraction from what was really happening.  In a similar vein he again brings Donald Trump into the dialogue, noting he “was already market testing themes that within a decade would make him president.”

His biggest disappointment was Obama whose presidency “saved globalized neoliberalism” modified “American militarism and gave it a new lease on life,” and liberalized the limits of personal freedoms “that combined righteousness with a tinge of smugness,” qualifying “as either entirely appropriate or absolutely the last straw, depending on one’s point of view.”  Bacevich describes himself as a conservative in this respect but his analysis of how the latter has worked out shows serious consideration of different perspectives.  For someone who promised “hope and change” the U.S. only received more of the same, bigger and better.

The Trump era

Bacevich ends his critique of Obama at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2011 where Obama roasted Trump with mocking humor about his birth certificate and the Celebrity Apprentice show.  His conclusion “Yet the last laugh would be his.”

To start the Trump era, Bacevich highlights many statistics demonstrating how “evidence of acute economic distress and insecurity was evident, even among those fortunate enough to have jobs.”  A significant number of Americans had not benefited from the financialization of Wall Street and the large corporations, globalized neoliberalism had failed them.  He explores how “Americans have become inured to war and to a …never ending national security emergency.”

Similarly with the concept of freedom, it was “undertaken in an environment in which consumption and celebrity had emerged as preeminent values.”  Free perhaps but “obsessively narcissistic”, filled with “stress, anxiety, and a sense of not quite measuring up,” and for many “alienation, anomie, and despair.”  He follows this with a wide range of social demographic statistics clearly supporting his argument.

Trump did not make the U.S. this way, rather “he demonstrated a knack for translating those conditions into votes.  Here the moment met the man….He was…very much a man of his time.”

The description of how the electoral process unfolded for both the Democrats and Republicans provides well informed and interesting reading.  For describing Trump he adds, “As a strategic thinker, Trump had no particular talents.  Yet as a strategic sensor [italicized in original] he was uniquely gifted, possessing an intuitive genius for reading the temper of his supporters and stroking their grievances….The number of pissed off Americans…sufficed to install Trump in the White House.”

The divide in America between those disaffected and those in control (and all those who have simply given up) was not caused by Trump, “it was pervasive division that vaulted him to the center of American politics in the first place….Trump did not create this cleavage.  He merely turned it to his personal advantage.”  He is a “transitory figure who simultaneously embodied and laid bare the accumulating contradictions of American life.”

You get the picture.  Bacevich does not like Trump, nor do I as a critic, but perhaps I like this work so much because it presents a broader perspective on why and how Trump succeeded in spite of his own expectations. He touched a populist chord in America that remains solidly in support of him.  Trump is all that his critics claim he is, but he is also much more:  he is a turning point in U.S. society where all its ugliness comes to the headlines, personified but not caused by his election.

Finale

The Age of Illusions closes with a brief summary of how the U.S. has been eclipsed in global affairs.  First is the end of western primacy focussed on the emergence of China.  Next is that the convenience and antidote to boredom that is technology exacts a price including “submission to vast, profit-hungry corporate entities.”  Finally, and this is where Bacevich ends, “the way that humankind in the twenty-first century aspires to live is pushing Earth to the brink of exhaustion.”

This is a wonderfully well written history of how America squandered its Cold War victory and how that developed over the decades and through different presidents to make the U.S. what it is today.  It offers no great solutions to the many problems facing the U.S. and the world as too many other exceptionalist U.S. oriented writers do.  It is an analytical work that deserves to be widely read in order to understand the U.S. today, and the global position of the U.S. today.

*

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

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Now it is becoming obvious who China’s friends are, and who her enemies are. In the West, many nations and individuals are celebrating the short-term difficulties that the Chinese nation is facing, pouring salt into the wound, while giving birth to anti-Chinese sentiments.

Even the WHO (World Health Organization) has been warning not to impose travel bans against the countries affected by coronavirus. And it is the WHO, which is praising Beijing repeatedly and loudly, for its performance during the fight against the new virus.

But no matter what doctors say, and what the objective data is, several Western countries have been maliciously smearing China’s determined and successful efforts to contain and combat the epidemy. They exaggerate the danger, spreading fear among the people all over the world. In a spiteful, manipulative and illogical way, they are connecting the epidemic to the entire Chinese system.

Whereas Russia, which is a close ally of China, but even Japan which is often politically antagonistic to Beijing, are keeping it relatively cool, feverishly working on developing an effective vaccine, the United States and many European countries are spreading fake news, issuing travel warnings, and effectively banning their citizens from travelling to Mainland China, even banning foreigners who have recently (within 14 days) visited China, from entering the United States.

Following bizarre logic, U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar recently defended the actions of his government:

“The risk of infection for Americans remains low and with these and our previous actions we are working to keep the risk low.”

Anti-Chinese xenophobia in the United States is on the rise. Chinese people are banned from entering some restaurants, and racist punches are thrown everywhere.

Some statements are so racist, that they are actually illegal, even in the United States itself. One of the readers (with the handle name @melpol) posted on Unz.com, recently commented on my essay about the determined fight of China against the disease:

“The Chinese are DISGUSTING, souless frauds. I hope Coronavirus wipes out EVERY last one.”

Such declarations are shocking, but not really isolated.

Even the world-renowned Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who is not always on the side of Beijing, recently snapped angrily at the West and its racist attitude against China, in his essay writer for the RT:

“Coronavirus is all over the news, and I don’t pretend to be a medical specialist, but there is a question I’d like to raise: Where do facts end and where does ideology begin?

The first obvious enigma: There are far worse epidemics taking place, so why is there such an obsession with this one when thousands die daily from other infectious diseases? 

Of course, an extreme case was the 1918-1920 influenza pandemic, known as Spanish flu, when the death toll is estimated to have been at least 50 million. Around this time, influenza has infected 15 million Americans: at least 140,000 people have been hospitalized and more than 8,200 people killed this season alone. 

It seems racist paranoia is obviously at work here – remember all the fantasies about the Chinese women in Wuhan skinning live snakes and slurping bat soup. Whereas, in reality, a big Chinese city is probably one of the safest places in the world.”

But medical specialists are far from desperate about the outbreak. Coronavirus kills, but at much lower rates than many other diseases.

An analysis by the renowned British medical magazine, Lancet, was mentioned in the BBC report, and they basically revealed that fears of the coronavirus in the West are exaggerated:

“A report on the early stages of the outbreak by the Lancet medical journal said most patients who died from the virus had pre-existing conditions.

The report found that, of the first 99 patients treated at the Jinyintan Hospital in Wuhan, 40 had a weak heart or damaged blood vessels. A further 12 had diabetes.

Most people infected are likely to fully recover – just as they would from a normal flu.

An expert at China’s National Health Commission (NHC) said that one week was sufficient for a recovery from mild coronavirus symptoms.”

Some medical experts, in Asia and all over the world, are obviously on the same page with Zizek and Lancet. According to the recent figures, around 17 thousand cases were reported. 361 patients lost their lives. That is 2% – comparatively lower than the mortality rate from many other diseases.

My doctor-friends in Hong Kong have commented, for this essay:

“Certainly, it is a very infectious virus. But the severity is much less than SARS. It is understandable that any country would not welcome such a virus. But as usual, the West would like to smear and weaken China. This virus usually kills old people with other morbidities. The one in Hong Kong who died was only 39, but had other diseases. The good news is that they have found 2 very effective anti-viral agents to treat this. The local people in the yellow camp try to exaggerate the viral attack to achieve political gains. Disgusting, especially with some medical staff on strike.”

*

Several airlines have cancelled flights to Mainland China, to all or at least some destinations, including Air France, United, American Airlines, Delta and British Airways. Obviously, when it was time to cash in on growing Chinese market, these airlines were ready to dispatch its biggest birds, including the Airbus 380-800. But during the crisis, instead of standing by its new clients, they stranded passengers, unceremoniously. One of my good friends in Beijing, for instance, has not been able to join her important work mission in Santiago de Chile, because her Air France ticket had been converted into nothing more than a useless piece of paper.

Once again, the better China’s performance is, the more it gets smeared, the more colorful the lies against her are.

Commenting for this essay, Mira Lubis, an Indonesian academic recalled how she was quarantined in Wuhan, even several years ago. She is still impressed by the Chinese health authorities:

“I think China treats all virus cases very carefully. And it doesn’t mean that this latest coronavirus is more harmful than other viruses. I was quarantined in Wuhan just for having a normal flu. Meaning they have very strict procedural standards, compared to other countries, even those in Europe or the United States. And they do it in order to defend people’s health.”

However, it is very difficult to expect objectivity from the countries which have been, for years and decades, been indoctrinated by anti-Chinese propaganda!

*

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

This article was originally published on China Daily Hong Kong.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Five of his latest books are “China Belt and Road Initiative: Connecting Countries, Saving Millions of Lives”, “China and Ecological Cavillation”with John B. Cobb, Jr., Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. His Patreon. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from EPA/STRINGER CHINA OUT

We’re living in times of war psychosis. Regime Change wars have no basis in international law. They are entirely illegal, and they are all based on lies. We have seen the results, which are always catastrophic for all but certain vested interests and the oligarch ruling classes. Yet, despite the lies, despite the revelations, public consent is successfully fabricated for each new war.

The truth must shine through because the stakes are increasingly high. The West and its allies have no basis in International Law for their occupation of Syria, for the economic blockade, or for their support of the terrorists in Syria. They are the aggressors. NATO and its allies are committing Supreme International Wars Crimes, not Syria and Syrians.

NATO member Turkey’s invasion and occupation of Syria has further shredded the veil of plausible deniability since it not only supports and protects the terrorists as its NATO partners have always done, but it is also providing further cover for them by dressing them in NATO uniforms. (1)

None of this is surprising since US-led NATO has played “musical chairs” with its terrorists throughout the criminal Regime Change war.

Syrians are understandably disgusted with the criminal occupiers, especially since the aforementioned occupiers are stealing much needed oil resources during the cold Syrian winter.

This is the context underlying a recent incident in which U.S troops reportedly killed a Syrian soldier.

Permanent Syrian resident Lilly Martin described the incident in these words:

“ABC NEWS IS LYING TO YOU. TODAY, THE US TROOPS WHO ARE OCCUPYING THE SYRIAN OIL WELLS IN EASTERN SYRIA WERE PELTED WITH STONES AND SMALL ARMS FIRE BY CIVILIANS OF THE AREA, LOCAL FARMERS AND EVEN YOUNG KIDS. I SAW THE VIDEO, THEY WERE JUST LOCAL PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK AND TIRED OF BEING OPPRESSED BY THE ILLEGAL AMERICAN TROOPS. THOSE LOCAL, AND MYSELF, ARE WITHOUT ELECTRICITY, COOKING GAS AND LOW ON GASOLINE BECAUSE PRESIDENT TRUMP ORDERED THOSE TROOPS TO STAY AND STEAL THE OIL. THEY ARE FOLLOWING ORDERS, BUT THOSE ORDERS MAKE THEM THIEVES. ABC NEWS HAS MISREPORTED THE ENTIRE EVENT, AND THEIR JOURNALISTS ARE NOT ANYWHERE NEAR THE PLACE, AND NOT EVEN INSIDE SYRIA. THEY ARE SO FAR AWAY THEY WOULD NEED A PLANE TICKET. THIS IS UNACCEPTABLE. THE FACTS OF THE CASE: THE US TROOPS CAME UNDER ATTACK BY STONES AND SMALL ARMS FIRE, PRIVATE CITIZENS USING THEIR HOUSEHOLD GUNS. IN RETALIATION, THE US MILITARY BOMBED RESIDENTIAL AREAS, KILLING CIVILIANS AND WOUNDING OTHERS, AS YOU SEE FROM THE HOSPITAL PHOTO CAPTION. CIVILIANS ARE ALLOWED TO FIGHT THE OCCUPATION WITH ARMS UNDER THE GENEVA CONVENTION. THE US MILITARY IN RESPONSE SHOULD HAVE BACKED OFF, FOUND A SAFE PLACE TO RETREAT TO, THEIR BASE, AND SHOULD NEVER HAVE SENT PLANES TO BOMB CIVILIANS. I COUNT TODAY AS ONE OF THE DARKEST CHAPTERS OF THE US OCCUPATION OF SYRIA.” (2)

The following video shows the conflict between the US Armed Forces occupiers and Syrian citizens.

*

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

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) Dr. Mohamad Abdo Al-Ibrahim, “Terrorists in Uniforms!” , Syria News, 11 February, 2020.
(http://syriatimes.sy/index.php/analyses-and-studies/46759-terrorists-in-uniforms?fbclid=IwAR1r4bP5M5S1PeMlfYZPIo5c7LMEI7ngx9USm5JoQhPPT_y-x9kqSwiZKeY ) Accessed 12 February, 2020.

see also: Steve Sweeney, “Jihadists given Turkish uniforms as Russian and Syrian troops close in on Idlib” 10 February, 2020.
(https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/w/jihadists-given-turkish-uniforms-as-russian-and-syrian-troops-close-in-on-idlib?fbclid=IwAR2zs-oqKH6SB0u_d0_MjVVN92Qbo3vMhagehIXXnGhkn-igy8nnXpaLMT4#.XkNPMVrgmR0.facebook ) Accessed 12 february, 2020.

(2) Facebook commentary, 12 February, 2020.

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

The controversy now erupting throughout Canada over the issue of the construction of the TransMountain Oil Pipeline is an old one that once again reveals a fundamental unresolved impasse that has existed since first contact in the New World between the opposing philosophies and rules of law of the New World’s traditional indigenous peoples and all the colonizers of the Old World, Europeans or otherwise, who since have arrived on the shores of what traditional peoples otherwise variously still refer to as Turtle Island, Gondwana, Azatlan and still many other ancient names.

This writer’s recollection of what, fifty years ago when he first became introduced to traditional Native American & First Nation peoples, defined the chief differences that then existed between those deemed ‘traditionals’ or ‘non-traditionals’. The traditionals were those who were chiefly wedded to ‘the old ways’, predicated more upon ‘self-reliance’ and ‘independence’ from, what they was commonly referred to as ‘the white man’s ways’ of thinking, doing and being, which had less to do with the need to ‘find a job’, because a job was simply what one did to live awell and full life, feeding and caring for one’s family and prosper, as their ancestors once did in a more inter-dependent with nature, in a different way than what ‘prosper’ means today to be beholden to an outside ‘job’ commonly reffered to then as the white man’s world & way of life. Those described as traditionals were, on the whole, those who were more pure=bloods among their people and consequently darker-skinned than their mixed-blooded relatives. The old saying back then was that ‘in the white man’s world’ they were generally said to be “the last ones hired and the first one’s fired” because they didn’t fit in as well with the modern outside world’s ways of thinking, being and doing.

With that, in regard to the curremt dispute between the Government of Canada and the traditionals among the hereditary chiefs among the Wet’suewet’en First Nation and their dispute over the continued construction of the TransMountain Oil Pipeline, this controversy brings into focus seminal issues such as: the meaning and purpose of existence, life and the future survival of all living beings, and Mother Earth herself. Once again what is revealing itself in the bush, in hamlets,, towns, cities and urban areas all across Canada are some basic issues. For starts, the name Canada, itself, is an Iroquoian word (“Kanata”) that simply means ‘Home’. This same controversy also continues to ripple around the world among Climate Crisis advocates of a diametically different way of life and thinking to the modern corporate world and a similar meaning of what HOME ON MOTHER EARTH means for them now and inthe future.

Endless extraction of the Earth’s natural resources or conservation

More and more native and non-natives continue to be drawn to the ancient wisdoms of traditional indigenous peoples that all over the New World commonly use the traditional expression “KEEP IT IN THE GROUND” representing a world view based upon a deep respect and reverence for the sanctity of the earth and its preservation.

Of course this ancient philosophy and way of seeing life in a more constant, stable state of being forever flies in the face of those forces in the corporate world of commerce and business who represent a diametrically opposite mind-set and world view that long before the Old World’s discovery of the New World, and ever since, has advocated an opposite philosophy that believes that for the human race to perpetually grow and expand human society must constantly “MINE IT, PUMP IT & EXTRACT IT’ to keep up with an endless, unstoppable population expansion and growth model of ever greater dimensions in all its forms and shapes.  The one view believes in leaving as its legacy to their descendants in as pristine a way a possible, a world that has been bequeated to them by their ancestors while the other view believes in the legacy that chooses to, forget the legacieis of those ancestors and otherwise believe in those ancestors who instead advocated, “Bigger is Better and More of Everything is Even Better Still”.

For over two hundred years the dialectic art of thoroughly investigating and discussing the truth that lies beind the opposite opinions of both these world views has never yet been fully aired in the general society. Nor have the courts snd legal systems of the colonizers anywhere in North and South America, or in Australia and the South Pacific, ever held a full inquiry into the fundamental contradictions between these two world views and their potential solutions, or how the actions of the opposing social, political, cultural and legal forces and concepts of each can co-exist.

But now, front and centre before Canada and the world to try to grapple with this basic issue is the impasse of the current TransMountain Canada Oil Pipeline between the Wet’suwet’en First Nation and the Government of Canada. The earlier Dakota Access Pipeline Crisis between the Lakota Sioux Nation and the U.S. Government was a precursor but instead of opening up this much needed dialectic instead led to more of the same kind of brutality and savagery that the Americans had a propensity to perpetrate against so many traditional indigenous peoples of previous centuries.

Ideological Rule of Law Clash Between Wet’suewet’en Nation & Canada

The ideological war that is unfolding between the Wet’suewwt’en Nation and Government of Canada, the rest of British Columbia’s governing bodies and the world’s corporate, political and cultural concept of what the world should look like, is once again creating still more opening salvos that nations like the Lakota and others also continue to press for the sake of their own survival and that of their people. If the world will truly listen carefully to what these salvos represent they will better understand how that the battle is for them as well.

It should be a wake-up call to the world that these same issues are part and parcel of the many contentious Climate Crisis rebellions that already engulf the world. It’s a universal struggle begging the question of how much more will the leaders of the world and their followers continue to “MINE IT, PUMP IT & EXTRACT IT’ before it’s all gone and life on earth is but a figment of what it once was? They constantly call attention to such absurd hypocrises in the mainstream world as those that pay lip service to wanting to do something progressive to positively address climate change, yet, at the same time, on every television set around the world, every minute of every day and nightime, during every sports cast, sports match, sit-com or major cultural event, and in every movie theatre around the world during every pre-show, numerous slick, sophisticated commercials continue to woo and brainwash the people to buy every larger, more expensive, more resource development driven flashy automobiles and unnecessary products that need more and more oil to produce and run.

The Wet’suewwt’en First Nation, the Lakota Nation and many others like them, along with their allies in the Climate Rebellion Movement are the point men and women showing us the way forward, if, indeed, the Survival of All of Lifeis what is to be the operative directive of the future. This represents the simplest and clearest example of the inflexibility of ‘the white man’, an expression still used by many traditional indigenous peoples today to describe the rapacious colonizers of whatever color, race or creed.

*

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.

A new video from the Al-Qamishli countryside was released this afternoon following a skirmish between the U.S. Armed Forces and residents of Khirbat Amo.

According to a report from the Al-Hasakah Governorate, the residents of Khirbat Amo attempted to block the U.S. Armed Forces from bypassing a checkpoint belonging to the National Defense Forces (NDF) in the southern countryside of Al-Qamishli.

As a result of this obstruction, two U.S. military vehicles had to be towed from the area after they became struck in the grass.

The incident also prompted false reports of airstrikes, which were said to have been carried out by the U.S. Coalition on the Syrian military’s positions in Khirbat Amo on Wednesday.

The Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) said at least one resident of Khirbat Amo was wounded during the brief exchange.

The U.S. Coalition spokesperson later reported that one U.S. soldier suffered a superficial wound and was allowed to return to active duty following the incident.

Below is the video of the gunfire exchange from Khirbat Amo on Wednesday:

*

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.

Update (Feb. 12): One day after Boeing announced zero plane orders in January, the Chicago-based airplane manufacturer had more bad news: it would abandon forward guidance, along with the new understanding that 737 Max production line could take upwards of two years to get the volume back to pre-grounding levels.

CFO Greg Smith addressed shareholders at an investor conference on Wednesday, responding to questions about Max production and ungrounding timelines.

Boeing trading at the highest level since early December. Glad they fixed that 737 MAX mess

— Hipster (@Hipster_Trader) February 12, 2020

Smith said the underlying fundamentals of Boeing “haven’t changed much,” despite Max production being halted, and no clear visibility on when it can restart; nevertheless, there are no concrete details on when the plane can return to the skies.

He said the production rate could take upwards of two years to restore back to the pre-grounding level of 57, but there are a lot of moving variables in the supply chain, he added. It all depends on supplier inventory, he noted.

Smith said the groundings had dented global passenger growth of airlines by 1-1.5%.

He said there wouldn’t be any guidance given to investors as long as Max stays grounded, and production remains halted.

Smith said Boeing secured commitments of $12 billion in financing from more than a dozen banks last month, adding that the funds will be used to invest in production lines and pay down existing debt.

Shares of Boeing jumped in the early morning and have since faded into the afternoon.

* * *

Boeing shares slid half a percent on the news that the Chicago-based airplane manufacturer sold zero commercial planes in January.

January is typically a slow month for the planemaker, however, with the grounding of the 737 Max and production halted, this was the first time the company has seen no new orders in January since 1962!

The lack of plane orders last month allowed competitor Airbus to become the world’s largest planemaker, the first time since 2011. Airbus posted its largest January order haul in at least 15 years, as it booked gross orders for 296 aircraft, or 274 net orders after cancellations.

Last month, a 75% collapse in Non-Defense Aircraft New Orders was seen…its lowest level since 2009 as Boeing implodes.

None of which should be a surprise, as we noted previously, Boeing’s production cuts will slash Q1 GDP growth by a third.

In an interview where he claimed the economy was doing great, Steve Mnuchin said the GDP might be lower by 50 basis points due to Boeing’s issues with the 737 max pic.twitter.com/yU4A5AWtFn

— Acyn Torabi (@Acyn) January 12, 2020

*

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.

US companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements are the tip of the iceberg in bilateral economic, financial, and military relations.

According to the US Chamber of Commerce, over 2,500 US companies operate in Israel, including a virtual who’s who of corporate America. 

In 1985, the US/Israeli free trade agreement was the first of its kind between the US and another country — two years before the 1987 US/Canada FTA, nine years before NAFTA (1994).

Since then, bilateral US/Israeli trade grew to tens of billions of dollars annually, well over $50 billion a year today, Israeli companies investing about half that amount in the US.

Corporate America operates hundreds of R & D centers in the Jewish state.

Well-known names include 3M, Amazon, AMD, Apple, Applied Materials, AT&T, Broadcom, Citigroup, Cisco, eBay, Facebook, GE, GM, Google, HP, IBM, Intel, John Deere, J&J, Merck,Microsoft, Monsanto, Motorola, PepsiCo, Qualcomm, Texas Instruments, Xerox, and Yahoo, among others.

Israeli firms comprise the second largest number of foreign NASDAQ listings after China.

The US and Israel have cooperative agreements on civil aviation, IT, cybersecurity, intelligence, health, medical, biotech and life sciences, energy, space, transportation, and of course all things related to its military and occupation of historic Palestine.

Both countries partner in each other’s wars directly and indirectly.

The clearest examples are US aid to Israel (for military and related purposes) amounting to over $10 million daily, along with Jewish state undeclared war on Syria, by its own admission terror-bombing the country hundreds of times in recent years.

On Wednesday, the UN Human Rights Council published names of 112 companies that operate in illegal Israeli settlements.

They’re mostly Israeli companies. Others are headquartered abroad, including US ones.

Names of US companies in the settlements were published earlier by the Global BDS Movement.

They include L’Oreal, the Body Shop, B & W Foods, Black & Decker, Victoria’s Secret, Airbnb, Landmark Ventures, Caterpillar, and Hewlett Packard, among others.

In 2016, the UN Human Council included Coca Cola on a list of 206 companies operating in Israeli settlements, mostly Israeli ones.

In 2018, the Palestinian Policy Network said “(h)undreds of businesses…operate…without consequence in” Israeli settlements, including many US ones.

In the same year, the UN Office of the High Commissioner on Human Rights (OHCHR) said “a list of 206 businesses (was) created” that operate in the settlements, their names to be disclosed “in a future update.”

According to the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies are required to determine whether their operations harm human rights in areas where they operate and receive supplies.

Human Rights Council Res. 31/36 states that firms operating in Israeli settlements contribute to the severity of its human rights violations — by conducting business on stolen Palestinian land, harming its indigenous people.

OHCHR was tasked with compiling a list of companies that “directly and indirectly enabled, facilitated, and profited from the construction and growth of the settlements.”

Labeled a “blacklist” is a way to shame offenders into compliance.

McDonald’s operates in Israel, notably not in the settlements, earlier saying its policy is not to operate across the pre-1967 green line.

European government advisories warned companies of the economic, financial, and legal risks of operating in illegal settlements.

US companies on the HRC’s current list include Airbnb, Expedia Group, TripAdvisor, Booking Holdings, General Mills, and Motorola.

Other US companies operating in Israel not named above include Disney, Home Depot, Revlon, Starbucks, the Limited, News Corp., Sara Lee, and many others.

The Human Rights Council charged the OHCHR with annually updating its database of companies operating in Israel “directly and indirectly, enabl(ing), facilitat(ing), and profit(ing) from the construction and growth of the Israeli settlements.”

Operations of concern are firms supplying construction materials, surveillance equipment, security, banking and financial services, extracting natural resources, and whatever else contributes to the existence and functioning of settlements.

Unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 2334 (December 2016) affirmed the illegality of Israeli settlements.

Since established following Israel’s June 1967 aggression, seizing the remaining 22% of historic Palestine not stolen in 1948, no world community action was taken to stop them.

Nor to enforce Fourth Geneva’s Article 49. It prohibits “(i)ndividual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not…regardless of their motive.”

Publishing a database of companies operating in illegal Israeli settlements won’t halt their expansion or construction of new ones.

But it’s more evidence of US/Western ties to Israeli international law breaches, including human rights abuses, at the expense of long-suffering Palestinians.

One-sided US support for Israel exposes the futility of negotiations with its officials by Palestinians when undertaken.

Along with the US war OF terror, not on it, the Israeli/Palestinian peace process is the greatest hoax in modern times.

Palestinian unity and resistance alone is their only chance to be free one day from subjugation under Israel’s repressive boot.

*

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 an official White House Photo by Shealah D. Craighead

A future without independent media leaves us with an upside down reality where according to the corporate media “NATO deserves a Nobel Peace Prize”, and where “nuclear weapons and wars make us safer”

.

.

If, like us, this is a future you wish to avoid, please help sustain Global Research’s activities by making a donation or taking out a membership now!

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

*     *     *

More Lies on Iran: The White House Just Can’t Help Itself as New Facts Emerge

By Philip Giraldi, February 13, 2020

Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an “imminent” mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.

Even with Corbyn Gone, Antisemitism Threats Will Keep Destroying the UK Labour Party

By Jonathan Cook, February 13, 2020

The imminent departure of Jeremy Corbyn as leader will not end the damage that has been done to Labour by such claims. Soon Brexit will become a messy fait accompli. But the shadow of Labour’s so-called “antisemitism problem” will loom over it darkly for the foreseeable future, making sure that Corbyn’s successor dare not incur the same steep price for pursuing a radical political programme. The fear of being smeared as an antisemite will lead, as it was meant to do, to political and economic timidity from whoever takes on the mantle of leader.

Syria Imposes the Astana Deal by Force as Turkish, Russian Tensions Rise

By Elijah J. Magnier, February 13, 2020

This is the first time the Turkish Army has been shelled by the Syrian Army. Five Turkish officers were killed at Taftanaz military airport, the base used by Turkey and its jihadists gather. Ankara was forced to send its own army onto the battlefield to compensate for the weakness of its jihadist allies on the ground.

The liberation of the 432 km of the M5 from jihadists was stipulated in the Astana agreement signed in October 2018, a stipulation which Turkey failed to honour since then. The Syrian government carried out three major advances towards the M5 since then, but this time the decision to recover it was final. This is a Syrian-Russian message to President Erdogan that time is running out for Idlib. The Turkish-Russian bras-de-fer is also reaching beyond the Syrian borders. It is also evident in Ukraine and Libya, where Turkey is seeking a major role.

Crisis in Syrian Idlib Has Firmly Put Turkey Back into NATO’s Sphere

By Paul Antonopoulos, February 13, 2020

Syria was the very reason why relations between Turkey and the United States deteriorated as the latter openly backed the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. Although Turkey has always been a loyal ally and member of the U.S.-led NATO, the Syrian War saw relations between Ankara and Moscow flourish despite an initial speedbump when Turkey downed a Russian jet in Syria in 2015, leading to the murder of the pilot by Turkish-backed terrorists. Russia not only improved relations by selling Turkey the powerful S-400 missile defense system, but sympathized with Turkish concerns against the YPG and partnered with Turkey in Syria-related discussions through the Astana and Sochi formats. The S-400 sale triggered the wrath of NATO, and many within the political establishment in Washington considered the option of kicking Turkey out of the Atlanticist organization.

“Fake President” Juan Guaido Ends His International Tour, Returns to A Divided Venezuelan Opposition

By Nino Pagliccia, February 12, 2020

We have to admit that the US public relations apparatus played a good stint at leaving Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s visit with president Trump last in what seemed an afterthought. When many thought that Trump had snubbed him in Davos and Miami, Washington gave him its full attention, normally reserved for real presidents, following the recent international trip that Guaidó took to muster abroad the political support that he cannot get in his own country.

As a special guest at the State of the Union speech Trump praised Guaidó as a “very brave man” and “the true and legitimate president of Venezuela”. He avoided altogether the use of the extra label “interim”, never mind the fact that Guaidó was never elected and that recently lost the title of speaker in the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Washington’s Policy of Strangling China. US Nuclear Threats, Militarization of the Taiwan Straits

By Shane Quinn, February 12, 2020

China constitutes America’s principal rival in the international arena today. Washington has increasingly surrounded its Chinese adversary with bases, troops and territories controlled by the United States in east Asia and the Pacific – such as the US client allies of Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, along with other islands dominated by US military power like Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and indeed Taiwan.

War or Peace: Turkish backed Terrorists, Erdogan’s Decision on Idlib

By Steven Sahiounie, February 12, 2020

Turkish backed terrorists, following Radical Islam, which is a political ideology, have shot down a Syrian military helicopter in Idlib on Tuesday.  The battlefield of Idlib sits poised for imminent war. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad would pay a “very heavy price” for attacking Turkish troops, as he threatened war against Syria after five Turkish soldiers were killed on Monday and an additional eight earlier.

*

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.

US 20th and 21st century history shows Dems more hellbent for war than Republicans.

In 1916, Dem Woodrow Wilson was reelected on a pledge of: “He Kept Us Out of War.” 

Straightaway, he began planning US involvement in Europe’s war — today called WW I. 

Propaganda his regime sponsored transformed pacifist Americans into raging German haters. Wilson got the war he wanted.

The same goes for Dem Franklin Roosevelt. From 1933 to late 1941, he spurned Japanese peace overtures that would have protected US interests in the Pacific.

By executive order, he froze Japanese assets. He waged economic war on the country, goading its ruling authorities to retaliate.

In late November 1941, US war secretary Henry Stimson said war depended only on how to maneuver Japan to attack with the lowest number of US casualties.

Roosevelt encouraged an attack on Pearl Harbor by stationing the Pacific Fleet there — against the advice of its commander and chief of naval operations.

After the Japanese code was broken, intercepted cables confirmed an attack was coming.

The US tracked its fleet from the Kurile Islands to its North Pacific refueling point en route to Pearl Harbor for the December 7 attack.

FDR got the war he wanted, in Europe as well after Hitler declared war on the US.

Aggression against North Korea was Dem Harry Truman’s war. Dem Lyndon Johnson was president when the August 1964 Gulf of Tonkin false flag occurred. A decade of US Southeast Asia war followed.

In 1980, Dem Jimmy Carter’s national security advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski orchestrated the devastating Iran/Iraq war, lasting until August 1988, claiming hundreds of thousands of lives on both sides.

The US wanted both countries to smash each other, wanting Iran smashed most by aiding Saddam Hussein.

Republicans aren’t peaceniks. Under Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, US Central American proxy wars raged, hundreds of thousands killed, tortured and otherwise abused, millions driven into exile.

A 1986 International Tribunal on Genocide in Central America said “acts of genocide and ethnocide (were) committed against indigenous groups.”

“(S)tate sponsored and rebel force sponsored genocide against indigenous peoples (occured) throughout the course of the” period, including massacres, torture, forced military service, land seizures, arbitrary arrests and imprisonments, population relocations, and attacks amounting to genocide under the UN Convention.”

Republican GHW Bush bears responsibility for the 1991 Gulf War and initiation of genocidal sanctions of the Iraqi people — in place from 1990 until 2003, taking millions of lives.

The Dem Clinton co-presidency was complicit in the early 1990s Rwanda massacres, enforcing genocidal sanctions on Iraq, terror-bombing the country intermittently, along with raping Yugoslavia.

Republicans Bush/Cheney launched post-9/11 wars, unjustifiably justified by the 9/11 mother of all false flags.

Dem Obama continued Afghan, Iraq, and Yemen wars he inherited, new ones waged on Libya and Syria.

All of the above was continued by Trump directly and indirectly, along with war by other means on Iran, Venezuela, and other countries.

In early January, House members adopted a nonbinding war powers resolution by a 224 – 194 majority to prevent US war on Iran without congressional authorization — members voting largely along party lines.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution requires a congressional declaration of war, or a national emergency created by an attack on the US, its territories, possessions, or armed forces, for the executive to engage in foreign hostilities.

It requires the president to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing forces to military action abroad.

It prohibits them from remaining over 60 days, a further 30-day withdrawal period allowed.

The War Powers Resolution ignores UN Charter international law — stating that Security Council members alone may authorize war by one nation on others, permitted only in self-defense if attacked, never preemptively, how Republicans and Dems waged all US wars throughout the post-WW II era.

On Wednesday, Senate members advanced a war powers resolution by a 51 – 45 majority, 8 Republicans joining with most Dems, a final vote to follow Thursday.

If adopted, reconciliation between House and Senate measures will take place later this month.

Certain to be vetoed by Trump, a two-thirds super-majority in both houses are needed to override it, what’s highly unlikely.

The resolution is symbolic and politicized. Both right wings of the one-party state are hellbent for endless wars. History proves it.

Ahead of Wednesday’s Senate vote, Trump tweeted:

“It is very important for our Country’s SECURITY that the United States Senate not vote for the Iran War Powers Resolution (sic). This is not the time to show weakness (sic).”

“If my hands were tied, Iran would have a field day (sic). Sends a very bad signal (sic).”

“The (Dems) are only doing this as an attempt to embarrass the Republican Party (sic). Don’t let it happen!”

International, constitutional, and US statute law never stood in the way of its preemptive wars on nonbelligerent nations threatening no one.

The congressional war powers resolution is a meaningless measure, a politicized one.

Nonbelligerent Iran threatens no one. The US threatens humanity.

Trump regime war on the Islamic Republic is highly unlikely.

Pentagon commanders want no part of war on a nation able to hit back hard against its regional facilities and Middle East allies.

In an election year, another war that results in large numbers of US casualties would likely make Trump a one-term president.

That reason alone makes it highly unlikely.

*

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.

Admittedly the news cycle in the United States seldom runs longer than twenty-four hours, but that should not serve as an excuse when a major story that contradicts what the Trump Administration has been claiming appears and suddenly dies. The public that actually follows the news might recall a little more than one month ago the United States assassinated a senior Iranian official named Qassem Soleimani. Openly killing someone in the government of a country with which one is not at war is, to say the least, unusual, particularly when the crime is carried out in yet another country with which both the perpetrator and the victim have friendly relations. The justification provided by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, speaking for the administration, was that Soleimani was in Iraq planning an “imminent” mass killing of Americans, for which no additional evidence was provided at that time or since.

It soon emerged that the Iranian was in fact in Baghdad to discuss with the Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi a plan that might lead to the de-escalation of the ongoing conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran, a meeting that the White House apparently knew about may even have approved. If that is so, events as they unfolded suggest that the U.S. government might have encouraged Soleimani to make his trip so he could be set up and killed. Donald Trump later dismissed the lack of any corroboration of the tale of “imminent threat” being peddled by Pompeo, stating that it didn’t really matter as Soleimani was a terrorist who deserved to die.

The incident that started the killing cycle that eventually included Soleimani consisted of a December 27^th attack on a U.S. base in Iraq in which four American soldiers and two Iraqis were wounded while one U.S. contractor, an Iraqi-born translator, was killed. The United States immediately blamed Iran, claiming that it had been carried out by an Iranian supported Shi’ite militia called Kata’ib Hezbollah. It provided no evidence for that claim and retaliated by striking a Kata’ib base, killing 25 Iraqis who were in the field fighting the remnants of Islamic State (IS). The militiamen had been incorporated into the Iraqi Army and this disproportionate response led to riots outside the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, which were also blamed on Iran by the U.S. There then followed the assassinations of Soleimani and nine senior Iraqi militia officers. Iran retaliated when it fired missiles at American forces, injuring more than one hundred soldiers, and then mistakenly shot down a passenger jet, killing an additional 176 people. As a consequence due to the killing by the U.S. of 34 Iraqis in the two incidents, the Iraqi Parliament also voted to expel all American troops.

It now appears that the original death of the American contractor that sparked the tit-for-tat conflict was not carried out by Kata’ib Hezbollah at all. An Iraqi Army investigative team has gathered convincing evidence that it was an attack staged by Islamic State. In fact, the Iraqi government has demonstrated that Kata’ib Hezbollah has had no presence in Kirkuk province, where the attack took place, since 2014. It is a heavily Sunni area where Shi’a are not welcome and is instead relatively hospitable to all-Sunni IS. It was, in fact, one of the original breeding grounds for what was to become ISIS.

This new development was reported in the New York Times in an article that was headlined “Was U.S. Wrong About Attack That Nearly Started a War With Iran? Iraqi military and intelligence officials have raised doubts about who fired the rockets that started a dangerous spiral of events.” In spite of the sensational nature of the report it generally was ignored in television news and in other mainstream media outlets, letting the Trump administration get away with yet another big lie, one that could easily have led to a war with Iran.

Iraqi investigators found and identified the abandoned white Kia pickup with an improvised Katyusha rocket launcher in the vehicle’s bed that was used to stage the attack. It was discovered down a desert road within range of the K-1 joint Iraqi-American base that was hit by at least ten missiles in December, most of which struck the American area.

There is no direct evidence tying the attack to any particular party and the improvised KIA truck is used by all sides in the regional fighting, but the Iraqi officials point to the undisputed fact that it was the Islamic State that had carried out three separate attacks near the base over the 10 days preceding December 27^th. And there are reports that IS has been increasingly active in Kirkuk Province during the past year, carrying out near daily attacks with improvised roadside bombs and ambushes using small arms. There had, in fact, been reports from Iraqi intelligence that were shared with the American command warning that there might be an IS attack on K-1 itself, which is an Iraqi air base in that is shared with U.S. forces.

The intelligence on the attack has been shared with American investigators, who have also examined the pick-up truck. The Times reports that the U.S. command in Iraq continue to insist that the attack was carried out by Kata’ib based on information, including claimed communications intercepts, that it refuses to make public. The U.S. forces may not have shared the intelligence they have with the Iraqis due to concerns that it would be leaked to Iran, but senior Iraqi military officers are nevertheless perplexed by the reticence to confide in an ally.

If the Iraqi investigation of the facts around the December attack on K-1 is reliable, the Donald Trump administration’s reckless actions in Iraq in late December and early January cannot be justified. Worse still, it would appear that the White House was looking for an excuse to attack and kill a senior Iranian official to send some kind of message, a provocation that could easily have resulted in a war that would benefit no one. To be sure, the Trump administration has lied about developments in the Middle East so many times that it can no longer be trusted. Unfortunately, demanding any accountability from the Trump team would require a Congress that is willing to shoulder its responsibility for truth in government backed up by a media that is willing to take on an administration that regularly punishes anyone or any entity that dares to challenge it. That is the unfortunate reality in America today.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Jared Rodriguez/Truthout

If there is one issue that denotes the terminal decline of Labour as a force for change – desperately needed social, economic and environmental change – it is not Brexit. It is the constant furore over an “antisemitism crisis” supposedly plaguing the party for the past five years. 

The imminent departure of Jeremy Corbyn as leader will not end the damage that has been done to Labour by such claims. Soon Brexit will become a messy fait accompli. But the shadow of Labour’s so-called “antisemitism problem” will loom over it darkly for the foreseeable future, making sure that Corbyn’s successor dare not incur the same steep price for pursuing a radical political programme. The fear of being smeared as an antisemite will lead, as it was meant to do, to political and economic timidity from whoever takes on the mantle of leader.

In fact, as we shall examine in detail in a moment, the candidates for the Labour leadership are demonstrating just how cowed they already are. But first let’s recap on how we got to the current situation.

Led into a trap 

Personifying the political paranoia that now grips Labour is the party’s one-time wunderkind, Owen Jones – possibly the only early champion of Corbyn in the corporate media. He used his Guardian column to fight back against the first wave of slurs – that Corbyn was unpatriotic, unstatesmanlike, a former Soviet spy, and so on.

But then, as the smears failed to inflict significant damage on Corbyn, a second line of attack was pursued. It claimed that Corbyn’s lifelong and very prominent activism as an anti-racist was in fact a cover story. Depending on who was spinning the narrative, Corbyn was either a secret Jew hater or a man who endlessly indulged antisemitism within his inner circle and in the wider party. Jones’ colleagues at the Guardian joined the rest of the corporate media mob in baying for Corbyn’s blood. Long wedded to a rigid form of identity politics, Jones was soon publicly wavering in his support for Corbyn. Then, as an election neared in 2017, he abandoned him entirely. 

Unfortunately for the corporate media, the election result did not follow their shared predictions. Far from presiding over an unprecedented electoral disaster, Corbyn came within a hair’s breadth of overturning the Tory parliamentary majority. He also increased the party’s share of the vote by the largest margin of any post-war Labour leader. Jones changed his tune once again, promising to be more wary of the group-think of his corporate media colleagues. Of course, his new-found resolution soon crumbled.

Like a mouse chasing the scent of cheese, Jones headed into the trap set for him. He refused to accuse Corbyn himself of antisemitism, unlike many of his colleagues. Instead he gave his blessing each time a Labour activist was targeted as an antisemite – oftentimes, over their support for Palestinian rights.

Forced onto the back foot

As the media attacks on Labour for supposedly welcoming antisemites into the party’s ranks intensified (flying in the face of all the evidence), Jones acquiesced – either actively or through his silence – in the resulting wave of suspensions and expulsions, even of Jewish members who were hounded out for being too critical of Israel. Jones’ hands may have looked personally clean but he acted as lookout for those, like Labour MP Jess Phillips, who were determined to carry out their promise to “knife Corbyn in the front”.

Undoubtedly, the polarised debate about Brexit – and the increasingly unhinged atmosphere it produced – was the main reason Corbyn crashed in December’s election. But the confected “antisemitism row” played a very significant supporting role. The disastrous consequences of that row are still very much being felt, as Labour prepares to find a new leader.

The issue of antisemitism was probably not much of a priority for most voters, especially when the examples cited so often seemed to be about a state, Israel, rather than Jews. Nonetheless, the smears against Corbyn gradually undermined him, even among supporters.

As has been noted here and elsewhere, the antisemitism furore served chiefly as a shadow war that obscured much deeper, internal ideological divisions. Polarisation over whether Labour was convulsed by antisemitism concealed the real struggle, which was over where the party should head next and who should lead it there. 

The party’s Blairite faction – supporters of the former centrist leader Tony Blair – knew that they could not win a straight fight on ideological issues against Corbyn and the hundreds of thousands of members who supported him. The Blairites’ middle-of-the-road, status-quo-embracing triangulation now found little favour with voters. But the Blairites could discredit and weaken Corbyn by highlighting an “antisemitism crisis” he had supposedly provoked in Labour by promoting Palestinian rights and refusing to cheerlead Israel, as the Blairites had always done. Identity politics, the Blairites quickly concluded, was the ground that they could weaponise against him.

As a result, Corbyn was forced endlessly on to the back foot, unable to advance popular leftwing policies because the antisemitism smears sucked all oxygen out of the room. Think of Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil shortly before the December election. Not only did Corbyn not get a chance to explain the party’s progressive platform to floating voters, but much worse he was forced into abandoning the very personal traits – openness, honesty, modesty – that had made him unexpectedly popular in the 2017 election. Accusations of antisemitism – like those of being a wife-beater – are impossible to face down in TV soundbites. Corbyn was left looking evasive, shifty and out of touch.

Caught in a vicious spiral

These confrontations over an “antisemitism problem” in Labour – repeated every time Corbyn gave an interview – also helped to make him look feeble. It was a winning formula: his constant apologies for a supposed “plague of antisemitism” in Labour (for which there was no evidence) suggested to voters that Corbyn was incapable of exercising control over his party. If he failed in this simple task, they concluded, how could he be trusted to deal with the complexities of running a country? 

The smears isolated him within Labour too. His few prominent allies on the left, such as Ken Livingstone and Chris Williamson, were improbably picked off as anti-semites, while others went to ground for fear of being attacked too. It was this isolation that forced Corbyn to make constant and damaging compromises with the Blairites, such as agreeing to a second referendum on Brexit. And in a vicious spiral, the more he compromised, the more he looked weak, the more his polling numbers fell, the more he compromised.

All of this was happening in plain view. If the rest of us could see it, so could Owen Jones. And so, of course, could those who are now standing for election to become the next leader of the Labour party. All of them learnt the lessons they were supposed to draw from the party’s “antisemitism crisis”.

Three lessons 

Lesson one: Some crises can be engineered without the need for evidence. And smears can be much more damaging than facts – at least, when the corporate media builds a consensus around them – because the fightback cannot be won or lost on the battlefield of evidence. Indeed, facts become irrelevant. It is about who has the biggest and best battalion of propagandists. And the simple truth is that the billionaires who own the corporate media can buy the most skilled propagandists and can buy the largest platforms to spread their misinformation. 

Lesson two: Even if antisemitism is of peripheral interest to most voters – especially when the allegations concern contested “tropes”, often about Israel rather than Jews – claims of antisemitism can still inflict serious damage on a party and its leader. Voters judge a party leader on how they respond to such accusations, especially if they are made to look weak or untrustworthy. And as there is no good way to face down wall-to-wall accusations of antisemitism from the media, however confected, it is wise not to get drawn into this particular, unwinnable fight. 

Lesson three: The British ruling class does not especially care about antisemitism, or any other form of racism. The establishment uses its power to uphold class privilege, not to promote equality, after all. But that does not mean it has no interest in antisemitism. As with its support for a more general identity politics, the ruling class knows that antisemitism has instrumental uses – it can be exploited to manipulate public discourse and deflect ordinary people from a powerful class struggle into divisive identity and culture wars. Therefore, any Labour leader who wants to engage in the politics of class struggle – a struggle against the billionaire class – is going to face not a fair fight on the terrain of their choosing but a dirty war on the terrain chosen by the billionaires. 

The Board’s 10 diktats 

Labour’s leadership challengers learnt those lessons so well because they watched for five years as Corbyn sank ever further into the mire of the antisemitism smears. So when the deeply Conservative (with a capital C) Board of Deputies of British Jews (BoD) issued a diktat to the candidates last month veiled as “10 Pledges to End the Antisemitism Crisis” they all hurried to sign up, without bothering to read the small print. 

The Board’s 10 points were effectively its red lines. Overstep the mark on any one of them, the Board warned the leadership contestants, and we will lend our considerable credibility to a corporate media campaign to smear you and the party as anti-semitic. You will become Corbyn Mark II, and face the same fate. 

The 10 demands have one purpose only. Once accepted, and all the candidates have accepted them, the pledges ensure that the Board – and what it defines as the Jewish community’s “main representative groups” – will enjoy an exclusive and incontestable right to decide what is antisemitic, as well as who is allowed to remain in the Labour party and who must be removed.

The pledges create a division of labour between the Board and the Jewish Labour Movement (JLM), a small faction in Labour of Jews and non-Jews who are vocal advocates for Israel. First, the Board stands surety, supposedly on behalf of Britain’s Jews, for the credibility of the highly controversial redefinition of antisemitism proposed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA). Seven of its 11 examples of antisemitism refer to Israel, not hatred of Jews. Then, the JLM’s task is to enforce the IHRA definition, identifying which party members are antisemites and determining their fate: either contrition and re-education or expulsion.

Judge and jury 

The 10 Pledges are actually part of a campaign by Jewish leadership groups like the Board to pervert a well-established principle regulating investigations into racism. The Board and JLM have regularly cited the so-called Macpherson principle, derived from a judicial inquiry into the failings in the 1990s of an institutionally racist British police force as it investigated the murder of a black teenager, Stephen Lawrence.

The Guardian has been among those peddling the Board and the JLM’s mischievous reinterpretation of that principle to suggest that an incident is defined as racist if the victim perceives it to be racist. Therefore, Jews – or in this case, “representative” Jewish organisations like the Board – get to decide exclusively whether Labour has an antisemitism problem and how it manifests itself – for example, by criticising Israel. 

Except that is not what Sir William Macpherson decided at all. His principle was simply that institutions like the police were under an obligation to investigate incidents as racist in nature if that is what the victim believed them to be. In other words, Macpherson called on institutions to listen to victims and to take account of the victims’ interpretation of an event. 

Very obviously, he did not argue that anyone accused of racism was guilty of it, or that anyone making an accusation of racism must be believed. The accusation had to be investigated on the assumption of racism until the evidence proved whether the accusation was true or not, and whether or not it was motivated by racism. 

Further, while the Macpherson principle called for the victim to be given a fair hearing about how they perceived an incident, the Board and the JLM do not want simply to be heard. The 10 Pledges demand that these organisations alone decide what is antisemitism and who is guilty – that they act as judge and jury.

And not only that. 

The Board and the JLM also demand an exclusive prerogative to define antisemitism as a new kind of racism – almost unheard of a decade or more ago – that may have nothing to do with hatred or fear of Jews, as it was once defined. The Board and the JLM insist Labour adopt a patently ridiculous – and overtly antisemitic – position that treats many kinds of criticism of Israel as antisemitic because, they argue, Israel represents all Jews. An attack on Israel therefore amounts to an attack on Jews and their identity. (The Board’s argument is itself antisemitic because it requires us to hold all Jews, not just the Israeli government, responsible for Israel’s actions, including its documented war crimes against Palestinians.)

Circular proof 

But the problem with the 10 Pledges runs deeper still. The intended effect of the pledges in their entirety is to create a circular, self-reinforcing proof of antisemitism against anyone who dares to disagree with the Board and the JLM. In other times, such circular proofs have been identified for what they are: as witch-hunts and McCarthyism. 

The Board not only intends to silence any non-Jews who disagree with its views on antisemitism and Israel, but it also insists on denying a voice to any Jews or Jewish organisations that disagree with it. According to Pledge 8, all Jewish “fringe organisations and individuals” are denied any say on what constitutes antisemitism. Why are they “fringe”? Because they disagree with the Board of Deputies’ definition of antisemitism. 

Several writers have noted that the Board’s claim to be “representative” of the “Jewish community” is entirely bogus. It can claim only to be representative of those parts of the 280,000-strong Jewish community it seeks to represent. That amounts to no more than the 56 per cent of Jewish households who belong to a synagogue. These are the most conservative elements of a wider Jewish community. Surveys show that for many years, and long before Corbyn became leader, the vast majority of this section of the Jewish community – those the Board represents – vote for the Conservative party in elections. They also identify very strongly with Israel – and seemingly whatever its does in terms of violating Palestinian rights.

CR: “I am delighted to congratulate Boris Johnson on becoming the next leader of the Conservative Party & our next PM. May he be blessed with the wisdom to successfully navigate the political uncertainties we face & bring healing & prosperity to our great country.” pic.twitter.com/0cyuMIhVXd

— Chief Rabbi Mirvis (@chiefrabbi) July 23, 2019

The Board’s very function is to sideline the 44 per cent of Jews it does not represent – including secular, socialist and anti-Zionist Jews – as not really belonging to the “Jewish community”. It thereby silences their views. As Jo Sutton-Klein observes, “While the [Jewish organisational] establishment can’t un-Jewish any person or community, they can invalidate their Jewishness if they decide that their opinions are no longer kosher.” That is precisely what the Board has sought to achieve with its 10 Pledges.

But if the Board’s representative status is highly doubtful, the Jewish Labour Movement’s is even more so. In fact, there is plenty of evidence – including from a 2017 documentary filmed by an undercover reporter for Al Jazeera – that the JLM was a dormant organisation until 2015. As an investigation by journalist Asa Winstanley discovered, it was refounded specifically to bring down Corbyn shortly after he won the leadership election. The JLM was apparently afraid of what Corbyn’s support for the Palestinians might entail for Israel. While claiming to represent Jewish interests in the Labour party, it excludes from membership any Jews that are not Zionist – that is, enthusiastic supporters of Israel.

That should not be surprising. The JLM was originally an ideological offshoot of the Israeli Labour party, which oversaw the ethnic cleansing of 750,000 Palestinians from their homeland in 1948, launched the first settlements in the territories it occupied in 1967, and created a system of severe institutionalised racial discrimination against Israel’s large non-Jewish population, its Palestinian citizens. Despite proclaiming its leftwing credentials, the JLM’s ideological outlook closely mirrors the ethnic supremacist worldview of the Israeli Labour Party.

The JLM lacks transparency, but most estimates are that its membership numbers are in triple digits, even after it has allowed non-Jews and non-Labour members to join.

‘Wrong kind of Jew’ 

In fact, there is no reason to believe the JLM is any less fringe – and probably more so – than Jewish Voice for Labour (JVL), a group of Jewish Labour party members who created the organisation to support Corbyn and counter the JLM’s claims that it spoke for Jews in the Labour party.

As I have pointed out many times before, the Board’s position that it alone gets to decide which Jews count is not only deeply ugly but also antisemitic. It dismisses a whole swath of the Jewish community as the “wrong kind of Jews”; it treats their views on the racism they face as of no value; and it strips them of any agency inside the Labour party, leaving the field clear to the JLM. Instead of a necessary dialogue within the Jewish community about what antisemitism means, the Board confers on itself the right to oppress and silence other groups of Jews who disagree with it.

There are two main reasons why the Board wishes to turn these so-called “fringe” groups into outcasts, into political pariahs. First, their very existence reminds us that this is a highly contestedpolitical debate, and one taking place inside the Jewish community, about what Jewish identity is and whether Israel has a place in that identity. But at the same time, the existence of socialist Jewish groups like Jewish Voice for Labour also disrupts a narrative jointly promoted by the Board, the JLM and Labour’s Blairite faction to discredit the radical social and economic programmes of the left by entwining them with allegations of antisemitism. Severe criticism of neoliberalism, it is implied, is of a piece with severe criticism of Israel. Both are evidence of antisemitism.

The weaponising by the Board and the JLM of the Macpherson principle is easily exposed. This month Labour suspended Jo Bird reportedly over allegations of antisemitism. Bird, who is openly anti-Zionist and on the left wing of the party, had been the only Jewish candidate contesting Labour’s National Executive Committee elections. She is the latest prominent left-wing Jewish party member to have been targeted as an antisemite both for strongly criticising Israel and for challenging the Board and the JLM’s right to speak for all British Jews.

 How obscene this all is may be easier to grasp if we do a small thought experiment. Imagine for a moment that a small group of black Labour party activists insist on the expulsion of other black party members as racists for their opposition to an African state accused of war crimes. Would we be comfortable with a largely white Labour party bureaucracy adjudicating as a matter of racism on what is clearly an ideological and political dispute within the black community? Would we want to condone one black group stigmatising another group as racists to silence its political arguments? And would we be happy to expel as racists white Labour party members who sided with one black group against the other in a political debate about an oppressive state?

With the witchfinders

Which brings us back to Owen Jones. Last week Asa Winstanley – the investigative reporter who has done more than anyone to expose what really lies behind the antisemitism smear campaign against Corbyn – resigned from the Labour Party. Like Jo Bird, he has found himself in hot water for questioning the antisemitism narrative promoted by the Board and the JLM. He wrote that he had given up any hope of a fair hearing from party officials who say his journalism championing justice for Palestinians and challenging the Israel lobby’s role in the Labour party amounts to antisemitism.

Jones, as ever, stood squarely with the witchfinders against Winstanley. He argued, as he has done many times before, that is possible both to fight for Palestinian rights and to fight against antisemitism. 

Except Jones is plainly wrong – so long as we accede, as he has done, to the Board and the JLM’s demand that anyone who goes further than the most softball criticism of Israel must be defined either as an antisemite, like Winstanley, or as the “wrong kind of Jew”, like Bird.

If we are only allowed to gently chide Israel in ways that cannot meaningfully advance Palestinian rights, if we are prevented from discussing the strategies of staunchly pro-Israel lobbyists to silence Israel’s critics, if we are denied the right to push for an international boycott of Israel of the kind that helped blacks in South Africa end their own oppression, then nothing is going to change for the Palestinians. If those are the unreasonable terms imposed on us by the Board, the JLM and Owen Jones, then no, we cannot do both. We must choose. 

The truth is that the support Owen Jones offers Palestinians is worthless. It is no more than virtue signalling – because it is immediately negated by his support for bodies like the JLM that actively terrorise party members, including Jewish members, into silence on crucial debates about Palestinian rights and about how we might deter Israel in future.

The reality is that, if Jewish organisations like the Board and the JLM choose to put the Israeli state as it currently exists at the very heart of their Jewish identity and make proper scrutiny of it off-limits, then they have also chosen to make themselves complicit in the oppression of the Palestinian people, made themselves opponents of peace in the Middle East, and have abetted in the erosion of international law. And if we side with them, then we become complicit too.

*

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 essay first appeared on Jonathan Cook’s blog: https://www.jonathan-cook.net/blog/

Cook won the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His books include “Israel and the Clash of Civilisations: Iraq, Iran and the Plan to Remake the Middle East” (Pluto Press) and “Disappearing Palestine: Israel’s Experiments in Human Despair” (Zed Books). His website is www.jonathan-cook.net. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Global Justice

Since 2012 the M5 Damascus-Aleppo had been under the control of jihadist forces. The Syrian Army has now liberated the M5 Damascus-Aleppo road and over 140 cities, villages and strategic hills. Turkey and the Uzbeks, Uighurs and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly al-Nusra) failed to protect their fortified positions, abandoning them and retreating towards the area surrounding Idlib.

This is the first time the Turkish Army has been shelled by the Syrian Army. Five Turkish officers were killed at Taftanaz military airport, the base used by Turkey and its jihadists gather. Ankara was forced to send its own army onto the battlefield to compensate for the weakness of its jihadist allies on the ground.

The liberation of the 432 km of the M5 from jihadists was stipulated in the Astana agreement signed in October 2018, a stipulation which Turkey failed to honour since then. The Syrian government carried out three major advances towards the M5 since then, but this time the decision to recover it was final. This is a Syrian-Russian message to President Erdogan that time is running out for Idlib. The Turkish-Russian bras-de-fer is also reaching beyond the Syrian borders. It is also evident in Ukraine and Libya, where Turkey is seeking a major role.

The Russians are providing the Syrian Army with advanced warfare equipment and dozens of T-90s, which help the Army to continue its military offensives at night. This, along with the hundreds of Russian Air Force strikes, helped to liberate the entire area on the east side of the road and many other areas on the west side where the military operation continues. Moreover, Russia offered unparalleled military intelligence and planning support to the Syrian Army in this successful operation, as well as bombing the jihadists’ lines, and behind their retreat position as well.

What was surprising was the discovery of kilometres of underground tunnels with field hospitals, ammunition and life support goods that could have sustained a very long siege in all liberated areas on both sides of the M5 and in main cities like Saraqeb and El-Eiss. These tunnels were linked together, linking villages under the ground and some even 20 metres deep, enough to protect from air bombardment. The Jihadists were in a rush–they evacuated all these positions leaving everything behind.

Syrian Army tactics, in recent years, involve leaving a road open for jihadists to retreat before closing in. After the liberation of Aleppo, the Syrian Army avoided surrounding cities due to the propaganda benefit jihadists derive from mainstream media and foreign interventionists who do not wish to see Syria recovering and united. This is why roads were always left open for jihadists to retreat by before any final assault.

Turkey is unable to protect its jihadist allies and cannot offer them air support. Russia is in control of Syrian air space and Damascus warned Turkey it would down any of Turkish jets that violate Syrian airspace.

It is a new strategic turn in the Syrian war that Maarrat al-Nu’man, Khan Touman, Saraqeb, Tel el-Eiss, Rashedeen 4&5 are now liberated. It is an indication that Turkey will find it hard to protect its jihadists in the long run. The stability of Syria requires the liberation of its entire territory. Syrian stability is in the interest of Russia and its national security objectives. Russia walked into the Levant to stop the war. Its credibility is on the line. It has a large naval base offering unique access to the Mediterranean. It is also in the interests of Russia to eliminate al-Qaeda and all groups adhering to their takfiri ideology, notwithstanding their different priorities and names. The Uzbeks and Uighur jihadists in the Levant have no place to go and are expected to fight to the last man.

Turkey is showing its teeth to Russia by refusing to recognise Russian sovereignty of Crimea and offering 33$ billion to Ukraine in arms. Turkey is aiming for a more effective and recognised role in Libya where the central government is officially requesting Ankara’s support. However, the situation in Syria is different. Turkey knows its presence in Syria cannot last for long, and that the liberation of Idlib, even if it is not on the agenda today, will happen soon. It is only a question of time.

The US occupation forces have cornered themselves in a limited area in north-east Syria where they can steal Syrian oil, as President Donald Trump announced. This limited US presence is not a priority for the Syrian army. Idlib will be liberated first, and then Afrin. This is why Turkey is trying to reinforce and stabilise its influence in Syria. Four meetings took place between the Syrian intelligence officials and their Turkish counterparts at the highest level to discuss new agreements. Turkey wants to modify its 1998 Adana agreement with Syria, governing Turkish military pursuit of the PKK into Syrian territory.

Russia and Iran are playing an important role in easing Turkish-Syrian tensions, but the bottom line is full Turkish withdrawal from Syria.

Turkey has bought the S-400 from Russia and the Turkstream pipeline was officially launched last month to reduce Russian shipments via Ukraine. On the other hand, Turkey is also a NATO ally with a powerful US military base on its borders. Turkey will find it hard to strike a balance between the two superpowers and at the same time protect its jihadists in Syria. The time for Turkey to weigh up its options is near.

*

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 the author

The lies keep coming in a propaganda war to keep the Brexit delusion going but reality brings us the truth – and this is exemplified no better than the delivery by the Johnson government of an unexploded economic time bomb.

Just three months ago, Boris Johnson restated his insistence there would no checks for goods travelling between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, saying Government documents shared by Labour were “wrong.” He also said:

“The deal we’ve done with the EU is a brilliant deal and it allows us to do all the things that Brexit was about so it’s about taking back control of our borders, money, laws – but unlike the previous arrangements it allows the whole of the UK to come out of the EU including Northern Ireland.”

Last October, Johnson vowed yet again that “there will be no border checks.”

The same month, Johnson reiterated that his proposal “would allow the UK whole and entire to withdraw from the EU.” No border checks were restated.

All this was in the run-up to the December election.

Back in 2016, when David Davis was the Brexit Secretary, he reiterated promises that there would be no hard borders or border checks. He even went to Northern Ireland and told them plain and clear.

FullFact even said that border checks was nothing more than speculation. Theresa May, the PM of the day also went to Ireland and said the same and The Telegraph confirmed it to be so. She also confirmed it in the Common Travel Area (CTA) and the objective of a frictionless, seamless border between Ireland and the UK, has been endlessly repeated by both Prime Ministers, the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, and the Department for Exiting the EU.

Reality

Yesterday, Michael Gove told businesses that trade with Europe they need to prepare for “significant change” with “inevitable” border checks for “almost everybody” who imports from the EU from next year.

In the first official confirmation that the government is going to impose trade barriers post-Brexit, he warned there would be checks on food and goods of animal origin, plus customs declarations and mandatory safety and security certificates required for all imports.

Unbelievably, Gove intimated that somehow it was everyone else’s fault for not understanding the situation and that he was there to provide clarity.

“You have to accept we will need some friction” he said. “I don’t underestimate the fact that this is a significant change” he said.

And some more great news for British business – Gove also warned it could take five years to get a smart border involving online processes up and running and said businesses had to be ready for the change next January and put up with manual documentation systems for a few years.

A bit later in the day – the government was good enough to issue an official update confirming checks on both imports and exports.

So now we know just a little more. Their lies were just that – deliberate in their objective to deliver propaganda at times of referendum and election but when the reality of doing business arrives, the truth is very different. Gove’s admission, backed by an official government statement, bodes ill for the future. How can it be better for businesses or the economy? It can’t.

Even if the government plays this down, border checks will be a significant shock to our economy. This was predicted by expert commentary and by experienced business people as well as EU negotiators – all berated and castigated for their contribution to ‘project fear.’ It was even predicted by the civil service who were tasked with outlining the realities of Brexit (remember Yellowhammer?) – but their reports were buried, then leaked, then denied, people in government were fired for telling the truth and here we are.

Gove even admitted that Brexit will bring years of confusion at borders.

The Freight Transport Association said –

“We are naturally disappointed that the promise of frictionless trade has been replaced with a promise that trade will be as seamless as possible but not until 2025,” said Elizabeth de Jong, its policy director.

The checks will come in only if Boris Johnson achieves his aim of a loose ‘Canada-style’ agreement with the EU – what used to be called a hard Brexit. If not, the next hard Brexit will be a really tough nasty hard Brexit that is expected to cost the economy something between 6% and an eye-watering 7.7% of GDP all the way through to 2035.

Make no mistake – Boris Johnson’s administration has just dumped an unexploded time bomb in our midst. But there’s a double edge to this truth bomb. It confirms that the no-deal scenario is in fact, another reality coming our way. This government wants a deal with the EU and America – both of whom are at loggerheads and on the precipice of their own trade war.

Nick Dearden, Global Justice Now said:

“While the EU put out a 33-page document highlighting its negotiating objectives, Boris Johnson gave his usual pantomime set-piece. But what became very clear is that Johnson is a million miles from the EU offer, and that’s because he’s intent on dancing to Donald Trump’s tune.

“The only way Johnson can get his treasured trade deal with the US is to give away British standards and allow US multinationals to have a bonanza at the expense of people and the planet. But Johnson is going to find this very difficult because most British people have also been shown to be hostile to any trade deal made on these terms. Nor will the EU agree to it. 

“Beneath the usual bluster and bravado, we can see Johnson clearly rattled by the scale of opposition to a US trade deal – and so he should be. Johnson can tell those who oppose a US trade deal to ‘grow up’ all he likes. But what he labels ‘mumbo jumbo’ is not anti-American at all, it is rather a deep-seated opposition to allowing the import of meat made in atrocious conditions, GM foods, higher medicine prices, cancer-causing chemicals, and handing over vast swathes of our society to big business.“

Dearden is right of course but wrong on one point. Johnson won’t find it difficult to reduce British standards and allow American corporations on a pillage expedition across the pond. His majority and crop of new and inexperienced MP’s will do exactly as they are told.

*

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

Part I—Cheating as a Perennial Problem

Cheating, and the lying that always accompanies it, is probably as old as the human species. At the same time, that is probably how long we have known that they are harmful traits. The Eighth Commandment (out of the famous ten) tells us not to bear false witness, which means, don’t lie. Most older societies had someone assigned to monitor the marketplace for reliable weights and measures—because left to themselves, most capitalists, of all times and places, cheat. This reality was and still is confirmed by the Roman warning “caveat emptor,” let the buyer beware.

This perennial problem is still with us and can only be held at bay by education, regulation, and standards set by role models and other worthy authority figures. Alas, these standards are slipping in the case of the United States and thus, our tendency to cheat is witnessing a growth phase. Here are some recent examples:

(1) The Astros baseball team cheated to win the World Series in the 2017 season. Baseball is the “national sport” of the United States and as such it is supposed to hold an honorable place in our culture. But did that stop what must have been nearly the entire Astros team (every batter must have been in on the scheme) from involving themselves in the “game plan” to steal their opponents’ pitching signs? Not at all.

(2) Then we were shown how willing numerous well-to-do Americans were to suborn the college entrance process by buying their children into elite schools. The educational system in the United States is supposedly a mark of national pride, but so is the status of wealth. So why shouldn’t the latter assure entrance into the former? To make it so, all one has to do is cheat (in these cases bribery was the vehicle).

(3) And, by the way, students in colleges and universities, high-end schools or otherwise, can engage in the cheating process by plagiarizing. Term papers and other pre-prepared, and illicit, assignments are for sale online.

Here in the U.S., we are no longer sure that all of this is really so bad. Maybe, if you can get away with it, it is just smart. That is the message the public receives from an increasing number of traditional role models—those who now stand at the very highest levels of our society and publicly flaunt corruption. I speak here of the behavior of President Donald Trump (and his entourage), who, in less than three years in office has managed to brandish his particular aptitude for mendacity (the man is a habitual liar by any standard), bribery, obstruction, incitement and just plain disdain for all manner of rules. And this behavior has given license to others to act out their own disregard for both honesty and truth.

All of this is very bad news. This cheating side of our behavior, having gained increased acceptance, has become a real threat to two basic pillars of our society: the integrity of science/technology and the practice of honest government.

Part II—Cheating as a Societal Threat: The Erosion of Science

Let’s begin with science/technology. Our society would be unrecognizable apart from the science and technology that underpins all material aspects of modern life. The scientific method is the surest way we know to establish the truth about aspects of the material world. Yet today, this foundation is in danger of being eroded by the lies and misrepresentations that plague our everyday lives.

How is this being done? According to the Union of Concerned Scientists, the Trump administration, in its rush to do away with all manner of regulations, appears to consider scientific facts as obstacles to be overcome. This is particularly the case when it comes to the “active dismantling science-based health and safety protections, sidelining scientific evidence, and undoing recent progress” based on scientific research. Here are just a few of dozens of examples:

(1) Trump appointed administrators at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have “forbidden SACC [that is, its own Scientific Advisory Committee on Chemicals] from commenting” on EPA decisions concerning such things as worker safety protections, cancer risks, and the (often suspect) quality of industry data.

(2) The Department of the Interior (DOI) “dismantled the role of science” when looking at protections for endangered and threatened species.

(3) The Department of Agriculture (USDA) prevented the release of a plan for how the agency can effectively respond to the impacts of climate change.

(4) President Trump issued an Executive Order to “rid federal agencies of one-third of their advisory committees,” many of which provide scientific advice to federal agencies.

Without proper scientific standards for review and regulation, we get what David Michaels, former Assistant Secretary of Labor for the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, (OSHA), calls “mercenary science.” This is “science-for-hire, contracted out by chemical and pharmaceutical companies to prove that their harmful products aren’t harmful by giving them the quantitative imprimatur.” This is what happens given inadequately supervised capitalism, where science and truth are separated out for the sake of profit. Before proper regulation, this approach ended up killing and maiming a lot of consumers. It will do so again as Trump deregulates.

Part III—Cheating as a Social Threat: The Erosion of Honest Government

A popular sense that those who run the U.S. government are not trustworthy, and do not run the government in the interests of the nation as a whole, is not new. According to multiple polls taken regularly since the end of World War II, this sentiment began to become prevalent in the 1960s, and has persisted ever since.

It is also interesting that this downturn in confidence in U.S. leadership coincides with the upturn of a culture war still being waged today. In the 1960s, it was the alienating and starkly immoral nature of the Vietnam War that gave impetus to a youth counterculture movement. It was also in the 1960s that the various aspects of an African-American power movement—ranging from the actions of Martin Luther King to those of the Black Panthers—began to promote politically effective equalitarianism. Therefore, one should not be surprised that a good part of Donald Trump’s “base” is a reactionary force in this war: white, racist and culturally traditionalist. As to the last of these positions, many of Trump’s backers are religious ideologues who wage a societal war against same-sex marriage and other LGBTQ civil rights protections. These are the same “Godly” folks who think evolution is wrong and science a suspect anti-religious enterprise. Simultaneously, they turn a blind eye to President Trump’s criminal inclinations. They will support him because they think he is a tool, albeit a lying and cheating one, in some genocidal divine plan.

However, the cheating culture we are now confronted with does not express itself through Trump and his supporters alone. As we have seen, it is wider ranging. So, while the actions of certain Democrats may not match Donald Trump’s venality, you can bet that these Democrats are also undermining honest, representative government.

Democratic Party cheating became notable in 2012. No doubt it goes back much further, but 2012 is when it literally showed itself on public media. Specifically, the telltale incident occurred on Wednesday, the 5th of September, 2012—in the middle of a broadcasted session of the Democratic Party convention, no less! Here is how it went:

—The Democratic platform committee had decided to keep all issues pertaining to a final treaty between Israelis and Palestinians out of the platform. After all, Israel and Palestine are foreign nations. Among these issues was the final status of the city of Jerusalem.

—However, the Republican platform of that year “envisioned” Israel with Jerusalem as its capital, and the Republicans were trying to make the status of Jerusalem a campaign issue.

—So, President Obama and his platform committee apparently decided that the politically savvy thing to do was to change the Democratic platform to match that of the Republicans.

—However, to amend the platform required a two-thirds majority vote from the convention floor. So Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, who was chairing the Democratic convention, confidently called for a voice vote on the issue.

—Villaraigosa called for the vote three times. Each time the viewer could hear that he failed to get the desired result. Between the second and third vote a member of the platform committee went over and told Villaraigosa that he had to rule in favor of the change in wording. So, after the third vote, which again could be heard to fall short of the two-thirds required, Villaraigosa straight out lied and said the delegates had approved the change in wording, and that was that.

This brazen incident, taking place on national television, was not the last time the Democratic leadership cheated. They rigged the selection process in favor of Hillary Clinton in 2016 and may even now be rigging the selection process against Senators Sanders and Warren in 2020. Also, some Democratic “progressives” are showing signs of being vicious competitors in their own right.

Part IV—Conclusion

Cheating, along with its partner habitual lying, undermines both communities and institutions: everything from marriage to commerce, to science, to government. Nothing can stand firm before them once these vices become normative. That is what makes Donald Trump so unacceptable—he represents a social climate wherein honesty can never be assumed.

Once again, it should be emphasized that Trump, as dangerous as he certainly is, did not cause this present problem. He is just opportunistically exploiting it. In truth, these vices are always latent within society because, for human beings, cheating rather than honesty may be a default position. Thus, we must be taught or otherwise encouraged to be honest with both each other and ourselves.

This is not just a lesson for parents, schools, the courts, and the marketplace. It is also a necessary lesson for our politics. But we have not managed to come up with a way to vet our leaders so as to assure their long-term honesty and integrity—a process we have been searching for since the time of Plato. Nonetheless, we should try harder, because both history (of which most people are woefully ignorant) and our present circumstances offer us examples of what it means to fail in this regard. Cheating and the habitual lying that comes with it are the ultimate signs of systems failure.

*

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

Lawrence Davidson is professor of history emeritus at West Chester University in Pennsylvania. He has been publishing his analyses of topics in U.S. domestic and foreign policy, international and humanitarian law and Israel/Zionist practices and policies since 2010.

Syria was the very reason why relations between Turkey and the United States deteriorated as the latter openly backed the Syrian branch of the Kurdistan Workers Party, known as the People’s Protection Units (YPG), that Ankara considers a terrorist organization. Although Turkey has always been a loyal ally and member of the U.S.-led NATO, the Syrian War saw relations between Ankara and Moscow flourish despite an initial speedbump when Turkey downed a Russian jet in Syria in 2015, leading to the murder of the pilot by Turkish-backed terrorists. Russia not only improved relations by selling Turkey the powerful S-400 missile defense system, but sympathized with Turkish concerns against the YPG and partnered with Turkey in Syria-related discussions through the Astana and Sochi formats. The S-400 sale triggered the wrath of NATO, and many within the political establishment in Washington considered the option of kicking Turkey out of the Atlanticist organization.

It appeared that with Russo-Turkish relations strengthening, Turkey would join the new Multipolar World System. However, at the end of January, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan had an outburst against Russia, revealing his frustration by stating “Russia is not abiding by Astana or Sochi” as Moscow refused to discourage their Syrian allies from fighting Turkish-backed terrorist forces operating in Idlib province in Syria’s northwest. However, the Astana and Sochi agreements allow for operations against terrorist organizations – the Syrian Army are battling against Al-Qaeda affiliated formations like the Turkestan Islamic Party and Hayat Tahrir al-Sham.

With Russia refusing to step away from backing its Syrian ally, Turkey has escalated the situation in Idlib by mobilizing thousands of soldiers to illegally occupy large swathes of the province. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg wasted no time and during a press discussion yesterday after the first day’s session of the Meeting of NATO Defense Ministers, he announced that NATO is giving support to Turkey against Syria in Idlib. This came when on the same day U.S. Special Representative for Syria, James Jeffrey said in an interview with the Turkish news channel NTV that Turkish soldiers that are currently stationed in Idlib have the right to defend themselves and that Washington and Ankara have a common geostrategic goal in Syria and Libya.

Effectively, as Russia and Turkey find huge differences in not only Idlib, but also in Libya, both NATO and the U.S. have pounced at the opportunity to bring Turkey firmly back into its camp and away from Russia – Ankara has been more than happy to oblige. As Turkey occupies a strategic space in Eurasia, serving as the bridge between East and West, while also controlling the Bosporus and Dardanelles, the straits where Turkey holds huge leverage against the Great Powers.

There is little doubt that the Syrian Army’s offensive in Idlib has deepened the rift between Russia and Turkey, so-much-so that Erdoğan, emboldened by support from Stoltenberg and Jeffrey, claimed that “most of the attacks carried out by the [Syrian] regime and Russia in Idlib target civilians rather than terrorists.” Of course, he had no evidence to back this claim and Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov denied the charge.

Ankara claims that it is deeply concerned by the danger posed by a new wave of refugees and its concerns for Syrian civilians in Idlib. However, the de facto currency of Idlib is no longer the Syrian pound, but rather the Turkish lira. This is in conjunctions to the installation of Turkish communication systems in the province, duty free Turkish goods flooding in and Syrian industry dismantled and taken into Turkey. These actions would suggest that Turkey is planning to permanently control the region. Syrians remember when its Hatay province was stolen by Turkey in 1939 and also remember when the northern portion of maritime neighbor Cyprus was invaded by Turkey in 1974. In the minds of Syrians, a permanent Turkish occupation of Idlib is not an exaggeration as many officials in Ankara openly proclaim their dreams for a neo-Ottoman Empire and a Syrian jihadist leader even said on Turkish television that the so-called Free Syrian Army will fight “wherever jihad is” and for the “Ottoman Caliphate.”

As Turkey has been insubordinate to NATO over the YPG issue and strengthened relations in Russia as a reaction, both NATO and the U.S. have jumped at the opportunity to bring Ankara out of Moscow’s orbit. This was an inevitable result as Russia would not abandon its Syrian ally or accept a permanent occupation. Syrian President Bashar al-Assad vowed in 2016 that “every inch of Syria” would be liberated, and Moscow has always supported the notion that full Syrian sovereignty must be restored and the country not Balkanized. As Turkey’s long-term goal to replace Assad with a Muslim Brotherhood and Turkish-sympathetic leader has failed, it is likely that the occupation of Idlib is Plan B as a consolation prize towards the neo-Ottoman Empire project. As Washington desperately wants Erdoğan back within its sphere of influence, it is willing to allow Turkey to occupy Idlib and perhaps even annex the region. As NATO and Washington have given their blessing for Erdoğan to military engage in Idlib, something that Russia has condemned, there is little doubt that the Idlib crisis has put Turkey firmly back into the NATO sphere and away from Russia.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

First published in February 2019

On January 23 2019, US Vice President Pence sent a message via Twitter that Washington recognized the 35-year-old Speaker of the Venezuela National Assembly, Juan Guaido, as the “legitimate” President of the troubled country, and not elected President Maduro. The fact that it was first Pence and not the US President, who seemed forced to play catch-up, says much about the intervention. The question is whether oil was the reason as neo-con Security Council adviser John Bolton claimed or something else. The evidence suggests something else, but what something?

The Washington “recognition” of Guaido as “legitimate” president of Venezuela is not only a blatant breach of international law. It goes back on Donald Trump’s repeated campaign promises to stop US meddling in internal affairs of other countries. The attempted coup is being run on the ground by the same criminal operators, call them the deep state, who were behind the regime change operations of repeated US Color Revolutions from Ukraine to Libya, including CANVAS and the CIA’s surrogate, National Endowment for Democracy. Many are asking why, after twenty years of Chavez and Maduro versions of central socialist economics, just now Washington makes such a brazen and dangerous step. One explanation is oil, but if so, not in a simple sense some may think.

In an interview on Fox News following US claims that Guaido was the legitimate interim president, John Bolton declared that, aside from declaring Maduro was “authoritarian” as reason for the Washington move, oil was a major factor. Bolton told Fox News,

“We’re looking at the oil assets…We’re in conversation with major American companies now,” he continued.

Then he made this bizarre remark, all the more as the US today claims to be world number one oil producer: “It will make a big difference to the United States economically if we could have American oil companies really invest in and produce the oil capabilities in Venezuela.” How that would “make America great again,” he did not say.

World’s Largest Reserves?

It’s true that, officially, Venezuela claims to hold the world’s largest oil reserves, estimated 297 billion barrels as of 2010, larger even than that claimed by Saudi Arabia. That makes an impressive headline but is misleading.

Aside from the fact that the Washington soft coup is hardly the urgent priority of the United States today, nor of the US President, the claims that it is about oil are overblown, clearly a deception on the part of John Bolton and others, unless it is part of a grand scheme to force world oil prices again to over $100 a barrel. Having Valero Energy or Chevron refine the Venezuela oil on US Gulf Coast refineries, contrary to what the pro-coup Senator Marco Rubio claims, will not be a major job source for the US. Oil refining is a highly automated industry with very small labor input.

But a closer look at the figures for Venezuela oil reserves is also necessary. Most of the oil resources of Venezuela are located in what used to be known as the Orinoco Belt, today the Hugo Chavez Belt. In the 1990s the “proven reserves” of Venezuela was estimated to be 60 billion barrels, a mere 20% of today’s estimate. Since Chavez took over in 1999 did Venezuela discover huge new deposits of oil? No. It discovered the changing economics of the rising world oil prices over the period from 1999 to 2014. Like Canada’s heavy Athabasca Tar Sands, Venezuela heavy Orinoco crude was suddenly economic, that is so long as world oil prices stayed above $100 a barrel.

We have to look at the definition of proven reserves. The US Securities & Exchange Commission has defined it as “those quantities of oil and gas, which, by analysis of geoscience and engineering data, can be estimated with reasonable certainty to be economically producible…” When oil prices in the 1990s were well below $40 a barrel, it was not economically possible to produce Venezuela oil from the huge Orinoco region. The oil is a heavy tar-like grade similar to Canada’s Athabasca Tar Sands. So that vast reserve of tar oil, unconventional oil, was not economically producible, that is, not any more “proven reserves” by the standard definition. It takes much energy input to refine a barrel of Orinoco heavy oil. It must be processed in special refineries. The technology needed to recover ultra-heavy crude oil of the Orinoco Belt, is much more complex and expensive than Saudi or Russian or even US shale oil.

When world oil prices crashed in 2014 to below $30 a barrel, Venezuela should have adjusted the reserves dramatically down. It did not. It neglected to reduce “economically recoverable reserves.”

Today’s price for West Texas Intermediate oil hovers around $55 a barrel. Moreover, US sanctions have severely reduced Venezuela conventional oil production, most of which, 500,000 barrels daily go to the US.

Now new US sanctions target the nationalized state oil company, PDVSA. American companies are banned from doing business with PDVSA. American sanctions also dictate that any revenues from oil sales be put into an escrow to be managed by the “government” of Juan Gauidó, a move likely to lead to Maduro’s simply stopping those US exports, pushing US gasoline prices high.

Moreover, because the Venezuela oil is extremely heavy, it must be diluted by special diluent chemicals. Those diluents or thinning agents are essential to be able to move the heavy molasses-like oil via pipeline. PDVSA purchased until this week all diluents from US suppliers. Now that is banned and finding substitutes, even in Canada, is not likely.

China Enters

In 1988 prior to Chavez, PDVSA worked with BP to patent its own oil emulsion called Orimulsion, to make the Orinoco heavy reserves into a commercial fuel. The invention allowed Venezuelan heavy oil to be sold at a price competitive with coal. However, for reasons not fully clear, in 2007 the Chavez regime sold an Orimulsion plant producing 100,000 barrels of oil daily to China. The plant had been built with a Chinese loan. Chavez’ Energy Minister, Rafael Ramírez, announced that PDVSA was ending production of Orimulsion, arguing that its processing was not “an appropriate use for Venezuelan extra-heavy crudes (sic).” He granted the Orimulsion patent to Chinese oil companies, presumably for some debt relief.

Today the Maduro government sends a major portion of its remaining oil exports in lieu of debt repayment, to China, and also less so (less debt) to Russia. Venezuela owes China some $60 billion. Those huge debts grew dramatically after in 2007 after a China-Venezuelan Joint Fund, created that year by Chávez, enabled Venezuela to borrow from China in tranches of up to $5 billion, and pay with shipments of crude oil.

This means that short of a dramatic increase in China loans or other aid to the Maduro regime amid latest US sanctions, chances for Venezuela exports of oil to the world market for vital hard currency cash amid a hyperinflation estimated by some at 60,000% annually or even well over one million percent by IMF projections, are all but gone.

The delayed result of those latest sanctions from the Trump Treasury has now created a spike in oil prices that may come to haunt Trump’s hopes for a strong economy in 2020. As the dual power war in Venezuela drags on, or even escalates into a bloody civil war, the prospect of rebuilding the battered remains of PDVSA, even were ExxonMobil or Chevron to buy a privatized entity, remains years away. Now the unanswered question is whether the dark actors behind this latest US regime change effort– the CIA, the major international banks and allied oil majors– actually intend to use their Venezuela coup crisis to escalate attacks on the Saudi Royal House to force a major cut as well in Saudi oil output, combined perhaps with a well-timed end to the US waivers to Iran oil export sanctions. Those waivers helped Trump and the US economy by averting a major oil price spike to over $100 last year before the US Midterm elections. Leaving aside whether or not Maduro is a saint, the decision by President Trump to back the Bolton-Pence call for a US intervention in Venezuela may prove a fatal error to a Trump presidency. He must realize that so the question would be whether someone is putting a gun, literal or figurative, to is head in this.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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 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.

The Syrian Arab Army SAA has completed its main task within the current military operation by securing the Damascus – Aleppo Highway aka M5 after weeks of heavy clashes and fast maneuvers.

This is the first time since 2012 the vital artery is completely cleaned and secured for transportation of passengers and goods between Syria’s main cities including the capital Damascus in the south and its economic capital Aleppo in the north.

The SAA units with its allies cleaned vast areas from NATO terrorists of Al-Qaeda and its affiliates. Over 160 towns and villages in Idlib and Aleppo provinces were liberated.

Lebanese-based Al Mayadeen news channel has the following short report about the latest miraculous achievement by the Syrian Arab Army:

Transcript of the English translation of the report:

The Syrian Army and its allies are regaining control of the Aleppo-Damascus International Road after they succeeded in the last few hours in liberating the 4th Rashidin area on the outskirts of Aleppo city.

40 square kilometers is the area of four villages that were controlled by the Syrian army in one day after surprising the terrorists by turning towards the path of Sixty Road and these villages are Kafr Aleppo and Khirbet Jazraya and Miznad Arcades in the western countryside of Aleppo, during which it succeeded in securing a distance of more than 20 kilometers west of the Aleppo – Damascus Highway and through that, it entered the western countryside of Aleppo from its southern side.

Syrian soldier: We are now in the area of the factories of Al-Zurba, fully controlled and thanks to God, and with the strength of the Syrian Arab Army and the allies and friends after we advanced from Al-Zaitan towards Al-Zirba, and we surrounded the area completely and became under our control.

Syrian soldier: We are today in Al-Zirba after we stormed into it and cleared it of the terrorists’ filths, and we will cut off the supply lines between the western Aleppo countryside and southern Idlib.

With the Syrian Army regaining control of the international road between Damascus and Aleppo, the Syrian Army has so far liberated some 160 towns and villages in the countryside of Idlib and Aleppo, 57 of which are in the southern and western countryside of Aleppo, most notably Khan Touman, Al-Rashidin 5th, and Al-Ais, and more than 100 towns and cities, most notably Maarat al-Numan and Saraqib.

***

The Syrian Arab Army has implemented by fire the Sochi and Astana agreements for Idlib, the regime of Turkish pariah Erdogan was rejecting to implement its part of the agreement to separate the ‘extra too much terrorists’ from the ‘too much terrorists’ in Idlib province and Aleppo western countryside, clear the Damascus – Aleppo highway 15 kilometers both sides, and withdraw the heavy weapons from the ‘extra too much terrorists.’ Instead, the Turkish madman beefed up al-Qaeda Levant (HTS, Nusra Front) and its affiliates with suicide terrorists loyal to his anti-Islamic Muslim Brotherhood ideology and with advanced NATO-sanctioned weapons.

*

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

We have to admit that the US public relations apparatus played a good stint at leaving Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guaidó’s visit with president Trump last in what seemed an afterthought. When many thought that Trump had snubbed him in Davos and Miami, Washington gave him its full attention, normally reserved for real presidents, following the recent international trip that Guaidó took to muster abroad the political support that he cannot get in his own country.

As a special guest at the State of the Union speech Trump praised Guaidó as a “very brave man” and “the true and legitimate president of Venezuela”. He avoided altogether the use of the extra label “interim”, never mind the fact that Guaidó was never elected and that recently lost the title of speaker in the Venezuelan National Assembly.

Both Republicans and Democrats gave Guaidó a standing ovation, which must be interpreted as a sign of the common goal of the two parties on US foreign policy.

Guaidó met with several people of the US political bureaucracy that would give him a reason to brag at home about his popularity and his cause; the cause being to overthrow Nicolas Maduro to the pleasure of the regime change proponents.

Source: Presidencia Venezuela

Based on his own posts on his Twitter account Guaidó has met with a number of US personalities in Washington. Aside from the obvious photo-ops with US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi he met with US envoy for Venezuela, Elliott Abrams, and a number of mostly Congresspeople from the Democratic Party. Additional meetings were held with OAS Secretary General Luis Almagro, as well as with Inter-American Development Bank and USAID heads. Standing next to Guaidó, USAID Mark Green felt he had to remark that all of the organisation’s funding goes to Venezuelan NGOs and not to the opposition leader. Explanation not needed. We all know where USAID money comes from and how it’s used. There were also face-to-face meetings with president Trump and vice-president Mike Pence but there have been no joint statements or media conferences.

The extent of Guaidó’s message has been underwhelming and predictable, limited to a repetition of accusations of the Maduro government as being a “dictatorship, “drug trafficking” and “promoter of international terrorism”. He used precisely the standard language of the US Hybrid War script as explained by analyst Andrew Korybko:

“The US then wages information warfare against the targeted government in order to delegitimize it by usually portraying the authorities as part of a ‘dictatorship’ that is ‘attacking innocent civilians for no reason’”.

He also repeated self-praising catch phrases in the typical US-style as “lover of liberty and a free world”, and the “need to re-establish democracy” in Venezuela, exposing the incongruence with his past as a violent guarimbero (rioter) on the streets of Caracas.

What is quite significant is that, at least at the time of this writing, there have been no plans of a visit by Guaidó to the UN in New York, just a short distance from Washington. However, it is quite understandable. A Venezuelan opposition attempt last September to receive the desired recognition at the UN was frustrated.

Further, the UN currently recognises the Maduro government and its representatives. The UN has been under pressure by the US to recognise Guaidó and withdraw the credentials of the legitimate Venezuelan envoy. Secretary General Antonio Guterres has made it very clear that the recognition of the government of a member State is the function of the General Assembly and not of any individual State. However, this is an option that will not be considered by Washington given that its claim of 50+ governments recognising Guaidó is countered by at least 120 governments of the non-aligned Movement that have explicitly recognised the legitimate government of Nicolas Maduro.

Concluding thoughts

Clearly Guaidó has a political vision of Venezuela as the US backyard. He has proven that much with his visit to Washington. This is a tragic attitude that feeds into the on going Hybrid War approach towards Venezuela. At present, his photo-ops with foreign dignitaries is working against him in the eyes of those Venezuelans who aspire for a sovereign and independent Venezuela as an organic member of a multipolar world. He seems to forget that he needs the support of Venezuelans in Venezuela if he wants to be president of the country by democratic means and not by means of a Bolivian-style coup.

The current Maduro government has been given a strong anti-imperialist mandate by the engaged political majority in Venezuela through a widely accepted fair election in 2018. This is a primary component towards building Hugo Chavez’s Socialism of the 21st Century. The goal has not changed and the project is on course. Washington’s relentless determination to destroy the project confirms the unipolar and imperial view of the US in the hemisphere.

Now Guaidó must return to Venezuela. He might have to sneak back in via Colombia by land-crossing as he did when he left. It is not clear what the Venezuelan government will do following his leaving the country against a travel ban. Elliott Abrams has already “warned” the Maduro government in case any action should be taken against Guaidó.

Given the deep divisions within the Venezuelan opposition, upon his return to Venezuela Guaidó must confront that reality and he should not fear the actions of the Maduro government, rather the actions of his own opposition “allies”.

*

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

Nino Pagliccia is an activist and freelance writer based in Vancouver. He is a retired researcher from the University of British Columbia, Canada. He is a Venezuelan-Canadian who follows and writes about international relations with a focus on the Americas. He is the editor of the book “Cuba Solidarity in Canada – Five Decades of People-to-People Foreign Relations” (2014). He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from France24

The PR department of the Turkish Defense Ministry dealt a crushing blow to forces of the Assad regime that had once again treacherously attacked innocent Turkish personnel in the province of Idlib. At least 5 Turkish soldiers were killed and 5 others were injured in the attack.

On February 10, the Turkish statement targeted 115 ‘regime targets’, ‘neutralized’ 101 ‘regime personnel’, ‘destroyed’ 3 tanks, 2 artillery positions and ‘hit’ a helicopter. After the February 3 Syrian strike on Erdogan forces, Ankara said that the Turkish military had stricken over 50 ‘regime’ targets ‘neutralizing’ at least 76 pro-government fighters. Therefore, the scale of decisive claims demonstrated a successful growth.

Late on February 10, unidentified warplanes struck a large convoy of Turkish military equipment in the Base 46 area, near the town of Atarib. These strikes became another heavy setback of Assad forces and their allies. The convoy belonged not to the Turkish Army, but to Idlib rebel groups. The Assadists missed. Furthermore, photos of the burned Turkish military equipment, a M60T battle tank and several other vehicles, released on the same day also appeared to be old. They were made west of Saraqib after the February 3 incident.

As to the villages of al-Qanati, Kafr Halab, Khirbat Jazraya and Miznaz, which were captured by Syrian government forces from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, this was just a tactical retreat. The Turkish military operation in Idlib continues successfully.

Turkey’s presidential spokesman, Ibrahim Kalin, said that Assad attacks on Turkish troops and Syrian civilians were aimed at sabotaging the Syrian political process. He added that Ankara would provide a tough response to these actions. Kalin added that the Sochi agreements were violated and Russia should bear responsibility for this. Apparently, it is Moscow supporting al-Qaeda-affiliated militants and sabotaging anti-terrorist operations in Idlib.

Until then, Turkish troops likely should register a trade union to defend their rights or at least get some benefits for their regular deployments near positions of al-Qaeda-like groups, just under the Syrian Army fire. Otherwise, the anonymous club of victims of the Assad aggression in the Turkish Army could become far too big.

*

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

On January 28th, United States President Donald Trump accompanied by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and top advisor/son-in-law Jared Kushner unveiled the much anticipated so-called “Deal of the Century” also referred to as the “Mideast Peace Plan”. The deal greenlighted the annexation of Palestinian land, subjugation of Palestinians, and apartheid in Israel. Israeli politicians couldn’t wait to pounce on the opportunity to steal vast areas of occupied land along the Jordan valley. They did little to hide their enthusiasm as they announced that a vote on annexation would take place a few days later.

What became clear +even before the ink had dried is that behind the scam of the century was the normalization of Israel’s apartheid in Palestine. The deal was praised by Israel as the opportunity of a lifetime and outright rejected by Palestinian politicians including President Mahmoud Abbas.

Just days after the deal was announced, plans were made to vote on annexing parts of the West Bank, which are sites of Israeli settlements, and seen by a number of countries as illegal Israeli occupation that defies international law and United Nations Charters, but then that vote was postponed. Almost two weeks later as word spread that another vote might be on the horizon ahead of the March 2nd election, Washington decided to halt Netanyahu’s progress just temporarily causing him to backtrack on his plan for immediate annexation of the West bank. Netanyahu mentioned on Saturday that mapping of the region was underway.

David Friedman, the Trump administration’s Ambassador to Israel is not only one of the masterminds behind the annexation plan but has historically supported illegal colonial settlements.  On Sunday, he tweeted warning Israeli politicians against taking any unilateral steps which could endanger the Plan and American recognition. Of course, Israeli Prime Minister took the cue very seriously and knowing that the US’s blessing is of utmost importance stressed to both his fans and critics that they have waited for this opportunity since 1967 and won’t jeopardize things by being impatient.

Friedman tweeted the following on Sunday February 9th, “President Trump’s Vision for Peace is the product of more than three years of close consultations among the President, PM Netanyahu and their respective senior staff. As we have stated, the application of Israeli law to the territory which the Plan provides to be part of Israel is subject to the completion of a mapping process by a joint Israeli-American committee.”  He added “Any unilateral action in advance of the completion of the committee process endangers the Plan & American recognition.”

As if it wasn’t already crystal-clear that the steal of the century was never ever a legitimate deal between Israeli’s and Palestinians nor a deal that Palestinians would ever be able to consider let alone agree to, Friedman’s tweet drives home the message loud and clear. Palestinians were neither consulted, nor will they be part of the mapping process.

Amidst widespread condemnation and what many countries consider a violation of international law, steps are being taken to pave the way for the annexation of Israeli settlements on Palestinian land captured during the 1967 war.  Netanyahu’s focus right now is on winning a fourth consecutive term in office and taking drastic measures could help win him the election. It’s probably also a good distraction from the series of corruption charges he is facing.

Palestinian authorities have adamantly rejected Washington’s supposed peace plan and are against any unilateral steps being taken whether it’s now or after the election that violate the 1967 Palestinian map borders. Israel tries to appeal to the masses by citing security, biblical, and historic ties to the land on which their settlements are built and Palestinians refuse to accept the theft of more of their ancestral lands.

Many Israeli’s on Twitter didn’t appreciate Friedman’s tweets; some were saying that the United States shouldn’t interfere in Israel’s internal affairs. The irony of how Israel has hijacked US Middle Eastern policies seems to go over their heads. They certainly appreciate how Trump and Kushner’s biased pro-Israeli “Deal of the Century” greenlights the subjugation of Palestinians and the illegal annexation of Palestinian-claimed land but they don’t want Washington involved in implementation or to set any guidelines on how quickly they can expand their reign of terror over Palestinians and their land.

The only reason why Israel is able to continue to override international law and make unilateral declarations of statehood and persist with its terror campaigns at the hands of its Jewish militias, all while ethnically cleansing and massacring countless Palestinians is because of its relationship with Washington and many nations around the world turning a blind eye. Due to a lack of defined borders and the absence of accountability, Israel plans to annex East Jerusalem, the Golan Heights of Syria, and soon swathes of land in the West Bank.

The bottom line is peace cannot be achieved without justice and the recognition of Palestinian human and political rights, solely by Israeli authorities and political figures. Mutual recognition, Palestinian freedom of movement and Palestinian right of return, borders, security, water rights, control of Jerusalem are all part of the decades long conflict. A democratic state can only exist in historical Palestine if Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc. live in harmony with equal rights.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Sarah Abed is an independent journalist and analyst.

Featured image: Official White House Photo by Shealah D. Craighead

The uprising across Canada in support of Wet’suwet’en First Nation land defenders shows no sign of stopping. As of February 11, ports, bridges, rail lines, highways and roads have been blockaded across much of the country by solidarity protesters, who have also occupied the offices of politicians and at least one bank.

These actions were prompted by the RCMP’s invasion of Wet’suwet’en territory on February 5, after which they began arresting Indigenous members opposed to the 670 kilometers (416-mile), $6.2 billion Coastal GasLink pipeline being constructed on their unceded territory in B.C.

The Wet’suwet’en have never signed a treaty and in 1997 the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that they hold “Aboriginal title” to the land on which the pipeline is being built.

The Coastal GasLink pipeline will carry fracked natural gas from northeastern B.C. to Kitimat, B.C., where a liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal is being built by LNG Canada – a partnership of Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi, and Korean Gas.

While protesters have rightly condemned the RCMP actions, they (and the corporate media) have largely overlooked the role of a major player in this whole debacle: Wall Street titan Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., better known as KKR.

Mega-Rich Titan

On December 26, 2019 KKR announced the signing of a “definitive agreement” to acquire – along with Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) – a 65 percent equity interest in the Coastal GasLink Pipeline Project from TC Energy.

Only days later, on December 31, a B.C. Supreme Court judge extended an injunction to stop Wet’suwet’en members from blocking access to Coastal GasLink’s work camp. The injunction will reportedly be operative until the pipeline project is completed.

KKR is mega-rich, even by Wall Street standards. It has US$208 billion in assets under management and US$153 billion in fee-paying assets under management. [1] AIMCo has $108.2 billion in assets that it manages on behalf of 31 Alberta pension, endowment and government funds. [2]

KKR is what is now called a “private equity” firm – a rebranding of what used to be called “leveraged buyout firms,” which pump money into struggling companies and then re-sell them for major profits. In 2014, KKR opened an office in Calgary with a $2 billion fund to find Canadian energy investments, especially in unconventional oil and gas projects.

In its December 26, 2019 press release, KKR’s Brandon Freiman stated that “Coastal GasLink represents our third investment in infrastructure supporting Canada’s natural gas industry.”

When contacted, KKR’s media office told me that the “other projects Brandon was referring to in his quote are Veresen Midstream and SemCams Midstream.”

Buying Up Midstream

In oil-industry parlance, midstream refers to the equipment and pipelines that transport oil and gas from “upstream” production facilities to the “downstream” users such as refineries or LNG terminals.

Shortly after KKR set up its Calgary office, in December 2014 Encana Corp. sold its natural gas pipeline and processing assets in Western Canada’s Montney region to Veresen Inc. and KKR for $412 million. The deal allowed Encana to concentrate on drilling and fracking (“upstream”), while Veresen Midstream LP handles transportation and expansion of infrastructure. The assets sold in this deal “comprise those in the Dawson, B.C. area operated by Encana independently and in a partnership it has with Japan’s Mitsubishi Corp.” [3] At about the same time, the partnership committed to invest $5 billion of new midstream expansion in the Montney region.

By October 2015, that expansion included Veresen’s announcement of approval of the $860 million Sunrise Gas Plant, which can process 400 million cubic feet per day. Located near Dawson Creek, the Sunrise Gas Plant has been described as “the largest gas plant to be commissioned in western Canada in the last 30 years,” with Veresen Midstream’s President and CEO David Fitzpatrick stating that his company’s “footprint in the Montney will grow substantially.” [4]

KKR also entered into a joint venture with Energy Transfer on SemCams Midstream, which owns and operates six gas processing plants and 700 miles of natural gas pipelines in the Montney and Duvernay areas of Western Canada.

You may recall that Energy Transfer is the company involved in the Dakota Access Pipeline protests of 2016, when NoDAPL indigenous protesters from the Standing Rock reservation in the U.S. were met with severe corporate and state-supported opposition.

So KKR not only has a primary position in the midstream natural gas industry of Western Canada, it also has scandalously partnered with a company well-versed in stopping indigenous protests.

Greenwashing

Equally odious, in 2007 KKR teamed up with the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) on something called the Green Portfolio Program through which participating companies could “develop eco-beneficial products and services and develop ways to grow revenue through environmental improvements.” [5]

That decade-long greenwashing effort has especially been useful for KKR’s financial investment in fracking. In 2012, Forbes magazine (not known for its radical environmentalism) singled out KKR in a piece called “Guess Who’s Fueling the Fracking Boom?”, revealing how KKR has been pumping money into expanded fracking by upstream drillers, and then flipping the companies in sales deals that bring billions in profits to KKR. [6]

Perhaps not surprisingly, KKR Global Institute’s Chair is David Petraeus, the former Director of the CIA, who has wholeheartedly endorsed fracking. [7]

In the KKR Global Institute’s latest report (issued on January 15, 2020), the company touts itself for partnering “with companies that mitigate climate change, enhance resilient development [and] protect water quality … As a result, ‘doing well by doing good’ remains a growing investment theme in KKR in 2020.” [8]

LNG Canada in Kitimat, where the Coastal GasLink pipeline will bring the fracked natural gas, has claimed that it will be the lowest carbon-emitting LNG plant in the world, and that LNG exports will substitute for dirtier fuels like coal. But critics such as the Pembina Institute and the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives have seriously questioned this notion of LNG as a so-called “bridge fuel” to a low-carbon future, especially because of the methane leaks implicit in upstream, midstream and downstream processes. In terms of the climate emergency, methane is dozens of times more polluting than CO2.

Indeed, The Georgia Straight recently highlighted a statement by Stanford University professor Mark Z. Jacobson about methane leaks from an ExxonMobil fracking site: “Next time some paid liar in the fossil fuel industry insists fracked gas is helping solve the climate crisis, remind them a single @exxonmobil fracking site ‘leaked more methane in 20 days than all but 3 European nations over an entire year’.” [9]

Paid Liars

Wall Street’s KKR private equity titan appears to be packed with some very well-paid liars, who croon about “doing well by doing good” while invading Wet’suwet’en territory with their Coastal GasLink project and watching while the RCMP carry out the arrests. It’s time the focus should be placed on them.

*

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

Joyce Nelson is the author of seven books. She can be reached through www.joycenelson.ca

Notes

[1] Charlie Smith, “Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs reject ruling by B.C. Supreme Court judge to extend Coastal GasLink Pipeline injunction,” The Georgia Straight, December 31, 2019.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Jeffrey Jones, “Encana sells midstream assets to Veresen, KKR,” The Globe and Mail, December 23, 2014.

[4] Veresen Inc. press release, “Veresen Announces Approval of the $860 Million Sunrise Gas Plant,” October 6, 2015.

[5] Elizabeth Seeger, “Environmental Innovation: A Journey with No Destination,” kkr.com, December 21, 2016.

[6] Halah Touryalal, “Guess Who’s Fueling the Fracking Boom?” Forbes, October 3, 2012.

[7] Steve Horn, “Revealed: Gen. David Petraeus’ Course Syllabus Features ‘Frackademia’ Readings,” Huffington Post, July 19, 2013.

[8] Henry H. McVey, “Play Your Game: Insights Global Macro Trends,” KKR Global Institute, January 2020.

[9] Quoted in Charlie Smith, “TC Energy agrees to sell 65 percent interest in Coastal GasLink pipeline project to KKR and AIMCo,” The Georgia Straight, December 26, 2019.

Featured image: Police officers stand on the road after clearing the intersection of protesters that were blocking an entrance to the port during a demonstration in solidarity with Wet’suwet’en hereditary chiefs opposed to construction of a natural gas pipeline across their traditional territories, in Vancouver, on Monday February 10, 2020. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Darryl Dyck

The Iranian revolution, which took place 41 years ago this week, was not the only seismic event to shake the Gulf and the Middle East that year.

In November 1979, Juhayman al-Otaibi, a former corporal in the Saudi National Guard, seized the Ka’aba in Mecca with a Salafi armed group proclaiming the arrival of al-Mahdi, the redeemer of Islam whose appearance, according to the hadith (Prophet’s sayings), heralds the Day of Judgment, and calling for the overthrow of the House of Saud.

A traumatic event

As Al Jazeera TV channel reported recently, al-Otaibi was dislodged from the Grand Mosque with extreme bloodshed and only with the use of French mercenaries. The channel uncovered French defence ministry documents entitled “Mecca Mission” which revealed the kingdom’s thanks for the liberation of the mosque.

Contradicting the official Saudi account that the operation resulted in the deaths of only 300, of whom 26 were pilgrims, the French commander Paul Barrell was horrified by the massacre that unfolded. He said 5000 were killed, 3000 of them pilgrims who were there at the time of the seizure.

The kingdom’s current, self-styled moderniser Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman dates the kingdom’s swerve toward state-sponsored ultraconservative Wahabbism to that traumatic event. Khaled, the Saudi king at the time, did indeed respond to the attack by implementing a stricter version of Islamic law and giving scholars and religious police more power.

However, the House of Saud’s dependence on conservative religious scholars for their legitimacy predates by far that attack as the Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi, whose killing Mohammed bin Salman ordered, never tired of saying.

Different paths 

Both the revolution and the mosque attack had profound effects on the course Iran and Saudi Arabia would take over the next four decades. With the Islamic Revolution, which was a real revolution, not initially exclusively Islamic, the US lost the Shah of Iran, its number one policeman in the region. All its military bases, and radar stations monitoring the Soviet Union from its vulnerable southern flank, disappeared in a stroke.

In shaking off the Shah and with him the western yoke, Iran became a truly independent nation. Iran’s independence was forged with extreme suffering. In an eight year war against Iraq, launched a year later, it lost an estimated 750,000 lives repelling Saddam Hussein’s invasion of the oil-producing province of Khuzestan and the capture of Khorramshahr.

Saddam was backed, it is all too often forgotten, by the US following a visit by US President Ronald Reagan’s envoy Donald Rumsfeld, and financed by Saudi Arabia.

A chlorine plant, Fallujah 2, which, the US was later to say, formed an essential part of Saddam’s chemical warfare arsenal, was built by Britain in 1985. That is when Margaret Thatcher was prime minister.

As The Guardian’s David Leigh reported:

“Senior (UK) officials recorded in writing that Saddam Hussein was actively gassing his opponents and that there was a ‘strong possibility’ that the chlorine plant was intended by the Iraqis to make mustard gas. At the time, Saddam was known to be gassing Iranian troops in their thousands in the Iran-Iraq war.”

Saudi Arabia, however, went the opposite way. From the use of US pilots to bomb the Grand Mosque in Mecca, and French mercenaries to liberate it, the kingdom has become ever more dependent on foreign troops and nationals for its security.

According to the orthodox understanding of Islam, non-Muslims are banned from the most sacred place, the Ka’aba in Mecca. And yet the al-Saud were so helpless, they swept this religious injunction under the carpet to regain control over their own kingdom. The year 1979 did not lead to any rethink in the kingdom to be more independent and in charge of its own destiny.

Ever since, history has repeated itself. When Iranian-built drones and cruise missiles attacked two key Aramco facilities last year, Saudi Arabia could not defend itself. The biggest weapons’ buying spree, which the crown prince had just undertaken in Trump’s America, was of no use.

The guarded secrets

The degree to which Saudi Arabia depends on foreign powers for its strategic defence is a state secret in the country and beyond.

Saudi dependency on foreign military support keeps on deepening. The number of British technicians keeping Saudi jets flying in Yemen is a secret as are the Pakistani pilots flying them.

Just occasionally, the true extent of British military support for the Saudi kingdom is let slip, as when an advert appeared in July last year for a project manager for the Saudi Arabia National Guard Communications Project (SANGCOM).

The existence of SANGCOM is known. Britain and Saudi Arabia signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) 40 years ago, but its budget and its extent was a closely guarded secret, until the advert blurted it out. “The UK MOD SANGCOM Project Team is responsible for the delivery of a £2bn programme to modernise the Saudi Arabian National Guard’s communications network.”

Iran, in contrast, under near continuous sanctions and isolation from the western banking system, has developed the embryo of a nuclear industry, its own economy, its own arms industry, its own expeditionary force, al-Quds brigade of the Revolutionary Guards, and, as at least 100 US soldiers diagnosed with traumatic brain injury found out, its own ballistic missiles accurate within 25 metres.

No lessons learned

There are no signs that Saudi Arabia has learned the lessons of its dependence on foreign powers to protect it in the last 40 years. Rather, following the experience of the Aramco attack, the conclusions the kingdom has reached push it further into Israel’s arms, which is increasingly playing the role of US surrogate around the Arab world.

It is through Israel that both Sudan and Morocco are seeking favours from Washington, the former for sanctions relief, the latter for trying to get the US to adopt its position on the Western Sahara.

Israel’s role as the DC portal for its new-found Sunni Arab allies is not cost free. The price of the service it provides, apart from its own arms and cyber warfare contracts, is membership of a new Sunni Arab club: the creation of a regional military alliance against Iran.

The alliance against Tehran

The assemblance of a Sunni military alliance is, I believe, the central strategic purpose of Trump’s deal of the century, and the reason why efforts, which I first revealed over a year ago, are continuing to stage a Camp David style handshake between Mohammed bin Salman and the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Thus it was that the assassination of Qassem Soleimani – a targeted killing which previous US presidents had vetoed – was the culmination of a series of strikes against Iranian-backed militias, which started with the use of Israeli drones against the Popular Mobilisation Units (PMUs) in Iraq, launched from Kurdish controlled bases in Northern Syria.

Soleimani’s killing has prompted a series of bellicose speeches in Washington framing Iran as the disrupter in chief not just to regional stability but of the world economy too.

Former British prime minister Tony Blair, whose views on the Middle East continue to be listened to by the think tanks of DC with a respect he has long since lost at home, told the Council on Foreign Relations:

 “Were it not the arm of the Iranian state, there is little doubt that it [the IRGC] would be treated in the same way as al-Qaida or any of the other myriad of Sunni terrorists non-state actors. That’s why we advocate that countries follow the example of the United States and designate it as such.”

He went on:

“The internal IRGC documents which we analyzed are explicit. The organization is committed to ideological political training of recruits. They proclaim an existential threat to Shiism from Sunni Arabs, Zionists, Western actors. They mandate on religious grounds the expansion of the revolution to other nations. They authorize the killing of Jews, Christians, and Zoroastrians, and pressure to make them give up their devious beliefs. And they share the same litany of extremist views on social issues, including the status of women, hostility to gay people, and the sanctity of their image of Islamic society.”

MP and former Tory defence minister Liam Fox continued the attempt to portray Iran as a global problem in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies. He said:

“Iran is now replacing the Arab Israeli conflict as the primary cause of instability in the Middle East.”

Preserving hegemony

This claim neatly establishes the link between the intentioned demise of the Palestinian cause, with the disappearance of any possibility of a functioning Palestinian state, and the rise of a new universal foe that western military alliances so desperately need for their own survival.

There is huge disquiet in the Arab world at the creation of an ideologically based western jihad against Iran. That disquiet is not just felt in the Arab street, but among elites as well. The malign influence of the Saudi-Israeli alliance against Tehran is felt keenly across the still-to-be shattered Arab world, in Iraq, Jordan and Egypt.

European governments sit on the sidelines watching the JCPOA (the Iran nuclear deal), the single most effective way of ensuring that the reformists in Iran survive, crumble under the unremitting hostility of this new party of war.

This fresh neo-conservative push to engineer an all out confrontation with Iran has to be stopped before untold destruction is wreaked in the name of preserving western hegemony over this region at any price – dictatorship, apartheid, the destruction of a Palestinian homeland.

The only way peace and sanity will return to this region is by regional co-operation between neighbours, who are unimpeded by, and free from, outside interference.

Independent decision-making is key to the restoration of trust and neighbourly relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran – which is exactly why the US and Israel are working so hard to stop them.

*

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

David Hearst is the editor in chief of Middle East Eye. He left The Guardian as its chief foreign leader writer. In a career spanning 29 years, he covered the Brighton bomb, the miner’s strike, the loyalist backlash in the wake of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in Northern Ireland, the first conflicts in the breakup of the former Yugoslavia in Slovenia and Croatia, the end of the Soviet Union, Chechnya, and the bushfire wars that accompanied it. He charted Boris Yeltsin’s moral and physical decline and the conditions which created the rise of Putin. After Ireland, he was appointed Europe correspondent for Guardian Europe, then joined the Moscow bureau in 1992, before becoming bureau chief in 1994. He left Russia in 1997 to join the foreign desk, became European editor and then associate foreign editor. He joined The Guardian from The Scotsman, where he worked as education correspondent.

The Philippines officially announced the ending of the National Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the United States. The denial of the U.S. military’s presence will give China a chance to expand militarization of the South China Sea and severely weaken the U.S. positioning in Southeast Asia. The VFA, signed in 1998, established the legal status for U.S. warships, aircraft and soldiers to be stationed in the Philippines.

Philippine Secretary of State Teddy Locsin Jr. signed and sent to the US Government the same day an affirmation of Manila’s official cancellation of the agreement, saying on Twitter:

“The Deputy Chief of Mission of the Embassy of the United States has received the notice of termination of the Visiting Forces Agreement. As a legal courtesy there will be no further factual announcements following this self-explanatory development.”

According to presidential spokesperson Salvador Panelo, the agreement termination will take effect 180 days from today, adding that

“It’s time we take care of ourselves. We will strengthen our defenses ourselves and not rely on any other country.”

Since Duterte came to power in 2016, he has repeatedly referred to severing ties with the U.S. while pursuing closer ties with non-traditional allies like Russia and China. The leader openly expressed his frustration with Washington when several U.S. officials made comments about his war on drugs. The discord was heightened when the U.S. Senate passed a resolution intended to punish Filipino officials involved in the drug war. Washington also was critical of the arrest of Senator Leila De Lima, a human rights activist and critic of the Duterte administration, who herself was arrested for drug-related allegations.

Senator Ronald Dela Rosa, who led the police force from 2016 to 2018, said the U.S. Embassy did not explain why his visa was cancelled but thought it was related to those murdered under his supervision. Duterte ordered an end to the military treaty after the U.S. cancelled the visas of Dela Rosa, who also took part in leading the war on drugs in the Philippines.

The cancellation of the VFA will benefit China mostly. The VFA has helped prevent China from strengthening construction and militarization of the West Coast Shoal since 2016. China urgently prepared to renovate and militarize this area before the decision of the International Court of Arbitration on the South China Sea sovereignty dispute was issued in July 2016. It was the VFA that prevented the conversion of Scarborough Shoal into a Chinese artificial island. The presence of the U.S. military’s A-10 Warthogs and F/A-18 fighters caused China to abandon the Scarborough idea.

Despite this, China completed construction structures on seven reefs and the Spratly Islands. The acquisition of Scarborough Shoal will give them greater control over the disputed waters in the South China Sea. The Chinese side took control of Scarborough from the Philippines in a tension between the two ships in 2012. Since then, China has maintained a military presence in the shoal with numerous maritime forces and coast guard vessels. It was China’s occupation of Scarborough that prompted the Philippine government to bring the matter to international court.

China asserts that Beijing has sovereignty over almost the entire South China Sea, including the continental shelves of countries that share the same sovereignty claims on strategic maritime routes in the South China Sea, despite the Court’s ruling. The 2016 Permanent Arbitration denied and nullified all of China’s claims. After China conducted reclamation in the Spratlys and conducted illegal militarization, the U.S. became clear about the real danger posed by Beijing in the region against other regional states.

The three major Chinese artificial islands are just reef and outposts, almost impossible to attack.

The Philippines’ loss of the VFA will give China a chance to carry out its long-term goal. When the VFA is cancelled, China can completely eliminate other countries from the South China Sea militarily if it can deploy troops, build outposts and conduct militarization at all the locations of all these military bases.

Philippine Foreign Minister Teodoro Locsin Jr. earlier also emphasized that the regular presence of U.S. military forces prevented China from taking drastic actions in waters to the west of the Philippines. Does this now mean that Duterte will continue his path moving closer to China? There are still the major issues of dividing the South China Sea equitably that prevents a full alliance between Beijing and Manila despite Duterte’s hostility to Washington. However, Duterte’s move has ensured that the Philippines has certainly opened the way for the South China Sea to be redrawn.

*

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.

Is it health care?

Is it jobs?

Is it national security?

Is it global warming?

Or is it none of those but instead much deeper?

I shall here argue the latter.

To win is not merely to defeat “the enemy.” America now has lots of experience with winning battles, only to lose wars.

And, politically, Democrats in 2008 won the battle against the Republicans by placing Barack Obama into the White House. And what did he actually do? The first thing he did is immediately to terminate his campaigning for a public option as being part of his health-care plan, and the second thing he did was to appoint Wall Streeters to bail out Wall Street and also to virtually terminate prosecuting financial crimes.

Democrats won the battle, but lost the war.

In 2016, Democrats nominated the neoconservative Hillary Clinton in order to move the Party even farther to the right, only to find themselves winning California by the astronomical margin of 4,269,978 votes more than Trump received, and losing all other 49 states by the still-substantial margin of 1,405,002 votes to Hillary.

She would have become the President of the U.S. who was massively chosen by Californians, but losing to the entire rest of the nation. Democrats think that that would have been ‘democracy’? (Democrats predominantly don’t understand why the Constitution was written the way it is, and propose that ‘democracy’ would mean eliminating the Electoral College and going straight for a single nationwide popular-vote majority to appoint the U.S. President, which would have meant that America would have become ruled for four years by California’s choice — the very same state that had chosen the far-right original, Ronald Reagan, to lead it during 1967-74, and so we had President Reagan from 1980 to 1988. Partisan thinking tends to make suckers of voters, and conservatism always wins in that way, even if the Democratic Party’s version, called “liberalism” — the mixture of conservatism and progressivism — to distinguish it against progressivism, is the winner, against progressivism; against real democracy, which is neither conservative nor liberal, both of which are elitist.)

Right now, the “win at any cost” candidates are Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Biden. They are the unapologetic Republicrats in this race to get the Democratic Party’s nomination. Elizabeth Warren is the sometimes-apologetic, sometimes unapologetic, Republicratic candidate. And Bernie Sanders is the unapologetic progressive in it. Democrats who voted for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders in 2016 will worry “But will he beat Trump?” Regardless of whether they vote for Bloomberg or Buttigieg or Biden or Warren, they will choose to “lose the war”. They won’t even fight to win it, actually — that’s the reason why they will be voting for those candidates, as they did for Hillary in 2016.

The top issue for Democratic voters is whether they are in this to win the battle, or “to win the war” (quoting now contrasting reader-comments at one popular Democratic Party site on February 11th):

“In 2016 Bloomberg spent 12 million to help incumbent GOP Senator Pat Toomey. His opponent was Katie McGinty, who lost by a very narrow margin. If she had won, Brett Kavanaugh wouldn’t be on the Supreme Court. Take a look at Toomey’s right-wing policies and weep.” Alexandro Rocca, at Huffington Post.

But there’s also this, from a capitulationist, to win-at-any-cost (win the battle even though it will greatly increase the likelihood of losing the war):

“If Bloomberg can beat Trump, I’m all in.  Keeping my eye on the real goal, here.  What good is winning a debate if you lose the election?” Gregory Ramos at Huffington Post

Here is another way to put this same matter, of decision for Democratic Party voters:

The top issue for Democratic voters is actually whether the post-9/11, post police-state, totalitarian billionaires-controlled U.S. Government, needs to be replaced (a second American “revolution,” now, to restore at least the incomplete democracy that pre-existed 9/11), or, instead, needs to become ‘more bipartisan’? Though the phrasing here is different, the choice here is actually the same: either capitulate now (be ‘bipartisan’ in order to ‘defeat Trump’), or never stop fighting until we win the war to actually restore democracy to America.

And THAT is The Top Issue for Democratic Voters.

Hillary Clinton lost in 2016 because of the millions of stay-at-home Obama voters and even some Trump-over-Hillary Obama voters who refused to vote for the neocon and blatant Wall-Street-shill Hillary. It could happen again, and only the personal identity of the neocon and shill would be different. (As for Democrats who don’t understand what a neocon or shill even is, they’d do both the Party and the nation a favor by entirely avoiding to vote, at all, and letting the Party’s progressives take over the Party, so as to win the war, to restore democracy to America and advance it further in the progressive direction.)

This is a warning to the capitulationist ‘Democrats’, but it doesn’t originate from me; it originates from us (as that last link shows).

Joe Biden’s campaign self-destructed on February 11th, in his town hall at New Hampshire’s Mercer University, but do the ‘moderate Democrats’ now want to hand their mantle over to a late-comer to the contest such as Michael Bloomberg, who is untested by the prior year’s campaigning and now trying to buy his way through to the nomination by fooling enough people to vote against Bernie Sanders, with the help of the obviously corrupt DNC?

Or maybe the previous Wall Street favorite, Pete Buttigieg? Why don’t the ‘moderate Democrats’ just give up and quit trying to keep BOTH Parties in Wall Street’s grip? Do they really think that billionaires should control the U.S. Government? Or, will that now be The Top Issue, for Democratic Voters?

*

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.

Throughout nine years of preemptive US war in Syria, Turkey supported ISIS other jihadists, pretending otherwise.

Earlier in the war, Ankara colluded with ISIS in transporting, refining and selling stolen Syrian oil – Erdogan and other regime officials profiting hugely.

Evidence supplied by Kurdish sources in northern Syria showed “detailed invoices used by IS to calculate daily revenues from their oil fields and refineries, as well as the amount of oil extracted there,” adding:

“All the documents had Islamic State’s symbol at the top.” They showed ISIS “kept very professional records of their oil business.”

Syrians forced against their will to aid ISIS’ oil trade said “extracted oil was delivered to an oil refinery, where it was converted into gasoline, gas and other petroleum products.”

“Then the refined product was sold. (I)ntermediaries from Raqqa and Allepo arrived to pick up the oil and often mentioned Turkey.”

According to a captured ISIS jihadist at the time, “the reason why it was so easy for him to cross the Turkish border and join IS was, in part, due to the fact that Turkey also benefitted.”

Ankara let anti-Syria jihadists move freely cross-border between both countries, giving them safe haven in Turkey.

The Erdogan regime continues supporting these elements, using them to advance its revanchist aims in northern Syria.

The same goes for the US, NATO, Israel and the Saudis — on the side of the devil in stark contrast to Russia and Lebanon’s Hezbollah, aiding Damascus combat this scourge.

In response to significant advances on the ground in Idlib by Syrian forces, Turkey beefed up its illegal cross-border presence.

According to Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen television, the Erdogan regime sent scores of tanks, armored vehicles, other military equipment, and accompanying troops into northern Syria — to aid jihadists against Syrian forces.

On Monday, five Turkish soldiers were reported killed, others wounded by Syrian strikes on jihadists’ positions.

Southfront reported that al-Nusra terrorists in Idlib attacked Syrian forces, “supported by Turkish rocket and artillery strikes.” Retaliation by government troops resulted in Turkish casualties.

Ankara and jihadists its supports are aggressors, Syrian forces involved in defending their homeland, combatting the scourge of terrorist invaders supported by the US and Turkey.

Claims by the Erdogan regime of delivering “devastating blows” to Syria’s army in Idlib are dubious, no evidence presented to support them.

Besides significant earlier advances, government troops liberated the following villages on Monday: al-Qanati, Kafr Halab, Khirbat Jazraya and Miznaz — despite Turkish support for routed jihadists.

In talks with their Turkish counterparts, Russian diplomats are trying to keep things from developing into more serious clashes.

Ceasefires don’t work. Whenever declared, US/Turkish supported jihadists breach them straightaway — armed with heavy weapons supplied by these and other countries.

Greatly aided by Russian airpower, Damascus is determined to eliminate jihadists in Idlib, their last remaining stronghold in the country.

According to AMN News on Tuesday, government troops “surround(ed) a strategic Turkish…observation” post in Saraqib, Idlib — a former major jihadist stronghold in the country liberated last week.

A Syrian soldier was quoted saying: “All the observation points are completely surrounded by the Syrian Arab Army.”

“The Turks tried to withdraw from Tell Toqan towards Tavtanaz and Bab Al-hawa.”

AMN News said Syrian forces began “encircling Turkish observation posts (in) August 2019 (after) recaptur(ing)” jihadist-held areas.

Following Saraqib’s liberation, Turkey began beefing up its military presence in Idlib to aid jihadists combat government forces.

Last week, Russia’s UN envoy Vassily Nebenzia noted during a special Security Council session on Syria that whenever government forces achieve significant advances, these sessions are called for by the US and/or its imperial allies — urging ceasefire to halt Syrian liberating efforts, noting:

These “meetings are convened at the moment when terrorists in Syria are under threat, and the Syrian government reinstalls control over its national territory.”

“Let me remind that those are terrorists recognized as such by the Security Council.”

“We talk about sovereign territory of Syria and about militants that it is the right and duty of any government to fight with.”

“In December 2019 (and) January 2020, (US/Turkish supported jihadists) launched over 1,400 attacks” on  government forces and residential areas, “us(ing) tanks, machine guns, mortar and artillery bombardments” — weapons supplied by the US, other Western countries and Turkey.

Nebenzia quoted Pompeo saying: The Trump regime “condemns the continued, unjustifiable, and ruthless assaults on the people of Idlib by (Syria), Russia, Iran, and Hezbollah.”

“Let me clarify,” said Nebenzia. “Idlib is not a country. It is Syria’s governorate…Syrian nationals” held hostage by terrorists as human shields.

Iranian military advisors are in Syria, not frontline combat troops.

The US, Britain, France, Turkey, Israel, the Saudis, and their allies actively support anti-Syria jihadists.

Government troops, Russia, and Hezbollah forces are committed to defeating them.

Preserving and protecting Syrian sovereignty and territorial integrity depends on liberating Idlib and areas controlled by US and Turkish occupiers.

Enemies of peace and stability, their presence in Syria represents a flagrant UN Charter breach — what establishment media never explain, supporting what demands denunciation.

*

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.

Less than 150 miles from China’s south-eastern coast lies Taiwan, a mountainous and volcanic island which is about a third the size of Cuba. Yet with 23 million people, Taiwan has twice the population of its Caribbean counterpart. From the 1950s until the present moment, Taiwan has been a crucial piece in the Pentagon’s chess game of hemming China in along its coast, and limiting Beijing’s oxygen supply.

China constitutes America’s principal rival in the international arena today. Washington has increasingly surrounded its Chinese adversary with bases, troops and territories controlled by the United States in east Asia and the Pacific – such as the US client allies of Japan, South Korea and the Philippines, along with other islands dominated by US military power like Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and indeed Taiwan.

Despite strained relations with the Philippines under their unpredictable and brutal leader Rodrigo Duterte (1), Washington retains a considerable foothold on Filipino soil, with annual military exercises involving well over a thousand US marines having taken place as recently as October 2019.

To Beijing, Taiwan is of high importance. Its close proximity to the Chinese mainland is similar again to that of Cuba in relation to America. It is normal that a major power like China is concerned regarding what unfolds inside or near its boundaries. Taiwan is a relatively prosperous and diverse area, one which the Chinese government would wish dearly to have under its auspices, therefore dislodging it from US control. In January 2019, president Xi Jinping said that Taiwan “must and will be reunited” with China, but such an outcome seems a slim possibility in the foreseeable future.

Taiwan is positioned within 500 miles of two of China’s most affluent and influential places, Shanghai and Hong Kong, both of which are situated in south-eastern China.

The Financial Times erroneously describes Taiwan as a “de facto independent island” (2). For over 60 years, Washington has utilised Taiwan as a proxy region dating to the two-term presidency of General Dwight D. Eisenhower (1953-1961). Between 1957 and 1958, the Eisenhower administration began shipping MGM-1 Matador cruise missiles to Taiwan in great secrecy, soon furnished with nuclear warheads, all virtually unknown to the Taiwanese and Chinese populaces.

From January 1958, these Matador missiles on Taiwan were being armed with Mark 5 nuclear bombs with a destructive force ranging from 6 to 120 kilotons, up to eight times more powerful than the Hiroshima atomic weapon.

By the end of Eisenhower’s tenure in 1961, there were around a dozen Matador nuclear-armed missiles on Taiwan, within reach not only of Shanghai and Hong Kong but also Guangzhou, a city then with over a million inhabitants, and which is today China’s fifth most populated urban centre. Hong Kong would surely not have been on the target list, as at the time it was a British dependency; but Guangzhou, like Shanghai, is positioned less than 500 miles from Taiwan.

The range of a Matador cruise missile consisted of a maximum 600 miles, and it was a weapon which flew at almost the speed of sound, meaning – in the event of a planned US nuclear assault – Shanghai and Guangzhou would presumably have been among the first Chinese cities to face destruction, due to the ongoing presence of nuclear missiles in Taiwan.

The Matador was the first American surface-to-surface cruise missile ever built. US nuclear weapons pointed towards China remained on Taiwanese soil for over 15 years, through the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon administrations, before they were at last removed in 1975. (3)

President Eisenhower, as early as December 1954, had dispatched the planet’s largest ship to the Taiwan Strait, the U.S.S. Midway, America’s 300-plus metre long, nuclear-armed aircraft carrier – as a response to a conflict which broke out between US-backed groups and Beijing’s forces, called “the First Taiwan Strait crisis” (September 1954 to May 1955), also known as the First Quemoy crisis, among other names. This was all occurring astride China’s south-eastern frontiers, and nowhere near US shorelines.

During the skirmishes, in which nearly a thousand Chinese were killed, the Eisenhower government threatened to attack China with nuclear bombs as “a last resort”. This was communicated to Mao Zedong in separate statements and moves.

In the opinion of Eisenhower’s Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, these nuclear threats upon China led to “the negotiated resolution of the crisis” (4). As tensions were rising, on 12 September 1954 the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, a senior military body advising the president, recommended the nuclear option against China. (5)

The Chinese nation was previously the subject of US nuclear attack warnings, as Eisenhower sent secret atomic threats to Beijing in order “to maintain a settlement in Korea in 1953”, at the Korean War’s conclusion. (6)

In the mid-1950s, China lacked a primary deterrent to US nuclear strikes, as Beijing did not develop atomic weapons until October 1964. US government threats to unleash nuclear warfare on China during the First Taiwan Strait Crisis, may have been the spark that finally ignited Mao Zedong’s decision, in January 1955, to begin his country’s nuclear weapons program, with China facing possible annihilation.

Even then, the CIA knew six months in advance – by April 1964 – that the Chinese were soon to test their first atomic bomb, thanks to the spy activities carried out by a CIA-trained Tibetan guerrilla, unnamed; who decades later was interviewed by US journalist Thomas Laird, corroborating the story. CIA sources highlight that this Tibetan guerrilla’s covert operations comprised “some of the most valuable intelligence of the entire Cold War”. (7)

Sailing around Taiwanese shores, the U.S.S. Midway was carrying Mark 8 nuclear bombs, one of which has a yield of 25 to 30 kilotons, more powerful than either the Hiroshima (15 kilotons) or Nagasaki bombs (21 kilotons).

The U.S.S. Midway had a prior history of holding stashes of nuclear weapons aboard; and in late 1952, she was cruising through Mediterranean waters with Mark 7 nuclear bombs on her deck, ranging in firepower from 8 kilotons to 61 kilotons.

Across the decades, successive US governments have sold tens of billions worth of military hardware to Taiwan. In 1993 for instance, president Bill Clinton dispatched 200 Patriot missiles and related equipment to Taiwan (8). This on its own was a serious provocation of Beijing, and one can imagine the reaction were the Chinese government to send sophisticated missile systems to Cuba. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, however.

During two terms in office ending in 2001, Clinton sold an array of war materiel to Taiwan, including torpedoes, other missile types, helicopters, tanks and warships, worth billions of dollars.

In more recent times, selling of arms to Taiwan under president Barack Obama was considerable too, including 60 Black Hawk helicopters at a total price of $3 billion in 2010. Another 114 Patriot missile systems were shipped there by the Obama administration, costing almost $3 billion. Obama furthermore sold Taiwan high-tech guided missiles, Assault Amphibious Vehicles (AAVs), Browning Machine Guns, along with the continuation of a pilot training program and logistics support to Taiwanese forces, among other things.

Supplies of US military equipment to Taiwan are increasing under president Donald Trump. His cabinet has sold 66 F-16 fighter aircraft to the island, at a significant $8 billion. Trump has moreover sent tanks to Taiwan, along with a collection of expensive missiles and torpedoes accompanied with spare parts for other equipment. Taiwan was also compelled in recent months to buy billions of dollars worth of US beef, corn and soybeans. This is the “de facto independent island” that the Financial Times informs its readers about.

Taiwan continues to be governed by a US-friendly outfit, led by Tsai Ing-wen, who received much of her third level education in New York and London. President Tsai pursues close relations with the Americans, and late last year she called for a “bilateral trade agreement” between Taiwan and America. She has met numerous US officials, including John McCain, who she can be seen smiling with in images shot during the summer of 2016.

Reacting to McCain’s death 18 months ago, president Tsai described him as “a friend and a fighter” who “forever strived for a more peaceful and prosperous world”. In reality, McCain was “a notorious warmonger and lobbyist” that “always defended the interests of the international arms dealers”, as noted by the Brazilian historian Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira. (9)

Of the US Matador missile itself, which was in service from 1952 to 1962, its creation was made possible through work done by figures like Wernher von Braun, a Prussian-born rocket engineer and former SS Major. Von Braun was an ingenious but unscrupulous scientist flown covertly to the United States on 20 September 1945, accompanied with eventually another 1,600 other Nazi scientists, engineers and technicians (“Operation Paperclip”), some of whom had been high-ranking members of the Nazi Party.

Von Braun was in the past summoned by Hitler for discussions on repeated occasions, and (in civilian clothing) he was photographed in Hitler’s presence as early as the spring of 1934, along with many other German technicians and military personnel (10). Von Braun was later in the company of and photographed multiple times with US presidents Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson.

During talks with Hitler in early 1943 Von Braun informed the dictator that, in the near future, rockets would be able to fly into outer space and also to the moon. It was an opinion which Hitler agreed with, when he said afterwards of his meeting with Von Braun that,

“This young scholar has produced a rocket that upsets all known ballistic laws… We will have Von Braun to thank for the uncovering of many great secrets”. (11)

During the second half of World War II, Von Braun performed a central role in developing the V-1 flying bomb (which killed over 6,000 Londoners), and that was the world’s first cruise missile, of which the US Matador’s design was based on.

Von Braun likewise had a leading part in formulating the V-2 rocket, mankind’s first long-range guided ballistic missile, which up to early 1945 had killed almost 3,000 London residents. By the time Von Braun was relocated to America, one could argue that the blood of thousands of British civilians was partly on his hands, along with that of his colleagues. The first victims in London of the V-2 rocket, for example, were a three-year-old girl and a 63-year-old woman who were killed on 8 September 1944. US government officials had classed Von Braun as “a potential security threat” in the early days. (12)

It should be noted that much of the landmark technology on display in the human world over the past seven decades, from ballistic and cruise missiles to jet aircraft, can be traced to the work of former Nazi scientists such as Von Braun, Arthur Rudolph and Kurt Debus, with the Wehrmacht providing key assistance through figures like Walter Dornberger.

Rudolph (a Nazi Party member since 1931) and Debus (a Nazi Party and SS member), both rocket scientists, were reported to be “ardent Nazis”, and many of these men were acquainted personally with Hitler. The Nazi leader took an active interest in scientific and technological developments, particularly after the defeat at Stalingrad.

As with Von Braun – Rudolph, Rebus and Dornberger were secreted to the United States after the war, in order to recommence the work they had begun under Hitler.

Dornberger, a German Major-General, was already speaking of “space travel” in early October 1942, long before the
Americans were aware that such exploration could be possible. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) was not established until July 1958.

In April 1961 the Soviets launched the first human being into space, Yuri Gagarin; and eight years later American astronauts landed on the moon, in the latter case largely because of Von Braun’s expertise. According to the CIA website, altogether 120 former Nazi scientists, engineers and technicians – led by Von Braun – developed the Saturn V launch vehicle, which carried all Apollo Lunar missions, beginning with Apollo 11 in July 1969, culminating in Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon. (13)

It is unlikely that much of these uncomfortable realities receive mention in Western state-approved history books and school texts. Big budget Hollywood films glorifying US space travel have, in similar fashion, airbrushed from history Von Braun and other former Nazi scientists whose discoveries were undeniably pivotal.

The first jet-powered airplane in the world was the Messerschmitt Me-262, with test flights beginning in April 1941, before its introduction three years later. Hitler was directly involved in operational plans for the Me-262, and he initially wanted it to be used as a ground attack or bomber aircraft.

After 1945, both the United States and Soviet Russia copied the Nazis’ jet aircraft designs from downed Me-262 aircraft they captured (14). At war’s end, 300 train-car loads of V-2 rocket parts were shipped to America. It was piracy, on a grand scale.

*

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 Marjorie Cohn, “Tribunal Declares Trump and Duterte Guilty Of Crimes Against Humanity”, Truthout, 15 March 2019, https://truthout.org/articles/tribunal-declares-trump-and-duterte-guilty-of-crimes-against-humanity/

2 Kathrin Hille, Tom Mitchell, “Taiwan election result leaves China’s Xi Jinping with few options”, Financial Times, 12 January 2020, https://www.ft.com/content/82df5ac6-3506-11ea-a6d3-9a26f8c3cba4

3 Robert S. Norris, William M. Arkin, William Burr, “Where they were [US nuclear weapons]”, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, November/December 1999, https://www.archives.gov/files/declassification/pidb/meetings/where-they-were.pdf

4 Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine, (Bloomsbury Publishing; UK ed. edition, 7 Dec. 2017)

5 Bruce A. Elleman, High Seas Buffer: The Taiwan Patrol Force, 1950-1979, (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 7 Aug. 2012) p. 39

6 Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine, (Bloomsbury Publishing; UK ed. edition, 7 Dec. 2017)

7 Thomas Laird, Into Tibet, The CIA’s First Atomic Spy and His Secret Expedition to Lhasa (Grove Press; First Trade Paper edition, 13 Mar. 2003) preface, XV

8 Tyler Marshall, “Taiwan Test-Fires 3 U.S. Patriot Missiles”, Los Angeles Times, 21 June 2001, https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2001-jun-21-mn-12882-story.html

9 Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, The World Disorder: US Hegemony, Proxy Wars, Terrorism and Humanitarian Catastrophes (Springer; 1st ed. 2019 edition, 4 Feb. 2019) p. 202

10 Wernher von Braun, “Im Dienste von Nazis und NASA”, BR24 Nachrichten, 19 January 2018, https://www.br.de/themen/wissen/wernher-von-braun-nationalsozialismus-v1-v2-rakete-hitler-nasa-nazis-apollo-104~_v-img__16__9__xl_-d31c35f8186ebeb80b0cd843a7c267a0e0c81647.jpg?version=b786d

11 Otto Skorzeny, My Commando Operations – The Memoirs of Hitler’s Most Daring Commando, (Schiffer Publishing, Ltd., January 1 1995), p. 168

12 Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, US Coverup of Nazi Scientists, April 1985, p. 19

13 Jay Watkins, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), “Operation Paperclip: The Secret Intelligence Program to Bring Nazi Scientists to America”, 6 October 2014 https://www.cia.gov/library/center-for-the-study-of-intelligence/csi-publications/csi-studies/studies/vol-58-no-3/operation-paperclip-the-secret-intelligence-program-to-bring-nazi-scientists-to-america.html

14 David Nye, “6 things the US stole from the Nazis”, Business Insider, 6 May 2015, http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:rN7tV3N_AsEJ:https://www.businessinsider.com/6-things-us-stole-from-germans-during-wwii-2015-5&hl=en&gl=ie&strip=1&vwsrc=0

Turkish backed terrorists, following Radical Islam, which is a political ideology, have shot down a Syrian military helicopter in Idlib on Tuesday.  The battlefield of Idlib sits poised for imminent war. President Tayyip Erdogan said on Tuesday the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad would pay a “very heavy price” for attacking Turkish troops, as he threatened war against Syria after five Turkish soldiers were killed on Monday and an additional eight earlier. 

The situation rose to a fever pitch on Monday as the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) attacked an observation post manned by the Turkish Army in Taftanaz, northeast of Idlib. The SAA is on a mission to clear the Idlib province of all Al Qaeda linked terrorists, which are backed by Erdogan, and others. In addition to the terrorists who occupy Idlib, Turkey has sent into Idlib large numbers of Turkish soldiers, as well as Syrian armed militias living in Turkey, such as the Syrian National Army (SNA) and the Syrian Liberation Front (SLF). Turkey is an invasion force, while the SAA fights to defend their country.

Witnesses on the border reported large convoys of Turkish military hardware, troops, and armored vehicles crossing into Syria in an almost continuous procession.

The terrorists and their Turkish backers have insisted on using the civilians as a bargaining chip in the battles.  Turkey, the UN, and most of the international community warn of a humanitarian disaster if the civilians are driven north from Idlib during battles to regain control of Idlib, the last remaining area in Syria under terrorist control.  For weeks, the Syrian Red Crescent ambulances, food trucks, and green buses sat empty and waiting along the humanitarian corridor of exit from Idlib, and an only small number came out and told of being threatened by the terrorists and generally prevented from escaping their occupation to safe areas in Syria.

The Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria was Jibhat al Nusra, and when they entered the cluttered Syrian battlefield in 2013, they were soon recognized as the fiercest and most violent of all the armed fighting groups. The Free Syrian Army (FSA), backed by the USA had failed to garner civilian support of their Jihad for “Regime Change”, and failed to recruit Syrian civilians to take up arms and join their ranks. After Jibhat al Nusra arrived, the FSA either joined their ranks or deserted the cause and migrated to Germany in the summer of 2015 exodus.

The US and others designated Jibhat al Nusra as a terrorist organization, which made supporting them an illegal act and punishable. Jibhat al Nusra then re-branded as Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) and is supported by Turkey and other countries.  HTS has worked with ISIS in certain instances in the past.

Idlib is the last terrorist occupied area in Syria, and the only region to have been under their control since 2012. Designated as a de-escalation zone in 2017, terrorists who refused to lay down their arms in battle zones across Syria were given the option of peacefully leaving on Green Buses to Idlib.

The civilians trapped in Idlib are in many cases, there by choice. The Green Buses offered as an alternative to resuming their past lives across Syria, was offered to armed terrorists and their immediate family, extended family, and others who share the Muslim Brotherhood dogma, which seeks to establish an Islamic ‘utopia’ in Syria.  Some of these civilians are Syrian and some are Chinese citizens, who were imported personally by Erdogan, as his secret “Turkic” weapon.  They are ethnic Uyghurs from China, who are a member of the Jihadist group Turkistan Islamic Party (TIP).

The original Idlib residents are scattered: some to Europe, some to Turkey, some to Latakia and the safety of the coast. Those homeowners, landowners and business owners of Idlib who are living as refugees, or displaced persons, are following events in Idlib and hoping to return one day and take up their rightful possessions, and begin anew.

Leila has been living in Latakia since 2012, and cleaning houses to support her family.  Her husband had been a farmer in Idlib, but when the terrorists arrived they began planting land mines in farmland, and civilians were killed while farming. Leila and her family left Idlib and have never gone back.

“Our land and olive trees are waiting for us. Our house was probably used by the terrorists, but we hope we can reclaim it one day,” she said.

In 2018 an agreement was reached between Turkey and Russia, and Turkey promised to remove all Al Qaeda terrorists, and to move all unarmed civilians to safe areas, thus separating the innocent, from the guilty.  Russia promised to assist the SAA in fighting terrorists, which is part of the global war on terror.

However, Turkey never fulfilled their promise to the agreement, which made the situation unsustainable. In early 2019 Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov commented on the Turkish-Russian agreement about Idlib, and the disturbing news that some Western countries wanted to preserve Idlib as a safe-haven for terrorists.

“There’s been news that some Western countries wish to do precisely that. They want this enclave where Jabhat al-Nusra (terrorist group outlawed in Russia) controls more than 90% of the territory to become a participant in the future political process,” Lavrov stated at a news conference. “It is clear that there can be no talks with terrorists. Our Western counterparts have repeatedly demonstrated double standards, so I cannot rule out that the information I’ve mentioned is well-founded.”

A Russian delegation headed by Sergey Vershinin, deputy minister of foreign affairs in charge of Syrian affairs, and Alexander Lavrentiev, the special envoy of the Russian presidency to Syria, met with Turkish officials in Ankara recently on two occasions but failed to agree.

The Turkish are waiting for a visit from James Jeffrey, the US special representative for Syria, on Wednesday before announcing a plan to reclaim territories the Syrian government has taken over since December last year.

The Russian Foreign Ministry said earlier that the Russian and Turkish militaries had again attempted to declare a ceasefire, but terrorists just stepped up their attacks. In response, the Syrian army launched a counterattack against the terrorists

Turkey set up 12 observation posts in Idlib province after an agreement with Russia in 2018; however, recently three of the observation posts were surrounded by SAA. Turkey invaded Syria and insisted on establishing military outposts, which were supposed to be observation towers, to facilitate their promised plan to separate terrorists from unarmed civilians.  This ruse was effectively used by Turkey to dig-in and defend the terrorists, who follow the same Muslim Brotherhood ideology as does President Erdogan, and his AK Party.

Turkey hosts 3.6 million Syrian refugees and insists it cannot take in any more.

“Russia and Assad are still pushing ahead with this offensive despite the fact Ankara has reiterated its red lines because they underestimate how vital stability in Idlib is for Turkey. Keeping the border shut is a huge national security concern,” said Dareen Khalifa, a senior analyst at the International Crisis Group.

In late 2019 the Syrian government announced a strategic goal to recapture and secure the M4 highway, linking the international Port of Latakia, with Aleppo, the economic hub of Syria, and to accomplish the same with the M5 highway, linking Aleppo, Damascus, and Jordan. This goal is an economic imperative for Syria which is still manufacturing goods, and growing agricultural products used domestically and for export.  The battle to clear Idlib of terrorists is crucial to the economic recovery of Syria. On February 8 the SAA captured the strategic town of Saraqeb, which is located at the junction of M4 and M5.

The terrorists in Idlib are well supplied, trained and have seemingly unlimited weapons and munitions. They have been attacking residential areas in Kessab, Latakia, Mahardeh, Hama, and western Aleppoconsistently since 2012. The unarmed civilians who are killed, maimed and live in constant fear of a missile attack emanating from Idlib are the real victims.

*

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

This article was originally published on Mideast Discourse.

Steven Sahiounie is a political commentator.

Featured image is from Mideast Discourse

Historically the greatest economic depressions have started with unexpected events on the periphery of major financial markets. That was the case in May 1931 with the surprise collapse of the Austrian Creditanstalt Bank in Vienna which brought the entire fragile banking system of postwar Germany down with it, triggering the Great Depression in the United States as major US banks were rocked to their foundations. Will it be again an unanticipated event outside the financial markets, namely the China 2029 Novel Coronavirus and its effects on world trade and especially on US-China trade that triggers a new economic depression?

Until around January 20 when the news broke about the coronavirus exploding in China’s Wuhan and surrounding cities, global financial markets and especially in the US were optimistic that the combined actions of the Federal Reserve to pump in more liquidity and of the Trump Administration to do all possible in an election year would keep the economy positive. Stocks continued their artificial climb as Fed liquidity fueled the fires of the most overvalued stock market in US history for January.

However since then, as official China infection numbers soar daily and the deaths attributed to the corona virus climb, it is beginning to sink in that the world’s major manufacturing center and source of a huge part of the global industrial supply chains, China, could face catastrophic economic consequences from the health emergency and resulting cordon sanitaire closings of cities involving at this point more than 77 million citizens and the manufacturing that is linked to it. That in turn could drag the entire world, most especially the USA, into a severe economic downturn at a time it is ill-prepared.

US Economy Already Fragile

What is usually downplayed in major media is the fact that the world’s largest economy, the United States, was already showing alarming signs of economic decline before the China virus shock.

One of the most alarming declines in the past months before January was the sector that many believed was the lead of an American energy renaissance, namely the once-booming shale oil and gas sector. Over the past decade, to the surprise of much of the world, the USA emerged as the world’s largest producer of oil, passing both Russia and Saudi Arabia. At the beginning of January US oil production stood at 13 million barrels a day. The vast share of that rise was due to unconventional shale oil wells, most in Texas.

The US shale energy industry has pinned its hopes on the recent US-China trade deal in which China agreed to buy an extra US$18.5 billion of energy products in 2020. This is double the US$9.1 billion of U.S. imports in 2017, plus an extra US$33.9 billion in 2021. These quotas would represent a doubling this year of China’s previous record monthly imports from the U.S. of crude oil, liquefied natural gas (LNG), and coal, and a tripling of it next year.

This was all before the eruption of the coronavirus and the ensuing travel bans to China by major airlines as well as the closing of large numbers of factories in China. Now oil prices are falling sharply on expectation that the world’s largest oil importer, China, will import significantly less oil in the coming months as the economy is hit by fallout from the virus epidemic. As of end January Chinese oil demand has dropped by about 3 million barrels a day, or 20% of total consumption and the price for the US West Texas Intermediate oil is below $50. This is the greatest oil demand shock since the 2008 financial crisis.

In January, US West Texas Intermediary oil prices fell 15%, the worst January fall since 1991. As daily reports of rising casualties from the China virus appear that gets even worse. Prices continued to fall despite the January cutoff of 1 million barrels of oil daily from Libya’s civil war. As damage from the China epidemic continues to grow, global oil demand will continue to fall. That spells catastrophe for the fragile US shale oil industry, despite an emergency OPEC decision to cut production.

Already in December 2019 before news of the China virus, the number of US shale oil company bankruptcy filings was rising significantly as prices continued to hover below profitability. According to the industry monitor, Baker Hughes, the number of active oil and gas drilling rigs in the US has fallen by 265 from this time a year ago, down to 790 rigs. Many US oil and gas companies are desperately holding on in anticipation of a new export boom to China. While even that was optimistic, the latest developments could turn nightmarish for the US shale producers who face rising costs and declining well productivity.

USA Transportation in Crisis

Unlike the stock market which can rise as companies use Fed liquidity to simply buy back their own shares rather than invest in new plant and equipment, the real economy depends on the movement of freight goods across the economy. In the USA truck transport is major. Here indicators have not been positive well before the China virus events. This past December one of America’s largest trucker groups, Celadon of Indiana, filed for bankruptcy protection, the largest trucking bankruptcy in US history with over 3,000 drivers. In the first three quarters of 2019, nearly 800 truck carriers failed, more than double the failures in 2018, according to Broughton Capital, a transportation industry data firm.

And the decline in US shipments of goods was not only in trucking. It was across the board. According to the trade group, Cass Index for Freight Shipments, in January, year-on-year, total volume of goods shipped by rail, barge, air and land in the US dropped by 7.9%. That was the 13^th monthly year-year decline and the sharpest fall since the financial crisis in November 2009. It doesn’t include bulk commodities like grain but includes such things as autos, auto parts. Rail freight was down 9.2%. One major reason for the declines is the weakness in US manufacturing. Jobs are not moving back to the US from China despite recent claims, at least not in any significant numbers. Instead the ISM Purchasing Managers Index for December dropped 0.9 percentage points from November to 47.2%. It was the fifth month in a row of contraction, and the fastest contraction since June 2009. Employment, new orders, new export orders, production, backlog of orders, and inventories were all contracting.

On top of this is the weak state of US farmers following severe weather damage in 2019 and cut off of exports to China as a result of the trade war. The much-touted Phase 1 US-China trade deal in December calls for China to import some $50 billion of US farm products which, if true, would give a major boost to US farmers. In 2017 the US exported $19 billion in agriculture products including soybeans and corn to China. Now, as the coronavirus spreads across China, the likelihood of realizing the farm export boost fades by the day. Already Beijing has hinted it will ask a reconsideration of the new trade agreement because of the virus impacts. In 2019 US farm bankruptcies were 24% higher than 2018 amid one of the worst crises since the 1980’s. Loss of the large China export market in 2020 will be a devastating blow to thousands of farmers barely able to survive.

All this in and of itself does not create an economic catastrophe. However the unexpected shock of the greatest crisis in recent history disrupting the supply chains from the center of world manufacture, China, will have untold consequences on US corporations like Boeing, GM, Apple and countless others if the crisis continues to grow, which, unfortunately, it shows every sign of doing.

For millions of ordinary Americans the rising stock market from the past ten years of ultra-low interest rates has been the main source for their retirement savings. Now with stock markets worldwide in steep selling over fear of the impact of the coronavirus on the world economy, the selloff could turn very quickly into panic liquidation wiping out savings of millions of Americans. With only 41% of American families with even $1000 in savings against an emergency, the impact could be severe.

The difference with the economics of this crisis, unlike those even twenty years ago, is the dramatic impact of globalization of the world economy, with China receiving the lion’s share of manufacturing out-sourcing from the West, especially the US. The major South Korean carmakers Hyundai and Kia just announced suspension of production in Korea because their vital China component supply chain remains shut because of the coronavirus. German industry has become strongly reliant on China exports from auto parts to machine tools, all now in limbo. France, Italy and other EU economies stand also to be hard hit.

Stephen Innes at AxiCorp warns that “any economic shock to China’s colossal industrial and consumption engines will spread rapidly to other countries through the increased trade and financial linkages associated with globalization.” And few countries are more vulnerable to such shocks than the United States. Even with the 2003 SARS crisis in China and Hong Kong the degree of globalization to China was orders of magnitude smaller.

With the total debt of the world economy at a record high, and that of the US as well, the unexpected China health catastrophe could have an economic impact few could have imagined just weeks ago. We have no accurate report of how much Chinese manufacturing is closed to date or for how long and the global supply chain disruption is just beginning. This has the potential to shake the world yet financial markets blissfully ignore all.

*

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 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.

Two weeks ago, I set out with three of my colleagues from the High Atlas Foundation (HAF, Marrakech) to the village of Gourrama in the Moroccan Middle Atlas Mountains. Our journey, from sunrise to sunset, took us across rugged terrains and through communities of all sizes. I reveled in the beauty, both natural and created, that flashed by my window as we drove. Each of the passing images aroused in me the innocent excitement one feels at seeing a place for the first time, if even just for a moment.

Solitary concrete buildings partitioned the flowing green fields we slipped through. Washed in fading emeralds, reds, pinks, and oranges, in profile, they appeared as stooped faces, their heavy-set brows animated by the soulful eyes of lit windows. They, witnesses to the passing lives and journeys of all, were solemn and resolute in their observation. Other constructions lay further back from the road, their glossy tin roofs peeking out from the verdant seas beside which they stood. The space between these oases of life and color did not feel hollow or maligned. It existed alongside the same expansiveness with which the blue sky above stretched up, out, and around us, without limit.

Upon arrival in Gourrama, we met with local representatives to drop off several hundred walnut and almond saplings at surrounding agricultural associations. These were only a fraction of the thousands of fruit trees we had carried with us, tightly packed in the back of our vehicle beside our luggage. One such representative, Tarik Sadki, head of the local association, gave us a tour of the property where we would be staying. Among the many buildings of mud brick and reinforced straw we walked through, one room, in particular, was a source of pride for Tarik. Here, he had curated a museum space over the past 20 years, dedicated to the preservation of the region’s history dating back a millennium, containing dozens of Amazigh, Arab, and French artifacts, from ancient tools and weapons to contemporary pieces of artwork.

This first morning in Gourrama, we distributed trees to 32 local farming families. Men, old and young alike, arrived wearing customary earth-toned djellabas to stave off the morning’s chill and protect their eyes from the rising sun. Excitedly, they hoisted their sapling bundles onto the backs of waiting donkeys, with visible pride and purpose.

In the late morning, we drove to a nearby town for further tree dissemination. There, I asked a handful of farmers about the effects of climate change on their livelihoods. In response, one man named Mustafa said that he has noticed a precipitous drop in rainfall, leading to reduced land quality. This dearth of rain, he revealed, has also impeded communal efforts to expand cultivation range, stabilize income fluctuations, and sustain local apiaries and flocks. One solution that he and others have found for this issue has been to build dams and canals to divert water from rivers to their fields. Moreover, during a dry year, he explained, farmers must plant more drought-resistant staples of barley and corn, even when these crops do not provide enough self-sustaining income.

Similarly, another farmer named Hasan recounted that, since a 2008 flood, all of the almond trees have been dying in the region. Because of this difficult reality, farmers seek more environmentally resilient varieties of trees that will flower later in the season, during a time of greater rainfall. Unrelated to climate change, Hasan expressed that a lack of fundamental agricultural training has also been responsible for diminishing yields. He believes that these farming practices, wherein people plant their trees and leave them without care, are a consequence of this deficient education.

At midday, after all farmers had received their trees, we led a discussion on communal wants and needs for the future. Through this conversation, we learned that rural Moroccan farmers often struggle to find the “right” domestic market for their products, toiling to make enough money, even in plentiful years. The majority of their crops are exported raw to European countries, to be processed and sold at high prices for the benefit of large corporations, instead of for their original growers. Moroccans want to access the international organic market, but rarely can because they lack adequate resources to effectively plant, grow, harvest, process, and distribute their produce. Some farmers have taken this challenge head-on, successfully managing the “seed to sale” value chain themselves. In this regard, a few in Gourrama have made moderate gains processing local olives into olive oil.

Beyond this, the group discussion brought forth two final issues: the inadequacy of young children’s school facilities and sweeping rural joblessness. Employment outside the field of agriculture is difficult to come by in this area, and the only occasional jobs available are in animal husbandry and beekeeping. Subsequently, we emphasized that HAF will remain a part of their entire development process, from the distribution of seeds to the certification, processing, and sale of produce, assisted by the USAID Farmer-to-Farmer program. To conclude, we completed a ceremonial tree planting, fertilizing the saplings, freshly laid to rest, with the traditional practice of spreading ash on the topsoil to deliver vital nutrients to the tree roots.

Following a typical late Moroccan lunch, we traveled to a 20-hectare communal farm on an immense plain bordered by low, rolling mountains. It seemed an impossibility, with the wind whipping through our scant jackets and clawing roughly against our flushed cheeks, that anything could flourish amongst such tumult. Yet, we learned, adversity and perseverance, like that which we had seen throughout our visit, was acutely woven into the very essence of the place we stood. This project was created by the local agricultural cooperative with a government land grant, providing jobs for unemployed individuals lacking viable professional prospects, and keeping them from succumbing to the tide of rural emigration.

Ingenuity in the face of hardship is commonplace within this community and the thousands of others in the High and Middle Atlas Mountains. Climate change is just the latest challenge they face. Oftentimes, people find themselves returning to tradition when they encounter problems of modern creation. On our last day in Gourrama, we came upon a small stand-alone corn processing facility where hydropower is used to churn grain into flour. This generational self-sustaining practice has yielded years of profit for the community. Its industrious design and the myriad of aforementioned examples serve as remembrances that, despite an ever-changing world, those who work in symbiosis with their environment will have their dedication reflected and returned.

*

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.

Nicolas Pantelick is a student from the United States on a gap year before university, who is interning with the High Atlas Foundation in Marrakech, Morocco.

Featured image: Photo by Giovane Cunha, Middle Atlas Mountains of Morocco, 2020

Pensioners in the Baltic States of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia are more exposed to the risk of poverty than pensioners in other European Union (EU) countries, according to Eurostat data for 2018 that was published only last week. The average EU figure was 15% but 54% of citizens over 65 in Estonia are at risk of poverty, with the figure at 50% in Latvia and 41% in Lithuania.

In addition, the difference between third and fourth place on the list is large, with the next country Bulgaria sitting at 30%. The lowest rates were recorded in Slovakia (6%), France (8%), surprisingly Greece (9%), and Denmark, Luxembourg and Hungary (10%). The Eurostat data also found that between 2010 and 2018, women retired were at 3-4% more risk of poverty than men. Two years ago, the largest gender gap was in Lithuania (18%), Estonia (17%), Bulgaria (15%), Czech Republic (13%), and Latvia and Romania (11%), while in Spain, Malta and Italy, men aged 65 and over were at the highest risk of poverty. The Baltic States are regularly featured at the top of EU lists looking at in living standards. In February last year, Eurostat ranked Lithuania in the top five countries with the highest risk of poverty – not that neighboring Latvia and Estonia performed much better.

In Latvia, retirement age has increased, the minimum pensions will be calculated on a certain basis, and residents will be able to inherit their second pillar pension capital – this is the kind of change that the Latvian population will face in 2020. The retirement age in Latvia has been increased once more by three months. Persons over the age of 63 and 9 months are now eligible to retire if their insurance record is at least 15 years.

People with a minimum insurance record of 30 years can retire early – by two years. Earlier this year, people aged 61 and 9 months will have early retirement rights. As a reminder, starting in 2014, the retirement age in Latvia began to be raised by three months each year until it reaches 65 in 2025. The minimum pension will now be calculated on the basis of a calculation approved by the government and is expected to be €80. However, this is unlikely to improve living standards as it is still a paltry sum.

From this year, Latvian residents will be able to inherit their second pillar pension capital. This choice can be made by people who have not yet received an old-age pension by determining how their pension capital will be used in the event of death before retirement. Nearly 1.3 million members of the second pillar have now the choice between three options. You can leave your savings in an inheritance, add them to another person’s second pillar capital or transfer them to a special state pension budget.

Things have become so desperate that the Latvian Pensioners’ Federation asked the government to grant a new relief – allowing early retirement for people who have raised children five years earlier. Activists believe it will provide significant support for parents and can have a positive impact on demographics that is rapidly declining mostly due to emigration to richer Western EU states.

However, much of the economic struggles in the Baltic states are for two main reasons:

The Neoliberalization of the economy after the collapse of the Soviet Union to adhere to EU regulations.

Hostile relations with Russia that prevent fruitful economic growth in the Baltics.

As much as 19.8% of Lithuanian, 16.2% of Latvian and 11.4% of Estonian exports were directed to Russia in 2013. Despite this huge economic relationship, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia were some of the first states to call for tougher EU sanctions against Moscow when it reunited with Crimea in 2014. According to United Nations estimates, by 2050 Latvia’s population could shrink by 22%, Lithuania by 17% and Estonia by 13% because of high emigration and aging populations.

With the younger generation fleeing to the West for an increased wage because opportunities are not available at home and elderly poverty is increasing, the continued hostile relations that Baltic states have with Russia need to be reversed quickly. This will be a difficult task as the Baltic states have prioritized and in recent years accelerated efforts to break their dependence on Russia, especially in fields of energy and transportation.

However, despite these breaks, the EU has failed to be an adequate replacement in the Baltics quest of “de-Russification,” that has seen poverty increase and the younger and educated generation flee to the West. Despite these realities, the Baltic states have continued to willingly follow NATO demands to be part of a wider strategy to pressurize Russia’s Baltic Kaliningrad region. Russia can be a major market for Baltic made products and Russia in turn can offer cheap energy sources, but despite these advantages, the Baltic states are willing to depopulate their countries and see poverty increase to serve EU and NATO interests.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoBrics.

Paul Antonopoulos is a Research Fellow at the Center for Syncretic Studies.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

After years of debate, Ontario Power Generation has dropped a plan to store nuclear waste underground near Lake Huron.

The Canadian energy firm said it would not move forward with plans to develop a permanent nuclear waste disposal site in the town of Kincardine, Ontario, where it also operates the Bruce Nuclear nuclear plant. The proposed storage facility would have been 2,200 feet below grade and less than a mile from Lake Huron. 

The decision came after a resounding ratification vote by members of the Saugeen Ojibway Nation on the issue. Of the 1,232 ballots cast, nearly 86 percent voted against the proposed project.

Ontario Power Generation had committed to the Saugeen Ojibway Nation in 2013 that it would not build the so-called deep geologic repository (DGR) facility without the support of the tribes.

“OPG will explore other options and will engage with key stakeholders to develop an alternate site-selection process,” OPG CEO and President Ken Hartwick said in a statement.

“We were not consulted when the nuclear industry was established in our Territory,” the Saugeen Ojibway Nation wrote in a statement. “Over the past forty years, nuclear power generation in Anishnaabekiing has had many impacts on our communities, and our Land and Waters, including the production and accumulation of nuclear waste.”

Collectively, the Chippewas of Nawash Unceded First Nation and the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation are referred to as the Saugeen Ojibway Nation.

“This vote is a historic milestone and momentous victory for our People,” said Chief Lester Anoquot of the Chippewas of Saugeen First Nation. “As Anishinaabe, we didn’t ask for this waste to be created and stored in our Territory, but here it is.  We have a responsibility to our Mother Earth to protect both her and our Lands and Waters.

“We must work diligently to find a new solution for the waste,” Chief Anoquot said.

The decision by OPG to scuttle the nuclear waste facility was met with cheers from tribes and politicians, including U.S. Rep. Dan Kildee (D-Mich.), who has worked on the issue since joining Congress in 2013.

“Today’s announcement is a huge victory for protecting our environment and our economy that relies on the Great Lakes,” Kildee said in a statement.

The proposal to store millions of tons of nuclear waste in Kincardine “never made sense,” Kildee said.

“Nuclear waste remains radioactive for thousands of years, and burying it next to the Great Lakes would have threatened our economy and clean drinking water for over 40 million people. Surely in the vast land mass that comprises Canada, there has to be a better place to permanently store nuclear waste than on the shores of the Great Lakes,” he said.

Aaron Payment, chairperson of the Michigan’s Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians, cheered the decision in a statement issued yesterday.

“The Sault Tribe, along with the rest of the tribes in Michigan, is pleased to see Ontario Power Generation give up on this terrible idea to build a nuclear waste storage site on the shores of the Great Lakes,” Payment said. “Since 2017, the tribes in Michigan have supported our relatives in the Saugeen Ojibway Nation in their concerns over this proposal. In addition, any threat to the Lake Huron fishery that is posed by disposal of nuclear waste so close to the Great Lakes is of deep concern to us all.”

*

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 National Coalition for Palestine (NC4P), Muslim Judicial Council (MJC) and BDS South Africa welcome the speech delivered by South African President Cyril Ramaphosa at the African Union (AU) Summit in Addis Ababa.

President Ramaphosa, echoing other African officials, said:

“It [the Trump US-Israel deal] brought to mind the chronicled history that we as South Africans went through. The apartheid regime once imposed the Bantustan system on the people of South Africa without consulting them and with all the oppressive elements which that plan had…it sounds like this [Trump] plan has been consulted without all the people that matter and it sounds like a Bantustan type of construct.”

The AU Chairperson and President of South Africa, Cyril Ramaphosa, is accurately reflecting the sentiment of South Africa and Africa. We are confident that 2020 will see greater strides from South Africa and Africa for the Palestinian struggle and for the BDS boycott of Israel. We hope that as our parliament opens for the new year that it will be a leading voice in the boycott of Israel. We hope that 2020 will bring an end to Israel’s Apartheid regime and the ushering in of peace and justice for all the people who live in Palestine-Israel.

*

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

The US government has sanctioned Venezuela’s state-owned airline CONVIASA, claiming it is being used to “shuttle corrupt officials.”

While already subject to previous US unilateral coercive measures, the latest sanctions add the airline and 40 of its planes to the US Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control’s Specially Designated Nationals List so as “to ensure strengthened compliance.”

The move incorporates the airline into Washington’s executive order 13884, which applied a wide-reaching embargo on the country in August last year.

It paves the way for punitive measures to be taken against any US or non-US citizen or firm dealing with the airline, possibly affecting plane maintenance, refuelling, insurance, and a host of other operations. Passengers may also be sanctioned under the measure.Passengers may also be sanctioned under the measure.

Unveiling the measure Friday, US Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin told reporters that

“The illegitimate Maduro regime relies on CONVIASA to shuttle corrupt regime officials around the world to fuel support for its anti-democratic efforts.”

The sanctions were met with a defiant response from Caracas, with a range of government officials joining CONVIASA workers in rejecting the sanctions.

Foreign Minister Jorge Arreaza described the sanctions regime as “the diplomacy of the absurd” and promised to “raise our protest to international organisms.”

Likewise, Venezuelan Economy Vice President Tareck El Aissami assured the firm’s 2000 workers that their jobs were safe on Saturday.

“Nothing will stop us, nothing will demoralise us, to the contrary, we will continue to grow in the spirit of struggle, and now CONVIASA will become an ambassador for Bolivarian peace in the skies of the world,” he told reporters.

El Aissami stressed that apart from affecting passengers, the measure will also hurt a range of social programs, including the Return to the Homeland program which has provided free flights for a reported 20,000 Venezuelan immigrants to return to the country, and the Miracle Mission which brings patients from across the region to Venezuela for free ophthalmological surgery.

Venezuelan social movements and progressive parties organised a march on Monday to reject the latest sanctions and support the nationalised company.

The Venezuelan Consortium of Aeronautical Industries and Air Services (CONVIASA) was created in 2004 to replace the national airline VIASA which was liquidated in 1997. It currently offers a multitude of domestic routes, as well as international destinations including Cuba, Mexico, Panama, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Nicaragua and Bolivia, with plans to open routes to the Middle East and Europe in 2020. With several foreign airlines ceasing to fly to Venezuela in recent years, CONVIASA has become the only one serving a number of Latin America destinations.

The airline had already felt the bite of US sanctions, denouncing last September that the threat of secondary sanctions caused Peruvian authorities to block the refuelling of one of its planes used in the Return to the Homeland program.

US unilateral coercive measures against Venezuela targeted a number of specific industries in 2019, including oil, gold, and the banking sector. They were expanded to a wide-reaching embargo in August.

The August embargo also authorised secondary sanctions to be applied against third parties dealing with the Caracas government. Despite Washington refraining from applying this measure so far, US Special Envoy for Venezuela Elliott Abrams raised the threat once again of action last week.

Vice President Tareck El Aissami addresses a press conference alongside the president of the state-run CONVIASA airline and representatives of the workforce. (MINCI)

Speaking in a press conference on Thursday, Abrams specifically highlighted Russia’s involvement in Venezuela, warning that

“The Russians may soon find that their continued support of Maduro will no longer be cost-free,” while pledging to “demonstrate the seriousness of our intentions in Venezuela.”

Likewise, an anonymous senior White House official was quoted by Reuters warning Russian, Spanish, Indian and US oil giants Rosneft, Repsol, Reliance and Chevron to “tread cautiously.”

The companies continue to play significant roles in Venezuela’s oil industry, with Rosneft reported to currently be purchasing around 60 percent of the output, much of which is rerouted to other markets, including the US. Repsol and Reliance have also increased their dealings with state oil company PDVSA in recent months, reportedly exchanging crude for fuel and diluents so as to avoid sanctions. For its part, Chevron is involved in a joint oil venture and has been granted successive sanctions waivers by the US Treasury Department.

The threat of secondary sanctions coincided with a visit to Venezuela by Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, who described Washington’s sanctions regime as “illegitimate” and “outrageous.”

“We have agreed to deepen our economic, commercial and investment cooperation [with Venezuela] in several areas despite the illegitimate sanctions,” he told reporters Friday, adding that “It is outrageous that unilateral actions by the United States affect social and humanitarian projects.”

Caracas and Moscow have strengthened ties in recent months, with bilateral agreements signed on a host of areas, including agriculture, industry, mining and defense.

*

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.

For a long time, scientists have known that certain types of fungi are attracted to radiation, and can actually help to break down and neutralize radiation in certain environments. The radioactive site of the abandoned Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant has acted as a real-life laboratory in many ways over the years, giving researchers a look into the physical impact that radiation has on plant and animal life.

In 1991, while a team of researchers was searching the Chernobyl area remotely with robots, they noticed black-spotted fungi growing on the walls of one of the nuclear reactors. They also observed that the fungi appeared to be breaking down radioactive graphite from the core itself. The fungi also seemed to be growing towards the source of the radiation, as if it was attracted to it.

Follow up research in 2007, at the University of Saskatchewan found that different types of fungi are attracted to radiation. A team led by Professor Ekaterina Dadachova observed that some types of fungi grew more rapidly when exposed to radiation.

The three species that were tested were Cladosporium sphaerospermum, Cryptococcus neoformans and Wangiella dermatitidis, all of which grew faster when exposed to radiation. The scientists believe that since these species had large amounts of the pigment melanin, it allows them to absorb things like radiation and convert it into chemical energy for growth.

Another follow-up study, in which eight species collected from the Chernobyl area were sent to the International Space Station (ISS) began in 2016, but has yet to be published. Scientists are eagerly awaiting the results of the study, considering that the samples are being exposed to between 40 and 80 times more radiation than they would here on Earth. If this study is successful, experts hope that the knowledge gained can be used to produce drugs that could protect astronauts from radiation on long-term missions. It has also been suggested that the results of this study could lead to the development of fungi-based cancer treatments.

*

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.

John Vibes is an author and journalist who takes a special interest in the counter culture, and focuses solutions-oriented approaches to social problems. He is also a host of The Free Your Mind Conference and The Free Thought Project Podcast.

Featured image is from Iryna Denysova

Trump proved he’s more a deal breaker than maker, abandoning international obligations instead of observing them — notably the landmark JCPOA and INF Treaty, based on Big Lies.

Is New START next to go? It’s the only remaining arms control treaty remaining between Russia and the US.

According to nuclear expert Helen Caldicott, Russia and the US have around 94% of the world’s nuclear arsenal between them, adding:

“(W)e are closer to nuclear war now, (early in) the twenty-first century than we’ve ever been before, even during the height of the Cold War” — because of US rage for dominating other nations by whatever it takes to achieve its objectives.

The nuclear threat is real. Ignoring it is like “sleepwalking to armageddon,” Caldicott stressed.

Trump believes “because they exist, nuclear weapons ought to be used,” especially tactical nukes in US war theaters.

Ghostwriter of Trump’s Art of the Deal book Tony Schwartz said today he’d title the book The Sociopath, tweeting:

“Trump is totally willing to blow up the world to protect his fragile sense of self. Please God don’t give this man the nuclear codes.”

Before his 2016 election, Schwartz was quoted, saying

“I genuinely believe that if Trump wins and gets the nuclear codes, there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”

New START expires on February 5, 2021. If not renewed, it’s gone. Trump falsely called it a “bad deal.”

He never read it or knows anything more about it than what hardline regime officials told him, notably Bolton when serving as national security advisor.

Article XIV of the treaty lets both presidents extend it up to another five years by mutual consent.

Trump’s national security team declined to negotiate with Russia on strategic weapons issues.

Reportedly Trump wants a new deal that includes China, one that covers tactical nukes.

With a few hundred nuclear warheads in its arsenal, around 100 able to be mounted on intercontinental ballistic missiles, Beijing repeatedly expressed no interest in an arms control treaty with the US and Russia.

Last November, China’s Foreign Ministry arms control department director Fu Cong said nuclear talks are unrealistic unless “the US agrees to reduce its arsenal to China’s level, or agrees for China to raise its arsenal to the US level.”

Nuclear arms control begins with the US and Russia because of the dominant size and sophistication of their arsenals.

New START replaced START I (1999) that expired in December 2009.

The 2002 Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty (SORT) also ended when New Start became effective.

It limits deployed strategic nuclear warheads and bombs to 1,550, about 30% fewer than the SORT limit, nearly 75% below START I’s 6,000 allowed.

Deployed ICBMs, submarine-launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs), and nuclear-capable heavy bombers are limited to 700.

Deployed and non-deployed ICBM launchers, SLBM launchers, and bombers are limited to 800 — about 50% fewer than START I permitted.

New START doesn’t limit non-deployed ICBMs and SLBMs, but monitors their numbers and locations.

They must be located away from deployment sites and appropriately labeled for easy identification.

On-site monitoring and verification were agreed on to assure both countries remain in compliance with their obligations.

If New START isn’t renewed and expires next February, limits on the world’s largest nuclear arsenals no longer will exist for the first time in nearly half a century.

Bush/Cheney’s December 2001 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) asserted Washington’s preemptive right to unilaterally declare and wage future wars with first-strike nuclear weapons.

Obama’s 2010 and 2015 National Security Strategies pledged US first-strike use of these weapons against any adversary, nuclear armed or not.

Obama approved a $1 trillion program to upgrade America’s nuclear arsenal over the next 30 years, assuring other nuclear powers will follow suit.

Trump said America “must greatly strengthen and expand its nuclear capability…”

As long as these weapons exist, they’ll likely be used again with devastating results.

The only way to prevent nuclear war is by eliminating these weapons entirely, the world community uniting on this most vital of all issues to save life on earth from possible extinction.

US imperial madness poses an unparalleled nuclear threat, the only nation ever to use them, likely willing to use them again.

Today’s thermonukes can destroy entire cities and surrounding areas with no place to hide.

If agreement isn’t reached to eliminate them and end wars, they’ll eliminate us one day if used in enough numbers.

A Final Comment

Last December, former Joint Chief chairman Admiral Mike Mullen said the following in testimony before the House Foreign Affairs Committee:

New START “contributes substantially to US national security by providing limits, robust verification, and predictability about Russian strategic forces.”

We have “high confidence” Russia is complying with the treaty. “Without the treaty and its verification provisions, we’d be flying blind.”

“It is strongly in the US national interests to extend New START for five years so that the United States and Russia can continue to realize the mutual benefits and stability it provides.”

Last July, US Strategic Command deputy head Admiral David Kiete said New START’s verification scheme provides “great insight” into Russia’s arsenal.

“If we were to lose that for any reason in the future, we would have to go look for other ways to fill in the gaps for the things we get from those verifications.”

Virtually all key US allies expressed support for extending New START for another five years.

Most congressional members support extension. Polls show the vast majority of Americans support it.

In early December, Putin said “Russia is ready to extend the New START treaty immediately, before the year’s end and without any preconditions.”

Trump has final say in the US. His opposition that’s influenced by hardliners surrounding him likely means New START will be abandoned with him as president.

*

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.

Important article first published on Global Research in February 2019

The Orinoco Belt: “oil-in-place” is estimated to be up to 1.4 trillion barrels, of which 70% might be extracted using the most advanced technologies.

“Let’s place 1 trillion barrels of oil in context. 

Global oil consumption is currently 35 billion barrels a year. Thus, the Orinoco Belt alone could satisfy 100% of global demand for almost 30 years!

As for the Orinoco field’s dollar value. World oil prices are currently hovering near $60 … do the math.”

And these oil reserves belong to the People of Venezuela. 

**

Heavy Oil and Tar Sands

While much is heard of “fracking” these days; steam-injection may in the long run prove to be the petroleum industry game-changer. Steam aids in harvesting heavy oils from sprawling oil-rich sand and clay formations where the oil is too viscous to be worked by conventional pumps. 

Initially, all heavy oil (Alberta) was extracted via open-pit mines wherein giant shovels heaved mounds of oil-saturated sand onto giant dump-trucks for transit to separating vats filled with hot water. This method has largely given way to steam-injection. In Alberta’s oilsands, where much of this technology originated, heavy oil is now 80% extracted via steam; 20% via mining.

The simplest form of steam injection uses a single well. A hole is drilled down to a heavy oil deposit; then steam is pumped down the hole, sometimes for months. Eventually a blob of oil concentrates near the well’s bottom of sufficient viscosity to enable pumping to the surface.

Circa 1978 SAGD (Steam Assisted Gravity Drainage) emerged. With SAGD two lengthy perforated pipes are drilled into place horizontally through the deposit; one pipe a few metres above the other. Both pipes emit steam until a teardrop shaped oil bubble envelopes the lower pipe. Then the top pipe continues to emit steam while the lower pipe goes into reverse; drawing oil to the surface. In 2017 Alberta’s oilsands yielded 2.7 million barrels a day; mostly via SAGD.

Three additional innovations are coming to the fore.

Solvent-Assisted SAGD adds designer chemicals (solvents) to the steam-injection process to accelerate the loosening up the oil.

DHSG (Downhole Steam Generation) lowers small but mighty steam generation tools (furnaces) deep into the well. DHSG allows for greater heat conservation and improved fuel economy.

Miniature nuclear reactors are ready for commercial application. Toshiba has developed a prototype reactor specifically for heavy oil extraction. This 5 MW electricity generator simultaneously serves as the furnace for a 900 Celsius steam injection boiler. The reactor promises to replace the elaborate and expensive natural gas infrastructure presently required by oil-field steam injection facilities. Toshiba’s prototype needs refueling every 30 years.

Venezuela’s Orinoco Oil Belt

The world’s fourth largest river, the Orinoco, rises in the Parima Mountains along the Venezuelan-Brazilian border. The Orinoco engraves a 2,000 kilometre north-easterly arc through Columbia and Venezuela before discharging into the Atlantic Ocean off Venezuela’s coast. The Orinoco Heavy Oil Belt stretches 600 kilometres along the north bank of the Orinoco River’s easterly dash to the sea. The Belt is 70 kilometers wide.

United States Geological Service’s (USGS) Estimate of Recoverable Oil Reserves of the Orinoco Oil Belt (2009) is the go-to source regarding the Orinoco reservoir’s size. After describing how this oil-saturated bed of sandstone ended up 150 to 1500 metres below the surface of the East Orinoco Basin; the authors’ estimate “oil-in-place” to be up to 1.4 trillion barrels.

The Belt’s “technically recoverable” oil is estimated to be as much as 652 billion barrels. (see USGS below) Elsewhere, however, the report speculates that by fully exploiting SAGD, and other recovery enhancement processes, 70% of the oil-in-place might be extracted. Moreover, the report relies on studies published between 2001 and 2008 hence does not contemplate: Solvent-Assisted SAGD; Downhole Steam Generation; let alone the application of nuclear power. Tackling the Orinoco Belt with these technologies will yield a trillion barrels.

USGS Report p. 1

The report does not discuss production costs. Canadian oilsands companies continued to produce in 2018 even after transportation bottlenecks tanked prices to $20 a barrel. These facilities, however, would not have been built had investors known this might be the price of their wares. The business press guesstimates the current breakeven price for an Alberta oilsands project to be around $35 a barrel.

While the Orinoco Belt is not as large as Alberta’s oilsands it has three advantages:

a) its oil is not as heavy;

b) its climate is far hotter; and

c) it’s much closer to a coast.

The Orinoco Belt sits at 9 degrees latitude and its entire span is a few hundred kilometres from Atlantic shores. Orinoco Belt production costs will be noticeably lower than Alberta’s oilsands.

Let’s place 1 trillion barrels of oil in context.

Global oil consumption is currently 35 billion barrels a year. Thus, the Orinoco Belt alone could satisfy 100% of global demand for almost 30 years!

As for the Orinoco field’s dollar value. World oil prices are currently hovering near $60 …do the math.

*

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

Featured image is from Radio Rebelde

Shishir Upadhyaya, a former Indian naval intelligence officer and one of RT’s newest columnists, is incorrect in recently writing that the latest Russian-Indian oil deal is an “unpleasant surprise for Washington” since it’s actually an “unpleasant surprise” for Tehran because the Islamic Republic is powerless to stop two of its closest economic partners from taking advantage of the US’ unilateral anti-Iranian sanctions to strengthen their energy ties with one another at its expense, which in no way goes against America’s “Indo-Pacific” strategy but actually complements this grand strategic vision in its own way.

***

First published on February 10, 2019

Michel Chossudovsky talks to Bonnie Faulkner on Guns and Butter.

We discuss the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, its history as an oil proxy nation since the discovery of oil in 1918, through successive dictatorships, coups d’etats, a fake nationalization of the oil industry, the Chavista movement and destabilization through financial warfare, with a special emphasis on Michel Chossudovsky’s personal experience there conducting a study on poverty in 1975 as Advisor to the Venezuelan Minister of Planning.

In the period prior to the Bolivarian Revolution, extending into the 1990s, the levels of poverty were abysmally high.

TRANSCRIPT

 This is Guns and Butter

Michel Chossudovsky: I think concretely also we understood that poverty was not the result of a scarcity of resources, because this was an oil-producing economy, but all the oil revenues were going into private hands. Of course, the big-oil U.S. was behind it. But what we understood was that it was the governments which were responsible for poverty.

I’m Bonnie Faulkner. Today on Guns and Butter, Michel Chossudovsky. Today’s show: Venezuela: From Oil Proxy to the Bolivarian Movement and Sabotage. Michel Chossudovsky is an economist and the Founder, Director and Editor of the Center for Research on Globalization, based in Montreal, Quebec. He is the author of 11 books including The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September Eleventh and America’s War on Terrorism. Today we discuss the economic and political crisis in Venezuela, its history as an oil proxy nation since the discovery of oil in 1918, through successive dictatorships, the Chavista movement and destabilization, with a special emphasis on Michel Chossudovsky’s personal experience there conducting a study on poverty as Advisor to the Minister of Planning.

Bonnie Faulkner: Michel Chossudovsky, welcome.

Michel Chossudovsky: I’m delighted again to be on Guns and Butter.

Bonnie Faulkner: The president of Venezuela’s National Assembly since February 5th, Juan Guaidó, declared that he has temporarily assumed presidential powers, promising to hold free elections and end Nicolas Maduro’s “dictatorship.” President Trump announced that the U.S. would recognize Juan Guaidó as the legitimate president of Venezuela. According to The Wall Street Journal, Vice President Mike Pence called Guaidó the night before his announcement and pledged that the Trump administration would support him. Trump refused to rule out military action. In your recent article, Regime Change and Speakers of the Legislature: Nancy Pelosi vs. Juan Guaidó, Self-proclaimed President of Venezuela, you intimate that Trump’s declaration might constitute a dangerous precedent for him. Why?

Michel Chossudovsky: Well, ironically, the position of Speaker of the National Assembly of Venezuela, which is held by Juan Guaidó, is in some regards comparable to that of the Speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives and, of course, the leader of the majority party, the Democrats, which is currently held by Nancy Pelosi. There are certain differences from the constitutional standpoint, but what President Trump has intimated in declaring that the Speaker of the National Assembly of Venezuela is the interim president of Venezuela is tantamount to saying, “Hey, Donald Trump, what about Nancy Pelosi?” Somebody might intimate, either a U.S. politician including perhaps even President Maduro of Venezuela, “We would like Nancy Pelosi to be the President of the United States, and then, of course, we’ll go to the UN Security Council to have it endorsed.”

That illustrates the ridicule of political discourse but also the shear fantasy of U.S. foreign policy, that they should provide legitimacy to a Speaker of the House because they don’t like the President. Well, I don’t like the president of the United States of America and a lot of people don’t like him, but do we want to have Nancy Pelosi as our interim president? That, in fact, is something which could evolve in the current context of confrontation between President Trump and the Democratic Party, which now controls the U.S. House of Representatives.

Bonnie Faulkner: It looks like the Democrats in Congress are also threatening President Maduro. The House Foreign Affairs Committee has tweeted out, “We refuse to recognize the legitimacy of Maduro’s presidency. That’s why members are joining to introduce legislation to support the people of Venezuela and hold the illegitimate president accountable for the crisis he created.” So this is a bipartisan effort to unseat Maduro.

Michel Chossudovsky: Precisely. It is a novelty in relation to regime change. We have military coups in Venezuela going back to the early 20th century – a whole bunch of military coups. We have color revolutions, which instigate protest movements. That is already ongoing in Venezuela. Then we have this new formula of intimating that we don’t like the President; have him replaced by the Speaker of the House. And that’s, of course, a very dangerous discourse because, as I mentioned, it could backlash onto President Trump himself.

Bonnie Faulkner: Venezuela’s crisis came before the UN Security Council on Saturday, but they took no action because there was no agreement. Russia and China backed Maduro but France, Britain, Spain and Germany said they would recognize Juan Guaidó as president unless Venezuela calls a new presidential election within eight days. So here we have European nations demanding that Venezuela hold another election. Did Nicolas Maduro win the presidency of Venezuela democratically or not?

Michel Chossudovsky: He won the presidency of Venezuela democratically with a large majority. Conversely, France’s President Macron also won the presidential election with a rather feeble majority and nobody is questioning Macron’s presidency. Well, in fact, some people are because we have the Yellow Vest movement throughout France. That doesn’t seem to be making the headlines anymore and people are endorsing President Macron.

Well, there are several issues. These European leaders don’t have the support of their respective populations. In Venezuela support for President Maduro is divided, but that’s I think something that happens in a large number of countries. It’s not any different. The opposition is controlling the National Assembly but nonetheless, President Maduro gets a majority of support of the Venezuelan population.

The fact of the matter is that all these leaders in Europe are, first of all, caving in to U.S. foreign policy; they are essentially behaving as U.S. proxies. At the same time, their behavior and management of the republics that they represent, not including the United Kingdom, which is also in a big mess – well, one might say, how can they get away with this? Under a constitutional democracy, how is it that they could actually support the United States in calling for the Speaker of the National Assembly of Venezuela to become president of the country? It’s an absurd proposition, and that this would then get to the United Nations Security Council is even more absurd.

What should get to the United Nations Security Council is the mode of interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign country through the financing of opposition groups, the financing of terrorists and so on who are involved in triggering the protest movement and so on. It’s an evolving situation. It has certain features resembling in fact the Euromaidan in Ukraine. And, of course, the end objective is to unseat the president.

Now, he has very strong grassroots support because the Bolivarian Revolution has indeed led to major changes in the country, major achievements, under very contradictory circumstances as well as divisions within the Bolivarian movement.

I have been going back and forth to Venezuela for a very long period since I started very early in my career when I became Advisor to the Minister of Planning in the Carlos Andrés Pérez government of the mid-‘70s. I know the country inside-out.

It’s a very complex process, and I think people have to understand first of all that Venezuela has the largest oil reserves worldwide – more than Saudi Arabia – both traditional crude as well as tar sands, which are extensive but also very easy to manage and produce compared to those of Canada, for instance. What is at stake there is the battle for oil.

Historically, Venezuela has been an oil economy from its inception in 1918 when oil was discovered in the Maracaibo Bay. Then you had a whole series of military dictators.

The most prominent was, of course, Juan Vicente Gómez, who was really a proxy of the United States and big oil.

So big oil has controlled this country from the early 20th century and it was only in the ‘90s with the Bolivarian Revolution that they actually started to repeal this control of big oil with the government of Chávez, which essentially started to implement some major changes and shifts in the nature of state management, but under very contradictory circumstances, which I guess we’ll be discussing.

Bonnie Faulkner: How did you first get involved in Venezuela? Did you first go there in 1975, and under what auspices?

Michel Chossudovsky: Actually, one of my close friends when I was studying at the University of Manchester in economics was a person named Gumersindo Rodriguez. Now, Gumersindo Rodriguez was a bit older than I. He was active in the MIR, Movimiento Izquierda Revolucionaria, which was a leftist faction of the Democratic Action Party, Acción Democratica. He had close links to one of the prominent presidents, which was Romulo Betancourt, (left) but at the same time he was – to some extent the MIR were considered as renegades.

He went off to study in the UK and then when he returned and a new Acción Democratica government was formed he became Minister of Planning. And then he called me up and we met in New York. He said, “Would you like to come down, etc., to Caracas to work for the Planning Ministry as my Advisor?” I accepted and I went down in mid-1975 during the school break at the University of Ottawa.

Initially he wanted me to write his speeches, so I started writing his speeches. After a while I said, “Listen, Gumersindo, I would like to do something more substantive and set up a research group on poverty in this country, which is a serious issue.” So he said, “Okay, Michel. Go ahead. Set up the group. You have all the resources you need.”

I set up a group of about half-a-dozen people with consultants at the university and so on. I was a young researcher. It was a very challenging project. Very carefully we looked at concepts of what defines the standard of living, in other words, nutrition, education, health, employment, income distribution, the environment, the access to running water, the levels of malnutrition. We defined what was called a minimum family income, and this was supported with very careful analysis at the statistical level. I had a professor in nutrition at the university who advised me on various aspects.

This report was done in three months. It was a big push. I had to go back to Ottawa to the university in September where I was teaching economics, so we managed to finish the first draft of the report in a matter of months. We came up with incredible results, that the abysmal levels of poverty, largely basing our analysis on national statistics, the various surveys which were available, household budget surveys, the census data and also the input of a large number of intellectuals and so on. But not so much field work because simply we didn’t really have the time to do that. But we came up with results.

I think concretely also we understood that poverty was not the result of a scarcity of resources, because this was an oil-producing economy, but all the oil revenues were going into private hands. Of course, the big-oil U.S. was behind it. But what we understood was that it was the governments which were responsible for poverty because they weren’t recycling the oil revenues to a societal project. They weren’t using the oil revenues to finance education, health and so on, and the levels of unemployment were exceedingly high and so on.

Now, this is the background of poverty which prevailed when the Bolivarian Revolution occurred. I should mention that much of our data was based on the 1970s, but the 1980s were far worse, because then you had what was called El Caracazo in 1989, which was a process of economic and social collapse. It was instigated by the IMF. It led to hyperinflation, so it was a sort of classical neo-liberal intervention with strong economic medicine [shock therapy] where the prices of consumer goods went sky high. That happened in 1989.

Now, what I think is very important to underscore is that Venezuela in the 1970s and ‘80s was a very poor country with a lot of resources, namely oil, and that oil went into private hands. That was despite the fact that the oil industry was nationalized in 1975. Now, I should mention that when I arrived at the Ministry of Planning in 1975, that coincided more or less with the nationalization of the oil industry. But it was a fake nationalization.

Bonnie Faulkner: How do you mean a fake nationalization?

Michel Chossudovsky: Well, legally it was nationalization, but it was ultimately understood that the big oil companies were complicit in this nationalization and that they would get all the benefits and so on. And then also when it was nationalized, of course, there were payments to the oil companies. It was implemented by the government of Carlos Andrés Pérez and there was no question of actually saying, “Well, we’ve got the oil; what are we going to do with it?” The pattern of appropriation continued, the corruption within the state apparatus and so on.

Ironically, I was asked to draft a text which was to be used for the nationalization speech, which was a very important document, because it defined, what are you doing to do with the oil. I drafted an analysis of this, essentially saying the following: that the oil revenues would be recycled to a societal project alleviating poverty. It was explained conceptually that the oil money now belongs to the country and not to the oil companies, and consequently this is the avenue that we choose.

There was a drafting committee and they contacted me. I knew all these people; they were on the same floor in the Ministry of Planning building. But then the nationalization speech was read and published, and it was simply political rhetoric. It didn’t have any substantive perspective as to how these oil revenues would be used to improve the livelihood of the Venezuelan people, and that is something which Chavez actually formulated many years later. The Bolivarian Revolution said, yes, the oil is going to improve the conditions of the Venezuelan population and particularly the people who are below the poverty line.

Now, I should mention and that’s so important, we undertook an estimate of undernourishment, people who do not meet minimum calorie requirements, and we arrived at figures in excess of 70% of the Venezuelan population. That was part of the report which I submitted to the government at the time. I contacted my friend [medical doctor] at the university who specialized in nutrition and said, “This seems to be horrendously high.” His response, “No. You’re absolutely on. Your estimates are on the whole conservative.” He had focused also on the impacts on child malnutrition and so on. We had estimates of that as well from secondary sources.

That was the picture which existed in the mid-70s in Venezuela, an exceedingly poor country with tremendous wealth. That tremendous wealth, of course, was being appropriated and the elites in Venezuela were, of course, complicit in the role of the oil companies and the United States. The Rockefellers were involved. I knew about this because I was also very close to the Minister of Planning.

Now, what happened to our report? That’s very important. We submitted the report. I went back to Canada and my colleagues submitted the report to the minister. In fact, what happened is the moment I had instructed my colleague to have copies made of the report and to circulate this report within the ministries. Immediately upon having the photocopied 20 or 30 copies of the report the driver of the Minister of Planning – he [the Minister] was a very powerful figure – came in and confiscated everything. They confiscated everything. Then the team was dismissed and then when I returned to Caracas in early ’76 I still had an office but I was all by myself and, in fact, I had absolutely no functions or activities assigned to me. My team had been dispersed. They were still there, we still spoke, but we were not working as a team anymore.

What has happened is, first, that report was confiscated by the Minister of Planning and then it was shelved by the Council of Ministers of the Carlos Andrés Pérez government. The Council of Ministers reviewed it and said, “No, we don’t want it.”

The reasons they didn’t want it wasn’t the figures on poverty; it was how we analyzed the role of the state.

The  state creates poverty.

Mind you, we have the same thing in the United States of America. The state creates poverty. Why? Because it spends more than $700 billion on so-called defense.

So we have that logic, but it was very clear that that kind of analysis could not go public. It couldn’t go public. It was only a couple of years later that I took the report and I brought it out as a book. It was published in 1978 and it became an immediate best seller. The first edition was sold out in nine days. It was adopted at the colleges and universities and high schools across Venezuela because it broke a myth. It broke the myth of what they call La Venezuela Miliónaria, that this was a rich country, sort of the Latin Saudi Arabia so to speak. But the social realities were otherwise.

Now when we look at what is happening in Venezuela today and where the U.S. policymakers say, “We want to come to the rescue of the people who have been impoverished,” this is a nonsensical statement. The history of Venezuela was a history of poverty right until Chavez becamec president. They retained that level of poverty and exclusion. Not to say that there aren’t very serious contradictions within the Bolivarian movement; that’s another issue.

I think that we have to assess what Venezuela was historically, starting with the dictatorships throughout – the last dictatorship was repealed in 1958. That was the dictatorship of Pérez Jiménez (left). But then you have a sort of bipartisan framework between what was called Acción Democratica, Democratic Action, and Copei, which were the Christian Democrats. It was a bipartisan structure very similar to that of the United States, going from one to the other and largely serving the interests of the elites rather than the broader population.

Bonnie Faulkner: You have said that Venezuela in 1918, basically, when oil was discovered, it became an oil colony. What was Venezuela like before oil was discovered? Do you have any idea?

Michel Chossudovsky: It was essentially an agrarian society, which was dominated by landlords. There were regional powers. What in Latin America are called los caudillos. In other words, these were essentially landlords and leaders in various regions of Venezuela, and it was largely an agrarian society producing coffee and cacao.

In fact, they would say, if somebody becomes a big landlord or a Caudillo, they would call him a Gran Cacao, which indicated that cacao (cocoa) was a – you could say that Venezuela was a cash crop economy, exporting coffee and cocoa to the Western markets, very similar to what we have in Central America, for instance.

Of course, it still had the legacy of Simon Bolivar in Caracas, an urban society which goes back to the Spanish colony, but it didn’t really have any particular momentum in terms of wealth formation until the emergence of oil in 1918. That is when U.S. big oil became involved in Venezuela, and it was essentially an oil colony of the United States, and a very important oil colony of the United States due to geography as well, because it’s not in the Middle East; it’s right there, very close to the United States.

So that was really ultimately the transition and that’s where, first of all, we saw more of the centralization of political power within the country and the development of an elite which were serving the interests of the oil companies.

Bonnie Faulkner: But then even before oil was discovered in 1918, Venezuela was still controlled by the elites. Was there crushing poverty then, as well?

Michel Chossudovsky: Well, there was certainly crushing poverty during that period, but what I’m suggesting there is that that crushing poverty was not alleviated with the discovery of oil. What happened is that the discovery of oil first of all created conditions of displacement of the agrarian economy. Agricultural production started to decline dramatically, and oil became essentially the sole industry in the country. There has been, or there was during the Bolivarian period under Chavez, concern that the rural economy had been more or less abandoned, and that was also the consequences of big oil.

Bonnie Faulkner: So then in 1992, Hugo Chavéz stages a coup d’état. Could you talk about Venezuela under Hugo Chavéz? Now, you’ve met him personally, haven’t you?

Michel Chossudovsky: Yes, I met him personally, rather briefly, when I attended the sessions of the Latin American Parliament. I think what was striking was that, first of all, he acknowledged the report which was published as a book entitled in Spanish, La Miseria en Venezuela, and he also intimated he would like me to get involved in an update of that – well, it wouldn’t be an update – a contemporary review of poverty, so that we could actually compare poverty in the 1970s to poverty in the early 2000s.

That proposal was discussed but it never really got off the ground. Had I been involved in doing a new poverty analysis, it would, of course, have been done in a very, very different way to what we did in the 1970s. But I still think that the analysis has to be made. The historical levels of poverty are there, and I had the opportunity of undertaking the study and releasing that information to the broader public in Venezuela.

As I mentioned, that destroyed a myth, the narrative that Venezuela in relation to other countries in Latin America was a rich country. It wasn’t a rich country. It was a country with tremendous wealth and a poor population with serious social divisions and high levels of inequality. That is what U.S. Foreign policy wants to restore. They want to restore Venezuela as a subordinate country with a poor population and elites that are aligned with the United States. That is the nature of the crisis which is ongoing today in Venezuela.

Bonnie Faulkner: Well, now, how would you assess the effect that Hugo Chavéz and his government had on Venezuela?

Michel Chossudovsky: This is a very complex process, because when Chavéz arrived to power initially, his first presidency was in 1999, and he became President in 1999 and then he continued again in 2007 until his death in 2013. The nature of the Venezuelan state apparatus was such that it was very difficult to start implementing reforms within the state apparatus. I knew that from the very beginning when I put together the team of people. I had a representative from the Ministry of Health and it turned out that she was sustaining essentially an elitist vision of health, and eventually I asked her to withdraw from the research group.

What Hugo Chavéz inherited was a structure of government which was very much still centered on the previous periods and required tremendous reform. You couldn’t simply go in and start instructing the officials to do this and that. There had to be a major reform of the state apparatus.

Now, what he did instead was to create projects which were parallel to the state system. Those were called the Misiones. They had also sort of grassroots. So there was a gradual process of reform of the state apparatus and at the same time there were activities which were grassroots which took place outside the realm let’s say of ministerial politics. They were geared towards literacy, education, health. They had tremendous support also from the Cuban doctors. In some regards, these were very successful undertakings.

I should mention from my own understanding is that there were serious divisions within the Bolivarian movement and I think also mistakes from the point of view as far as Chavez is concerned. From my standpoint, one of the biggest mistakes was to have, at an earlier period created, a United Socialist Party rather than a coalition. In other words, the intent of Chavéz was to create a political party which would be the United Socialist Party of Venezuela, of which he was also the leader, rather than create a coalition of parties which would gather different segments of Venezuelan society. So the thing became very polarized.

I should say there were divisions within the Chavista movement. There was also corruption within the Chavista movement. It was very difficult for the state to disassociate itself with the Venezuelan lobby groups, which were the rich families of Venezuela. But nonetheless, the results of this process were historically significant because first of all, the oil industry was already nationalized – well, it was nationalized by Carlos Andrés Pérez – but it was never really applied as a national process. And what Chavéz did was essentially to render this nationalization of petroleum as an active and key component in the recycling of revenue into the financing of social projects rather than into private hands. And that, of course, was ongoing. And the country had the resources to undertake these projects.

So that is the background. I should mention that – and that’s a separate issue – that there were already attempts to destabilize Chavéz from the presidency right from the outset, and it came as a result of the National Endowment for Democracy and its various actions in Venezuela in support of so-called opposition groups. I recall, again, and I should mention it, that in the 2012 elections, which Chavéz won, there was an attempt by various foundations, the NED but also Germany’s Hanns Seidel Foundation to support the opposition candidate. So there was direct interference in the electoral process.

Bonnie Faulkner: Were you saying that one of the ways that Hugo Chavéz tried to implement reform was not through reforming the government itself, but by creating a sort of a parallel structure. Is that what you were saying?

Michel Chossudovsky: Yes, that was certainly what occurred. Reforms were taking place within the state apparatus and the parallel structures were also there, and they were eventually linked up. But at the outset it was very difficult for the new government to come in and introduce major reforms in the state apparatus.

They then had a process of constitutional reform, which Chavéz implemented, and they created a constitutional assembly, which was the object of controversy. We’re dealing with a very complex process, because throughout his presidency up to his death there were conspiracies to destabilize the government, and there were people within the government who were playing a dirty game. I think that was clear. In fact, even to some extent Chavéz let that happen. There were contracts allocated with the Ministry of Public Works and so on. There were various cases of corruption within the Bolivarian government and there were serious problems regarding the structure of the state apparatus.

But it’s not to say that this was not known. But at the same time there was a grassroots movement. There was a process of democratization at the grassroots. I think that what was achieved was remarkable within a relatively short period of time. The historical levels of poverty were alleviated.

Bonnie Faulkner: It sounds like corruption played a very big part in Venezuela before Hugo Chavéz’s coup d’état and after his coup d’état when he got in charge. Many people are claiming that Venezuela’s economic collapse presently is linked to its socialist policies. What are Venezuela’s socialist policies and what do you make of this claim?

Michel Chossudovsky: I think that’s a little bit of a misnomer because, first of all, Venezuela was not a socialist economy. It was essentially a capitalist economy. What happened is that the government nationalized certain key industries. It created what were called the Communal Councils, it had the Misiones, which were largely focusing on issues of housing, healthcare and so on, but the economy was essentially a capitalist economy, a market economy. If you go to Caracas you see it. I think there was a socialist process which had been implemented but by no means was this a full-fledged socialist economy.

I think if we compare it to other Latin American countries, Venezuela in a sense would divorce itself from the so-called Washington consensus, namely the economic and social policies imposed by the Bretton Woods Institutions, e.g., World Bank, International Monetary Fund. It had its own structure for participatory democracy which were in some regards quite successful, particularly the Misiones.

In fact, the failures that we’re now seeing, rising consumer prices, hyperinflation, those are engineered. They’re engineered by manipulations of the foreign exchange market. We know this kind of mechanism because it’s what characterized the last months of the Chilean government of Salvador Allende in 1973 (left), where persistently the national currency was under attack leading to hyperinflation and so on and so forth. We might say that it’s part of the IMF, World Bank, Federal Reserve “remedy,” or action. It’s very easy for Wall Street to destabilize currencies. It’s been applied in many, many countries.

I recall when I was in Peru in the early ‘90s when President Alberto Fujimori came to power that in a single day the price of fuel went up 30 times, and that was following the IMF measures. Well, in the case of Venezuela, the manipulation is ongoing. The exchange rate is manipulated, and it is triggering poverty. There’s no question about it, that these acts of sabotage and financial warfare are creating abysmal poverty.

But that was not the result of a government policy; it was the result of intervention in the currency markets by speculators, and this is something which is well known and understood. If you want to destroy a country, you destroy its currency.

I should mention that I’ve had meetings with people at the Central Bank – not recently, but when I went to Venezuela some seven or eight years ago, I had those meetings at the Central Bank. The Central Bank of Venezuela did not really implement significant changes in the management of monetary policy which would avert this kind of action. But what I can say quite rightly is that if there’s poverty today in Venezuela it is not due to the Bolivarian Revolution; it is due to the fact that there are measures of sabotage and financial warfare which have been introduced with the view to undermining the Bolivarian missions in health, housing and so on simply by manipulating the currency markets, and that generates hyperinflation.

Bonnie Faulkner: How exactly does Wall Street attack a nation’s currency? What about the currency in Venezuela? Is it what you have referred to as a dollarized economy or not?

Michel Chossudovsky: I think it is a dollarized economy. That even prevailed before Chavez arrived to power. In other words, there’s a dual currency system. There’s the bolivar on the one hand, the national currency, and the dollar, and there’s a black market. And when there’s a black market which is unregulated – they never really manage to regulate the black market – when it’s unregulated well that’s what happens. People save in dollars because the national currency is very unstable and so on.

I think there were failures on the part of the Central Bank of Venezuela to ultimately come to terms with this issue. One of the reasons for that is that many of the people who were there, whom I knew, were of the old guard. They’re trained in monetary policy and macroeconomics and there was a need for some very careful reforms within the monetary system and mechanisms to protect the currency. That was fundamental.

Now, there’s also another element which played a role and that was the collapse of the oil market. That’s clear. The fact that the oil prices are exceedingly low backlashes on oil-producing countries, but that also affected other countries.

Bonnie Faulkner: And that oil collapse was manipulated, correct?

Michel Chossudovsky: The oil market collapse was manipulated, yes. I think the oil collapse was manipulated. There are mechanisms – I don’t want to get into that because it’s rather technical – but there are mechanisms of pushing prices of commodities up or down through speculative actions on the commodity exchanges. It’s well known and understood. There are ways of pushing currencies up and down through speculative actions. We know that from the 1997 Asian crisis, how the South Korean won collapsed. Those mechanisms are there. In economic jargon we call that naked short selling. When you introduce a naked short selling operation against a currency, it collapses, but there are ways for governments to actually avoid this short selling of their currencies. They have to regulate the currency market and unfortunately, in Venezuela that did not take place. Some proposals were put forth but they were never effective in protecting the currency.

Bonnie Faulkner: I’ve read that Venezuela is in debt to the tune of 60 billion. Does that debt have to be repaid in dollars?

Michel Chossudovsky: I presume that is a dollar debt, yes. It’s an external debt.

Bonnie Faulkner: How would they earn the dollars – by selling the oil?

Michel Chossudovsky: They’d sell the oil. I remind you that 60 billion dollars of external debt is not unduly high when you have oil revenues, but I expect that that debt was also accumulated with the collapse of the oil market. But, of course, yes, there are debt servicing obligations to repay that debt – of course, if there are problems of debt repayment then the creditors can implement measures which are detrimental to the Venezuelan economy and they’re doing it. There are a whole series of acts of sabotage. Just recently we see that the Bank of England has said, no, you can’t repatriate the gold that you’ve deposited in the Bank of England. They had gold deposited in the Bank of England which belongs to Venezuela and the response of the Bank of England said no, you can’t have it back. That’s another act of sabotage.

Bonnie Faulkner: It looks like Citgo, Venezuela’s main foreign energy asset, could be a target of the overthrow of Maduro, with the money from oil exports being sent to Guaidó instead of the Maduro government. I read that John Bolton was setting that out as a priority.

Michel Chossudovsky: Yeah, well, this is something which could have devastating consequences. But I don’t see it. First of all, there are institutional mechanisms as to how Guaidó would actually take control of these revenues. He’s not a government; he’s an individual. But what I think that what they’re doing now is to engineer mechanisms which will further destabilize the Venezuelan economy and also trigger some form of regime change.

Now, there’s another thing I’d like to mention, which I think is very important. What has been the response to this crisis? I saw recently a statement by a number of progressive authors and it essentially says that there should be mediation or negotiation between both sides. I think that that is something which is rather much misunderstood. There cannot be mediation between the government of Venezuela and a proxy for U.S. intelligence, which is Guaidó. In other words, what is being proposed is essentially to have a negotiated settlement between both sides, between the interim president, Juan Guaidó and the President of Venezuela, Maduro. In fact, Maduro has fallen for that proposal and has had I think some discussions with Guaidó or said he’s open to having conversations with him.

I think it should be obvious that this proposal is redundant and contradictory, because the leader of the National Assembly Juan Guaidó is a U.S. proxy. He’s an instrument of a foreign government who will then be negotiating on behalf of Washington.

Now, there’s always been negotiations within the Bolivarian process with opposition groups. They’ve always negotiated and discussed. But here, we’re dealing with something which is quite specific. You can’t negotiate with Juan Guaidó. He’s a U.S. proxy. And you can’t negotiate with the U.S. government. Well, there are internal divisions within Venezuela, but the President of Venezuela cannot negotiate with individuals who are committed to overthrowing the constitutionally elected President and replacing him with the Speaker of the House.

I think in Western countries we have to certainly take a stance and simply reject this opening by our governments, which are supporting the Speaker of the House and portraying him as an interim president of Venezuela. That’s the stance that we have to take.

There are certainly avenues of debate and negotiation within Venezuela, but it is very difficult for that to occur with a country which is under attack, which is the result of sabotage, financial warfare in the currency markets, threats to confiscate the revenues occurring from their oil exports, freezing the gold reserves in the Bank of England or freezing the accounts of assets overseas and so on. That is what has to stop and then there may be a period of transition where the country can restore its activities of normal government.

Bonnie Faulkner: Michel Chossudovsky, thank you.

Michel Chossudovsky: Thank you. Delighted to be on the program. Our thoughts today are with the people of Venezuela.

I’ve been speaking with Michel Chossudovsky. Today’s show has been: Venezuela: From Oil Proxy to the Bolivarian Movement and Sabotage.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is the Founder, Director and Editor of the Center for Research on Globalization, based in Montreal, Quebec.

The Global Research website, globalresearch.ca, publishes news articles, commentary, background research and analysis.

Michel Chossudovsky is the author of eleven books including The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order and War and Globalization: The Truth Behind September Eleventh. Visit globalresearch.ca.

Guns and Butter is produced by Bonnie Faulkner, Yarrow Mahko and Tony Rango. Visit us at gunsandbutter.org to listen to past programs, comment on shows, or join our email list to receive our newsletter that includes recent shows and updates. Email us at [email protected].

Follow us on Twitter @gandbradio 

First published on January 25, 2019

The Latin American nation of Venezuela faces dangerous destabilization with the United States and its allies having recognized opposition figure Juan Guaido as “president” and declaring actual Venezuelan president – Nicolas Maduro – no longer recognized.

In response, President Maduro has demanded US diplomatic personnel to leave the country.

Protests and counter-protests have reportedly taken to the streets as both sides attempt to seize the psychological and political initiative.

Why Venezuela? 

According to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – the impetus for Washington’s sudden interest in Venezuela is the suffering of the Venezuelan people.

Reuters in their article titled, “Pompeo calls on Venezuela’s Maduro to step down, urges support from military,” would claim:

In a statement, Pompeo said Washington would support opposition leader Juan Guaido as he establishes a transitional government and prepares the country for elections. 

“The Venezuelan people have suffered long enough under Nicolas Maduro’s disastrous dictatorship,” Pompeo said. “We call on Maduro to step aside in favor of a legitimate leader reflecting the will of the Venezuelan people.”  

In truth, Washington’s motivation is the fact that according to The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) – Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves on Earth – more than Saudi Arabia and accounting for nearly a quarter of all OPEC production.

The US doesn’t necessarily need this oil in terms of energy – but in terms of maintaining a US-led unipolar international order – controlling or crippling nations with large amounts of hydrocarbons prevents the emergence of a multipolar world nations across the developing world seek, led by reemerging global power – Russia – and newly emerging global power – China.

A Venezuela governed by a stable political order able to produce wealth from its massive oil reserves – and dedicated to a multipolar alternative to Washington’s current international order is intolerable for Wall Street and Washington and explains the vast amount of time, energy, money, and resources the US has invested in destabilizing and overthrowing first President Hugo Chavez – with a coup attempt in 2002 – and now President Maduro.

US Meddling in Venezuela

Even the Western media has admitted that the US has long meddled in Venezuela’s internal affairs by funding the opposition.

The UK Independent in a recent article titled, “Venezuela military chief declares loyalty to Maduro and warns US not to intervene,” would admit (emphasis added):

The US has a long history of interfering with democratically elected governments in Latin America and in Venezuela it has sought to weaken the elected governments of both Mr Maduro and Mr Chavez. 

Some of the effort has been in distributing funds to opposition groups through organisations such as the National Endowment for Democracy, while some has been in the form of simple propaganda. 

Mark Weisbrot, co-director of the Centre for Economic and Policy Research in Washington, said that for the past 20 years it had been US policy to seek a change of government in Caracas. Mr Trump’s recognition of Mr Guaido was the most obvious effort to undermine the government.

The US National Endowment for Democracy’s (NED) own current webpage admits to extensively interfering in every imaginable aspect of Venezuela’s internal political affairs with funds directed at:

• Building Strategic Capacity for Local Democratic Actors
• Cohesive Strategic Communications
• Defending Human Rights Victims
• Developing Tools for Agile Communication
• Empowering Citizens through Local and National Policy Dialogue
• Facilitating Humanitarian Aid Relief
• Formulating a Comprehensive Public Policy Reform Package
• Fostering Scenario Planning and Strategic Analysis
• Fostering Small Business Enterprise in Defense of Democracy and Free Markets
• Improving Democratic Governance in Venezuela
• Improving Local Democratic Governance
• Leadership Empowerment and Socio-Political Participation
• Monitoring Human Rights Conditions
• Monitoring the Human Rights Situation
• Promoting Access to Justice and Public Services
• Promoting Checks and Balances
• Promoting Citizen Journalism
• Promoting Citizen Participation and Freedom of Expression
• Promoting Democratic Governance
• Promoting Democratic Values
• Promoting Dialogue and Reconciliation
• Promoting Freedom of Association
• Promoting Freedom of Expression and Access to Information
• Promoting Human Rights
• Promoting Independent Journalism
• Promoting Political Engagement and Advocacy
• Promoting the Rule of Law

At one point during US regime change efforts, NED-funded front, Sumate, would even organize a recall referendum against President Chavez – which he won. The Washington Post in a 2006 article titled, “Chavez Government Probes U.S. Funding,” would admit:

[Sumate] organized a recall referendum in 2004 that Chavez won and also is a vociferous critic of the government and the electoral system.

The article also admits that:

USAID which hired the Maryland-based company Development Alternatives Inc. to administer the grants has declined to identify many Venezuelan recipients, saying they could be intimidated or prosecuted.

While the nature of the US government’s extensive meddling in Venezuela remains intentionally covert – admissions surrounding Sumate’s activities illustrate how even entire referendums are organized through the use of US money and guided by US directives.

Maria Corina Machado, founder of Sumate, an alleged Venezuelan election monitoring group, funded by the US National Endowment for Democracy (NED), meeting with US President George Bush who presided over the failed 2002 coup attempt seeking to oust President Hugo Chavez.

NED and other organizations operating in parallel – including convicted financial criminal George Soros’ Open Society Foundations – seek to entirely overwrite Venezuelan institutions, governance, and law, replacing it with an obedient US-sponsored client regime and system of administration.

US support is not confined to broad efforts to build up the opposition – but also specific efforts to aid senior opposition leaders.

A leaked 2004 US State Department document titled, “Status of Capriles and Sumate Cases,” made it clear that NED funding was ongoing even then, and that the US State Department was required to provide aid to NED-funded front Sumate being prosecuted for the very obvious treason they were engaged in. It also illustrated US State Department support for senior opposition leader Henrique Capriles Radonski.

Capriles – along with Leopoldo Lopez – served as mentors to current opposition leader Juan Guaido who is now openly being offered some $20 million by the US State Department in aid.

US Efforts to Cripple Venezuela’s Economy 

Reuters in an article titled, “Pompeo urges regional bloc to support Venezuela’s Guaido,” would claim:

[Pompeo] pledged $20 million towards humanitarian aid for Venezuela, where economic collapse, hyperinflation, and food and medicine shortages have sparked an exodus of millions of people.

The paradoxical nature of this supposed aid is that the United States had deliberately caused this economic collapse, hyperinflation, and food and medicine shortages in the first place – specifically to undermine and destabilize first President Chavez’ government and now Maduro’s.

The US Treasury Department aimed sanctions specifically at (PDF) Venezuela’s central bank and Petroleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PdVSA) – Venezuela’s state-owned oil and gas company to restrict financing and to block transfers – while the US and allied OPEC members acted in concert to lower global oil prices – not only to cripple Venezuela’s oil-based economy – but those of other US adversaries including Iran and Russia.

While the Western media repeatedly claims US sanctions have been reserved for Venezuelan officials only, the Washington Post itself would admit in an article titled, “Venezuela’s oil gives Maduro little leverage against the United States,” that (emphasis added):

“Seventy-five percent of cash-generating oil exports are coming here,” said Scott Modell, the managing director of Rapidan Energy and a former CIA officer in Latin America. Though Venezuela exports considerable amounts of crude oil to major diplomatic allies like Russia and China, almost all of the profits are used to service preexisting debts. “They don’t get cash for that, and they are desperate for cash,” Modell said. 

The article also stated:

Citgo’s ownership has long been a source of tension between the United States and Venezuela. In August 2017, the Trump administration signed an executive order that blocked the repatriation of dividends, and sanctions on Venezuelan officials have placed Citgo in an increasingly fraught position. 

Just under half of PDVSA’s shares in the company were used as collateral for a $1.5 billion loan the Venezuelan government took out from Russian energy giant Rosneft in 2016. Foreign creditors have suggested they may try to acquire parts of Citgo to service their debts. 

Modell said that there is debate in the United States about whether the U.S. government could seize the company itself. Some opposed this, arguing that Citgo should be an asset available for a post-Maduro Venezuela that could help provide a “petroeconomic recovery” for the ailing country. 

It is clear that significant efforts have been made to cripple Venezuela’s ability to profit from its oil with even the US media and those it interviews admitting the US is unsure of just how far to go – realizing that once the damaging sanctions are reversed, remaining, intact infrastructure will allow Venezuela to “provide a “petroeconomic recover” for the ailing country.”

In other instances of economic warfare, large sums of Venezuelan gold have been withheld in the UK which refuses to return it to the Venezuelan government, The Times reports.

Efforts within Venezuela through US-funded opposition groups, focus on hording certain essential goods creating artificial shortages while armed gangs hired by wealthy business and land owners ravage state-backed farmers and industries to further exasperate prices, supply, and demand.

A Washington Post article titled, “Venezuela’s paradox: People are hungry, but farmers can’t feed them,” refers to the armed gangs merely as “criminals” but links to Venezuela Analysis which gives a fuller but contradictory version of events.

Venezuela Analysis’ article, “Venezuelan Farmers on Disputed Land Say They Have No Intention of Vacating,” depicts efforts by farmers to use land reclaimed from wealthy owners to produce agricultural goods, but who are targeted by hired mercenaries, attacked and driven off. In other cases, wealthy oligarchs are able to secure concessions from courts to consolidate control over farmlands used to produce food.

The Venezuelan government has been increasingly resorting to price controls and emergency measures to compensate in the face of overwhelming economic warfare but with varied success.

Economic destabilization is a key component in US regime change efforts – witnessed in all of Washington’s past and current confrontations including against Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, North Korea, and Russia for an array of alleged offenses centered around “human rights” and fabricated threats to US national security.

Conversely – nations like Saudi Arabia whom even former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admitted is “providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region,” and undeniably among the worst human rights abusers on Earth – has escaped not only sanctions, but even the most basic condemnation for its serial violations of international law and rights abuses.

This stark contrast helps illustrate the true, politically-motivated nature of US sanctions arrayed against targeted nations with but the thinnest rhetorical veneer applied to obtain public support.

Where even powerful nations like Russia and China must work for years to create alternatives to US-dollar domination across global finances – a nation like Venezuela already destabilized from decades of US-fomented chaos stands to suffer greatly in the face of sanctions and economic warfare – now coupled with another overt US-backed coup attempt.

Imperialism, Not “Socialism”  

Venezuela sits on an ocean of proven oil reserves. It has been openly slated for regime change by the US and has been for years with documented evidence proving the current opposition vying for power is funded by Washington, for Washington’s, not Venezuela’s benefit.

Sanctions and economic warfare have been aimed at Venezuela just as the US has done with the numerous other nations it has overthrown, invaded, and otherwise destroyed – or those that it is trying to overthrow and destroy.

There is no missing puzzle piece that makes Venezuela an exception to what is another textbook case of US-backed regime change.

Attempts to claim Venezuela’s crisis was precipitated by “socialism” – even if one is able to ignore the voluminous amounts of evidence proving US subversion has instead – still doesn’t add up.

China is also socialist – communist in fact – with a high degree of central planning and nationalized industry. It possesses the largest high-speed rail network on Earth, has a space program with the ability to launch people into orbit, and has the world’s second largest economy.

Conversely, the US hasn’t a single mile of high-speed rail, currently pays the Russian Federation to launch its astronauts into orbit, and has thoroughly squandered its place as largest global economy in pursuit of aspirations toward unrealized global domination.

There is clearly more that contributes to a nation’s success or failure than being “socialist” or “capitalist” – whatever either term even really means. For Venezuela, its failures are a direct and clear result of US imperialism. And only through exposing and rolling back US meddling, can Venezuela’s fortunes be reversed.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above. 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.

Tony Cartalucci is 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.

All images in this article are from the author unless otherwise stated

This was originally published in 2018.

In World history, there are many actors who deserved a title of “Butcher” but there are only two persons whom the Western historians, journalists or political analysts pasted this label as the official mark of their participation in world history – General Ratko Mladić (the “Butcher of Bosnia”) and Slobodan Milošević (the “Balkan Butcher”). In the following paragraphs it is going to be noticed more candidates for the title of “Butcher” as a small contribution to the proper interpretation and understanding of global history.

The Three Men of Slashing

This year it is the 73rd anniversary of the end of the WWII – the bloodiest and most horrible war ever fought in the human history. The war that caused creation of the UNO in 1945 in order to protect world from similar events in the future – a pan-global political-security organization which first issued legal act was a Charter of the UN which inspired the 1948 Geneva Conventions’ definition of genocide.

The Nüremberg and Tokyo Trials were organized as “The Last Battles” for justice as the first ever global trials for the war criminals and mass murderers including and the top-hierarchy statesmen and politicians. However, 73 years after WWII the crucial moral question still needs a satisfactory answer:

Have all the WWII war criminals faced justice at the Nüremberg and Tokyo Trials? Or at least those who did not escape from public life after the war.

Here we will present only one of those cases from WWII which has to be characterized as the genocide followed by the personalities directly responsible for it: The 1945 Dresden Massacre.

At the Old Market in the east German city of Dresden, following allied bombings 13 February 1945

The 1945 Dresden Raid was surely one of the most destructive air-raids during WWII as well as in the history of massive military destructions and the war crimes against humanity too.[1]

The main and most destructive air-raid was during the night of February 13^th−14^th, by the British Bomber Command when 805 bomber military crafts attacked the city of Dresden which up to that time was protected from similar attacks primarily for two reasons:

1. The city was of an extreme pan-European cultural and historical importance as one of the most beautiful “open-air museum” places in Europe and probably the city with the most beautiful Baroque architectural inheritance in the world.[2]
2. The lack of the city’s geostrategic, economic and military importance.

The main air raid was followed by three more similar raids in daylight but now by the U.S. 8^th Air Force. The Allied (in fact, the U.K.−U.S.) Supreme Commander-In-Chief the U.S. a five-star General Dwight D. Eisenhower (1890−1969) was anxious to link the Allied forces with the very advancing Soviet Red Army in the South Germany. For that reason, Dresden was suddenly considered of strategic importance as a communication center, at least according to Eisenhower.

However, at that time Dresden was known as a city that was overcrowded by up to 500,000 German refugees from the east. For the U.K.−U.S. Supreme Command Headquarters it was clear that any massive air-bombing of the city would result in a massive loss of life, a human catastrophe. That was not primarily only on Eisenhower’s conscience to decide to launch massive airstrikes on Dresden or not as we have not to forget that Eisenhower was only a military commander (a strateg in Greek) but not a politician.

Undoubtedly, the Dresden question in January−February 1945 was of a political and human nature not only of military one. Therefore, together with the Supreme Commander-In-Chief of the Allied Forces a direct moral and human responsibility for the 1945 Dresden Massacre was on the British PM Winston Churchill (1874−1965) and the U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882−1945) too.

These three men, however, finally agreed that inevitably very high casualties in Dresden might in the end, nevertheless, help to shorten the war, that from a technical point of view was true. During one night and one day of the raids there were over 30,000 buildings destroyed and the numbers of those who were killed in the bombing and the ensuing firestorm are still in dispute among the historians as the estimations go up to 140,000. Here it has to be noticed that if this highest estimation number is going to be true it means that during the 1945 Dresden Massacre were killed more people than in Hiroshima case from August 1945 (around 100,000 that was one third out of total Hiroshima’s pre-bombing population).

The “Bomber Harris” and the “Atomic Harry”

One person with direct responsibility for transforming Dresden into the open-air crematorium, as the city was bombed by forbidden flammable bombs for massive destructions (Saddam Hussein was attacked in 2003 by the NATO’s alliance under the alleged and finally false accusation to possess exactly such weapons – WMD) is the “Bomber Harris” – a commander of the British Royal Air-Forces during the Dresden Raid. The “Bomber Harris” was in fact Arthur Travers Harris (1892−1984; image on the left), a Head of the British Bomber Command in 1942−1945. He was born in Cheltenham, joined the British Royal Flying Corps in 1915, before fighting as a solder in the South-West Africa. He became a Commander of the Fifth Group from 1939 till 1942 when he became the Head of this Group (Bomber Command). The point is that it was exactly Arthur Travers Harris who stubbornly required and defending the massive area bombing of Germany under the idea that such practice will bring the total destruction of Germany (including and civil settlements) that would finally force Germany to surrender without involving of the Allied forces into the full-scale overland military invasion. The crucial point is that this “Bomber Harry’s” strategy received a full support by the British PM Winston Churchill who, therefore, became a politician who blessed and legitimized massive aerial massacres in the legal form of genocide as it was described in the post-WWII Charter of the UNO and other international documents on protection of human rights (for instance, the 1949 Geneva Conventions). Nevertheless, there were the “Bomber Harry”, Dwight Eisenhower, Franklin D. Roosevelt and Winston Churchill who transformed the bombing of selected targets as transport systems, industrial areas or oil refineries into the massive aerial destruction of the whole urban settlements with transforming them into the open-air crematoriums like it was done for the first time in history with Dresden – a city with a rare historical heritage (today the pre-war Dresden would be on the UNESCO list of protected places of the world’s heritage) but flattened during one night and one day.[3]

This successful practice became very soon followed by the Allied forces in the cases of other German cities,[4] like Würtzburg – a tightly packed medieval housing city that exploded in a firestorm in March 1945 in one night with 90% of destroyed city-space which had no strategic importance.[5] However, a strategic bombing of the urban settlements in the WWII reached its peak by destructions of  Hiroshima and Nagasaki under the order by the U.S. President (Democrat) Harry Truman – the “Atomic Harry” (1884−1972) who authorized the dropping of the atomic bombs over these two Japanese cities in order to end the war against Japan without further loss of the U.S. military troops, insisting on unconditional surrender of Japan.[6]

“The Last Battle for Justice” and the “Butchers of Dresden”

Surely, one of the most obvious results of the WWII was “its unparalleled destructiveness. It was most visible in the devastated cities of Germany and Japan, where mass air bombing, one of the major innovations of the Second World War, proved much more costly to life and buildings than had been the bombing of Spanish cities in the Spanish civil war”.[7] For that and other reasons, we believe that many Allied military and civil top decision-making personalities from the WWII had to face justice at the Nüremberg and Tokyo Trials together with Hitler, Eichmann, Pavelić and many others. However, it is old truth that the winners are writing history and re-writing historiography. Therefore, instead to see Dwight Eisenhower, Winston Churchill, Franklin D. Roosevelt (FDR), Harry Truman or Arthur Travers Harris at the Nüremberg and Tokyo Trials’ courtrooms as indicted on such charges as crimes against humanity and genocide as were the German Nazi defendants, who included the NSDAP’s officials and high-ranking military officers along with the German industrialists, lawmen and doctors, we are even 73 years after the WWII reading and learning politically whitewashed and embellished biographies of those war criminals who destroyed Dresden, Hiroshima or Nagasaki as national heroes, freedom fighters and democracy protectors.[8] For instance, in any official biography of Winston Churchill is not written that he is responsible for the ethnic cleansing of the German civilians in 1945 but we know that the British PM clearly promised to the Poles to get after the war ethnically cleansed territory from the Germans.[9]

If the Nüremberg Trial, 1945−1949 was “The Last Battle” for justice,[10] then it was incomplete. Moreover, two the most ardent killers of Dresden – Churchill and Eisenhower were granted after the war by the second premiership and double-term presidentship, respectively, in their countries.

There were many (Western) butchers in world history but only small fish (from the Balkans) are officially marked by such label.

*

This article was originally published by Oriental Review.

Vladislav B. Satirovic is Founder & Director of the Private Research Centre “The Global Politics” (www.global-politics.eu), Ovsishte, Serbia. Personal web platform: www.global-politics.eu/sotirovic. Contact: [email protected]

Notes

[1] On this issue, see more in [L. B. Kennett, A History of Strategic Bombing: From the First Hot-AirBaloons to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Scribner, 1982].

[2] On Dresden’s history and architecture, see [W. Hädecke, Dresden: Eine Geschichte von Glanz, Katastrophe und Aufbruch, Carl Hanser Verlag, München−Vien, 2006; J. Vetter (ed.), Beautiful Dresden, Ljubljana: MKT Print, 2007].

[3] On the case of firebombing of Dresden, see more in [P. Addison, J. A. Crang (eds.), Firestorm. The Bombing of Dresden, 1945, Ivan R. Dee, 2006; M. D. Bruhl, Firestorm: Allied Airpower and the Destruction of Dresden, New York: Random House, 2006; D. Irving, Apocalypse 1945: The Destruction of Dresden, Focal Point Publications, 2007; F. Taylor, Dresden. Tuesday, February 13, 1945, HarpenCollins e-books, 2009; Charler River Editors, The Firebombing of Dresden: The History and Legacy of the Allies’ Most Controversial Attack on Germany, CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014].

[4] On this issue, see more in [J. Friedrich, The Bombing of Germany 1940−1945, New York: Columbia University Press, 2006; R. S. Hansen, Fire and Fury: The Allied Bombing of Germany, 1942−1945, New York: Penguin Group/New American Library, 2009].

[5] On Würtzburg’s case, see [H. Knell, To Destroy a City: Strategic Bombing and its Human Consequences in World War II, Cambridge, MA: Da Capo Press/Pireus Books Group, 2003].

[6] On this issue, see more in [C. C. Crane, Bombs, Cities, & Civilians: American Airpower Strategy in World War II, Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 1993; A. C. Grayling, Among the Dead Cities: The History and Moral Legacy of the WWII Bombing of Civilians in Germany and Japan, New York: Walker & Company, 2007].

[7] J. M. Roberts, The New Penguin History of the World, Fourth Edition, London: Allien Lane an imprint of the Penguin Press, 2002, p. 965.

[8] See, for instance [R. Dallek, Harry S. Truman, New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC, 2008; J. E. Smith, FDR, New York: Random House, 2008; S. E. Ambrose, The Supreme Commander: The War Years of Dwight D. Eisenhover, New York: Anchor Books A Division of Random House, Inc., 2012; A. D. Donald, Citizen Soldier: A Life of Harry S. Truman, New York: Basic Books, 2012; W. Manchester, P. Reid, The Last Lion: Winston Spencer Churchill: Defender of the Realm, 1940−1965, New York: Penguin Random House Company, 2013; B. Johnson, The Churchil Factor: How One Man Made History, London: Hodder & Stoughton Ltd, 2014; B. Harper, Roosevelt, New York City, Inc., 2014; P. Johnson, Eisenhower: A Life, New York: Viking/Penguin Group, 2014].

[9] T. Snyder, Kruvinos Žemės. Europa tarp Hitlerio ir Stalino, Vilnius: Tyto alba, 2011, p. 348 (original title: T. Snyder, Bloodlands. Europe Between Hitler and Stalin, New York: Basic Books, 2010).

[10] D. Irving, Nuremberg: The Last Battle, World War II Books, 1996.

All images in this article are from the author.

The Israeli government blockade on Palestinian agricultural exports through Jordan on Sunday illustrates the Apartheid character of Israeli rule over the Palestinians. Palestinian trucks loaded with produce were stopped by quickly-erected Israeli blast walls and forbidden to head into Jordan.

The Palestine-Jordan trade in commodities such as vegetables, fruits, olives, olive oil, and dates is worth some $100 million a year.

The step was ordered by Israeli minister of defense Naftali Bennett, who in that capacity is the chief of the Occupation Army ruling Palestine. His rationale is that the Palestinians on Feb. 2 ceased importing goods from Israel, so this measure is payback.

The argument fails on a number of grounds, however. Most important, the Palestinian West Bank is under Israeli military occupation, and therefore is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907.

Here is what Geneva says, and although the situations envisaged are not exactly the same we are facing today, the sort of thing being prohibited is clear:

Art. 51:

“Every such person shall, so far as possible, be kept in his usual place of employment. Workers shall be paid a fair wage and the work shall be proportionate to their physical and intellectual capacities. The legislation in force in the occupied country concerning working conditions, and safeguards as regards, in particular, such matters as wages, hours of work, equipment, preliminary training and compensation for occupational accidents and diseases, shall be applicable to the protected persons assigned to the work referred to in this Article.”

Art. 52

All measures aiming at creating unemployment or at restricting the opportunities offered to workers in an occupied territory, in order to induce them to work for the Occupying Power, are prohibited.Art.

Art. 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

By blockading Palestinian exports through Jordan, Bennett as the Occupying authority is preventing the occupied population from earning a fair wage and creating unemployment for the purpose of coercing occupied civilians into doing his political will. Inasmuch as the produce will rot if not exported, he is also destroying their personal property.

These are all violations of international law, and since the International Criminal Court is now looking into whether Israeli officials are guilty of war crimes, Apartheid and other crimes specified in the 2002 Rome statute, the ICC should definitely look into Bennett.

In fact, the Rome Statute (8.2.a) defines as a war crime the grave violation of the Geneva Conventions.

Further, 7.1.j and 7.2.h specify the crime of Apartheid as a “crime against humanity.” 7.2.h defines it this way:

“The crime of apartheid” means inhumane acts of a character similar to those referred to in paragraph 1, committed in the context of an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by one racial group over any other racial group or groups and committed with the intention of maintaining that regime…”

Not letting Palestinians export their produce through Jordan is definitely an institutionalized regime of systematic oppression and domination by the Israelis over the Palestinians, and this blockade is being enacted with the intention of maintaining this regime.

Bennett has been among those outraged that anyone would boycott Israel for its human rights abuses, but now he is imposing a boycott on the Palestinians, forcibly preventing them from doing business with Jordan.

Which brings us to another issue. The Palestinians are within their rights not to buy from Israel. But Bennett is imposing a third party blockade on the Palestinians. This measure is not proportionate and it can only be implemented because Israel has all the power and the Palestinians are powerless and under Bennett’s jackboot.

That Israel can at will stop Palestinian-Jordanian trade demonstrates conclusively that Palestine is not a free agent but is rather an Occupied territory, and that all the power rests in the hands of the Occupation military, which is to say in Bennett’s hands.

Why, we might ask, were the Geneva Conventions adopted by the world community in 1949? They were aimed at prohibiting the excesses of the Axis during World War II.

For instance, during the German occupation of the Ukraine in WW II, 6 to 7 million persons died, mostly of hunger, because of German policy. Cormac Ó Gráda writes, “brutal requisitioning in Nazi-occupied areas resulted in about 4 million deaths.” About 3 million of these, he estimates, were in Ukraine alone, amounting to 8% of the Ukrainian population.

It is bad to contravene the Geneva Conventions because if all United Nations members did that, we’d be back to the German occupation of the Ukraine on a global scale. Israel is guilty of massive violations of international law in the Palestinian West Bank and Gaza, and this block on their exports is one more. The Kushner Apartheid Plan would not end any of these abuses but would cement them forever in place.

*

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

In January, the Israeli daily newspaper, Haaretz, ran an article, “Secret Israeli Document Reveals Plan to Keep Arabs Off Their Lands.” I found the piece unsettling for several reasons.

Given the headline, at first I thought the story was going to be about Israel’s policies in the West Bank where Israel’s military administration has, since the beginning of the occupation, set aside large areas of the territories as “closed” to Palestinians, presumably for reasons of “security”. Other areas were designated “green spaces”, which, while appearing to be an environmental designation, simply meant that Palestinians could not build on or otherwise make use of these lands.

Over time, both the “closed” and the “green spaces” gave way to settlements, since that had been Israel’s intention in the first place. For example, the massive Israeli settlement called Har Homa was built on a hill of Palestinian-owned land between Bethlehem and Jerusalem, called Jabal Abul Ghnaim. Early on, Israel zoned the jabal “a green space”. Their concern was not to keep it “green;” it was to keep Palestinian owners from using the land until Israel was ready to build a Jewish-only settlement on that same location.

As I began to read the Haaretz story, however, I realised that it was not about Israel’s current practices in the territories occupied in 1967. Rather, it was about the Israeli defence establishment’s decades-long effort to bury or suppress documentation of the very same land-grab practices that the Israelis had implemented during the first few years of their state.

Haaretz, to its credit, has been running quite a few of these historical pieces exposing the outrageous policies Israel used to “ethnically cleanse” Palestinians from their land in order to insure that the new state was “more Jewish and less Arab”. As I have read each of these articles, I must say that my reactions have ranged from anger to indignation to vindication.

I have felt angry and indignant because 40 years ago, when I first wrote about these same practices in a little book titled, “Palestinians: The Invisible Victims”, I was denounced by major pro-Israel and American Jewish organisations for my anti-Israel views. Back then, these mainstream groups were operating in much the same way as today’s shadowy Canary Mission or Campus Watch. They created defamatory and threatening background briefs on Arab American writers and activists. And they would use these briefs to pressure colleges, radio, and TV programmes to disinvite us. They accused us distorting history, fabricating lies, and being motivated by an anti-Jewish animus. Of course, we were doing none of the above. We were merely reporting on the history of what Israel had done and was still doing to remove Palestinians from their lands and to deny them their rights.

When I now read the very same history in an Israeli newspaper, I cannot help think of the price so many Arab American intellectuals and activists were forced to pay for simply telling the truth. So, yes, I am angry and indignant. At the same time, I feel somewhat vindicated that despite the heavy-handed efforts of major American Jewish groups to silence our voices, the truth is finally coming out.

One final aspect of the article that I found intriguing was the effort expended and the means used by Israeli authorities to bury the historical record that would prove the grave injustices they committed in establishing their state. According to the Haaretz article, this record includes evidence of “the looting and destruction of Arab villages during the Independence War [and]…evidence of acts of expulsion and testimony about camps set up for captives”.

What the article makes clear is that the “cover up” was not only designed to hide the truth, but to provide Israeli propagandists the opportunity to disingenuously “question” whether these thing even happened or to simply deny that they happened at all and then discredit those who said otherwise. As one official quoted in the article says about the imperative of hiding any documentation of what Israel had done to the Palestinians, “if someone writes that the horse is black, if the horse is not outside the barn, then he cannot ever prove that it is really black”. The lesson: if you hide the records or destroy, no historian can prove it ever happened.

The Israeli plan in a nutshell: first, whitewash history denying all the claims made about the repressive policies put in place; then denounce anyone who refuses to accept this fictional account of “history”; and finally, hide from the public as much of the real history is possible, so that it becomes difficult to counter the “whitewashed” fictive historical narrative.

In the end, what is especially disturbing about this Israeli practice, is that it is still their modus operandi. They continue to dispossess Palestinians of their lands using the same tactics which they used to “Judaise the Galilee”. In the early 1950’s, Israelis used the Emergency Defence Regulations they inherited from the British to declare any Palestinian area “closed”. They did so “as a means to control the “state’s lands…until their permanent status could be regularised and …Jewish settlement could begin in formerly Arab areas”.

This is exactly what the Israelis have done throughout the West Bank with “closed” and “green zones”. And precisely what the Trump “peace plan” has done is formalise, in Israel’s favour, “the permanent status” of the seized Palestinian lands.

For decades, Israel’s apologists hid their intent and the evidence of their crimes. The truth is now coming out. And yes, those of us who have been telling this story can feel vindicated. But we can also feel angry and indignant, and deeply concerned about the future.

*

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 writer is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.

The Allied destruction of Dresden wasn’t the biggest or deadliest aerial bombardment of a German city during World War II. But it is by far the most infamous, largely due to Kurt Vonnegut’s anti-war masterpiece Slaughterhouse-Five. February 13 marks the 75th anniversary of what Vonnegut, who survived the bombing as a prisoner-of-war, called “carnage unfathomable.”

Butcher Harris and British Terror Bombing

By early 1945 the once-unstoppable German army was in retreat on all fronts. Its desperate last-ditch counteroffensives against the rapidly advancing Allied forces in the west—the Battle of the Bulge and Operation Baseplate—had failed, while in the east the Red Army rolled into German territory during the first Silesian Offensive. The time was right, British commanders argued, for large-scale aerial attacks on cities in eastern Germany that would aid the Soviet offensive and crush German morale.

Long before this time the British had implemented a policy of what they called “terror bombing,” or the total deliberate destruction of German cities, as a method of breaking the will of the German people to continue fighting. Waves of Royal Air Force (RAF) warplanes bombed densely populated cities under cover of night, abandoning any pretense of precision targeting and causing widespread, indiscriminate death and destruction. The chief of the RAF Bomber Command, Arthur “Bomber” Harris, declared his desire to visit “the horrors of fire” on the German people. Once Harris was pulled over by a British police officer for speeding in his black Bentley. “You could have killed someone,” the constable admonished him. “Young man,” the commander retorted, “I kill thousands of people every night.”

He wasn’t lying. Although the British government insisted that it was never its policy to target civilians, the truth was something altogether different. As Harris said after Luftwaffe bombers blitzed British cities, since the Germans had “sown the wind” they should “reap the whirlwind.” In 1943, Harris wrote that “the aim is the destruction of German cities, the killing of German workers and the disruption of civilized life throughout Germany” while “downplaying the obliteration of German cities and their inhabitants.”

“Bomber” was indeed a fitting nickname for Harris, but his men had another one for him — “Butcher.” He lived up to the moniker. Around 50 German cities were subjected to horrific aerial bombardment, often with incendiary bombs designed to spark massive firestorms and maximize death, destruction and terror. In July 1943, some 45,000 civilians including 21,000 women and 8,000 children died during more than a week of relentless bombing in Hamburg. In February 1945 hundreds of Lancaster bombers leveled Pforzheim, killing nearly a third of the population. The list went on and on.

‘Fire, Only Fire’

Harris and other RAF commanders proposed simultaneous attacks on Berlin, Chemnitz, Dresden and Leipzig in the winter of 1945. Dresden, Germany’s seventh-largest city, was the largest urban area in the Third Reich that hadn’t yet been bombed. It had been spared from Allied attack because it was an important cultural city — known as the Jewel Box for its celebrated architecture — with relatively few significant military targets. It was a city of refuge, with 19 hospitals and more than a million refugees fleeing the horrors of the Red Army advance encamped there. They were drawn by Dresden’s reputation as a safe haven from the flames of war that had engulfed most of the rest of Germany, a reputation reinforced by the presence of some 25,000 Allied prisoners of war held in and around the city.

View from Dresden city hall after the February 13-15, 1945 Allied bombing. (Photo: Deutsch Fotohek/Wikimedia Commons)

The first RAF warplanes approached the city after 9:30 p.m. on February 13. Some 200,000 incendiary bombs along with 500 tons of high-explosive munitions including two-ton “blockbuster” bombs were dropped during the initial raids, sparking thousands of fires that could be seen from 500 miles (800 km) away in the air. The heat generated by the inferno melted human flesh, turning many victims into piles of goop. Men, women, children, the sick, the elderly, refugees and Allied POWs and even the animals in the city zoo — all were incinerated together. The 2700º Fahrenheit (1480° C) firestorm sucked all the oxygen from the air; many thousands suffocated to death. Lothar Metzger, who was nine years old at the time, later recalled:

 About 9:30 p.m. the alarm was given. We children knew that sound and… hurried downstairs into our cellar… My older sister and I carried my baby twin sisters, my mother carried a little suitcase and the bottles with milk for our babies. On the radio we heard with great horror the news: “Attention, a great air raid will come over our town!” … Some minutes later we heard a horrible noise — the bombers. There were nonstop explosions. Our cellar was filled with fire and smoke and was damaged, the lights went out and wounded people shouted dreadfully. In great fear we struggled to leave this cellar…

We did not recognize our street any more. Fire, only fire wherever we looked… It was beyond belief, worse than the blackest nightmare. So many people were horribly burnt and injured. It became more and more difficult to breathe… Inconceivable panic. Dead and dying people were trampled upon… cremated adults shrunk to the size of small children, pieces of arms and legs, dead people, whole families burnt to death, burning people ran to and fro, burnt coaches filled with civilian refugees, dead rescuers and soldiers, many were calling and looking for their children and families, and fire everywhere, everywhere fire, and all the time the hot wind of the firestorm threw people back into the burning houses they were trying to escape from… The twins had disappeared… we never saw my two baby sisters again.

The following morning, a wave of more than 300 United States Army Air Force Boeing B-17 Flying Fortress bombers pounded the survivors with over 700 tons of explosives. On February 15, US warplanes bombed the city’s southeastern suburbs, as well as the nearby towns of Meissen and Prina. By the time it was all over, some 25,000 men, women and children were dead and nearly 90 percent of the homes in central Dresden were obliterated. Many of the targets that could have been considered of military interest — a few factories, the railway system — remained relatively unscathed. Nazi military trains were chugging through the city again within three days of the bombing.

‘Are We Beasts?’

British and American officials insisted Dresden was chosen as a target because of its industrial and transportation infrastructure. This is only partially true. On the eve of the bombing, the Red Army was a mere 80 miles (130 km) from Dresden and the US and Britain, knowing that Europe would be carved up between themselves and the Soviets after the war, wanted to impress Stalin with a massive show of force. An RAF memo to airmen the night of the attack explained that “the intentions of the attack are to hit the enemy where he will feel it most” and “to show the Russians when they arrive what Bomber Command can do.” A few months later, the United States would wage the world’s first and only nuclear war, obliterating two Japanese cities and killing hundreds of thousands of their people, in what was partly yet another bid to shock and awe the Soviets.

The Dresden bombing shocked the world’s conscience. Churchill, not known for outpourings of compassion, was appalled by the savagery of the attack, calling it “an act of terror and wanton destruction.” After seeing photographs of the devastated city, the prime minister asked, “Are we beasts? Are we taking this too far?” In a top secret memo dated March 28, 1945, he wrote:

It seems to me that the moment has come when the question of bombing of German cities simply for the sake of increasing the terror, though under other pretexts, should be reviewed. Otherwise we shall come into control of an utterly ruined land.

Others defended the bombing. “Butcher” Harris acknowledged that “the destruction of so large and splendid a city at this late stage of the war was considered unnecessary even by a good many people who admit that our earlier attacks were fully justified.” However, he asserted that terror bombing would “shorten the war and preserve the lives of Allied soldiers.” Harris infamously added: “I do not personally regard the whole of the remaining cities of Germany as worth the bones of one British grenadier.”

As many as 600,000 German civilians were killed by Allied bombing over the course of the war. Many of these victims died during the war’s final months, when Germany’s defeat was certain and such slaughter served no valid military purpose. And while the Nazis may have started the air war by bombing British cities, killing 14,000 civilians during the Blitz, the whirlwind they reaped—to paraphrase Harris—was so grossly disproportionate that it would forever stain the Allies’ self-righteous claims of having waged the “last good war.”

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.

Brett Wilkins is a San Francisco-based freelance author and editor-at-large for US news at Digital Journal. His work, which focuses on issues of war and peace and human rights, is archived at www.brettwilkins.com.

Featured image: View from Dresden city hall after the February 13-15, 1945 Allied bombing. (Photo: Deutsch Fotohek/Wikimedia Commons)

Once upon a time Gerry Adams, the leader of Ireland’s nationalist party, Sinn Fein, could not be heard speaking on the BBC. He was branded a terrorist and his voice was dubbed. How times have changed. Now his party, led by Mary Lou McDonald, has stormed to victory in the Irish elections. Having won the largest percentage of the vote at 24%, Sinn Fein has ended the decades long domination of Fine Gael and Fianna Fail in what was effectively a two-party political system.

McDonald now seeks to form a government with other left-wing Irish parties and  although she doesn’t expect to form a coalition with Fine Gael or Fianna Fail, she would still participate in talks with representatives of the parties:

“I also have consistently said that I will talk to and listen to everybody, I think that is what grown-ups do and that is what democracy demands.”

Fianna Fail’s leader, Michael Martin, said however that there were ‘significant incompatibilities’ to working with Sinn Fein. His party, along with Fine Gael have cited Sinn Fein’s previous links to the Irish Republican Army (IRA) – the paramilitary group – as a reason for not working with them. However Mary Lou McDonald has said it is “not sustainable” for either party leader to rule out talks with Sinn Fein. Given the sizeable chunk of the Irish population that voted for her party, you can see she has a fair point.

The Taioseach, Leo Varadkar, has now been forced to admit that Ireland has a three-party system.  It may be a marginal win, and one which will force Sinn Fein into a coalition, but it is nevertheless a highly significant turn of events. Although the party won due to its left-wing domestic agenda and promises to combat poverty and rising homelessness, it cannot be ignored that this win is part of a broader, Europe-wide trend. Nationalism is on the rise across Europe, call it populism if you will, but people are increasingly voting for parties which put the nation state first over further European integration. Centrist parties are failing to compete with those offering a nationalist, eurosceptic agenda.

People don’t like to be dictated to. The arguably authoritarian decision by state broadcaster RTE not to include Mary Lou Mcdonald in their leaders’ debate quite possibly only generated more support for her party. It was reported that prior to the election Sinn Fein sent the broadcaster a legal letter asking it to reverse its decision. The Irish establishment will now have to catch up with the reality that Sinn Fein is now an equal player in the political landscape, and a force to be reckoned with.

The nationalist vibe in the air has now awoken the idea of Irish unity. A poll conducted earlier in 2019 demonstrated that two thirds of Irish people are now supportive of Irish reunification. Of 3000 people questioned, 65% said they were in favour of northern and southern Ireland becoming one nation again. Brexit, which has brought with it a surge in English nationalism, along with a Westminster government increasingly detached from the reality of the everyday struggles of working people, has encouraged more people north and south of the Irish border to rethink their stance on a topic few dared to broach in the past due to the violent conflict between nationalists and unionists. Under the Good Friday Agreement, it is indeed possible for Northern Ireland to secede the United Kingdom if a referendum result were to decide this.

Sinn Fein’s stance on the EU is not entirely clear-cut, but the win could be interpreted as a victory for Euroscepticism. The party is against further European integration, campaigned for a ‘No’ vote in the Irish referendum on joining the European Economic Community in 1972 and criticised the proposal of a European Constitution in 2002.  Although it did support Britain remaining in the EU in the run-up to the 2016 EU referendum, it has criticised the European Union in the past for its policies of neoliberalism. When it comes to post-Brexit trade talks with the UK, the new Irish government with Sinn Fein at the helm is likely to take a tougher stance.

In addition, it’s likely that under Mary Lou McDonald’s leadership, we will see a referendum on Irish unity. If the outcome is for unification, it will put more pressure on a UK government  currently facing a real threat from growing Scottish nationalism. As Irish and Scottish nationalist movements gain popularity, the United Kingdom cannot be taken for granted any longer. As elections continue to demonstrate, the status quo is under threat and it’s becoming increasingly possible that we will see the dissolution of the United Kingdom within our lifetimes.

*

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.

Johanna Ross is a journalist based in Edinburgh, Scotland.

Featured image is from InfoBrics

Kudos to the 1941 W.C. Fields comedy film “Never Give a Sucker an Even Break” for the inspiration. Well, this certainly does fit with what is transpiring now in our American Empire.

This writer lives in an area I have always labeled as Death Valley USA, this Daytona Beach area. For the most part it is a place of low political and cultural sophistication. As with most areas of low repute there are lots of us who are ‘exceptions to this rule’.

Yet, so many of those who live here or visit here are what old W.C. Fields would call “Suckers”. The month of February is NASCAR month in Daytona.

We have that infamous Daytona 500 race that draws lots of Trump and rightwing loving folks to our doorstep. Of course, we have our own natives with  lots of Northern transplants in the mix singing the mantra of ‘Making America Great Again’.

In addition to those infamous Trump stickers on the many SUVs and pickup trucks, we have the seemingly countless license plates celebrating either the Marines or Army (not too many Navy or Air Force ones though). Do any of these people realize that, contrary to the right wing rhetoric,

WE ARE NOT AT WAR!? The last time we were really ‘At War’ was December 1941. All the rest of them were propaganda spins that, sadly, so many suckers kept falling for. Well, the Bush SR. and Bush Jr/Cheney gangs got away with this fraud, and theen Mr. ‘Hope and Change’ signed on, and of course Mr. President with the orange hair and tan continues the magic trick.

So, many of the aforementioned NASCAR fans and gung ho license plate carrying warriors are getting that fat tax break. You know, perhaps $ 900 a year, while the super rich and corporate hacks get upwards of tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars each! Meanwhile, the right wing will continue to cut away at Medicaid and even Medicare

So, that white haired senior citizen who was driving an old pickup truck in front of me  with his ‘Marines’ license plate and Trump sticker had better beware. Why? Well, he looks like he may be in line for going into a Nursing home in the not too distant future. With those Medicaid cuts happening he may not even be able to get placed in one!

Or, until that day comes, he will most likely have to go deeper into his pockets for medications, because his Medicare will be stricter on what is covered, etc.

What really both angers and saddens this writer is the whole topic of what the empire’s stooges (in both major parties) like to call ‘Defense Spending’. No, it is simply ‘Military Spending’ and it has been slowly bankrupting our nation to the tune of over 50% of our federal taxes.

Now, those Trump loving and Gung HO Marines & Army lovers applaud the fact that Trump and the Swamp, along with the majority of Democrats in Congress, just increased the spending!

So, while our towns and cities are teetering on insolvency, along with our states, more money is NOT going to help them fiscally. Instead, it is going to subsidize the 1000+ foreign bases, overkill weapons systems and overall deployment of our military personnel to places they have NO business (and had NO business) being in!

Our cherished ‘Safety Net’ is being torn apart with this insanity and the suckers still think THEY are the patriots!

The real patriots are we folks who do NOT wish to send our young soldiers to all those places overseas to either kill or be killed for strictly the purposes of this Military Industrial Empire!

*

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 written in February 2018, but sadly, fits even better today.

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected]

Leaving aside the content of the spectacular, embellished account that became Spartacus, Kirk Douglas, whose life ticked over into a century and a few years, left his own distinct mark on US cultural politics.  At the very least, he managed to fashion a spear to direct through the Hollywood blacklist, an infamous compilation of the supposedly unpatriotic naughties in the film business who had sympathies, proven or otherwise, with communism.  The justified question, however, is how significant his role actually was.  Celebrities and thespians often assume a heft they do not have, a significance they lack.

What was certain was that Hollywood was pullulating with its own host of Red Baiters and the sort that Gore Vidal called American Sissies, all keen to do their bit for the House Un-American Activities Committee.  John Wayne, an old John Bircher, tended to take the lead in that regard, seeing the film industry as a patriotic preserve that did not need any Commie contaminant.   

Douglas recalled the chilling effect of the Cold War as it iced writers and actors in a 2015 interview.  His co-star in Detective Story (1951), Lee Grant, was refused work for twelve years after refusing “to testify against her husband before the House Un-American Activities Committee.”

The case of Dalton Trumbo’s ostracising was one that particularly exercised Douglas.  HUAC had eyed him as a notable enough threat (he had been a member of the Communist Party in the 1940s) to require scrubbing from the industry.  He went into pseudonymous territory, scripting Roman Holiday and The Brave One, winning an Oscar for the latter under the name Robert Rich. Along with nine other writers and directors, he made up the Hollywood Ten, jailed for contempt of Congress in 1950 for refusing to collude in the collective hysteria of political cleansing. 

When the time came for the release of Spartacus, Douglas, having assumed the role of both protagonist of the film and its direction, insisted that Trumbo’s name appear in the credits.  The act was both testament to the exaggerated quality of protest inherent in film, and the strength of illusions in the Dream Factory.  The masquerade,” concluded Douglas, “was over.”  Despite being told that placing Trumbo in prime position on the credits would terminate his career, “the blacklist was broken.” 

Thespians are in the business of stretching the record, and while Douglas, in his own way, made an impression, it was hardly a protest of profound radicalism.  Sizeable pebbles were fashioned, but they remained pebbles.  There was room for some daring.  Besides, Otto Preminger, who directed Exodus, was saddled with a less than negligible contribution against the ban, a point noted in the New York Times, opining in a January 20, 1960 piece that his acknowledgment of Trumbo’s role was “the first open defiance by a producer-director of Hollywood’s ‘blacklist’.”  Exodus was released in December; Spartacus had already been showing since October.

Trumbo’s widow, Cleo, certainly felt that the compass was out of kilter on the point of contributions.  In 1991, when the Writers Guild of America invited her to attend its annual awards dinner, she feared witnessing the presentation of the Robert F. Meltzer Award to Kirk Douglas as the sole saboteur of the blacklist.  At the invitation, she wrote back with a degree of curtness: “It is important to remember it was Otto Preminger who first announced that Dalton Trumbo’s name would appear on his film, Exodus…  This observation is not meant to diminish Mr Douglas’ actions, for what he did required courage, but merely to put them in perspective”. 

Cleo went on to suggest that, had her husband still been living to witness this, he would have thought “it unconscionable that Otto Preminger would be ignored and only Kirk Douglas honoured by the Guild for his contribution to destroy the blacklist.  I am also certain that he would not attend a ceremony which sanctioned such a distortion of actual events.”  She did not attend the event. 

As she subsequently reiterated in 2002 in a note to the Los Angeles Times, having expressed being “deeply disturbed” by a letter from Jack Valenti, long-time president of the Motion Picture Association of America, it was all a question of balanced agency; “no single person can be credited with breaking the blacklist”.  More, she argued, should be attributed to the daring of the scribes themselves.  “For more than 12 years these men and women continued to write without credit at a fraction of what they had earned before.” They wrote polemics pleading their cause, issued pamphlets, filed lawsuits.  “By the time Trumbo’s name appeared on Spartacus and Exodus the ground had been well prepared by the ceaseless efforts of blacklisted writers.” 

In 2012, Trumbo’s daughter Mitzi also weighed in with a corrective in Salon, assembling her mother’s previously directed barbs in an attempt to take some of the polish and shine off Douglas’ claims.  One point of irritation stood out: the bombastic assertions made by Douglas in his book I am Spartacus! Making a Film, Breaking the Blacklist, leaving a record that “has not only inflated his role” but left “incidents that did not happen.”  Mitzi went to work on Douglas, claiming that Trumbo did not lunch with Douglas at the Universal studio commissary, nor attend a screening in disguise.  Nor did that doyen of British cinema, Laurence Olivier, ever dine at the Trumbo household. “He has also asserted a brand-new claim,” she wrote sourly, “that he, not my father, wrote the iconic ‘I am Spartacus’ scene from the film.”   

Memories are imperfect repositories, but there is something to be said about those of actors being particularly susceptible.  The actor, after all, is essentially a dissimulator of reality.  Posterity supplies the siren call, and the inventive pen follows.  In the case of Douglas, his role in overturning a sordid episode in US cinematic history was not inconsiderable, but nor was it earth shattering.

*

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]

Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership envisages the supercontinent peacefully coming together in the shared interests of peace, stability, and development, brought about by Moscow’s “balancing” strategy in recent years which was first practiced in the Mideast region, one of the most important areas of the world for the success of this hemispheric construct.

It’s hard to walk across the University of Toronto (U of T) campus without your eye catching the grand, pale-bricked building that sits parallel to the greenery of Queen’s Park. It is even harder to find a U of T student who has not witnessed or participated in a protest on the front lawn of the same building. The Ontario Legislative Building is home to our province’s Legislative Assembly and it hosts the government that has repeatedly told teachers, students, and parents that primary and secondary education warrants cuts to funding instead of investments.

In March 2019, the Doug Ford government announced a series of cuts to education across the province. Outrage broke out across Ontario, leaving educators, parents, and students concerned for the future of Ontario’s plan in education. The Ford government has cut programs and services, capped wages, increased classroom sizes, introduced mandatory e-learning, and plans to eliminate thousands of teaching positions while it cuts support programs for the most vulnerable students across the province. After months of failed negotiations and bargaining between Ontario’s teachers’ unions and the government, education unions across Ontario stepped forward with overwhelming numbers of support from their members in favour of strike action. During December and beginning the week of January 20th, a series of walkouts took place among elementary and secondary schools across Ontario.

Hurting the Education System

Teachers and education workers are furious at the provincial government’s announced cuts and have good reason to be. The implementation of the Ford government’s changes will cause harm to our province’s education system and will substantially injure students’ potential in the classroom. The Ford government is looking toward education as a solution to fix the provincial budget, but fails to recognize that it will be operating at the detriment of students. Under the proposed cuts, class size averages in Grades 9 through 12 are expected to increase to a maximum of 28 students. Even if the government actually follows through on its proposal to reduce average sizes to 25 – something by no means certain – teachers’ and education workers’ efforts to provide engaging learning conditions and adequate support for individual student needs will still be hobbled. The increase in class sizes, ultimately means the loss of teaching positions across the province, leaving thousands of teachers unemployed.

In advance of this, the government plans to cap teachers’ wage increases to 1 per cent, removing the right for education workers to negotiate their pay without interference. This speaks to how little the Ford government values the work of educators in the public sector. Moving forward, the proposed withdrawal of services for students with special needs and mental health needs chokes off student potential while jeopardizing their future success. The provincial government claims this plan is set to “build an education system for success.” It sounds like quite the opposite.

After more than two decades, every teachers’ union in the province will take part in job action involving work-to-rule and rotating strikes. This means elementary and secondary students will be out of school for an indeterminate number of days, leaving parents of young children scrambling to find childcare. While writing this, I can’t help but think what kind of message this sends to our society. How do students feel, knowing that their education is being jeopardized due to the provincial government’s inability to listen to their needs? How do parents feel, knowing that their government has left their children home for the day? How do teachers and education workers feel, knowing that their career is unworthy of government advocacy?

Teachers Stand United

With no agreement on the negotiating table the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario’s (ETFO) 83,000 members are walking the picket lines twice a week. In a recent press release, ETFO president Sam Hammond said, “We have no choice but to commence rotating strikes,” as a way of “forcing the government to get serious about negotiations and the future of public education.”

This week, alone ETFO members will stage rotating strikes every day across the province with one province-wide walkout on Tuesday. Secondary school educators belonging to Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation (OSSTF) will be striking at 9 boards across the province on Thursday. English Catholic teachers across the province are stepping up their work-to-rule, refusing extra work beyond scheduled teaching and supervision duties. Twelve thousand members of the Association des Enseignants Franco-Ontariens (AEFO) will walk off the job this coming Thursday.

Concerned parents and guardians with young children have taken matters into their own hands to resist the Ford government’s cuts to public education – organizations such as Ontario Parent Action Network demonstrate their fellowship with educators across Ontario by setting up solidarity camps for parents who may have trouble finding accommodations for childcare when school is closed. As tensions continue to rise across the province, strike action remains the only viable way to pressure a tentative agreement, even if it means compromising taxpayer’s daily schedules.

As a student with generations of educators in my family, I have come to understand, first-hand, the implications of cuts to education and the repercussions of voting for a government which fails to see education as an imperative and worthy part of our province’s future. The Ford government’s changes to education are unwanted guests, and we will not stand for it. Ontario’s education does not need cuts. It needs a government that is willing to invest in encouraging the minds of tomorrow and a premier who is brave enough to lead our education system forward, not sabotage it.

For further information and updates on the Ontario Teachers’ Strikes, visit knowmore.ca.

*

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 first published on the School Magazine website.

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

Trump Budget Gives Top Priority to New Generation of Nuclear Weapons

By Patrick Martin, February 11, 2020

The most ominous feature of the new budget document issued Monday by the Trump administration is the prominent place given to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including so-called low-yield weapons, smaller than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are widely regarded as more likely to actually be used in combat.

The document calls for nearly $50 billion to be devoted to nuclear modernization, including $29 billion from the Pentagon budget, and $19.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a unit of the Department of Energy which operates the actual production of nuclear warheads, as well as some of the primary research.

Democrats Ignore Trump’s Real Violations

By Rep. Ron Paul, February 11, 2020

Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump? They can’t make a good case for abuse of power because they don’t really oppose Trump’s most egregious abuses of power. Congress, with a few exceptions, strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex.

Keep War, Environmental Degradation and Profit Out of Space

By Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers, February 11, 2020

The 21st Century nuclear arms and developing outer space arms races, which began under Obama and are increasing under Trump, are going to be something the world has never seen before. They are a bonanza for weapons makers, the Pentagon budget and capitalists in space. They will create a less secure world, a greater wealth divide, a tattered safety net and new, more dangerous forms of war.

The Siren Call of a ‘System Leader’

By Pepe Escobar, February 11, 2020

A considerable spectrum of the liberal West takes the American interpretation of what civilization consists of to be something like an immutable law of nature. But what if this interpretation is on the verge of an irreparable breakdown?

Michael Vlahos has argued that the US is not a mere nation-state but a “system leader” – “a civilizational power like Rome, Byzantium, and the Ottoman Empire.” And, we should add, China – which he did not mention. The system leader is “a universalistic identity framework tied to a state. This vantage is helpful because the United States clearly owns this identity framework today.”

Recession Engineered by the Creditors: Seven Years of Demanding the Impossible in Greece

By Yiannis Mouzakis, February 11, 2020

In a recent presentation of his book, Laid Low, which examines the International Monetary Fund’s role in the eurozone crisis, author and journalist Paul Blustein disclosed a memo dated May 4, 2010, from the IMF’s then head of research Olivier Blanchard, to Poul Thomsen, who headed the Greek mission at the time.

In his missive, Blanchard warned that the cumulative fiscal adjustment of 16 percentage points being demanded of Greece in such a short period of time and with such a high level of frontloading had never been achieved before.

Coronavirus Is Becoming a Western Excuse for Sinophobia and “China-Bashing”

By Lucas Leiroz de Almeida, February 10, 2020

Coronavirus is, undoubtedly, one of the greatest epidemic tragedies of our times. Hundreds of dead people and thousands of ill ones are the proof of it. For any person with good faith and interested in the well-being of people, it is a reason of preoccupation and compassion towards the victims. However, this good intention with people does not seem to be observed in some western countries.

The misinformation transmitted by western media is causing in common people a big confusion, making them think that every Chinese is infected by the mortal virus, which is creating a great wave of hate against everyone and everything that belongs to China. Clearly, this epidemic is being used by western potencies as a mean of hybrid war.

O Presidente turco, Tayyip Erdogan, disse num discurso, em 5 de Fevereiro, ao Partido Islâmico do AKP que, se as tropas sírias ou os aviões russos atacarem a Al Qaeda, na província de Idlib, na Síria, a Turquia estará em guerra contra a Síria e contra a Rússia. Se isso acontecer, a Turquia, como membro da aliança da NATO, poderá convocar forças americanas e aliadas para se juntarem à guerra da Turquia contra a Síria e contra a Rússia, naquela parte da Síria.

Aqui está uma reportagem sobre este assunto, da Rede Voltaire da Síria:

—

https://www.voltairenet.org/article209153.html

A Turquia ameaça a Síria e indirectamente a Rússia

Ao intervir, em 5 de Fevereiro de 2020, perante o grupo parlamentar do AKP, o Presidente turco, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, declarou: 

[Na versão original francesa da Rede Voltaire: Erdoğan a désigné sous l’expression « éléments amis » les membres des milices turkmènes formant l’« Armée nationale syrienne » (Jaych al-Watani as-Suri) et ceux d’Al-Qaeda ayant fait alliance avec des groupes locaux pour former l’Organisation de Libération du Levant (Hayat Tahrir al-Cham).]

“Todo e qualquer ataque, seja terrestre ou aéreo, contra as nossas tropas ou contra os elementos amigos com os quais trabalhamos, receberá uma resposta sem nenhum aviso, seja qual for a sua origem. Ninguém se pode opor a que exerçamos o nosso direito de fazê-lo, dada a incapacidade de garantir a segurança das nossas tropas em Idlib.”

A Turquia, cujo exército invadiu o norte da Síria, fez eliminar pelos “elementos amigos” quatro oficiais russos do FSB em Aleppo, em 1 de Fevereiro e envolveu-se num confronto mortal, em 2 e 3 de Fevereiro, com o exército sírio em Idleb. Recebeu o apoio dos Estados Unidos, em 4 de Fevereiro, dia em que o Presidente turco intensificou as provocações contra a Rússia, na Ucrânia.

O Presidente Erdoğan designa como “elementos amigos”, as milícias turquemenas ligadas aos Lobos Cinzentos e aos jihadistas da Al-Qaeda.

—

A organização Lobos Cinzentos da Turquia é fascista, nacionalista, da extrema-direita e xenófoba, defendendo uma Turquia que seja, apenas, por e para os turcos étnicos e expulsando todos os outros. Estão afiliadas a esse grupo, na Síria, as Brigadas Turcomanas da Síria. É uma organização etnicamente terrorista. A Al-Qaeda e sua afiliada síria al-Nusra ou Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, são organizações terroristas extremistas sunitas muçulmanas. Os Estados Unidos têm apoiado a Al-Qaeda na Síria, a fim de derrubar e substituir o governo secular da Síria por um governo fundamentalista-sunita; e, portanto, se a Turquia convidar os Estados Unidos de volta à Síria para defender a Al Qaeda, na Síria, e os fascistas aliados dos turcos, na Síria, os Estados Unidos estariam do lado da Al-Qaeda e também do lado dos fascistas turcos, na província de Idlib, na Síria, contra a Rússia e contra a Síria.

A declaração de Erdogan, em 5 de Fevereiro também pode ser vista e ouvida num vídeo do TRT World da Turquia, intitulado “Erdogan adverte as forças do regime sírio para se retirarem das ocupações de Idlib”, que é acompanhado pela tradução em inglês, aqui:

Tradutora : Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos 

Fonte da tradução :

https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2020/02/eric-zuesse-turkey-threatens.html

The most ominous feature of the new budget document issued Monday by the Trump administration is the prominent place given to the development of a new generation of nuclear weapons, including so-called low-yield weapons, smaller than the bombs that destroyed Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which are widely regarded as more likely to actually be used in combat.

The document calls for nearly $50 billion to be devoted to nuclear modernization, including $29 billion from the Pentagon budget, and $19.8 billion for the National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA), a unit of the Department of Energy which operates the actual production of nuclear warheads, as well as some of the primary research.

The Trump budget would slash spending on diplomacy and foreign aid while sharply increasing funding for nuclear weapons, a clear indication of the policy direction being given from the White House in the wake of Trump’s acquittal last week in the impeachment trial before the Senate. The debacle of the Democratic effort to impeach Trump over foreign policy differences—while ignoring his real and ongoing crimes against the working class and democratic rights—has only emboldened the White House to press ahead with its program of militarism, austerity and attacks on immigrants.

The budget provides the largest amount for the Pentagon’s research and development budget in 70 years, since the period when US imperialism was engaged in the initial research on the hydrogen bomb and the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM). Nuclear weapons modernization funds rose by 18 percent compared to last year’s budget.

The modernization program, which was given initial approval under the Obama administration, will last 30 years and cost more than a trillion dollars, split between the three components of the US nuclear triad: ground-based missiles, submarine-launched missiles, and nuclear bombs delivered by long-distance bombers.

An important aspect of the modernization program is the improvement of the delivery systems, including a new generation of nuclear-powered submarines (the Columbia Class) and making the stealth F-35 jet fighter, the most expensive weapons system ever built, capable of carrying nuclear bombs. That configuration would be ideal for a prospective nuclear “Pearl Harbor” sneak attack on Russia or China, since the warplanes are nearly invisible to radar.

According to one defense industry publication, there had been serious infighting between the NNSA and the White House Office of Management and Budget over the huge figure for nuclear modernization, a conflict won by the NNSA after Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman James Imhofe (R-Okla) intervened on its behalf.

Senate Democrats like Jack Reed of Rhode Island lost the battle over funding priorities, as the Navy canceled one nuclear submarine—to be built in Groton, Connecticut, and Quonset Point, Rhode Island—as a “pay for” to accommodate the additional spending on nuclear warheads.

NNSA chief Lisa Gordon-Hagerty said that there were five major warhead modernization programs being funded: the B61-12 Life Extension Program, the W80-4 Life Extension Program, the W88 Alteration 370, the W87-1 Modification Program and the W93 warhead program. She cited the need to increase production of plutonium “pits,” the key component of a nuclear explosive device, to 80 per year by 2030.

The budget announcement follows the Pentagon’s confirmation that it has deployed a new low-yield variant of the W76-1 nuclear warhead used on the Trident missile. The deployment of the W76-2 came on the submarine USS Tennessee, operating from the Kings Bay Submarine Base in Georgia. The escalation of US preparations for nuclear war was first reported by the Federation of American Scientists, which warned that the action would bring forward the danger of a nuclear weapon actually being used.

Building the W76-2 was a direct consequence of the 2018 Nuclear Posture Review, which accompanied the more general overhaul of Pentagon military doctrine, elevating “great power” conflict with Russia and China to first place in US war preparations, displacing the so-called “war on terror.”

In terms of the overall military budget, while the Pentagon receives a year-to-year increase of 0.3 percent, that figure is misleading on at least two counts. At $740.5 billion, the proposed Fiscal Year 2021 Defense Department budget would be the largest amount ever spent by the US government on war buildup and dwarfs the spending of all the rivals of US imperialism combined.

Moreover, the Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) fund, a component of the budget that pays for ongoing combat operations in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other locations where US troops, ships and drones are engaged in combat, is open-ended.

While the White House is seeking $69 billion for OCO, this figure assumes a significant drawdown in US troop strength in Afghanistan. If those troops remain in Afghanistan, or are redeployed to another war zone, the Pentagon will seek a supplemental appropriation that would be swiftly rubber-stamped both by the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives and the Republican-controlled Senate.

The release of the Fiscal Year 2021 budget has been accompanied by media commentaries and declarations by leading congressional Democrats that the budget is merely a “wish list” devised for political purposes to appeal to Trump’s right-wing base, and that as a practical matter it is “dead on arrival.”

This may be true for the massive cuts in domestic programs like Medicare, Medicaid and food stamps, which come to some $2 trillion over ten years. Neither capitalist party is likely to enact such cuts in the nine months before the November 3 election. But the document is nonetheless significant as a blueprint for the social counterrevolution which Trump proposes to carry out if he is reelected—and to which the Democrats have no principled objections, despite their posture of dismay.

Among the cuts proposed—all over a ten-year period—are $465 billion from Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and doctors, which will undermine the ability of the elderly to get care; $292 billion from Medicaid, which pays for health care for the poor and disabled, and from food stamps; and $70 billion from Social Security disability payments.

House Budget Committee Chair John Yarmuth (D-Ky), issued a statement denouncing the Trump budget as “destructive and irrational,” pointing out that it “includes destructive changes to Medicaid, SNAP, Social Security, and other assistance programs that help Americans make ends meet—all while extending his tax cuts for millionaires and wealthy corporations.”

The fact is, however, that the Democrats have never rescinded Republican tax cuts or restored Republican budget cuts, despite their posturing to the contrary. There is a longstanding division of labor in the capitalist two-party system, in which the Republican propose gigantic cuts in social spending which the Democrats “fight” ferociously, eventually reaching a bipartisan agreement that incorporates substantial cuts and sets the stage for the next round in a never-ending onslaught on what remains of the welfare state.

While this pretended conflict takes place in relation to domestic social spending, the two parties usually cooperate openly on increasing spending for the military-intelligence apparatus. This means that while the domestic cuts proposed by Trump may be deferred until after the election, the military buildup will gain overwhelming bipartisan support, and the plans elaborated in the budget document deserve careful scrutiny.

One significant element is the buildup in ground troops available for the invasion and occupation of foreign territory, or for the suppression of domestic unrest. The Army seeks a significant manpower increase, to 485,900 regular troops, reinforced by 336,500 in the Army National Guard and 189,800 in the Army Reserves. This would bring the total ground force to over one million soldiers—1,012,200 in all.

New weaponry for these soldiers will include hypersonic weapons, laser-based antiaircraft weapons (the Directed Energy Mobile Short-Range Air Defense System), and the Indirect Fire Protection Capability, described as “a mobile capability to defend against unmanned aircraft systems, cruise missiles, rockets, artillery and mortars.”

There is at least $6 billion to modernize key weapons systems, including the Bradley Infantry Fighting Vehicle, the Stryker armored vehicle, the M1 Abrams tank and the Paladin howitzer, and $3.5 billion in aviation procurement, including 36 UH-60M Black Hawk helicopters and 50 AH-64E Apache attack helicopters.

It is also worth noting, in relation to the overall budget numbers, that the federal budget deficit will hit $1 trillion this year and is likely to soar far beyond that figure next year. While the White House budget office projects the deficit at just below $1 trillion in FY 2021, this assumes completely unrealistic economic successes: Gross Domestic Product rising at over 3 percent, and interest rates remaining at near-zero levels, so that federal debt can be refinanced cheaply.

When these figures inevitably prove too optimistic, and the deficit soars, there will then be a clamor from the political establishment and the media that social spending must be slashed even more because “there is no money.” In the meantime, the incomes and wealth of the financial aristocracy will continue to rise exponentially.

*

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 week the latest Democratic Party attempt to remove President Trump from office – impeachment over Trump allegedly holding up an arms deal to Ukraine – flopped. Just like “Russiagate” and the Mueller investigation, and a number of other attempts to overturn the 2016 election.

We’ve had three years of accusations and investigations with untold millions of dollars spent in a never-ending Democratic Party effort to remove President Trump from office.

Why do the Democrats keep swinging and missing at Trump? They can’t make a good case for abuse of power because they don’t really oppose Trump’s most egregious abuses of power. Congress, with a few exceptions, strongly supports the President flouting the Constitution when it comes to overseas aggression and shoveling more money into the military-industrial complex.

In April, 2018, President Trump fired 100 Tomahawk missiles into Syria allegedly as punishment for a Syrian government chemical attack in Douma. Though the US was not under imminent threat of attack from Syria, Trump didn’t wait for a Congressional declaration of war on Syria or even an authorization for a missile strike. In fact, he didn’t even wait for an investigation of the event to find out what actually happened! He just decided to send a hundred missiles – at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars – into Syria.

We are now finding out from whistleblowers on the UN team that investigated the alleged attack that the report blaming the Syrian government was falsified and that the whole “attack” was nothing but a false flag operation.

Is such unauthorized aggression against a country with which we are not at war not worth investigating as a potential “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?

Last month, President Trump authorized the assassination of a top Iranian General, Qassim Soleimani, and a top Iraqi military officer inside Iraqi territory while Soleimani was on a diplomatic mission. Trump and his Administration tried to claim that the attack was essential because of an “imminent threat” of a Soleimani attack on US troops in the region.

We found out shortly afterward that they lied about the “imminent threat.” The assassination was not “urgent” – it was planned back in June. Trump then claimed it didn’t matter whether there was an imminent threat: Soleimani was a bad guy so he deserved to be assassinated.

But the attack was an act of war on Iran without Congressional declaration or authorization for war. Is that not perhaps a “high crime” or “misdemeanor”?

We are finding out that, contrary to Trump claims, Soleimani was not even behind the December attack on US troops in Iraq. New evidence suggests it was actually an ISIS operation attempting to goad the US into moving against Iraq’s Shia militias.

Fantasies about Trump being an agent of Putin or trying to get Ukraine to help him win the election are presented as urgent reasons Trump must be removed from office. Real-life violations of the Constitution and reckless militarism that may get us embroiled in another Middle East war are shrugged off as “business as usual” by both Democrats and Republicans in Washington.

Democrats won’t move against Trump for what may be real “high crimes” and “misdemeanors” because they support his overseas aggression. They just wish they were the ones pulling the trigger.

*

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

During the last few days, Turkey deployed approximately 1,000 units of military equipment, including self-propelled howitzers, M06T and Leopard 2A4 battle tanks, in the Syrian province of Idlib. According to local sources, the number of Turkish troops and special forces personnel in the province is now between 2,500 and 3,000.

The Turkish leadership assures the international community that this is a solely defensive move. Ankara says this was needed to combat the terrorism and protect its troops from the aggression of the Assad regime that blatantly violated the Idlib de-escalation by attacking peaceful al-Qaeda militants.

Additionally, the Turkish Army set up several positions east and southeast of Idlib city. It seems like brave Erdogan forces ready to protect the stronghold of their comrades from Hayat Tahrir al-Sham at the expense of their life. However, a few Turkish troops apparently lost in the woods and missed the Syrian Army advance in western Idlib and southwestern Aleppo.

Pro-government forces captured over a dozen of villages along the M5 highway, including the key rebel base of Al-Eis, and encircled another Turkish observation point accidentally located just at positions of al-Qaeda-linked militants. In western Aleppo, the Syrians took control of Tal Kalariyah and Kalariyah, and advanced on Rashideen 4. If the Damascus government wants to fully reopen the M5 highway, which runs from the border with Jordan to Aleppo, it needs to secure Rashideen 4, Khan Asal and several less important points in the same area.

Such news are horrible to the ears of the Turkish leadership. President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and other top officials act like they see every inch of territory lost by terrorists to the Syrian Army as grievous loss of their imaginary Neo-Ottoman Empire.

The Syrian Air Force celebrated the Ankara negotiations with over 120 airstrikes on various positions of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham and other ‘moderate Al-Qaeda’ groups in the provinces of Idlib and Aleppo. Russian airstrikes were also reported.

While Turkey aggressively increasing its military presence near Idlib city and working to convince leaders of local groups to not hurry up with fleeing the area, Syria and its allies are using the window of opportunities to clear from terrorists as much area as it’s possible.

On February 10, ‘al-Qaeda freedom fighters’ launched a powerful attack on positions of pro-government forces near Saraqib. Militants publicly employed Turkish-supplied military equipment and weapons. The attack itself was also supported by Turkish artillery strikes. Turkish troops were filmed close with near the frontline. They directed the attack of their brothers in arms on the Syrian Army. At least 5 Turkish personnel were reportedly killed in the retaliatory strikes by the Syrian Army.

The battle for Idlib is ongoing.

*

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

Hollywood ‘s Oscars awards ceremony is nigh. Two anti-Syria propaganda-documentaries are short-listed in this year’s competition. We use the occasion to offer a photo tutorial on Hollywood enchantment techniques — choreography, cinematography, SFX, CGI, moulage artisanship, rules of award-winning scripts — and how they are applied to incite NATO news audiences to engage in the first rule of Hollywood screenplays: Suspension of disbelief.

Though Hollywood has functioned as press liaison for US-based wars of aggression since after WWII, though propaganda is as old as history, never have Hollywood techniques been used, deftly so, to target a single country, before Syria, beginning in 2011.

The documentary/fraudumentary has its origin in a charming, pre-code, movie. The 1935 Ladies Crave Excitement finds the report-protagonist’s breaking news story is thwarted when ‘the bad guys’ steal his film, and his editor fires him. An idea is hatched to re-create the scene, on film. The dramatization of the newsbecomes a money-making hit, and a genre is born.

Several pre-code movies centered on newspaper offices. The worst insult to call reporters was “stenographer.”

Another pre-code movie showed astonishing prescience, when applied to Syria, NATO media, and Hollywood enchantment: The witty script of It Pays to Advertise claims that virtually anything can be marketed to the public, because fifty percent of people are sheep.

This pre-code delight used superb humor to poke fun about how advertisers could market virtually anything to get that 50% sheeple to open their wallets. Such marketing has been used to get those sheeple to buy war criminal propaganda, to open their wallets to fraud charities claimed to help Syria.

The marketing of Hollywood anti-Syria propaganda is impressively seen in the following AFP photograph, which was viralized on various social media. The backstory involves two gods of Olympus, who came down with puppets, to bring good cheer to traumatized Syrian children. The viralization showed that “it pays to advertise.” Hearts and souls were moved to tears, at the sight of the gods – humanitarians bringing smiles to the faces of these poor children, even if just for a too short respite.

Hollywood salesmanship: Heart-warming, gut-wrenching photo of the probably Last Puppeteers of Idlib, making children happy. Upon closer look, though, are some children CGI’ed in, like the boy’s shoulder and head that seem to emerge from rock, in this uncomfortable-looking quarry.

Poor children; those rocks and boulders look so very uncomfortable. Why were they brought so far from the apartments and other buildings, which probably have upholstered chairs in them? It looks like quite a hike.

Would a puppet show for children without the Hollywood bathos of rubble and ruin, been able to market any two minute hate against the Syrian government, against the conscripted soldiers defending their country against armed, invading, pathogens?

It pays to advertise. CGI brings down those costs, too.

How many sheeple thought this price was a bargain?

The criminal words of NATO stenographers are reinforced by every Hollywood magic trick. All special effects (FX, computer generated imagery, moulage, generic make up) are used, separately or in combination, depending on deserved outcome and how many seconds or fractions thereof, the audience will be permitted.

The ISIS giants with the reputed Christian Coptics kidnapped while pilgrimaging to a secret place in the al Qaeda land mass called Libya, is an example of very bad CGI.

The author has been unable to find any Christian sites in Libya, to which the pious might be impelled to pay homage soon after the country was made into al Qaeda hell.

To read complete article on Syria News click here

The 21st Century nuclear arms and developing outer space arms races, which began under Obama and are increasing under Trump, are going to be something the world has never seen before. They are a bonanza for weapons makers, the Pentagon budget and capitalists in space. They will create a less secure world, a greater wealth divide, a tattered safety net and new, more dangerous forms of war.

Last week, the United States increased the risk of nuclear war by deploying “low yield” nukes. While this sounds friendlier than planet-killing “thermonuclear missiles,” it is a step toward the US preparing for a “limited” nuclear war. The US has been withdrawing from nuclear weapons treaties and the risk of nuclear war is now counted in seconds rather than minutes. The Bulletin of Atomic Scientists moved the Doomsday Clock to 100 seconds to midnight given that nuclear weapons are on hair-trigger alert.

The US is escalating the arms race because it sees its hegemonic military and economic power weakening. Rather than respond by seeking to work with other nations in a peaceful approach with a foreign policy based on diplomacy, it is seeking continued domination by escalating a new, more dangerous arms race.  This will be the most expensive arms race in history. China and Russia, as well as other nations, will not allow the United States to upgrade nuclear weapons and dominate outer space militarily without responding.

This is a quixotic effort to hold onto unipolar power when the rest of the world is seeking a multi-polar world where large governments and small governments have influence in the direction of global policies.

The US Space Force 

The new US Space Force is the first new military service in more than 70 years since the establishment of the US Air Force in 1947. General John Raymond is the first general of the space force and the newest member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The creation of the Space Force received bi-partisan support with 188 Democrats voting yes in the House and overwhelming Democratic support in the Senate in the passage of the newest National Defense Authorization Act.

The Space Force is turning the heavens into a war zone. This sixth branch of the US Armed Forces is being put in place in violation of a 1967 treaty signed by virtually all nations on earth. The Outer Space Treaty, formally the Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, is a treaty that is the basis of international space law.

The treaty prohibits the placing of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction in space. It limits the use of the Moon and all other celestial bodies to peaceful purposes only and establishes that space shall be free for exploration and use by all nations and that no nation may claim sovereignty of outer space or any celestial body. It treats space as a global commons.

The US falsely claims that it needs the Space Force because Russia and China are developing weapons in space. In fact, China and Russia are seeking to expand the treaty to include a prohibition of all weapons in space. The  US has been fighting the proposed Prevention of Armas Race in Outer Space (PAROS) treaty in the United Nations that would update the 1967 treaty.

If the US proceeds with an Outer Space Force, it will destroy the vision of keeping space for peace. In response to the US’ plans to militarize space, which have been developing since President Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative or Star Wars, other countries have said they will be expanding their weapons arsenals in order to defend themselves.

The weapons industry is already taking resources from urgent environmental and human needs. The world spends nearly $3 trillion a year on military expenditures, with the US driving 79% of the globe’s weapons trade according to the State Department’s World Military Expenditures and Arms Transfers report. The US exported four times more arms around the globe than the next nine countries combined, $143 billion annually. The new 21st Century arms race being propelled by the United States will increase this spending on weapons.

Controlling Access to Space for US Corporate Interests

The Vision for 2020 Report, by the United States Space Command begins with: “US Space Command —  dominating the space dimensions of military operations to protect US interests and investments. Integrating Space Forces into warfighting capabilities from across the full spectrum of conflict.” The motto of the US Space Command is “the US must be the master of space.” The slogan appears on the patch on their uniforms as well as over the entryway to the Space Command Headquarters in Colorado Springs, CO.

In a 1989 book, Military Space Forces for the Next 50 Years, Congress said the US must control the pathway so we can control access for corporations, and governments. By dominating space, rather than being a global commons controlled by all the nations of the world, it will be controlled by the United States with tremendous profits for US corporations.

Dominating space militarily is about protecting the profits from mining the resources of outer space. Corporations are developing for the purpose of mining asteroids and the moon for platinum-group metals, which are rare on Earth but are extremely important in the manufacture of electronics and other high-tech goods. The potential is barely understood, the resources in just the inner solar system are nearly infinite compared with those on Earth. Just one large metallic asteroid such as 16 Psyche is thought to contain enough metals to last humans for millions of years at current consumption rates. The potential is massive. Planetary Resources has compiled a database—Asterank—of over 600,000 asteroids that might represent mining targets.

Issues in Science and Technology reports there are a wide variety of space resources “that include solar power beamed from space, minerals, metals, gases, rare earth elements, helium 3 (as a fuel for nuclear fusion power generation), and materials for space manufacturing (the fabrication of goods in space). Yet ordinary water is the focus of most serious near-term development efforts. Water, when split into its constituents, hydrogen and oxygen, provides the most efficient chemical rocket propellants known. Water is also necessary for human settlement.”

The privatization of space travel is developing hand in glove with the militarization of space. Much of the research and development for space exploration has been paid for by the US taxpayer, but private corporations will profit. Issues in Science and Technology reports that government investment in mining infrastructure provides a tipping point to attract private investment. Space resources will be developed through public-private partnerships, which often means the taxpayer pays the costs while private corporations profit. They report that “in November 2018, NASA awarded nine Commercial Lunar Payload Services contracts to industry for the development of lunar transportation and delivery-related capabilities.”

International governance is not keeping up with the economic development plans of the US and other nations. There is no international authority that provides an oversight function for the exploitation of space resources. Some countries including Russia and Belgium have urged the restriction of commercial development until such time as a binding international legal framework is developed. However, the US is moving forward with laws that create property rights for commercial development, and now is rushing forward with a space military force. New policies and laws, as well as international governance, are urgently needed, but the US is blocking progress in these areas while moving forward to dominate space.

From, the Global Network Against Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space, Bruce Gagnon, Organizing Notes

What We Can Do

Bruce Gagnon of Global Network Against Nuclear Weapons and Nuclear Power in Space told us on Clearing The FOG Radio that the Achilles Heel of this is the tremendous cost. The cost is so large that we cannot imagine the breadth of it. The Pentagon describes this as the largest industrial project in world history. One rocket launch costs hundreds of millions of dollars.

Gagnon tells us that Space News said the funding source for outer space weapons and development will be entitlement programs — Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid as well as what remains of the safety net. Popular movements must demand funding for social needs, fixing environmental degradation and responding to the climate crisis instead of funding for space wars. Updating and expanding the Outer Space Treaty also needs to be an issue that is raised by movements as it will impact every issue we are working on.

Our goal must be that no country, corporation or individual can control the global commons of space. We must keep the bad seeds of war and environmental degradation for corporate profit out of space. To achieve these goals the people must educate and organize to challenge the profit interests of the aerospace industry, weapons industry and those who seek to profit from exploiting space resources. That will be the focus of the No War 2020 conference in Ottawa this May.

*

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

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published. 

Featured image is from Popular Resistance