Global Research

The Trump administration’s still-fuzzy trade deal with China, announced (as usual) via tweet last Friday, has landed in farm country with a thud. Having endured financial losses and trade uncertainty for nearly two years, farmers have reacted with skepticism and even anger.

Meanwhile, a new poll from the Union of Concerned Scientists and Iowa-based RABA Research shows that voters in five key farm states are worried not just about the impacts of global trade on agriculture and rural communities, but also about a host of other threats, from degraded soil to farm runoff and water pollution to weather disasters driven by climate change. More importantly, these voters indicate that they’re looking for new solutions to all these problems—and they can see one such solution in soil.

Voters see agriculture and the future of our food at risk

Before I get to our poll findings, let’s review the truly terrible year many farmers have just had. The Midwest, in particular, was hit with months of non-stop spring rains and unprecedented flooding that made working the ground difficult or impossible. According to USDA data, farmers were unable to plant crops on about 19 million acres nationwide, with more than 70 percent of those acres in the Midwest. And while the total damage may not be tallied until early next year, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports at least 10 weather and climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each across the United States in 2019. Meanwhile, ongoing trade disruption meant additional losses for farmers.

A mind-boggling 40 percent of US farm income this year will have come in the form of government assistance, from crop insurance to federal disaster and trade assistance payments. And even with all that help, farm bankruptcies have surged, up 24 percent over 2018.

With that on their minds, here’s what 3,000+ voters in five key farm states—Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, and Arkansas—had to say in our survey:

• Global trade wars and loss of markets are seen as a significant threat. Large majorities in every state—from 72 percent in Arkansas to 84 percent in Minnesota—agreed with this. It’s perhaps the least surprising finding, given the amount of ink spilled on the topic over the last two years. Still, it’s one that policymakers and political candidates should be aware of, especially if the final China deal doesn’t shake out as planned.

• Heartland voters (including farmers) are waking up to the threat of climate change. Overwhelming majorities of voters in each state—as high as 93 percent in Nebraska and Minnesota—say extreme weather is a significant threat to farmers and communities in their area. More interesting, though, is that when asked specifically if “climate change” is affecting local agriculture, majorities in Iowa (58 percent), Michigan (63 percent), Minnesota (65 percent), and Nebraska (59 percent), and a near-majority in Arkansas (49 percent) agreed that it is. Moreover, bucking conventional wisdom, a majority of farmers in our survey also agreed. Putting real numbers on this recently reported trend, 61 percent of respondents with farmers in their households (n=693 across the five states) said climate change is affecting agriculture.

• Large majorities also see other significant threats involving agriculture. These include water pollution caused by pesticides and fertilizers from farms (seen as a significant threat by 74-86 percent of respondents), soil that is damaged or lost to erosion (69-81 percent), and the high cost of farmland (71-84 percent).

• Voters are tired of cleaning up after disasters. Across the five states, respondents seemed weary of doubling down on global commodity production and paying farmers who’ve suffered financial losses from trade wars, extreme weather, and climate-related disasters. Instead, given the choice, larger numbers of voters (as high as 49 percent in Iowa and Minnesota) reported that they most want to hear political candidates talk about diversifying and developing new markets for the products farmers grow as a way of revitalizing the farm economy. (Perhaps something like this?)

• Even in conservative states, large majorities say government programs offer solutions that help everyone. In numbers ranging from 78 percent in Michigan to 90 percent in Minnesota—also said they support government programs that help farmers try practices that build living soil (which includes applying lots of living and decaying matter to farmland to provide nutrients, hold water, and reduce runoff and pollution). Overwhelming majorities of voters in all five states—as many as 90 percent in Minnesota—agreed that policies and programs that help farmers build healthy, living soil will help everyone, even city dwellers, by keeping water clean, saving taxpayers money on disaster relief, revitalizing local economies, and ensuring a reliable, healthy food supply.

• Voters embrace taxpayer-funded assistance to help farmers protect soil. Majorities in Minnesota, Nebraska, and Arkansas agreed that paying farmers to cover the cost of practices that protect soil, reduce vulnerability to floods and droughts, and prevent water pollution is one of the most important ways to safeguard agriculture and the nation’s food supply. Even larger majorities, as large as 71 percent in Minnesota, said the same about offering tax credits or other tax benefits to farmers who adopt such practices.

Note to presidential candidates: Have a plan for soil health!

In perhaps the most interesting result in our survey, large majorities of voters said they would be more likely to support candidates for public office who propose ways to help farmers build healthy, living soil.

QUESTION 14: If a 2020 presidential candidate or other candidate for public office proposed ways to help farmers and rural communities succeed by protecting and building up the soil instead of depleting it, would you be more or less likely to support that candidate?

So, as 2020 presidential candidates crisscross Iowa and other farm states this winter looking for messages that resonate with voters , they might want to take a good look at the ground beneath their feet.

*

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.

Karen Perry Stillerman is a senior communication strategist and senior analyst in the Food & Environment Program at UCS.

Featured image is from UCS

Nord Stream 2 is a pipeline project extending from Russia to Germany that – when completed – will provide a secure means of exporting Russian natural gas to Western Europe – circumventing a  now volatile Ukraine all while tying Russia and Europe together further through mutually beneficial economic activity.

Of course, for special interests residing across the Atlantic in Washington and on Wall Street, Russia and Europe building closer ties through constructive economic activity undermines a long-standing strategy of coercing Europe via the constant threat of a supposedly hostile Kremlin Washington claims undermines a free and united Europe.

Ironically, in order to preserve Europe’s “freedom” the US has now resorted to punishing interests in Europe – and in Germany specifically – for freely choosing to do business with Russia. It not only fully illustrates the supreme hypocrisy that lies at the very root of Washington’s current foreign policy, but also threatens to undermine legitimate US business interests seeking – just as Russia does – to build constructive economic ties with companies and nations around the globe.

Sanctions Approved

The BBC in its article, “Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline,” would report:

President Donald Trump has signed a law that will impose sanctions on any firm that helps Russia’s state-owned gas company, Gazprom, finish a pipeline into the European Union. 

The sanctions target firms building Nord Stream 2, an undersea pipeline that will allow Russia to increase gas exports to Germany. 

The US considers the project a security risk to Europe. 

Both Russia and the EU have strongly condemned the US sanctions.

It may or may not confound objective observers to see the US unilaterally leveling sanctions against foreign companies because of what Washington claims are security threats to the nations these companies reside in.

It is clearly the business of Germany and Germany alone to determine what may or may not be a security risk. The US deciding not only unilaterally that the Nord Stream 2 project is a security risk – but in contradiction to Berlin’s own assessments of these supposed risks – exposes what is a US foreign policy rooted in singular self-interests poorly hidden behind notions of global peace, stability, and progress.

Were Russia the “threat” that Washington claims it is, clearly Germany would not have invested the immense amount of time, energy, and resources required merely to approve of the Nord Stream 2 project – let alone all the time, energy, and resources required to build and operate it.

Stated Motives. Admitted “Hidden” Motives. Larger, Unspoken Motives 

The BBC article gives a glimpse of what is truly motivating Washington’s current posture regarding Nord Stream 2. In its article, it notes that:

The Trump administration fears the pipeline will tighten Russia’s grip over Europe’s energy supply and reduce its own share of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas.

And indeed, US energy interests do stand to lose against Russian natural gas – but only because US energy interests are unable to fairly compete against Russia’s ability to deliver cheaper energy through much more practical means.

There is also another motivation driving Washington’s current foreign policy – unmentioned by the BBC – but one that eclipses the interests of American big-energy – no matter how large these interests may be.

The alleged spectre of a malign Russia preying on Europe serves as – and has served for decades as the foundation of the US-led NATO alliance, the US military presence in Europe and the billions upon billions of dollars of weapon sales, contracts, and all the political influence that constitutes both.

Europe and Russia building a significant pipeline and cooperating over something as key to Europe’s economic security and survival as energy demand obviously and completely undermines NATO’s pretense to exist – and thus threatens the immense racket that constitutes NATO’s continued existence. This not only threatens Washington’s grip on Europe, but all the other wars NATO is used as a vehicle to carry both the American nation and its Western allies into across the globe.

The Western intervention in Serbia in the 1990s, the Afghan war stretching from 2001 to present day, and more recently the Western intervention in Libya beginning in 2011 are all examples of US belligerence made possible by NATO – and belligerence that would be exponentially more difficult to continue onward with if NATO was weakened or rendered entirely unnecessary and disbanded.

Not Serving European Interests, or even US Interests 

One must be careful when saying “the US is imposing sanctions on Germany.” The US is not. A small handful of special interests in Washington, directed by an even smaller handful of interests on Wall Street are imposing sanctions on Europe over the Nord Stream 2 project.

They are doing so clearly to the detriment of Russia. But also obviously to the detriment of Germany and the European companies involved in completing, operating, and receiving benefits from the pipeline when it opens.

They are also imposing sanctions on Europe to the detriment of the American people, American businesses at large, and the American nation itself both as it stands internationally today and to the detriment of how it will stand internationally in the future.

While the US arms and energy industries certainly stand to gain from a status quo in Europe which includes the perpetuation of the artificial wedge driven between Europe and Russia, it benefits nearly no one else.

And while these two industries do certainly employ a lot of Americans, they are unsustainable businesses demonstrably unable to compete fairly – and now – not even effectively able to cheat. The future is bleak for those employed or otherwise dependent on these two industries as they currently exist. Washington’s policies pushed forward on behalf of big-energy and arms manufacturers are pushed forward at the cost of nearly everyone else.

For a world eager to do business with the United States – a nation still populated by talented people capable of contributing to the global economy – policies like sanctions aimed at Germany and other nation’s involved with Nord Stream 2 give pause for thought and force potential business partners of the US to reevaluate future joint-ventures.

Thus, despite the short-term self-serving nature of US sanctions regarding Nord Stream 2, the sanctions only serve to accelerate America’s overall decline. A Washington fixated on such methods to “compete” with Russia and to maintain influence over Europe is not able to focus on or invest in truly needed strategies to improve genuine American competitiveness – competitiveness that serves as the only true and sustainable means of creating and maintaining influence globally.

For the American people and American business owners, divesting away from Washington’s current policies and finding ways to circumvent them just as the rest of the world is finding ways to circumvent US sanctions will hopefully help build bridges, or at least prepare the ground to do so – so when the current circle of special interests misleading the US into further decline fade away, something better can be put in their place.

Nord Stream 2 is just one sign of the shape of things to come. The US will only face more “Nord Stream 2’s” in the future not only in the form of Russian-European cooperation, but also in Asia centered around China and its own rise upon the international stage. Washington doubling down on a losing strategy will only accelerate America’s current woes – not fix them. Until Washington understands this, or until the American people find a way to work around Washington’s agenda – these woes will only multiply and to everyone’s detriment.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Stefan Sauer/dpa

The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement hit back at UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s plans to ban public authorities from participating in the international movement boycotting Israeli goods.

“Boris Johnson’s government, like the anti-Palestinian Trump administration, is more than ever directly engaged in Israel’s desperate war of repression on advocacy for Palestinian rights and on BDS in particular,” the BDS movement said in a statement on Wednesday.

The group likened Johnson’s move, which was announced earlier this week, to former PM Margaret Thatcher’s decision in 1988 to ban local British councils from boycotts and divestment against apartheid South Africa.

“It was wrong then, and it’s wrong now,” BDS said.

Boris Johnson is helping Israel wage a desperate war of repression on Palestinian rights and #BDS.

Supporters of freedom of expression, human rights and international law should oppose the UK government’s efforts to repress our peaceful movement for freedom, justice & equality. pic.twitter.com/2Sx8YmIzzD

— BDS movement (@BDSmovement) December 18, 2019

“Supporters of freedom of expression, human rights and international law should oppose the UK government’s efforts to repress our peaceful movement for freedom, justice & equality,” the statement concluded.

Johnson’s promise to ban the BDS movement was featured in his conservaative party’s manifesto, where the movement was described as “undermining community cohesion.”

He is expected to officially announce the proposal on Thursday during the ceremonial launch of his agenda.

Special Envoy for Post-Holocaust Issues Lord Eric Pickles posted a video to the Conservative Friends of Israel lobby group’s Twitter feed, accusing the movement of being a “thin disguise for anti-Semitism.”

VIDEO: @EricPickles welcomes @BorisJohnson plan to outlaw public body boycotts of Israel.
“If we’re being really honest, BDS is just a thing disguise for antisemitism. We as @Conservatives should always tackle racial discrimination” pic.twitter.com/hpLyCum0vc

— CFoI (@CFoI) December 16, 2019

“We’re going to ensure that public sector, places like councils and health authorities, can’t work against Israel, can’t prejudice Israel,” he continued, adding that BDS is “one of the worst, wink wink, nudge nudge, piece of racialism that we know.”

Advocates of Palestinian rights expressed their concerns over Johnson’s move, which would further the false narrative that criticisms of Israel were equal to antisemitism.

Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) tweeted their solidarity and support for local organizations in the UK working to promote the BDS movement, and called Johnson’s plan “frightening” and “anti-democratic.”

Frightening anti-democratic measures afoot in the U.K. Solidarity with our friends @PSCupdates @BrightonBDS and others working for freedom and justice for Palestinians #bds yes https://t.co/d7PiETU3xO

— Jewish Voice for Peace (@jvplive) December 17, 2019

Johnson, who has described himself as a “passionate Zionist” was elected to the role of Prime Minister last week, following a heated campaign against Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.

A large part of the campaign was characterized by the discourse on Israel and Palestine, specifically the BDS movement, and the labelling of Corbyn as an “anti-Semite” for his support of Palestinian rights.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his delight at Johnson’s “astonishing victory.”

Congratulations to my friend @BorisJohnson on your astonishing victory. This is more evidence that the people decide, not the media. It's part of a global tidal wave for secure borders, a free economy and sovereignty.

— Benjamin Netanyahu (@netanyahu) December 13, 2019

“I look forward Boris to working with you in the coming years to strengthening even further the important friendship between Israel and the UK. Congratulations my friend,” Netanyahu tweeted.

*

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.

Yumna Patel is the Palestine correspondent for Mondoweiss.

Featured image is from Wikimedia Commons

Environmentalist Dr Rosemary Mason has just written an open letter addressed to three senior officials in Britain: John Gardiner, Under Secretary of State for the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs in the British government; Chris Whitty, the Chief Medical Officer for England; and Chris Wormald, Permanent Secretary at the Department of Health and Social Security.

Her letter focuses on the issue of food and the herbicide glyphosate. But the issues she discusses should not be regarded as being specific to the situation in Britain: they apply equally to countries across the world which are facilitating the interests of global agrochemicals conglomerates.

For instance, according to a September 2019 report in the New York Times, ‘A Shadowy Industry Group Shapes Food Policy Around the World’, the International Life Sciences Institute (ILSI) has been quietly infiltrating government health and nutrition bodies. The article lays bare ILSI’s influence on the shaping of high-level food policy globally, not least in India and China.

Accused of being little more than a front group for its 400 corporate members that provide its $17 million budget, ILSI’s members include Coca-Cola, DuPont, PepsiCo, General Mills and Danone. The report says ILSI has received more than $2 million from chemical companies, among them Monsanto. In 2016, a UN committee issued a ruling that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup, was “probably not carcinogenic,” contradicting an earlier report by the WHO’s cancer agency. The committee, it turned out, was led by two ILSI officials.

And this brings us to Rosemary Mason’s letter.

In it, she describes how she established a very successful nature reserve in South Wales, which attracted huge numbers of insects, two bat species and many swallows, house martins and swifts. She says that it was miraculous. But disaster soon followed.

In 2011, the local council was asked to attempt to destroy Japanese Knotweed using the glyphosate-based herbicide Roundup.  Japanese Knotweed had become resistant to Roundup in the 1980s. That meant that however much of the chemical was sprayed, it was impossible to kill it; the plant just grew bigger and stronger. Between 2012 and 2017, Mason notes that the number of insects on her reserve began to decline. It ultimately became a wildlife desert.

Mason asks:

“Monsanto, the British government and the UK and EU regulators say that glyphosate is safer than table salt. But would table salt kill all these insects that we recorded in our photo-journals or cause apocalyptic declines globally?”

She adds that the invertebrates in her nature reserve were poisoned. But that was only the half of it:

“My neurologist concluded that I had developed a toxic neurodegenerative disorder secondary to long-term exposure to glyphosate-based herbicides.”

Mason proceeds to outline the cosy relationship between the agrochemicals sector, Cancer Research UK and the British government, the result of which is to promote a disease narrative that diverts attention from the effects of toxic agrochemicals and place the blame on individual lifestyle behaviour, choice of diet and alcohol consumption. She asks:

“Where is the scientific evidence for this?”

Aside from the government’s collusion with pesticides manufacturers, Mason says the corporate media, most notably in Britain, are silent about pesticides that are poisoning the public:

“They haven’t informed the British people about the trials involving Roundup in the US. Bayer estimates that there are currently more than 42,000 plaintiffs alleging that exposure to Monsanto’s Roundup and other glyphosate-based herbicides made by Monsanto caused them or their loved ones to develop non-Hodgkin lymphoma. In the UK, there were 13,605 new cases of Non-Hodgkin Lymphoma in 2015 (and 4,920 deaths in 2016).”

Mason refers to Robert F Kennedy Jr, one of the US attorney’s fighting Bayer (which bought Monsanto). He says that Monsanto told Bayer that a $270-million set-aside would cover all its outstanding liabilities arising from Monsanto’s 5,000 Roundup cancer lawsuits. However, Bayer never saw certain internal Monsanto documents prior to the purchase.

Kennedy explains that for four decades Monsanto manoeuvred to conceal Roundup’s carcinogenicity by capturing regulatory agencies, corrupting public officials, bribing scientists and engaging in scientific fraud to delay its day of reckoning.

He adds that Monsanto also faces cascading scientific evidence linking glyphosate to a constellation of other injuries that have become prevalent since its introduction, including obesity, depression, Alzheimer’s, ADHD, autism, multiple sclerosis, Parkinson’s, kidney disease, inflammatory bowel disease, brain, breast and prostate cancer, miscarriage, birth defects and declining sperm counts.

Moreover, strong science suggests glyphosate is the culprit in the exploding epidemics of celiac disease, colitis, gluten sensitivities, diabetes and non-alcoholic liver cancer which, for the first time, is attacking children as young as 10.

Whether as a weed killer or as a desiccant to dry oats and wheat immediately before harvest, farmers have been spraying Roundup directly on food. Roundup sales rose dramatically to 300 million pounds annually in the US, with farmers spraying enough to cover every tillable acre in the country with a gallon of Roundup.

Glyphosate now accounts for about 50% of all herbicide use in the US. About 75% of use has occurred since 2006, with the global glyphosate market projected to reach $11.74 billion by 2023.

Kennedy asserts that never in history has a chemical been used so pervasively: glyphosate is in our air, water, plants, animals, grains, vegetables and meats. And it’s in beer and wine, children’s breakfast cereal and snack bars and mother’s breast milk. It’s even in our vaccines.

And yet, in the UK, as Mason explains, the Department of Health says pesticides are not its concern. None of the more than 400 pesticides that have been authorised in the UK have been tested for long-term actions on the brain; in the foetus, the child or the adult. But perhaps that’s to be expected: between May 2010 and the end of 2013, the Department of Health alone had 130 meetings with representatives of the agri-food industry.

Mason then says that the Department of Health’s School Fruit and Vegetable Scheme has residues of 123 different pesticides, some of which are linked to serious health problems such as cancer and disruption of the hormone system. Moreover, the scientific community has little understanding about the complex interaction of different chemicals in what is termed the ‘cocktail’ effect.

The effects of these toxins carry through to adulthood. Mason discusses the deleterious effects of glyphosate on the gut microbiome. Glyphosate disrupts the shikimate pathway within these gut bacteria and is a strong chelator of essential minerals, such as cobalt, zinc, manganese, calcium, molybdenum and sulphate. In addition, it kills off beneficial gut bacteria and allows toxic bacteria to flourish. She adds that we are facing a global metabolic health crisis provoked by an obesity epidemic linked to glyphosate.

Gut bacteria are vitally important to our well-being. Many key neurotransmitters are located in the gut. Aside from affecting the functioning of major organs, these transmitters affect our moods and thinking. Findings published in the journal Translational Psychiatry in 2014 provided strong evidence that gut bacteria can have a direct physical impact on the brain. Alterations in the composition of the gut microbiome have been implicated in a wide range of neurological and psychiatric conditions, including autism, chronic pain, depression and Parkinson’s Disease.

Mason then proceeds to provides evidence that shows that Britain (and the US) is in the midst of a barely reported public health crisis.

She refers to a letter written in 2013 by the late Marion Copley (US EPA toxicologist) to her colleague Jess Rowland. She accused Rowland of conniving with Monsanto to bury the agency’s own hard scientific evidence that it is “essentially certain” that glyphosate, the key ingredient in Monsanto’s Roundup weed killer, causes cancer. The date of the letter comes after Copley left the EPA in 2012 and shortly before she died from breast cancer at the age of 66 in January 2014:

“Jess, Since I left the agency with cancer [breast] I have studied the tumor process extensively… based on my decades of pathology experience. Glyphosate was originally designed as a chelating agent and I strongly believe that is the identical process involved in tumor formation.”

Dr Copley makes 14 observations about chelators and/or glyphosate, including that they are endocrine disruptors and suppress the immune system and damage the kidneys or pancreas, which can lead to clinical chemistry changes that favour tumour growth. She notes glyphosate kills bacteria in the gut: the gastrointestinal system is 80% of the immune system making the body susceptible to tumours.

Copley adds:

“It is essentially certain that glyphosate causes cancer.”

Mason concludes her letter by saying:

“The probability is that the population in Britain will increasingly suffer from the diseases associated with glyphosate-based herbicides and with the 400-odd pesticides that contaminate our food. The deleterious effects of glyphosate on trees and crops will also continue because it is in the soil, water, air and rainfall.”

On the back of Brexit, the Conservative government in Britain is set to jump into bed with the US via a trade deal hammered out without public scrutiny or parliamentary oversight. That deal could see the gutting of food safety and environmental standards so that they are brought in line with those in the US. With its recent ‘landslide’ election victory (having gained just 29.5% of the electorate’s votes), it seems increasingly likely that, given his stated commitment to do so, Boris Johnson will usher in herbicide-tolerant GM crops.

US agrochemicals and GM seeds manufacturers must be salivating at the prospects of any such trade deal. With the privatisation of an increasingly burdened NHS likely to be part of a deal, private healthcare providers and insurers must be too.

You may read Rosemary Mason’s open letter in full (with all relevant citations) on the academia.edu website.

*

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

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

The anniversary of John Lennon’s death (December 8) was marked in Cuba. Criticism followed on social media: Cuba repressed Beatles music forcing kids under the covers. Abel Prieto and  Guille Vilar, youth in Cuba at the time, say it’s not true. [i] But that’s not the point.

More useful, Prieto argues, is what happened  to Lennon’s message in the US. One result, celebrated this past August, was the “existential explosion” of Woodstock.  Prieto wonders why such a powerful experience did not end in effective resistance to hatred.

Cuba had no “existential explosion”, although Eusebio Leal uses such language. Leal has been city historian for Havana since 1967. When appointed, he had grade five education. He’s directed the restoration of Old Havana, world heritage site since 1982, celebrated at Havana’s 500^thbirthday.

Asked how he did it, Leal says the revolution “exploded” into his impoverished life. He and his single mom were Christians and he still practises. He is philosopher, although never trained, formally. He’s received awards and recognition from around the world.

The Cuban Revolution didn’t exactly “explode”. Leal was awarded his PhD in History for work on Carlos Manuel de Cespedes.[ii] edes freed his slaves in 1868, initiating a war. The 1959 revolution started there, even before. Cespedes was a philosopher, a fascinating one, as Leal explains.

Many such revolutionaries were philosophers. They discovered ideas explaining actions that couldn’t be explained within existing theory. If you act, and can’t explain, at least to yourself, you feel crazy. You can’t sustain direction.

At a Party Congress in 1997, Fidel Castro said direction was everything. He didn’t say getting it right was everything, although it matters. Charles Darwin didn’t get it all right, but he defined direction. He raised questions that led to explanation of what previously had not been explained, and that needed to be explained, to understand what needs to be understood to move forward: in a direction.

“Existential explosion” needed explanation, to define direction. Martha Ackman’s wonderful new book on Emily Dickinson shows a way.[iii] We meet an engaged, active Dickinson whose home was the “wild terrain of the mind”. She wanted her poems to be true, so that a poem does indeed convey the sense of the bird. That her poems were called true was praise she valued most.

Early on, as a student, “Emily wanted to stare [the unknown} down and walk straight into the abyss”: truth. She never shied away from “looking anguish in the eye“. It was her “dominion over misery“. She saw in the dark, that is, she saw things in the dark: life.

Today the only “dominion over misery” is “light at the end of the tunnel”. In an early poem, Dickinson writes, “We grow accustomed to the Dark – Either the darkness alters – Or something in the sight adjusts itself to Midnight.” And so, we see life.

It links her to Cespedes. He saw in the dark. Dickinson thought there could be truth, not just about birds, but about the sense of a bird. Thus, she applies a criterion connected to the world.  Some feelings are true as regards what is lived and can be lived. Some are not so true.

It’s mind/body connection. Feelings, sometimes, are from the world, indicative of how it is, or might be.  But many want “light at the end of the tunnel” and only that.

I was reminded of this by Javier Cercas’ Lord of all the Dead.[iv] Cercas writes about his great uncle who died for Franco. His death was “seared into my mother’s imagination in childhood as what the Greeks called kalos thanatos: a beautiful death.” Like Achilles, he lives on.

By the end of Cercas’ compassionate story, the great uncle is no longer a symbol of shame but rather a “self-respecting muchacho“ lost in someone else’s war. But Cercas tells the story for the sake of telling the story. That’s what he says. The story must be told because it’s better than to “leave it rotting”.

It can’t, for instance, be a story explaining what needs to be explained , such as the “silent wake of hatred, resentment and violence”, left behind by the war. Cercas can’t make this claim. “Silent wake” is a metaphor. It can’t be fact. Cercas sets these in opposition, repeating it, four times: Legend is unreliable, dependent on people, “volatile.” Facts are something different: “safe” and “brutal”.

Mercifully Dickinson didn’t have this view. Otherwise, her poems couldn’t be true. Cercas is in the sordid grasp of an old story, separating the personal from the objective, as if the latter is achievable only if freed of the former. “Beautiful death” is the same story: human beings apart from nature.

It makes freedom from decrepitude worth speculation. And speculate Cercas does. He ends with immortality. Nobody dies, we learn; we’re just transformed, physically, living in an “eternal present”.

It’s better to see in the dark, not with silly views about “hope” but by finding stories that explain direction. To say science and art are connected is not to say they are the same thing. Unless you imagine how the world might be, even if it can’t be that way, you don’t ask why it is the way it really is.

John Lennon sang about this. Europeans pulled apart art and science, in a false view of truth and knowledge, linked to a false view of human beings in nature.

Cuba tells a different story. So does Dickinson.

Cuba didn’t repress Lennon’s message. It explains it, in art and philosophy. Eusebio Leal is part. The beauty of Old Havana is the beauty of the ideas that explain its stunning restoration. Ideas explaining what needs to be known, for a direction that can be lived, with dignity, have claim to truth.

They’re not stories for the sake of stories: European liberalism’s hidden recipe for despair.

*

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.

Susan Babbitt is author of Humanism and Embodiment (Bloomsbury 2014). She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[i] http://www.cubadebate.cu/opinion/2019/09/27/la-cebra-que-le-hemos-hecho-a-lennon/#.Xf4JnUdKiM8

[ii] Carlos Manuel de Céspedes : el diario perdido (Havana: Ediciones Boloña, 1998).

[iii] These Fevered DaysW.W. Norton & Company, 2020. Review forthcoming  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/

[iv] Translated by Anne McLean, Alfred A Knopf, 2020.Review forthcoming  https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/

The gloves came off, revealing the iron fist in the velvet glove of U.S. obfuscation condemning innumerable countries for abuse of human rights;  a recorded vote was required on December 18, exposing which countries actually vote in support of UN resolutions protecting human rights, and which country (countries) hold human rights in contempt.

On:  “The Right to Food,” only the U.S. and Israel voted “No.”  188 other countries, including the DPRK, Russia, China, Cuba, Russia, Syria, etc., voted “Yes.”

On:  “Opposing The Use of Mercenaries as a Means of Violating Human Rights and Impeding the Exercise of the Right of Peoples to Self-Determination”  the U.S. and most of the EU voted “No,” while 130 countries, including the DPRK, Russia, China, etc. voted “Yes.”

On:  “The Rights of the Child,” the U.S. and 9 other countries voted “No.”  138 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Russia, Cuba.

On:  “Combating Glorification of Nazism, neo-Nazism and Other Practices That Contribute to Fueling Contemporary Forms of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance” the US voted “No” together with Ukraine.  133 other countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, China, Russia, Syria, Zimbabwe, etc.  The EU abstained.

On: “Promotion of a Democratic and Equitable International Order” the U.S. voted “No,” along with 52 other countries, largely EU.   128 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc.

On:  “Implementation of the Outcome of the World Summit for Social Development and of the Twenty-Fourth Special  Session of the General Assembly,” the U.S. voted “No,” together with Israel.  186 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, China, Russia, Venezuela, etc.

On:  “Human Rights and Cultural Diversity”  the U.S. voted “No, along with 55 other countries, largely EU, and 136 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, China, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, etc.

On:  “Promotion of Equitable Geographical Distribution in the Members of the Human Rights Treaty Bodies” the U.S. voted “No,” along with 51 other countries, mostly EU, and 134 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Russia, China, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

On:  “A Global Call for Concrete Action for the Elimination of Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance and the Comprehensive Implementation of and Follow-Up to the Durban Declaration and Programme of Action,” the U.S. voted “No,” together with 8 other nations, 135 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Venezuela, Russia, China, Cuba, Syria, Nicaragua, etc.  43 countries abstained, primarily the EU.

On:  “The Right to Development” the U.S. voted “No,” along with 23 other countries, mostly EU, while 138 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, China, Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, etc.

On:  “Policies and Programmes Involving Youth, the U.S. voted “No,” along with 14 other countries, while 138 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

On:  “Human Rights and Opposing Unilateral Coercive Measures,” the U.S. voted “No,” along with 54 other countries, mostly EU, while 135 other countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, China, Russia, etc.

On “The Right of the Palestinian People to Self-Determination” the U.S. voted “No,” together with Micronesia, Nauru, Israel.  167 countries voted “Yes,” including DPRK, Russia, Venezuela, Zimbabwe, China, etc.

When it was a question of the “Country-Specific” resolutions of the Third Committee, which are detested by many countries, as these generally unbalanced  one-sided resolutions are  conspicuous for their double standard, and used and abused for biased, politically motivated and repressive purposes, the U.S. enthusiastically voted “Yes” on each and every one, despite principled protest by a large number of states.   These resolutions demonize the nations independent of Western, and especially U.S. control.

These country-specific resolutions included:  “Situation of Human Rights in the Syrian Arab Republic,” for which the U.S. voted “Yes,” along with 105 other countries, with 57 abstentions and 15 “no” votes, including DPRK, China, Russia, Venezuela Zimbabwe, Cuba, Nicaragua, etc.

A similar outcome obtained with the resolution:  “Situation of Human Rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran,” With the U.S. voting “Yes,” along with 80 other nations, 70 countries abstained, and 30 countries voted “No,” including DPRK, Russia, China, Venezuela, Zimbabwe Nicaragua, Indonesia, India, Pakistan, Philippines, etc.

The resolution “Situation of Human Rights in the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and the City of Sevastopol, Ukraine,” of course demonizes Russia, which, at this neo-McCarthyite period of Western history serves as the convenient whipping-boy upon which blame is heaped for all the failings and crimes of the capitalist countries (although ascendant China is beginning to share Russia’s dubious distinction).  The U.S. predictably (undoubtedly the driving force for this resolution) voted “Yes,” along with 65 other countries, 83 countries abstained, and 23 countries voted “No,” including the DPRK, China, Russia, Zimbabwe, Venezuela, Cuba, etc.

The resolution so damning of the DPRK was “adopted by consensus,” which can be explained by the fact that many countries entirely dis-associated themselves from the resolution, making possible the “consensus” of the remaining ones.

Whatever the sanctimonious rhetoric the U.S.  spews forth in its tirades regarding “human rights” at the U.N. Security Council, its actual contempt for universal enjoyment of human rights is revealed in these votes rejecting almost every resolution guaranteeing protection of human rights for every human being on the planet. Ultimately, property is the paramount concern, and property concentrated in the control of the miniscule number of oligarchs who now possess more wealth than over half the human species in the world.  These oligarchs are the only humans who have rights, primarily the right to dictate the course of the lives of the majority of people who inhabit the globe, who now endure a condition very similar to the slavery which was theoretically abolished in the recent past.  The majority of human beings have, in reality, no power, and no rights.  This was revealed in the December 18 vote, as it is daily revealed by the vastly increasing numbers of the homeless, the starving, and the slaughtered in the capitalist “paradise” which Donald Trump promised Kim Jong Un.

*

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

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y. She is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Featured image is from National Review

The Democratic Party’s electoral strategy of impeaching Donald Trump is backfiring. Before impeachment, Trump was losing to each of the leading Democrats, but the latest USA Today/Suffolk University poll finds for the first time Trump defeating all of the leading Democratic candidates. Gallup reports that Trump’s approval has risen by six points since the launch of the impeachment inquiry. A CNN poll found that support for impeachment fell by five percent over the past month.

Rather than focus on issues that impact people’s lives — like racism and bigotry, the unfair economy that results in low wages, growing inequality, major corporations and the wealthy not paying taxes, as well as expensive and inadequate healthcare coverage — Democrats are focusing on the issue of withholding military aid to Ukraine for a proxy war against Russia when voters are tired of never-ending wars.

The Democrats, while trying to wrap themselves in the Constitution, are using impeachment as a partisan election-year tool to defeat Trump in 2020. It is failing and is confusing people on the Left. As Ajamu Baraka clarifies:

Political Stunt Could Erupt in Dangerous Ways

The Democrats are not focusing on what makes Trump unpopular, his open racism and sexism, his anti-environment and climate denialism policies, and his antipathy for whistleblowers and constant false statements. In fact, Representative Al Green introduced resolutions for impeachment that focused on these issues in 2017 and they were voted down by the House.

Raising Ukraine reminds people that Obama-Biden conducted an open coup there that brought more corruption to that country. Trump demanded an investigation of Joe Biden for interfering with an investigation of the appointment of his son Hunter to a well-paid board seat on Ukraine’s largest gas company — a job for which he lacked expertise. Ukraine-gate reminds people of Democratic Party corruption and their unpopular interventionist foreign policy.

Both the Democrats and Republicans have a long history of corrupt activities from the statehouses to the White House. Unfortunately, many of these activities are done with the cover of domestic law. Governments have a responsibility to ensure that basic needs are met and provide security, but in the United States, the government is a wealth-building tool for the already rich. And the security state is designed to protect the elites from the people. This is causing real hardship for most people in their everyday lives. Impeachment, as it is being conducted, will not improve things and may actually make them worse.

As Chris Hedges wrote in September, impeachment will not restore the rule of law or bring democracy but it will allow President Trump to raise the outrage of his base, which is armed, and potentially increase right-wing violence. This may already be happening in Tazewell County in Southwestern Virginia, where 82% voted for Trump in 2016. They recently deemed themselves a second amendment sanctuary county and passed a resolution asserting their right to form a militia.

To quote Hedges:

“Economic, social and political stagnation, coupled with a belief that our expectations for our lives and the lives of our children have been thwarted, breeds violence. Trump, fighting for his political life, will use rhetorical gasoline to set it alight. He will demonize his opponents as the embodiment of evil. He will seek to widen the divisions and antagonisms, especially around race. He will brand his political opponents as irredeemable enemies and traitors.”

The Democrat’s election-year stunt is also sucking time and activist energy away from working for solutions to the many crises we are facing. In this way, it is fueling insecurity and anger that could erupt in dangerous ways.

Protest at the DNC, Democratic Party Betrayal by John Zangas of the DC Media Group

Democrats Work Against The People’s Interests While Impeaching Trump

Throughout the impeachment process, Democrats lost opportunities to work for people and the planet and differentiate themselves from Trump. They demonstrated their complicity with policies that benefit the elites.

In 2016, Trump campaigned against corporate trade that sent jobs overseas and kept wages low in the US to win key Midwestern states. He railed on NAFTA, which hollowed out Rustbelt communities. During impeachment, the Democrats had the opportunity to show Trump does not represent the people but instead represents big business interests. NAFTA II, which Trump re-named the US Mexico Canada Agreement (USMCA), is a replay of NAFTA. It continues the tradition of corporate trade agreements while shuffling which industries profit from it. Instead of pointing out Trump’s failure, the Democrats signed off on his agreement after some modest amendments. This bi-partisan approval was a victory for Trump and a defeat for those who want corporate trade remade for people and the planet.

Trump also campaigned against never-ending wars and foreign interventions. While focusing on impeachment Democrats failed to point out Trump is doing the opposite of what he promised. On December 12, 188 Democrats joined him and on December 17, 37 Democrats voted for the funding in the Senate when it passed the largest military budget since World War II, $738 billion for the Pentagon. Trump signed it before flying off to his Mar-a-lago resort for the holidays. The corrupt leadership of both parties is shown in the Afghan Papers that expose the fraud of the 19-year failed trillion-dollar war for which the military had no strategy, was incompetent and knew was unwinnable.

The Democrats provided funding for a new branch of the military, the Space Force, which will lead to the greatest arms race in the history of the planet. The military budget continued the trillion-dollar upgrade of nuclear weapons begun under Obama spurring a nuclear arms race when we should be banning nuclear weapons. The Democrats could have pointed to massive spending on an arms race when the US is already spending more than the next 10 countries in the world combined — all at a time of crumbling infrastructure, the need for a rapid transition to a clean energy economy and urgent needs for housing, healthcare, and more. This followed shortly after changes in the rules on food stamps that will create food insecurity for up to 700,000 more people.

Pelosi called for impeachment at the same time as Trump’s embarrassing trip to the 70th anniversary NATO meeting. At the meeting, Trump was mocked by world leaders including French Prime Minister Macron who called NATO ‘brain dead’ because of Trump’s poor leadership. NATO should be ended as it is a force for the expansion of wars and wasteful spending on militarism but Democrats were silent on that reality.

During impeachment, regime change continued causing suffering in Latin America, the Middle East, and Asia. The economic war against Venezuelaescalated with continued efforts to put in place the failing puppet Guaido. Bolivia is suffering from US-supported regime change. US-funded protests in Hong Kong and false reports on the Muslim Uyghurs are escalating conflict with China. And, the US continues its efforts to topple the Iranian government with extreme sanctions and manipulation of protests in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

Finally, during impeachment, the UN climate meeting, COP 25, was held. While Trump has committed climate crimes, the Democrats are also guilty of such crimes. The United States has played a negative role throughout this history of the COP meetings. This continued at the Spain meetings where despite the US withdrawing from the Paris agreement, it continued to play a negative role.

Screenshot of final impeachment vote on Article I from MSNBC.

The Popular Movement and Impeachment

There is no “progressive” side to the impeachment battle between the millionaire’s parties. On one side, Donald Trump was using his office to investigate a political opponent. On the other side, the Democrats are protecting the corruption of Joe Biden and using impeachment as an election tool. The reality is past presidents could have been impeached for numerous violations of law including serious war crimes, illegal wars, illegal unilateral coercive measures (sanctions), selling their office for donations to their billion-dollar campaigns and crimes against the environment that risk our future by not only ignoring climate change but making it worse.

Impeachment may define the 2020 election. It is a perfect distraction to keep people from fighting for what we need. In 2020 the necessities of the people and protection of the planet will be silenced. Voters will be told to make no demands because we need to remove Trump and to unite around another corporatist Democratic presidential candidate.

The Democratic leadership and the corporate media are struggling to prevent the nomination of Senators Sanders or Warren because they oppose their progressive agenda. The media is not covering Howie Hawkins, a Green candidate who has put forward the most progressive agenda built around an Ecosocialist Green New Deal and economic equality.

We need to focus on issues in 2020 and fight for a People’s Agenda. Due to the misleadership of the corporate duopoly, the nation and planet are facing multiple crisis situations. Our job in 2020 is to focus on those issues, not on a candidate or on impeachment. We need to build popular support for confronting the climate crisis and changing laws and policies to shrink inequality and end systemic racism and militarism.

To win the People’s Agenda, we need a strong and organized Left in the United States. This requires political education so people understand what is happening around them and the role of government in it. It also requires building participatory democratic structures in our communities. We spoke with Leo Panitch about this in our latest episode of Clearing the FOG: “Corbyn’s Loss: What it means for Sanders and where the Left goes from here,” which you can hear or read the transcript.

When it comes to elections, the mirage democracy of the United States has very little room for the people in manipulated elections that create an illusion of democracy. We must build electoral structures that organize the people’s movements inside the electoral system. For us, this means building an effective independent left party outside of the corporate duopoly.

Impeachment is a partisan exercise. The Democrats had their partisan vote when they impeached Trump in the House. Pelosi is now preventing the Senate from its inevitable acquittal of Trump. No matter how impeachment turns out, it will not make a difference in advancing the people’s agenda. It is our job to focus on building the movement for enacting an agenda for people and planet, something both millionaire parties will fight to stop.

*

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

Revelations from The Guardian’s reporting Friday that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police wanted snipers to train their weapons on Indigenous water protectors resisting the construction of a natural gas pipeline in unceded Wet’suwet’en territory sparked outrage across the country and led to the worldwide deployment of a hashtag, #WouldYouShootMeToo, from activists in solidarity with the First Nations people.

Climate Strike Canada member Emma Lin was the first to combine the hashtag with a photo of herself holding up a sign with the words on it, sparking a movement of young activists doing the same worldwide.

#wouldyoushootmetoo @RCMP pic.twitter.com/y68I81w12f

— Climate Strike Canada (@canada_strike) December 21, 2019

Hi, I do want to clarify that I am the activist who started this campaign. I started it in solidarity with friends and family who are risking their lives, and I am deeply touched that other people have joined in. This is not a fight we can win alone. https://t.co/Aq2Ywkom36 pic.twitter.com/XZdjM8uYtK

— Emma (@_emareil) December 22, 2019

“It’s time to hold the RCMP and the Canadian government accountable for their racism,” tweeted Ontario-based activist Rayne Fisher-Quann.

we have evidence that the canadian state was willing to shoot and kill Indigenous land defenders. someone that looks like me would never get the same treatment. it's time to hold the RCMP and the Canadian government accountable for their racism. #WouldYouShootMeToo pic.twitter.com/AGLFPhZ1oz

— rayne ''listen to young people'' fisher-quann (@raynefq) December 21, 2019

Other youth climate advocates across the country and the globe joined in, holding up signs asking the RCMP if they too would be targets were they demonstrating for climate.

Solidarität mit Wet'suwet'en @Gidimten ✊#WouldYouShootMeToohttps://t.co/nlszLGwdwf pic.twitter.com/kXFkL7c0B4

— Fiona (@fionaforfuture) December 22, 2019

Solidarity now. Solidarity always. ✊
We, student strikers, are praised for our activism while Indigenous Land Defenders are threatened with lethal force. The RCMP is working as merceries to secure profits for @CoastalGasLink at the cost of our futures. #WouldYouShootMeToo? pic.twitter.com/HSSDigcwNG

— Climate Strike Canada (@canada_strike) December 21, 2019

How far is #Canada willing to go to protect the billionaires who run the oil and gas industry? #wouldyoushootmetoo is a campaign by @canada_strike to show solidarity with Wet'suwet'en land defenders who are fighting all of us. pic.twitter.com/z1Q3QSpA5K

— p a y t o n 🌽 (@paytonrose14) December 21, 2019

According to The Guardian, the RCMP’s determination to break the protesters seemed unhindered by concerns for life and safety of demonstrators:

Notes from a strategy session for a militarized raid on ancestral lands of the Wet’suwet’en nation show that commanders of Canada’s national police force, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP), argued that “lethal overwatch is req’d”—a term for deploying snipers.

The RCMP commanders also instructed officers to “use as much violence toward the gate as you want” ahead of the operation to remove a roadblock which had been erected by Wet’suwet’en people to control access to their territories and stop construction of the proposed 670km (416-mile) Coastal GasLink pipeline (CGL).

In a separate document, an RCMP officer states that arrests would be necessary for “sterilizing the site.”

In a statement, Gidimt’en spokesperson Sleydo’, also known by the name Molly Wickham, said that the conflict was “an issue of rights and title with our sovereign nation, and RCMP are acting as mercenaries for industry.”

“With terminology like ‘lethal overwatch’, ‘sterilize the site’, and the threat of child welfare removing our children from their homes and territory, we see the extent to which the provincial and federal governments are willing to advance the destruction of our lands and families for profit,” said Sleydo’. “The state has always removed our people from our lands to ensure control over the resources. This has never changed.”

Media Statement re: The Gaurdian article. For media backgrounder please go to: https://t.co/vaxGxC4Adj pic.twitter.com/fhbVejeLa4

— Gidimt’en Checkpoint (@Gidimten) December 21, 2019

As Common Dreams reported Friday, the news that RCMP officers wanted snipers to aid the breaking of the Gidimt’en checkpoint blockade by Indigenous activists fighting the TransCanada-built pipeline was met with outrage from around the globe.

That outrage continued through the weekend and begot the #WouldYouShootMeToo hashtag.

The fight continues, said Sleydo’.

“Here we are, nearly 2020, and we are still being threatened with violence, death, and the removal of our children for simply existing on our lands and following our laws,” Sleydo’ said.

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.

Featured image: Climate Strike Canada member Emma Lin holds up a sign in protest of revelations that Canadian security forces wanted to train snipers on Indigenous protesters. (Image: Climate Strike Canada/Twitter)

The Chief Executive of B’nai Brith Canada has condemned as anti-democratic a vote in late 2019 by Canada’s Trudeau government. In one of its first major international acts, Trudeau’s minority government sided with 166 other member states of the United Nations’ General Assembly. The Jewish organization expressed “outrage” at Canada’s position on a resolution dealing critically with the subject of Israel-Palestinian relations. “This vote reflects poorly on Canada’s record as a defender of democracy and justice. It stains Canada’s reputation,” said B’nai Brith’s CEO, Michael Mostyn.

Apparently Mr. Mostyn thinks nothing of invoking the principles of democracy and justice as justification for discounting as wrong and misguided the dramatic outcome of a free and fair vote by the world’s governments. In Mr. Mostyn’s view, all that is just and democratic adheres to the position of the five dissident governments that voted against the UN Resolution. The naysayers are Israel, the USA, Australia, Micronesia and Marshall Islands.

Mr. Mostyn and many other representatives of the Israel lobby have chastised the Trudeau government for taking a step that pulls Canada into the mainstream of global opinion especially when it comes to conditions in Gaza and the Occupied Territories. The Trudeau government has planted Canada’s flag among those of 167 national delegations. The governments of all these countries agreed to place an international spotlight on the many illegal acts that violate “the permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people.”

In giving explicit reasons for its condemnation of the now-adopted UN Resolution, B’nai Brith Canada stated that it “rejects the contention that the [Jewish] settlements [in the Occupied Territories including East Jerusalem] are the core issue of the Israel-Palestine conflict.” The UN Resolution details many of the consequences for indigenous Palestinians of the influx of 700,000 Jewish settlers into territories illegally seized through armed conquest by the Israeli Armed Forces in 1967.

The Resolution also lists some of the public health abominations forced on “the Gaza strip during the military operations of July and August of 2014, which, inter alia, has polluted the environment and which negatively affects the functioning of sanitation systems and water supply.” There is reference to “unexploded ordinance” as well as a “chronic energy shortage” in Gaza where “only 5% of the ground water remains potable.”

The Resolution makes specific reference to “the detrimental impact on Palestinian natural resources being caused by the unlawful construction of the wall by Israel, the Occupying power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, and in its grave affect as well on the economic and social conditions of the Palestinian people.”

B’nai Brith’s criticism of the Trudeau government ignores most of the explicit content outlined in the now-adopted UN Resolution. Instead of facing the facts, B’nai Brith radically misrepresents as “anti-terror measures” the broad set of changes the Israel government has imposed on the lands at issue.

The Resolution clearly identifies the actions of a government whose goal it is to favor one group by dispossessing and disempowering another. The situation on the ground in the area occupied and controlled by the Israeli government makes it absolutely clear that the real goal is to replace the indigenous Palestinian population. The international emblem of Israel’s replacement project has become the 131 illegal Jewish settlements plus the 110 illegal outposts created to prevent Palestinians from enjoying any security of habitation.

B’nai Brith Canada sometimes represents itself as a “human rights” organization engaged in benevolent philanthropy. It has exploited this image to gain federal recognition as a registered charity capable of granting tax deductions for donations. Perhaps the time has come for an objective federal assessment to see if B’nai Brith Canada has lived up to its side of the bargain. Has B’nai Brith Canada acted like a genuine charity devoted to the ideal of universal human rights or has it acted more as a partisan political lobby?

B’nai Brith Canada announced in its press release that it “remains opposed to Palestinian attempts to internationalize the issue.” How ironic. As I see it, the track record of B’nai Brith Canada is one part of a much larger body of evidence demonstrating the scale of an elaborate Israel lobby based in many countries? Doesn’t the multinational reach of this very active political lobby effectively internationalize the core issues of Israel-Palestinian relations on a 24/7 basis?

The instability of relations between Israel and the Palestinians has significant implications for the domestic and international polices of many countries. For instance, how will the Trudeau government and the Trump government deal with the contentions that have put them on different sides of the recent UN vote? Will the Trudeau government continue to move away from the legacy of Harper government when it comes to correcting the gross inequities permeating almost every aspect of Israel-Palestinian relations?

*

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.

Anthony James Hall has been Editor In Chief of the American Herald Tribune since its inception. Between 1990 and 2018 Dr. Hall was Professor of Globalization Studies and Liberal Education at the University of Lethbridge where he is now Professor Emeritus. The focus of Dr. Hall’s teaching, research, and community service came to highlight the conditions of the colonization of Indigenous peoples in imperial globalization since 1492.

Featured image is from AHT

One of the first bills to be introduced by Britain’s new Conservative government will reportedly stop “local authorities from boycotting individual companies”, a move described as targeting the Palestinian-led boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) movement.

The Conservative Party election manifesto did indeed pledge to “ban public bodies from imposing their own direct or indirect boycotts, disinvestment or sanctions campaigns against foreign countries”, on the grounds that such moves “undermine community cohesion”.

Intensified attacks

Meanwhile, Eric Pickles, the British government’s “special envoy for post-Holocaust matters”, told a conference in Jerusalem on Sunday that “BDS is antisemitic and should be treated as such”, in remarks celebrated on Twitter by Conservative Friends of Israel.

According to a report by the right-wing outlet Jewish News Syndicate, “Pickles said Johnson’s government would make BDS illegal for governmental and public bodies, a move that would prevent them from working with anyone who supports the effort to isolate and financially punish Israel.”

For now, it is unclear precisely what the government is planning; there may be an attempt at intimidation, rather than a new law.

In 2016, the government issued a procurement guidance note for local authorities that merely restated existing policy, in contrast to a supposed “ban on boycotts” trailed months previously. Restrictions on Local Government Pension Schemes, meanwhile, are being contested in the courts.

But more radical plans could be afoot – for example, banning pro-BDS groups from using local authorities’ facilities (as seen, and contested, in Germany).

Events in Britain are part of a bigger picture of intensified attacks on Palestinians and their allies, including in the United States and France. What unites such developments is a concerted effort by the Israeli government, and its supporters, to shield apartheid from accountability.

Conflating antisemitism and anti-Zionism

Thus, as Israel cements a single, apartheid state on the ground, two related moves are being made to stigmatise international opposition as a form of “antisemitism”.

Firstly, any kind of action pertaining to accountability – even just accurately labelling Israeli settlement products, never mind boycotting them – constitutes a “singling out” of Israel, and is thus antisemitic.

Secondly, questioning or criticising Israel’s identity as a “Jewish state” because of what that means for Palestinians is also deemed “antisemitic” – which, in a post-two-state era, will be increasingly used to delegitimise calls for the transformation of the apartheid status quo into a single democratic state.

Both of these elements are part of definitions of antisemitism being used to stifle debate, including in the formation of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) document. As Jared Kushner wrote in The New York Times last week: “The Remembrance Alliance definition makes clear what our administration has stated publicly and on the record: Anti-Zionism is anti-Semitism.”

And the author of the text on which the IHRA definition is based, Kenneth Stern, last week felt forced to call out how claims of “antisemitism” are being used to attack legitimate free speech. “I suspect that if Kushner or I had been born into a Palestinian family displaced in 1948, we might have a different view of Zionism, and that need not be because we vilify Jews or think they conspire to harm humanity,” Stern acknowledged.

“Further, there’s a debate inside the Jewish community whether being Jewish requires one to be a Zionist. I don’t know if this question can be resolved, but it should frighten all Jews that the [US] government is essentially defining the answer for us.”

Criminalising solidarity activism

The claim that BDS is antisemitic underpins efforts to toxify or even criminalise Palestine solidarity activism. “We are advancing legislation in many countries against the BDS … so that it will simply be illegal to boycott Israel,” Israel’s ambassador to the UN, Danny Danon, said back in 2016.

In this regard, the Israeli government is working alongside non-state groups that focus on smearing Palestinian, Israeli and international organisations calling out Israel’s violations of international law, as well as attacking any initiative designed to hold Israel to account.

The main protagonists in such efforts are very open about their efforts, as you can see in a video of a panel discussion earlier this year including NGO Monitor, Eugene Kontorovich of the right-wing think-tank Kohelet Forum, Shurat HaDin, and an official from Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs.

Kontorovich, for example, illustrates the overlap between those in Israel seeking to both normalise, and advance, Israel’s permanent hold on the occupied West Bank, including its illegal settlements, while simultaneously placing meaningful opposition to colonisation and annexation beyond the pale.

Battle to intensify

As Joshua Leifer, associate editor of Dissent Magazine, put it earlier this month: “As the two-state paradigm finally passes from the scene, the Israeli government is pushing initiatives around the world to codify opposition to the one-state reality as antisemitic.”

Under British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, there is unfortunately good reason to expect that a Conservative government pursuing a close relationship with the Trump administration – and with a cabinet including committed supporters of Israel – will be eager to play its part in the dehumanisation of Palestinians.

If that sounds too strong, then heed the words of editor Amjad Iraqi, who warned last week of the “chilling message” being delivered by the likes of the US and French governments: namely, that “Palestinians are not entitled to political agency as a people fighting for justice and human rights”.

That is the grim territory being contested, and here in Britain, the battle to insist on Palestinians’ humanity and basic rights is only set to intensify.

*

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

Ben White is the author of ‘Israeli Apartheid: A Beginner’s Guide’ and ‘Palestinians in Israel: Segregation, Discrimination and Democracy’. He is a writer for Middle East Monitor, and his articles have been published by Al Jazeera, al-Araby, Huffington Post, The Electronic Intifada, The Guardian, and more.

At the start of the Tang dynasty, in the early 7^th century, a young wandering monk embarked on a 16-year long voyage from the imperial capital Chang’an (today’s Xian) to India to collect Buddhist manuscripts. At the time Chang’an was six times bigger than Rome at its height, with a population of over one million – the epicenter of Asian civilization.

History ended up converting Xuanzang into a legend and a national hero in China – although in the West he would never reach Marco Polo levels of popularity.

Xuanzang had embarked on a quest that still resonates today. He wanted to know whether all men – or just an enlightened few – could attain Buddhahood. There was only one way to find out: ride all the way to India and bring back Sanskrit texts to China, especially from the Yogacara school of Buddhism, which professed that the outside world did not exist: it was merely a projection of one’s consciousness.

On his epic journey, Xuanzang went through hell and high water: sandy storms in the Taklamakan desert (“You can get in but you never get out”), avalanches in the Tian Shan mountains, pirates in the Ganges. His travels on the ancient Silk Road are mesmerizing, particularly in the years 629 and 630 as he hit northern Silk Road oases such as the kingdom of Hami.

It was at these oases that Xuanzang would reboot his small caravan of camels and horses and interact with local kings, influential merchants and serial warriors. He was already on his way to becoming the most famous pilgrim ever on the oldest trade route in the world.

Sino-Turkic meeting of minds

During my own trip, mixing ancient and new Silk Roads, I crossed Kyrgyzstan from south to north, from the desolate Tajik-Kyrgyz border on the Pamir highway – which looked like a scene from Tarkovsky’s Stalker – all the way to the crossroads of Sary-Tash, with a detour via a made by China road to examine the Kyrgyz-China border at Irkeshtam; then all the way to Osh, the getaway to the Ferghana valley via the mind-bending Taldyk pass; bordering Lake Toktogul, facing myriad other snowed-over passes; and up to the final dash towards the capital Bishkek.

What I really wanted to reach was the pasturage – at this time of the year far from verdant – by Lake Issyk-Kul, where Xuanzang lived an extraordinary historical moment as he met nothing less than the immense tented court of the great khan of the Western Turks.

It was thanks to the king of Turfan – another Silk Road oasis, not far from the current capital of Xinjiang, Urumqi – that Xuanzang was given 24 royal letters to be shown to twenty-four different kingdoms on his way, finally leading to the great khan of the Western Turks. The king of Turfan was in fact a vassal of the great khan, and he was asking for protection for his Chinese friend, invoking a medieval code of honor that applied equally to Europe and Asia.

The empire of the Western Turks at the time extended from the Altai mountains – today in Russia – to territory that’s now part of Afghanistan and Pakistan. To reach the great khan, Xuanzang went through frozen hell. He described mountains of ice that rose up to the sky and ice peaks tumbling down with a mighty roar. It took him one week just to cross the Bedal pass (4,284 meters high) in what was then Chinese Turkestan. The Western Turks used this pass to connect with the Tarim basin. Farther down the road, Xuanzang would still have to face the Hindu Kush and the Pamirsś

Xuanzang and his ragged mini-caravan finally arrived at the southern shore of Lake Issyk-Kul (“Warm Lake”), an inland sea that never freezes, and the second-largest in the world after the Titicaca in Bolivia. That happened to be the winter headquarters of the great khan, while his summer capital remained Tashkent.

Southern shore of Lake Issyk-kul. Photo: Asia Times / Pepe Escobar

I was hosted by a lovely young mother and her baby at a yurt by Lake Issyk-Kul. Xuanzang’s description of the lake, which I got from a 1969 Oriental Books reprint of the original 1884 London version of Si-yu-Ki; Buddhist records of the Western World, by Xuanzang, translated by S. Beal, could have been written today. Except for the dragons and monsters, of course:

A yurt by Lake Issyk-Kul. The design at the top is featured in the Kyrgyz national flag. Photo: Asia Times / Pepe Escobar

“On all sides it is enclosed by mountains, and various streams empty themselves into it and are lost. The color of the water is a bluish-black, its taste is bitter and salt. The waves of this lake roll along tumultuously as they expend themselves. Dragons and fish inhabit it together. At certain occasions scaly monsters rise to the surface, on which travelers passing by put up their prayers of good fortune.”

Meet the balbals

So in the year 630 Xuanzang finally met the great khan of the Western Turks, at the northwest shore of Lake Issyk-Kul, in Tokmak.

Tokmak happens to be very close to the Burana tower, the only major Silk Road site still standing in Kyrgyzstan. We are in the Chuy valley, which was a very busy side branch of the Northern Silk Road, at the crossroads of the Sogdian, Turkic and Chinese civilizations.

Burana Tower, the only Silk Road landmark left standing in Kyrgizstan. Photo: Asia Times / Pepe Escobar

All that remains of what in the 11^th century was a sophisticated city called Balasagun – which the Mongols named Gobolik when they rammed through it in 1218 – is the tower, actually a half minaret. Behind the tower we find the cutest stone creatures in living memory: the balbal, 1,500 year-old stone grave markers.

The meeting of Xuanzang and the great khan was a major success. He described “riders mounted on camels and horses, dressed in furs and fine woolen cloth and carrying long lances, banners and straight bows.” Much like the warriors one sees at the extraordinary exhibits at the National Museum of Kazakhstan in Nur-Sultan. The multitude, wrote Xuanzang, “stretched so far that the eye could not tell where it ended.”

This happened to be the last description ever of the great nomad confederation led by the great khan, which collapsed to internal strife still in the early 7^th century.

There was also a very important matter to clarify: horses. And that led me to the traditional Sunday animal market at Karakol, not far from the southeast corner of the lake. There I saw multiple descendants of the legendary Przhewalsky horses.

Przhewalsky, after whom the diminutive breed of Central Asian wild horses is named, was the top scientific explorer of Mongolia, the Gobi, Tibet and Xinjiang between 1870 and 1885 – and he died in a hospital near Karakol after contracting typhus. He had led a caravan crossing the Taklamakan – an almost impossible feat. A lovely Soviet-era museum near Karakol pays him due tribute.

Sino-Turkic relations at the time of the great khan were excellent. By the early years of Tang Emperor Taizong, the great khan was at the height of his powers, controlling every latitude between the borders of the Chinese empire and Persia, and from Kashmir in the south to the Altai mountains in the north.

True to the legendary spirit of the ancient Silk Road as a crossroads of cultures and religion, the great khan even knew about Buddhism (a monk from India had tried to convert him). Very close to Tokmak, Soviet archeologists found two Buddhist shrines from the 7^th or 8^th century.

The top gossip of Xuanzang meeting the great khan is that the khan tried to dissuade him from going to India: “It is such a hot land where people were like savages without decorum.” But the khan soon understood that Xuanzang was a man on a mission. He gave him letters of introduction to all his countless vassals along the way – princes in Gandhara, which today is split between Afghanistan and Pakistan. Xuanzang also got as gifts 50 pieces of silk and beautiful clothes in crimson satin.

And so our wandering monk set out in safety on his Central Asian Turkdom epic, crossing the Syr-Darya, traversing the Desert of Red Sands and arriving at fabled Samarkand. The greatest ever Silk Road pilgrimage – 16,000 km in 16 years – was only beginning. This tale is at the heart of the 21^st century New Silk Roads. China is aiming to revive the spirit of one, two, a thousand Xuanzangs.

*

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 Asia Times.

Pepe Escobar is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, construction of which is intended to transport 55 billion cubic metres of Russian gas to Germany per year under the Baltic Sea, is a ragbag of options and promises.  The fruit of a deal between Berlin and Moscow, it has troubled those within Russia, Germany, Europe and the United States, though for different reasons.

On the subject of environment, the ledger of negatives against the project are weighty.  Environmental organisations fear the ecological threat the pipeline poses to the Baltic Sea.  The Russian office of Greenpeace has claimed that Nord Stream 2 AG, owned by Public Joint Stock Company Gazprom, is an ecological misfit. It threatens the Kurgalsky nature reserve even as it promises transplanting various unique plant species affected by the gas pipeline.  According to findings from the V. L. Komarov Botanical Institute, the picture is even uglier than a breach of promise: the plant varieties in question, listed in the Red Book of the Russian Federation and the Red Book of the Leningrad region, were actually destroyed.

Bird life has also been affected, with confirmation that white-tailed eagles, which are also Red-listed, have fled their nesting sites in the reserve.  Nord Stream 2’s response has been one of comparing apples and bananas, an analytical approach doomed to inaccuracy.  “Eagles are known for their resilience.  Documentary evidence from the first Nord Stream project shows us that construction activities did not affect eagles’ behavioural patterns in Germany.”

The United States is less concerned with matters green.  Nord Stream 2 poses a security threat.  Trump’s former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, saw it as “undermining Europe’s overall energy security and stability.”  US energy secretary Rick Perry argues that “Russian gas has strings attached.”  The claim is that Germany will be come too reliant and Ukraine further weakened.  Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas supply, with 40 percent of Europe’s total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil.  A slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered imminent.

Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom’s deepening involvement in the continent’s energy market.  Poland’s anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a measure of that opposition by fining France’s Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against Gazprom.  In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny.  A Franco-German compromise was struck: Nord Stream 2 would be placed “under European control”.

The Trump administration’s actions against Gazprom and Russia’s energy influence, found in a provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble endeavours.  The provision threatens sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their activities cease “immediately”.  The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and wishes to frustrate the effort.  Market share is at stake.

The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that Trump’s announcement is already biting.  “In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),” went a company statement, “Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities.”  The company would “proceed, consistent with the legislation’s wind down provision and expect guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from the relevant US authority.”

The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise.  Themes of energy security are reiterated.  The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, “Completing the project is essential for European supply security.”  Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the sanctions measure.  “A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries to develop the real sector of their economies!”

For a EU spokesman, this constituted “the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business.”  A German government spokesman suggested that such actions “affect German and other European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs.”  Finance Minister Olaf Scholz has sees it as an infringement of sovereignty.  “It is up to the companies involved in the construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions.”

Nothing is quite so simple.  Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious.  One state’s sovereign promise is another’s weakening.  Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky, capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance.  Those who control the tap control a country’s future.

But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence.  In the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests, prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become handmaidens of economic self-interest.  And in all this, the prospect of ecological devastation remains genuine but an aside to the jabbering disagreement of political 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.

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]

In recent months, various independent business and research sources have been raising questions about the accuracy of US official job and wage statistics. Several more sources have joined the discussion, questioning the oft-cited official—and widespread mainstream press reported–3.1% annual rise in US wages the past year. As many have indicated, the 3.1% grossly over-estimates recent wage increases in the US for several important reasons.

To being with, the figure is not adjusted for inflation, so it doesn’t reflect real wage change. Even official inflation data (which underestimates inflation for most working class households) reduces real wages to no more than 1.5%, per the US PCE price index. And even less, if the official CPI index is used to adjust for inflation. In addition to failing to reduce for inflation, the 3.1% is also an ‘average’, with actual wage increases highly skewed to the top 10% of the work force so workers at the median or below are likely seeing no wage increases or even wage reductions and the top getting more than 1.5%. Moreover, as it has also been pointed out, the 3.1% figure is for full time employed workers only. It therefore ignores the 50-60 million or so part time, temp, gig, contract and other workers in its estimate. Factor all that in and the real wage change for the vast majority of the 160 million plus US work force is flat at best and even falling for millions–not rising as the official government 3.1% would have you think.

Various independent business, bank and other wage surveys area increasingly supporting the alternative view that US wages have hardly risen at all in recent years–either under Trump or before under Obama. Or for decades now for that matter.

Here’s two more recent, independent surveys supporting that alternative view.

The latest Bankrate survey, released just this past week, showed that 51% of all workers (about 82 million) in the US DID NOT GET A WAGE INCREASE at all this past year. (And 22% of the remaining 49%, who did get a raise, got it by moving to another job and not from their employer actually hiking their pay. Moreover, the employer they changed to may have not actually raised their wage on their new job, even if the worker who changed jobs realized a high wage. But the Labor Dept. considers that a wage increase, even if in the real economy no wages were actually raised. So for the economy as a whole even that 22% is likely overestimated as well, even if the individual worker realized a wage hike).

The same Bankrate survey showed that last year nearly two-thirds (62% or 99 million) of US workers said got no wage increase whatsoever.

According to mainstream economists, standard economic theory says that a labor market as tight as today’s (3.7% unemployment) should result in a big demand for labor and therefore a big rise in wages.  But it has not, which must mean either the 3.1% wage increase numbers are false; or the unemployment numbers (3.7%) are wrong and the labor market is not as ‘tight’ as they are saying; or that economists’ theory about the relationship of wages to employment is just bullshit. Or maybe all the above!

As this blog has argued in the past, it is likely the wage hikes are going to the top 10% of professionals, tech workers, managers & supervisors, etc. And the majority of jobs being created are actually added-on 2nd and 3rd part time, temp, contingent, contract jobs that the Labor Dept. stats aren’t reflecting accurately; that is, the official Labor Dept. stats are picking up those contingent jobs that are primary (first) jobs and not counting second or third jobs.

An interesting alternative source also throwing light on the questionable official labor stats is the report released last month by the Brookings Institute. Among the report’s other interesting results, it found that 44% of all US workers, age 18-64 (53 million) now hold low wage jobs with median annual earning of just $17,950. With the cutoff of age 64, that 53 million should be even higher, since the fastest growing segment of new entrants to the labor force are senior workers older than 64, going back to work because they can’t make ends meet in retirement any longer (given the collapse of savings, minimal pensions, and the rise of social security retirement to age 67–soon to go higher). So add at least another 5 million of senior returnees to the labor force to the Brookings’ estimate of 53 million making less than $18,000 a year in wage income.

The 58 million working part time/temp/gig jobs and earning barely $8/hr. likely constitute the majority of the 51% of all US who received no wage hike from their employers this past year (and 62% the year before) per the aforementioned Bankrate Survey.

This has been going on for decades, and not just in recent years: more and more part time/temp/contract/gig jobs are being created while wages are stagnating or even declining. What capitalists, employers, and politicians are saying to 90% of the work force is: “if you want a raise, get a second or third job. Work longer hours for more pay. Don’t expect to get a wage increase for the primary job you’re working. Only if you’re really critical for boosting our productivity and therefore profits, or are highly skilled and necessary for our new tech industry, or if you’re one of us managers–will we give you a wage increase. If not, work more and work harder!”

Talking about working harder, according to the Economic Policy Institute, Americans’ productivity went up 70% from 1979-2019, but wages rose by a mere 12%. That’s an ‘average’ annual wage gain of 12% over the last 40 years! Or about 0.3% of one percent per year. And again even that’s an average. Reduce it for inflation and it’s been a wage reduction for most that’s been going on for a generation and more!

In yet another survey, reported last week by Jonathan Rothwell of the New York Times, the IRS data on jobs increasingly contradicts the official US Labor Dept. data: The latter indicates self-employed (contract, gig, etc.) at only 10% of the labor force, and actually declining in per cent terms last year. Whereas the IRS data indicates 17% and rising in per cent terms. The difference suggested by Rothwell is that the Labor Dept. data shows part time and contract work only for those whose part time job is primary–i.e. is the majority of their work time. Second, third such jobs, cobbled together to try to make ends meet are not being reflected in the Labor Dept. data on contingent jobs (part time, temp, contractor, gig, etc.).

The Labor Dept. officially estimates only 5% of workers (8 million) now hold multiple jobs. That’s of course a joke that few really believe. Even a Gallup survey estimates 28% (45 million) now hold multiple jobs. In other words, like the Labor Dept.’s 3.1% wage increase official estimate, it’s jobs data is also inaccurate and suspect.

Yet another study just released questioning the official data, called ‘Our Great Jobs Demonstration Survey’, the results of which are available in the December 20, 2019 New York Times, showed that 36% of the work force are no longer employed in the traditional one-job with one-employer relationship that the Labor Dept. seems to be myopically focused on. That’s equal to about 57.6 million–and thus about equivalent to our 53-58 million estimate of workers earning $8 an hour or less who likely received no wage increase at all (unless the blue state in which they lived raised its minimum wage above the still federal minimum of only $7.2 an hour).

To summarize, accumulating evidence from various respected independent research and survey sources–including business research companies like Bankrate, ADP, and others–are providing mounting evidence that the official US government estimate of a 3.1% wage increase is a gross misrepresentation of reality which the mainstream press is more than happy to propagate to maintain the myth that the US economy is doing great for everyone. Ditto for the official jobs data that inaccurately reflects what’s going on with part time/temp/contract/gig work where the absence of wage increases are predominantly located.

And once the next recession around the corner hits with full impact, the wage and job numbers will no doubt be even worse. Not even the official obfuscation will be able to cover it up.

The majority of the American public knows from their everyday experience that the official government economic data trumpeted daily in the press and from the mouths of politicians does not reflect their actual experience. They know this isn’t the ‘greatest economy in US history’ (Trump’s tweet).  Even the chairman of the executive committee of the US Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Wilson, admitted to the Wall St. Journal last week (December 13, 20109, p. R2): “We’re in a place where people’s lives have not been made better off”. To which he added “A good portion of the public has lost faith in the capitalist system”.

Got that one right, Wilson!

*

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. Jack Rasmus is author of the just published book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Economic Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, January 2020, which is available at discount from his blog and website at http://jackrasmus.com

We have made some progress in our campaign to meet our running costs and put an end to our monthly deficit, but we still need your help. As grateful as we are to those who have given so far, the total number of donations and membership subscriptions we have received over the past year still only amounts to a very small fraction of the tens of thousands of people who read our website on a daily basis. If you can make a contribution to help secure the future of GlobalResearch.ca, please click below.

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

*     *     *

3,000 Billion Dollars into the Bottomless Well of Afghanistan

By Manlio Dinucci, December 23, 2019

In the London Declaration, the 29 member countries of NATO reaffirmed “the engagement for the security and long-term stability of Afghanistan”. One week later, on the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, (used to empty a number of aging skeletons out of the closets, according to political necessity), the Washington Post managed to force the declassification of 2,000 pages of documents which reveal that “US civil servants fooled the public about the war in Afghanistan”. Basically, they hid its disastrous effects, including the economic effects, of a war which has been dragging on for 18 years.

Afghan Papers Inadvertently Document WaPo’s Role in Spreading Official Lies

By Joshua Cho, December 22, 2019

If the Post is now publishing material demonstrating that US officials have been “following the same talking points for 18 years,” emphasizing how they are “making progress,” “especially” when the war is “going badly,” shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that it has been cheerleading this same line for all of those 18 years? Doesn’t it have a responsibility to examine how it served as a primary vehicle for those officials to spread these same “talking points” to spin the coverage in the desired fashion?

The Afghanistan Fiasco and the Decline and Fall of the American Military

By Philip Giraldi, December 20, 2019

A devastating investigative report was published in the Washington Post on December 9^th. Dubbed the “Afghanistan Papers” in a nod to the Vietnam War’s famous “Pentagon Papers,” the report relied on thousands of documents to similarly expose how the US government at the presidential level across three administrations, acting in collaboration with the military brass and civilian bureaucracy, deliberately and systematically lied repeatedly to the public and media about the situation in Afghanistan.

The “Afghanistan Papers”: Deep State Narrative Management

By Kit Knightly, December 20, 2019

The Big Reveal for the Washington Post this week is the release of the Afghanistan Papers. A series of interviews and documents “compiled in secret” and then the subject of a “legal challenge” from the US government.

The WaPo baldly calls it: “A secret history of the war”. But there’s nothing here that’s really secret, and very little actual history. What do they tell us? Absolutely nothing, except what we’re supposed to believe.

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

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, December 20, 2019

In 2004,  the proceeds of the Afghan heroin trade yielded an estimated global revenue of the order of 90 billion dollars. This estimate was based on retail sales corresponding to a total supply of the order of 340,000 kg of pure heroin (corresponding to Afghanistan’s 3400 tons of opium production) (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s War on Terrorism, Chapter XVI, Global Research, Montreal 2005)

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

The Real Lesson of Afghanistan Is that Regime Change Does Not Work

By Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, December 20, 2019

The trove of U.S. “Lessons Learned” documents on Afghanistan published by the Washington Post portrays, in excruciating detail, the anatomy of a failed policy, scandalously hidden from the public for 18 years. The “Lessons Learned” papers, however, are based on the premise that the U.S. and its allies will keep intervening militarily in other countries, and that they must therefore learn the lessons of Afghanistan to avoid making the same mistakes in future military occupations.

What Everyone Is Missing About the Afghanistan Papers

By Darius Shahtahmasebi, December 18, 2019

If you need more proof that lawmakers in the U.S. couldn’t care less about America’s woeful commitment to human rights abroad—or even care about the public who vote them into office—look no further than the recent Afghanistan papers and the reaction to the publications from Congress.

According to the Washington Post, the outlet had obtained 2,000 pages of notes from interviews with more than 400 generals, diplomats, and other officials directly involved in the war. The documents showed that U.S. officials were lying about the progress being made in Afghanistan, lacked a basic understanding of Afghanistan, were hiding unmistakable evidence that the war had become unwinnable, and wasted close to $1 trillion in the process.

Afghanistan War – The Crime of the Century

By Rep. Ron Paul, December 18, 2019

“We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan. We didn’t know what we were doing.” So said Gen. Douglas Lute, who oversaw the US war on Afghanistan under Presidents Bush and Obama. Eighteen years into the longest war in US history, we are finally finding out, thanks to thousands of pages of classified interviews on the war published by the Washington Post last week, that General Lute’s cluelessness was shared by virtually everyone involved in the war.

*

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

Tis the season for frenzied buying of stuff people don’t need, ignoring what’s most important.

What matters most is what most Americans, others in the West, and most elsewhere are denied — notably peace, equity and justice.

Instead they’re tormented by hollowed out human and civil rights, unemployment and mass underemployment, eroding social services, ecocide, and governance serving privileged interests exclusively at the expense of beneficial social change.

Joy to the world during holiday season doesn’t exist. How can it with endless US wars on humanity raging at home and abroad, with democracy a meaningless figure of speech in the West, not reality, with predatory capitalism the beating heart of these nations’ politico/socio-economic systems, enforced by police state harshness.

The American way is all about inequality, injustice, exploitation, militarism, and imperial wars of conquest for control and plunder of resources.

Inside the bubble is paradise for its privileged class, outside growing dystopian hell, especially for the least advantaged.

The wealth gap between rich and most other Americans is greatest since the late 19th/early 20th century robber barons age, poverty and underemployment the nation’s leading growth industries, along with food insecurity and homelessness.

High pay/good benefits jobs continue to be offshored to low-wage countries — replaced by part-time or temp rotten ones.

Imperial wars and predatory capitalism are America’s most defining features, monopolies and oligopolies overwhelming small business, notably family-owned ones.

Agribusiness displaced family farms. The 1935 National Labor Relations Act was the high-water mark of labor/management relations in the US — for the first time creating a collective bargaining level playing field.

Post-WW II, US worker rights steadily eroded, today a shadow of earlier times. Last year, only 10.5% of the nation’s working class were union members — compared to triple that number in the 1940s and 50s, the private sector harmed most.

A scant 6.4% of its workers are unionized, according to Bureau of Labor data, compared to nearly 17% in 1983 — because of steady US de-industrialization, replaced by low-pay service jobs with low-unionization rates.

So-called pro-management “right to work” laws enacted in around half of US states contributed to de-unionization by stipulating that workers don’t have to join them.

Decline in US union membership contributed significantly to low wages, according to the National Bureau of Economic Research, saying “evidence (shows) that unions raise wages for less-skilled workers” — by a factor of 15 – 20% because of collective bargaining power.

Workers in the US and other Western countries are exploited by rotten jobs, low wages, poor or no benefits, along with weak or no union representation for maximum corporate profits.

America’s most vulnerable people of color were transformed from chattel to wage slavery. Police state laws and mass incarceration replaced fundamental freedoms.

Resisting the imperial state is met with brute force. Many US inner city minority communities resemble Occupied Palestine.

Killer cops operate like Israeli security forces, killing thousands in America annually, official numbers undercounting reality.

There’s no joy to the world at Christmas or any other time of year with this going on nationwide, with endless imperial wars raging abroad, with countless millions enduring its ravaging, with the worst of all possible worlds for long-suffering people worldwide.

For America’s ruling class, Christmas is all take and no give, bah humbug its message to ordinary people.

Social justice champion Emma Goldman once said “hopes…for the new year depend neither on religious nor political calculations.”

“They rest on the awakened consciousness of the people, upon whom depends the great and glorious future — a new social structure built on freedom and well-being for all.”

Noted anti-war/revolutionary activist Rosa Luxemburg earlier said:

“We stand today…before the awful proposition: either the triumph of imperialism and the destruction of all culture, and, as in ancient Rome, depopulation, desolation, degeneration, a vast cemetery; or, the victory of socialism.”

During the holiday season and throughout the year, dark forces in the US and elsewhere trample on the rights and welfare of ordinary people.

Grim tidings define the holiday season over peace on earth, good will to all, and positive change.

*

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.

Bolivia’s President in exile Evo Morales Thursday announced that Spanish jurist Baltasar Garzon will represent him in the efforts to invalidate the arrest warrant issued by the coup-born government.

“We formed an international team with Baltasar Garzon… We will act legally against this arrest warrant, which is neither constitutional nor legal,” Morales said.

This announcement was made from Buenos Aires, Argentina, where the Movement Towards Socialism (MAS) leader resides with political refugee status.

Former judge Baltazar Garzon acquired international renown in the late 1990s when he succeeded in arresting the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet and attempted to convict him of crimes against humanity committed during his government (1973-1990).

On Dec. 18, Bolivia’s coup-born regime led by Jeanine Añez issued an arrest warrant against Morales and accused him of sedition and terrorism.

To justify this paradoxical accusation, the U.S.-backed de-facto regime presented a recording in which Morales was supposedly heard asking his supporters to fight against the Añez regime and block the roads to prevent the supply of food to the cities.

After being forced to leave his country due to a military uprising, which was later discovered to be motivated by economic rewards that the Bolivian far-right promised to security officers, Morales traveled to Mexico where President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador granted him political asylum.

Bolivia. La hipocresía de la UE y otros gobiernos del mundo justifican rupturas violentas de la democracia cuando no se trata de sus aliados. Lo que ocultan son sus negocios e intereses. Bolivia de un golpe* https://t.co/Oo1gnqAg2X vía @equaltimes @CSA_TUCA @marianovazkez

— Iván González (@IvanGonzalva) December 20, 2019

Bolivia: The hypocrisy of the European Union (EU) and other governments of the world justifies violent ruptures of democracy when their allies are not the ones affected​​​​​​​. They are hiding their business and interests. Bolivia lives a coup. The meme reads, “Bolivia at a glance. The international community is setting a dangerous precedent: the lack of unanimous and firm condemnation of coups d’etat.”

Subsequently, once Alberto Fernandez assumed the presidency of Argentina on Dec. 10, the MAS leader traveled to this South American country and requested political refugee status.

“I have so much desire to be in Bolivia; however, comrades, leaders, and authorities ​​​​​permanently come to visit me… The best way to operate is still from Buenos Aires,” Morales said.

The contact between the Bolivian leader and former Spanish judge is not new. On Nov. 13, Garzon submitted to the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) a petition to allow Morales to be a candidate in the 2020 elections.

“We submitted this initiative due to the serious situation of violence in Bolivia, which forced President Evo Morales to go into exile in Mexico,” Garzon said, as reported by local outlet La Razon.

At that time, the Spanish lawyer clearly stated that what was happening in Bolivia was the consequence of a coup d’etat.

“The military… rebelled and seized power. Therefore it can be said, without any doubt, that it has been a military coup. And this we express in the petition before the IACHR.”

*

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 Wikimedia Commons – Victor Santa Maria

In Rome, it is being argued that Italy is in a weak position in Libya, especially as the Libyan National Army (LNA) led by General Khalifa Haftar are in the midst of liberating the capital city of Tripoli from the UN-recognized Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated Government of National Accord (GNA). This was first seen with Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte being excluded from the Summit of Four (United Kingdom, France, Turkey and Germany) who met in London earlier this month to talk about Libya, a former colony of Italy, on the sidelines of the NATO summit. It cannot be denied that both France and Turkey are significantly stronger on the international scene than Italy. They have much greater international clout and influence because they are willing to use military force to support their interests, which is arranged along the same conflicting lines of the early twentieth century, the era of colonialism.

Despite Italy having a respectable military, the political class has been unwilling to use its military outside multilateral frameworks, such as NATO, which prevents Italy from defining an autonomous line of action. Given the size of the stakes, with Libya just lying to the south of Italy and the source of mass refugees entering the European country, it is difficult for Rome to not get involved.

After announcing a greater Italian military presence in the Eastern Mediterranean to Parliament on November 28 to protect their corporate interests in exploiting Cypriot resources, the Italian Navy dispatched the new Fremm class frigate, a ship capable of firing even a hundred kilometers away, to Cypriot waters that are claimed by Turkey. The Italian ship participated in some exercises just as the Turkish pressure against Cyprus was intensifying, close to where Italian oil and gas company Eni is active, along with France’s Total.

Although Italy is showing its naval prowess in Cypriot waters in defiance of Turkish aggression, the situation is completely different in Libya as Rome has been on the side of the GNA, following the actions of the Obama administration and Turkey. The French however support General Haftar, who is also supported by Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and most recently Greece, along with volunteers from the Russian private military company Wagner.

Italy has not changed alignment even after neighboring and fellow EU-NATO member Greece began backing Haftar, remaining anchored to the Turkish-backed government due to the conditioning of some converging energy and security interests – essentially oil and control of illegal migratory flows. Despite Rome having several hundred of their soldiers deployed in Misrata, a Turkish-majority city, the units sent from Rome remained inert even when the LNA repeatedly bombed targets close to the Italian contingent. The internationally recognized Libyan President Fayez al-Sarraj, an ethnic Turk himself like much of the upper echelons of the GNA, therefore understood that he could not count on Italian protection. Sarraj naturally turned to Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, with which agreements were reached in recent days concerning the delimitation of their illegal respective exclusive economic zones and cooperation in the field of defense.

With Turkish drones, advisers and special forces arriving in Libya, Italy has limited itself to intensifying aerial reconnaissance over the waters in front of Misrata. This asymmetry of determination seems to diplomatically weaken the Italian position. Sarraj believes, probably not without reason, that he can be better protected by Turkey, even though this remains highly unlikely with Haftar just a few kilometres from Tripoli center.

Under these conditions, negotiating with Erdoğan rather than Italian Prime Minister Giuseppe Conte is practically inevitable for Libya as Italy remains on the outskirts of the latest flareup in the North African country. Although the Ottoman Empire lost control over Libya in 1912 when Italy won the Italo-Turkish War, it is Turkey today returning to a position of significant influence over Libya, rather than Italy.

Ankara and Tripoli have transformed the 600 kilometers that separates the Turkish coast from the Libyan coast into an exclusive economic zone, ignoring the existence of the Crete and the other Greek islands in the Dodecanese. But that treaty has serious repercussions in the field of Italy’s energy policies. The agreement recognizes Turkey’s exclusive rights to prospect for gas and oil, putting Eni’s offshore concessions at serious risk. The agreement also indirectly jeopardizes Eni’s prospecting in the waters of Cyprus, effectively blocking the possible construction of the gas pipelines necessary to bring gas to European markets via Israel, Cyprus, Greece and Italy.

With the inevitable success of Haftar against the GNA, Italy appears to be the biggest loser after Turkey for its insistence of ignoring the reality on the ground. With significant Turkish assistance to the GNA not expected to arrive until well into the new year, Haftar is in a position of power to liberate Tripoli, leaving Misrata the only stronghold left for pro-Turkish forces. Whether Italy realizes this reality in time, remains to be seen. But with a new order likely to be established in Libya in the coming weeks, it would be in Rome’s interests to realize this reality and establish relations with Haftar or risk being blocked from lucrative energy deals.

*

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

The Canadian media gets a failing grade when it comes to its coverage of chemical weapons in Syria.

Among the basic principles of reporting, as taught in every journalism school, are: Constantly strive for the truth; Give voice to all sides of a story; When new information comes to light about a story you reported, a correction must be issued or a follow-up produced.

But the Canadian media has ignored explosives revelations from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. It’s a stark example of their complicity with belligerent Canadian foreign policy in Syria.

In May 2019 a member of the OPCW Fact Finding Mission in Syria, Ian Henderson, released a document claiming the management of the organization misled the public about the purported chemical attack in Douma in April 2018. It showed that the organization suppressed an assessment that contradicted the claim that a gas cylinder fell from the air. In November another OPCW whistleblower added to the Henderson revelations, saying that his conclusion that the incident was “a non chemical-related event” was twisted to imply the opposite. Last week WikiLeaks released a series of internal documents demonstrating that the team who wrote the OPCW’s report on Douma didn’t go to Syria. One memo noted that 20 OPCWinspectors felt the report released “did not reflect the views of the team members that deployed to [Syria].”

I couldn’t find a single report about the whistleblowers/leaks in any major Canadian media outlet. Theyalso ignored explicit suppression of the leaks.

Journalist Tareq Haddad “resigned from Newsweek after my attempts to publish newsworthy revelations about the leaked OPCW letter were refused for no valid reason.” Haddad wrote a long article explaining his resignation, which detailed how an editor who previously worked at the European Council on Foreign Relations blocked it.

There is an important Canadian angle to this story. Twenty-four hours after the alleged April 7, 2018, chemical attack foreign affairs minister Chrystia Freeland put out a statement claiming, “it is clear to Canada that chemical weapons were used and that they were used by the Assad regime.” Five days later Prime Minister Justin Trudeau supported cruise missile strikes on a Syrian military base stating, “Canada supports the decision by the United States, the United Kingdom, and France to take action to degrade the Assad regime’s ability to launch chemical weapons attacks against its own people.”

Canadian officials have pushed for the organization to blame Bashar al-Assad’s government for chemical attacks since Syria joined the OPCW and had its declared chemical weapon stockpile destroyed in 2013–14. Canada’s special envoy to the OPCW, Sabine Nolke, has repeatedly accused Assad’s forces of employing chemical weapons. Instead of expressing concern over political manipulation of evidence, Nolke criticized the leak.In a statement after Henderson’s position was made public she noted, “Canada remains steadfast in its confidence in the professionalism and integrity of the FFM [Fact-Finding Mission] and its methods. However, Mr. Chair, we are unsettled with the leak of official confidential documents from the Technical Secretariat.”

Amidst efforts to blame the Syrian government for chemical weapons use, Canadian officials lauded the OPCW and plowed tens of millions of dollars into the organization. A June 2017 Global Affairs release boasted that “Canada and the United States are the largest national contributors to the JIM [OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism for Attributing Responsibility for Chemical Weapons Attacks in Syria].”

The statement added that Canada “is the largest voluntary cash contributor to the organization, having provided nearly $25 million since 2012 to help destroy chemical weapons in Libya and Syria and to support special missions and contingency operations related to chemical weapons use, investigation, verification and monitoring in Syria.” Two months after the Douma incident Freeland announced a $7.5 million contribution to the OPCW in a statement heavily focused on Syria.In August Governor General Julie Payette even traveled to The Hague to push OPCW Director-General, Fernando Arias, on Syria. After a “meeting focused on OPCW activities in Syria”, Payette highlighted Canada’s “$23 million in voluntary funds for Syria-related activities.”

Ottawa backed the group that produced the (probably staged) video purporting to show chemical weapons use in Douma. The Liberals backed the White Helmets diplomatically and financially. In a release about the purported attack in Douma Freeland expressed Canada’s “admiration for … the White Helmets”, later calling them “heroes.”Representatives of the White Helmet repeatedly came to Ottawa tomeetgovernment officials and Canadian officials helped members of the group escape Syria via Israel in July 2018. Alongside tens of millions of dollars from the US,British, Dutch, German and French governments, Global Affairs announced “$12  million for groups in Syria, such as the White Helmets, that are saving lives by providing communities with emergency response services and removing explosives.”

Credited with rescuing people from bombed out buildings, the White Helmets fostered opposition to Assad and promoted western intervention. Founded by former British army officer James Le Mesurier, the White Helmets operatedalmost entirely in areas of Syria occupied by the Saudi Arabia–Washington backed Al Nusra/Al Qaeda insurgents and other rebels. They criticized the Syrian government and disseminated images of its purported violence while largely ignoring civilians targeted by the opposition. Their members were repeatedly photographed with Al Qaeda-linked Jihadists and reportedly enabled their executions.

The White Helmets helped establish an early warning system for airstrikes that benefited opposition insurgents. Framed as a way to save civilians, the ‘Sentry’ system tracked and validated information about potential airstrikes.

Canada funded the Hala Systems’ air warning, which was set up by former Syria focused US diplomat John Jaeger. It’s unclear how much Canadian money was put into the initiative but in September 2018 Global Affairs boasted that “Canadais the largest contributor to the ‘Sentry’ project.”

Ottawa is dedicated to a particular depiction of the Syrian war and clearly so is the dominant media. Committed to a highly simplistic account of a messy and multilayered conflict, they’ve suppressed evidence suggesting that an important international organization has doctored evidence to align with a narrative used to justify military strikes.

Journalists are supposed to seek the truth, not simply what their government says. In fact, according to what is taught in J-school, journalists have a special responsibility to question what their government claims to be true.

No journalism program in Canada teaches that governments should always be believed, especially on military and foreign affairs. But that is how the dominant media has acted in the case of Syrian chemical 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 the author

Does anyone know what COP25 stands for? Probably very few. Its unimportant. As unimportant as the whole roadshow itself. Just for the hell of it, for those who read this article, COP means Conference of the Parties (COP) to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). The 25 stands for the 25^th year that such annual conferences have taken place – every year in another country – what a tourist bonanza for the hundreds, if not thousands of attendees and participants who travel – by air – many of them business class, to these most questionable, even useless conferences.

The first of the COP summits took place in Berlin, Germany, in March 1995. The COP’s Presidency rotates among the 5 UN recognized regions and so do the conferences – to make “eco-tourism” most of the time for the same UN and government bureaucrats and jokers more attractive. I can’t help thinking of the enormous cost of these conferences – travel, food, lodging and everything in between – for two weeks – in the case of COP25 Madrid (2-16 December 2019), two days more than planned, because after the scheduled two weeks no agreements were reached, so it was decided to add two days. Add to this all the preparatory meetings and related travels – tens of millions of dollars, possibly more, are spent for nothing, absolutely zilch, nada. That’s the officially recognized outcome at the end of the extended COP25 in Madrid – nothing.

There are UN staff, directors mostly, at the UN in Geneva and in New York, who earn huge salaries in the hundreds of thousands a year, for doing what? Some of them are directing their staff to preparing the extravagant but mostly useless COPs – and of course, they are also attending them. When I see monetary figures like this, and we are now talking of only one kind of UN conferences, it occurs to me that this is money stolen from the poor. It is taken from the very people whom the UN is committed by its Charter to help. – How many simple drinking water supply and sanitation systems could you build with all this money? How many millions of people could you serve with the money wasted for such conferences with safe drinking water and safe sanitation?

According to the WHO-UNICEF Joint Monitoring Program (JMP), some 2.1 billion people have no safe drinking water at home and more than twice this number lacks safe sanitation. At the same time, these agencies also monitor the death toll among less than 5-year-old children from unsafe water and sanitation, from the lack of hygiene, from diarrheal diseases – nearly 400,000 die per year. In addition, contaminated water and poor sanitation also contribute to the transmission of cholera, dysentery, hepatitis A and typhoid. This does not even take into account those who die due to a famine-reduced immune system.

Precious money deviated from the UN system by men-invented rather unproductive, but usually lush conferences – of which the COPs are just one category – could save millions of lives.

This is a real environmental issue, in fact more vital than just environment, it is environmental health. It is certainly competing in importance with the man-made CO2 issue. Climate change is happening, no doubt, it always did for the 4.5 billion years of Mother Earth’s existence. But the way the west is dealing with it is a sheer farce; no, it’s actually worse, much worse, it’s criminal, because it’s knowingly made into a commercial globalized profit-making enterprise. Knowingly, because the elite that pulls the strings behind these events – the same who finance Greta Thunberg – are well aware of what they are doing and why they are doing what they are doing. It helps none, but global corporate finance. Those who suffer most are the people living in the Global South which is, as with most natural disasters, most affected by naturally occurringclimate change.

It’s still worse, because the western propaganda message promises actions towards saving the world from climate change which are entirely deceptive. So, the poor are again being lied to. They are being lured into making huge investments with huge loans – the World Bank, IMF and bilateral lending institutions, let alone Wall Street, stand ready – loans and interest which the borrowing countries have to repay. If they can’t, they have to give their collateral, meaning, let the west privatize their public services and assets, and grab their natural resources for a pittance. That’s how it works – the west preventing climate change from happening.

Not to mention the enormous arrogance with which the eminent COP attendees pretend humans can control Mother Earth’s temperature fluctuations, i.e. to less than 2 degrees C. Or arguing, whether “we” (almighty humans) should agree on limiting a temperature rise in the next 30 or 50 or 100 years to 2 or 3 degrees C, exceeds any reasonable level of human absurdity and conceit. Our assumed power over nature is at best ridiculous.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the United Nations body for assessing the science related to climate change. IPCC has 195 members and some 2000 scientists who contribute to IPCC’s work. Any serious scientist knows that the main cause for climate change are variations of solar activities, but they sell us CO2 as chief villain, knowing well, that the world, especially the western world, functioning under a turbo-neoliberal corporate and finance driven capitalist system, based on ‘eternal’ consumption and eternal growth – which drives the ever-growing profit margins – will not change its behavior vis-à-vis nature, unless it collapses under its own weight. Not with a million COPs it will change its profit-making thinking and business motives. – These mostly famous scientists know it. If they don’t follow the line, they risk losing their reputation and, who knows, their jobs?

Ice core records studied by scientists, combined with many types of proxy records to reconstruct past atmospheres and environmental conditions, back from thousands to many millions of years, suggest that climate changes in large cycles, and within them, in smaller cycles. For example, it appears that between 2.6 and 5.3 million years ago, during the Pliocene Epoch, CO2 levels were comparable to those of today. Models suggest global temperatures were 3 to 4 degrees C warmer than pre-industrial levels (see this).

Similar patterns were repeated 400,000 to 600,000 years ago. What is important to notice though, is that temperatures rise first, followed by CO2 levels which is logical, since the sun is heating the earth. It is the complete opposite to what today’s climate gurus are telling us. In the second half of the 1900s, NASA studied during some 30 years temperature fluctuations in the Pacific Ocean, investigating causes and effects of El Niño. The result was similar; the higher the water temperature of the Pacific, the more CO2 was released by the sea into the atmosphere. High CO2 levels are eventually followed by lower temperatures (see this and this).

The world still runs mainly on unrenewable energy, mostly hydrocarbons, oil, gas and even coal – the chief producers of CO2. Of course, we should stop using hydrocarbons and convert our economic systems to renewable energies. Hydrocarbons with their carbon dioxide output pollute the air, soil, surface and underground water ways. They contaminate even our food. Their secondary and tertiary products, plastic bottles and plastic-related packing materials, most of which are not biodegradable and contaminate our oceans, our landscapes, and kill wildlife.

But who convinces the highly profitable petrol titans, packaging giants – not to mention the pharma industry which also thrives on petrochemicals – to turn the wheel back to the 1950’s and 1960s, when we went to the corner stores to buy our staple food, like rice, sugar, flour, potatoes in bulk, put it in used and reusable paper bags. We were not unhappier than we are today. To the contrary. Cancer rates were considerably lower. In 1960, CO2 levels in the atmosphere stood on average at 316 ppm. We had no cell phones. Time moved slower. And – importantly – in the fifties and sixties we lived even in the west in a world more or less in balance; we used less than the total of the resources Mother Earth generously provides for us.

In the mid-sixties, during the post-WWII economic boom, we started rapidly exceeding the world’s resources balance. Today, the west, or Global North, uses some 4 times as many resources as Mother Earth can provide. In Africa and some parts of Asia that ratio is between 0.5 and 0.6. – But no worries, there comes a point when Mother Earth will self-regenerate, that means with a break from us, destructive humans. Looking at geo-history – that has most likely happened already a few times: Civilizations disappeared – often “suicide by greed” – and once Mother Earth has recovered, she may give mankind another chance. She has a lot of patience.

In 2009, at the time of the (in)famous Copenhagen Climate Conference, the average level of CO2 in the air was 386 ppm. The goal was to reduce the level to 350 ppm ten years later. The Copenhagen Climate Conference coined the “350-sologan”. In November 2019, the carbon dioxide level has exceeded 410 ppm – and rising. It is an illusion to believe that Big Business, Big Industry, Big Finance – and Big Growth-driven Profit – will yield to environmental or climate concerns.

And again, those who call the shots know it, but they keep fooling the world, making the purposefully brainwashed and poorly informed populace believe that special taxes, for example on flying, or other taxes on hydrocarbon-based energy, will make a difference; or that “carbon credits” will improve the environment. This is of course nonsense. And the taxes eventually end up in the pockets of the usual villain, the globalized private banking system, instead of being dedicated to intense research into alternative energies. Such efforts happen only in China and Russia.

In the west, intense research into solar energy, the ultimate renewable energy, is not allowed to happen. The big energy lobbies, hydrocarbon, nuclear, and even hydropower, will block any such attempt. Can you imagine, the sun provides the earth with more than 10,000 times as much energy per day than what we use in the entire world in the same period.

Carbon credits are the most ludicrous deceitful banking invention of the last 50 years. How do they work? – A huge corporation in the Global North, instead of making the necessary investments to reduce their CO2 output, it buys “carbon credits” from a country in the Global South, where the pollution level is below a certain limit, so the northern corporation may continue postponing the CO2-reducing investments, and the country in the global south should theoretically invest the money it got from the “carbon credit” sale into alternative energy or otherwise environmentally friendly projects. It hardly ever happens. Many of these countries lack the projects and / or the absorptive capacity for the required investments. And even when it does happen, the carbon dioxide pollution of the monster corporation in the north continues. What a farce!

Maybe one day, in the not too distant future, the breakthrough will happen. It must, if we, mankind, want to survive and not collapse as civilization under the weight of our own wasteful, growth-based luxury lifestyle. We suddenly see the light – the sunlight – and use it, instead of CO2 generating hydrocarbon – and we free ourselves from this horrendous petro-corporate dependency. Our arrogant climate control attitude, temperature-rise fixing and human-manipulating by centigrade – gone – out of the window. Our linear 30, 50- and 100-year projections gone. Finito. What a feeling! – A feeling of real freedom. A full change-over of lifestyle. This moment may come faster than we think. The Chinese, always bashed by the west, have been concentrating at least the last decade much of their research on efficient and sustainable renewable energy – sun energy is in their focus. The East is the future. The East is where the sun rises.

*

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 New Eastern Outlook.

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

Featured image is from NEO

The Trump administration proposed today to reapprove the pesticide atrazine, an endocrine-disrupting herbicide that castrates frogs and is linked to birth defects and cancer in people. It has been banned or is being phased out in more than 35 countries.

Today’s proposal weakens safeguards for children’s health and the environment, allowing 50 percent more atrazine to end up in U.S. waterways.

“It’s absolutely shameful that while other countries are banning atrazine, the Trump administration is opening up the tap,” said Nathan Donley, a scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity. “This disgusting backward step ignores decades of research and will inflict untold damage on people, wildlife and waters across the country.”

Atrazine is the second-most-used pesticide in the United States and one of the most common pesticide contaminants in waterways and drinking-water supplies.

In allowing the continued use of atrazine, the EPA discarded safety precautions mandated under the Food Quality Protection Act that protect young children from pesticide exposures. In doing so, the agency is ignoring multiple independent epidemiological studies finding that developing embryos and young children are at a high risk of harm from this pesticide.

The EPA also reduced the protection factor it uses to convert toxicity in rat and mouse studies to levels considered safe for humans. The more permissive benchmark proposed by the Trump EPA relies solely on a model developed by the primary manufacturer of atrazine, Syngenta.

With those protections in place, atrazine uses on lawns and turf would likely have been cancelled due to unacceptable harms to children. In today’s decision, the agency is only proposing a modest reduction in application rate for turf.

“Restricting the spraying of atrazine is essential for protecting human health,” said Olga Naidenko, the Environmental Working Group’s vice president for science investigations. “Instead, the Trump EPA’s proposal would increase atrazine discharges, endangering children’s health and harming communities. Since the beginning of the Trump administration, the agency has been working overtime on behalf of chemical agriculture while acting against the interests of children’s health.”

The Trump EPA plan also weakens environmental safeguards put in place in 2006 to protect aquatic life from harmful atrazine exposure, a move that will dramatically increase the amount of atrazine allowed in waterways across the United States.

At issue is the “concentration equivalent level of concern,” or CELOC, a regulatory threshold meant to protect aquatic ecosystems from pesticide pollution. The current CELOC is a 60-day average concentration of 10 parts per billion of atrazine. The proposed action would raise that level to 15 parts per billion, nearly five times higher than the 3.4 parts per billion the EPA identified as safe in 2016. Water concentrations that exceed the CELOC in any given year are subject to mitigation measures by the pesticide companies that are meant to bring the watershed back into compliance.

Today’s proposed weakening of safeguards for atrazine comes after Jeff Sands, a former Syngenta lobbyist, was appointed a senior agricultural advisor to then-EPA administrator Scott Pruitt in October 2017. Sands received a waiver from Trump’s pledge to forbid political appointees from working on issues involving former employers or clients. Sands has since left the EPA.

*

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

In the London Declaration, the 29 member countries of NATO reaffirmed “the engagement for the security and long-term stability of Afghanistan”. One week later, on the basis of the Freedom of Information Act, (used to empty a number of aging skeletons out of the closets, according to political necessity), the Washington Post managed to force the declassification of 2,000 pages of documents which reveal that “US civil servants fooled the public about the war in Afghanistan”. Basically, they hid its disastrous effects, including the economic effects, of a war which has been dragging on for 18 years.

The most interesting data that emerge are those concerning the economic costs. 1,500 billion dollars have been spent for military operations, a figure that “remains opaque” – or in other words, underestimated – no-one knows how much the secret services have spent on the war, or the real cost of the contractors, the mercenaries recruited for the war (currently about 6,000).

Since “the war was financed with borrowed money”, the accrued interest has risen to 500 billion, which brings the total expenditure to 2,000 billion dollars. To this must be added other posts – 87 billion for the training of Afghan forces, 54 billion for “reconstruction”, of which a large part was “lost to corruption and failed projects”. At least 10 billion more were spent for the “struggle against narco-trafficking”, with the triumphant result of a strong increase in the production of opium – today Afghanistan supplies 80 % of the heroin on the world market.

With the interests which continue to accumulate, (in 2023 they will rise to 600 billion), and the cost of the operations currently under way, expenditure easily overtakes 2,000 billion. We also need to consider the cost of medical assistance for the veterans returning from the war with serious or invalidating wounds. So far, 350 billion dollars have already been spent for those who fought in Afghanistan or Iraq, and this sum will rise to 1,400 billion dollars over the next 40 years. Since half of this sum is spent for veterans of Afghanistan, the cost of the war for the US is more than 3,000 billion dollars.

After 18 years of war, and an unquantifiable number of civilian victims, the results at the military level are as follows – “the Talibans control a major part of the country, and Afghanistan remains one of the greatest sources of refugees and migrants”. The Washington Post therefore concludes that the declassified documents reveal “the brutal reality of the errors and failures of the American effort to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan”.

In this way the prestigious news outlet, which explains the way in which US civil servants have “fooled the public”, now fools the public once again by presenting the war as “the American effort to pacify and rebuild Afghanistan”. The true goal of the war in Afghanistan waged by the USA, in which NATO has been participating since 2003, is the control of this region, which is of capital strategic importance – at the crossroads between the Middle East, Central, Southern and Eastern Asia , particularly taking into account the proximity of Russia and China.

Italy is also participating in this war, under US command, since in October 2002 Parliament authorised the delivery of a first military contingent as from March 2003. The cost for Italy, paid from the public treasury, as is the case in the USA, is estimated to be approximately 8 billion Euros, to which must be added various other costs. In order to convince the population, hard hit by cuts in social expenditure, that further sums are necessary for Afghanistan, they are told that the money is used to guarantee better living conditions for the Afghan people. And the Brothers of the Sacro Convento of Assisi handed President Mattarella “San Francesco’s Lamp of Peace”, thereby recognising that “Italy, with its missions and its soldiers, collaborates actively in the promotion of peace everywhere in the world”.

*

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

This article appeared on Dec. 17 in the Italian web newspaper, Il Manifesto. Translation is by Pete Kimberley

Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Two oil and gas exploration contracts with Russian companies were approved by the Syrian People’s Assembly (Parliament), the vital economic sector for Syria’s rebuilding efforts.

While the US and its camp of thieves continue to loot the Syrian oil, not because of its quantities, it’s less than 10% of what the US gets for almost free from Kuwait and without a sweat.

It’s an additional step by the Trump administration to deprive the Syrian people from one of their main resources.

The two deals approved by the Syrian Parliament include exploration and production in three areas, notably in an oil field in northeastern Syria and a gas field north of the capital Damascus.

Minister of Oil and Mineral Resources Ali Ghanem said that the awarding of contracts to the two companies is part of the Syrian state cooperating with friendly countries that stood by Syria, referring to the ongoing Syrian combating against the US-waged World War of Terror against humanity.

Ghanem said the ministry is continuing to conclude maritime oil investment contracts, but economic sanctions on Syria have prevented naval contracts with a number of international companies.

Last September, the Ministry of Oil and Mineral Resources signed three contracts with Russian companies in the field of surveying, drilling and production in the oil and gas sector as part of the 61st Damascus International Fair.

Syria’s pre-war production of oil barely reached 380,000 bpd, which was almost enough for the country, pre-2011, and a little left for export. However, new findings in Syria’s territorial waters as well as northeast of the country and in the central region between the capital Damascus and Homs are very promising and would be an important source of energy and income for decades to come.

During the past 9 years of the current war on the Syrian people, the looting of the Syrian oil was carried out by the FSA terrorists then Nusra Front (Al-Qaeda Levant), then ISIS, then the Kurdish separatist SDF militia, and now directly to the US, ironically, all of them were stealing Syrian oil and selling it to Turkey (at $ 5 / barrel) which in turn sells it to Israel…!

‘Wherever there’s a push from democracy using terror and direct invasion, i.e. the US style, there’s oil’, in other words, you can say: The Americans are always seeking G.O.D. at all costs: Gold, Oil, and Drugs.

*

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 Mideast Discourse

It is no surprise that when the Inspector General’s Report was released in early December, the corporate media, which itself has been knee-deep and complicit in spreading the false Russiagate narrative, chose to focus on one narrow conclusion: that, given DOJ’s ‘lax guidelines,’ the IG found no bias related to opening the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.

Ergo, once the Media labels the IG Report, all dutiful subscribers and readers fall in line with its dictates, nodding in concurrence, as those who refuse to do their own homework get on board and accept the hogwash they are being fed.  Once the Media hypes the repetitive drone that there was ‘no bias,’ the phrase becomes embedded into the collective unconscious and the disinformation becomes gospel.

The question has yet to be asked what role the FISA Court played in its own debasement by blindly accepting the majority of surveillance requests and by lax procedures that allow its own credibility to be violated.

What remains uncertain is exactly how Crossfire Hurricane was born. While it is known that the Clinton campaign (via the DNC) hired GP Fusion to dig dirt on a Republican candidate for President and we know that former MI 6 asset Christopher Steele became involved with creating a salacious Dossier – but the specific links tying those diverse parts to the FBI remains enigmatic.

An almost immediate response to the ‘no bias’ allegation came from AG William Barr stating that

“The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.” with Special Investigator US Attorney John Durham adding that he

“advised the IG that he did not agree with some of the report’s conclusions as to predication and how the FBI case was opened.”

Both responses were highly unusual and may be interpreted as affirmation of a deeper level of complicity than the IG discovered although his investigation was limited to DOJ employees and to the FISA Court process.

It was not until IG Horowitz’s testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee that the true scathing impact of the full Report was understood; thus revealing the true depth of the FBI’s embedded systemic problems.

Horowitz told the Senate panel:

“We found and are deeply concerned that so many basic and fundamental errors were made by three separate handpicked investigative teams on one of the most sensitive FBI investigations after the matter had been briefed to the highest levels within the FBI even though the information sought through the use of FISA authority related so closely to an on-going Presidential campaign and even though those involved with the investigations knew that their actions would likely be subjected to close scrutiny. The circumstances reflect the failure not just by those who prepared the applications but also by the managers and supervisors in the Crossfire Hurricane chain of command including FBI senior officials who were briefed as the investigation progressed” 

In dialogue with Sen. Crapo about FBI misconduct as ‘mind-numbing’, Horowitz responded “. There is such a range of conduct here that is inexplicable and the answers we got were not satisfactory that we’re left trying to understand how could all these errors occur over a nine month period or so…”

In other words, the FBI, with a tainted history of deeply embedded corruption, has been out of control for decades with an aggressive pursuit of political opponents, corruption of its Forensic Lab and a COINTEL program against American citizens. It is ironic that some of the FBI’s Congressional supporters are now recipients of that corruption.

In response to Barr’s statement regarding the IG Report, former Attorney General Erik Holder who once referred to himself as “still Obama’s wing man, so i’m there with my boy,” wrote a divisive op ed for the Washington Post provocatively entitled “Eric Holder: William Barr is Unfit to be Attorney General.

In a classic example of covering one’s butt, it can be assumed that Holder is still protecting Obama’s wing as he took cheap shots at Barrfor a “series of public statements and taken actions that are so plainly ideological, so nakedly partisan and so deeply inappropriate” making him ‘unfit to lead the Justice Department.”  Suffering a partisan anxiety attack, Holder has clearly been directed to slander a predecessor who exhibits more candor and principle than he himself demonstrated as AG.

Given the IG report’s otherwise thorough analysis, the Hope and Change crowd may be feeling the heat that those morning tete a tete intel briefings in the

Oval Office may have included updates on Crossfire Hurricane. Holder’s condescension, as if he had special privilege to pontificate on “career public servants,’ falls flat with his thinly veiled threat to Durham:

“I was troubled by his unusual statement disputing the inspector general’s findings. Good reputations are hard-won in the legal profession, but they are fragile; anyone in Durham’s shoes would do well to remember that, in dealing with this administration, many reputations have been irrevocably lost.”

With focus now on whether Durham will succumb to Holder’s warning may instead   boomerang, inspiring Durham to dig deeper than he had previously planned.

The IG Report cited former FBI Director Jim Comey for “clearly and dramatically” departing from department norms in the investigation of HRC’s email server and that he made a “serious error of judgment” in sending a letter to Congress announcing the re-opening of the Clinton probe.   Comey was fired from the FBI for ‘insubordinate’ acts and ‘dangerous’ behavior in deceiving the FISA Court.

When asked by CNN’s Anderson Cooper,

“When you read what the reportsaid, do you think this is avindication?

Comey responded

“It is. The FBI has had to wait two years while the President and his supporters lied about the institution finally the truth gets told.”

Apparently Comey had not read the Report in its entirety, not listened to Horowitz’s testimony to the Senate or he continues to live under a rock.

In a recent interview with NBC News Pete Williams,  Barr explained that

“One of the problems in the IG investigation is that  Comey refused to sign back up for his security clearance and therefore could not be questioned (by the IG) on classified matters...so someone like Durham can compel testimony.”

In other words, Comey is shrewd enough to know how to deliberately avoid pertinent questions from Horowitz without implicating himself but the day will come when Durham has the legal authority to demand Comey’s full participation.

In a Fox News Sunday interview with Chris Wallace, Comey refused to accept and was significantly at odds with many of the IG most significant findings including denial of any personal role in Crossfire.

 “I didn’t know, As Director I am not kept informed on the details of an investigation.  I didn’t know the particulars  with an agency of 38,000 people‘seven layers below.”

Wallace repeatedly pushed back with Comey remaining smooth as silk, carefully coached, as he slipped around every iota that he had any responsibility for the investigation of a President and its constitutional screw ups.

When asked if he would resign if all these misdeeds were revealed under his watch, Comey replied “No, I don’t think so.  There are other mistakes I consider more consequential than this during my tenure.” Pray, we await those revelations.

*

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

Renee Parsons has been a member of the ACLU’s Florida State Board of Directors and President of the ACLU Treasure Coast Chapter.   She has been an elected public official in Colorado, an environmental lobbyist with Friends of the Earth and staff member in the US House of Representatives in Washington, DC.  She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Archbishop Atallah Hanna, of the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem, was allegedly the victim of an Israeli assassination attempt on December 17, just days before Christmas, when an Israeli gas canister was fired into his church in Jerusalem.  He was rushed to the hospital suffering from partial paralysis due to the effects of the poisonous gas.  

The Israeli occupation authorities have long held him in disdain because of his outspoken criticism of the occupation of Palestine, and the suffering of its people. Hanna stated last month,

“The occupation in Jerusalem is treating us as if we are guests and foreigners in our own city. This is the embodiment of apartheid policies and practices against our people in Jerusalem specifically and in Palestine more generally.”

On December 6 he stated, “We will remain in Jerusalem, defending our religious sites and endowments. We reject the policies of the occupation. We will not surrender. Our motto will always be freedom and dignity for the Palestinian people. Our religious sites will remain ours. Jerusalem will remain ours.”

At the recent Feast of Saint Barbara celebration, Archbishop Hanna proclaimed Christmas’ message of hope and consolation for the Palestinian people in a time of suffering. “Despite our grief and suffering, we will continue to love life and struggle for freedom.”, he said. He urged the world to stand up with the Palestinian people and help them claim their right to live in peace and freedom. “There can be no peace without justice and without fulfilling the Palestinian people’s aspirations,” he stressed in the ancient village of Aboud, where Jewish colonial settlements were built in recent years.  He added his “call upon all the churches of the world, in the west and east, to urgently defend Palestine, the children of Palestine, and the Palestinian cause. Let our message this Christmas be to free Palestine and the Palestinian people.”

Recent apartheid conference

The ‘First International Conference on Israeli Apartheid’ was held on November 29 in Istanbul.  The occupation of Palestinian land and the treatment of Palestinians as second-class citizens was discussed, and Archbishop Hanna was one of the most outspoken attendees, which was sure to catch the glare of the Israeli officials.

Archbishop Hanna said,

“The city of Jerusalem is the city of the three Abrahamic religions…Christian and Muslim Palestinians living in Jerusalem suffer from the occupation, suffer from repression, tyranny, and oppression.”

Comparisons were made to the international outcry which toppled the apartheid government of South Africa, which included boycotts of their products.  The current ‘Boycott, Divest, Sanction’ movement, BDS, was a central theme while calling for principals of equality, justice and dignity for all, and the use of all lawful means to achieve their goal.

Ali Kurk said, “International law is ineffective, as the law of power rules,” referring to the US-EU support for Israel’s apartheid system, and of Israel’s policy of evacuating Palestinian homes in occupied East Jerusalem and either allowing Jewish settlers to inhabit them or destroying them.

The ideology of racial and cultural supremacy is the cause of apartheid.  Rima Khalaf said Israel is “the only nation in the world to confer whole citizenship according to inherited faith.”

Archbishop Hanna cautioned that Israel is conducting a slow ethnic cleansing campaign in Jerusalem, to turn it into a strictly Jewish town. The Christian residents of the city have been disappearing, and now are just 1% of the population. Hanna explained the time has come for both Christians and Muslims to join forces since they are both oppressed from the “Israeli” apartheid, which prevents access to places, jobs, resources, and often health care.

The Israeli occupation

The demographic change instituted by Israel is bent on destroying the two-state solution and utilizes violence and apartheid.  Many have voiced support for the one-state alternative where Palestinians are equal to Israelis and apartheid is abolished.  Palestinians living under occupation have documented violations of individual rights and international law that Israel has committed. The Palestinian struggle involves political and human rights, against settler colonialism, and is not based on religious differences.

In 2017 47,000 Palestinian Christians were living in Palestine, referring to the Occupied West Bank, East Jerusalem, and the Gaza Strip. 98% of Palestine’s Christians live in the West Bank, mainly in Ramallah, Bethlehem, and Jerusalem, while 1,100 live in the Gaza Strip. The Christian population of Palestine today is 10 times less than 70 years ago.

“The Holy Land: A Palestinian Christian Perspective”, was the title of a conference held in Johannesburg on October 15. Israel’s strategy to drive all Christians out of their Palestinian homeland is based on immense economic hardships, permanent siege and apartheid, and the severing of communal and spiritual bonds.

The Bethlehem Bible College is a Protestant Evangelical institution headed by Jack Sara, who said, “We are proud of our Palestinian heritage and our national identity.” Archbishop Hanna concurred, “It is important that Palestinian evangelicals communicate with fellow evangelicals around the world and to talk about the Palestinian cause. I disagree that all Christian evangelicals adopt the Zionist narrative.”

Bethlehem and Christmas 2019

70 years ago, Bethlehem, the birthplace of Jesus Christ, was 86% Christian. The city’s mayor reports as of 2016 the Christian population of Bethlehem has dropped to 12 %, just 11,000 people. Israel has built more than 30,000 housing units, and the number of Jewish settlers in Bethlehem today is about 165,000, with 51 miles of the separation wall running through Bethlehem.

Archbishop Hanna had a strong message for Christians throughout the world, “In a few days, Christians will be celebrating Christmas all over the world. The streets and town squares will be decorated with lights, adornments and Christmas trees in Europe and the world. I would like to remind all Christians all around the world: there is no point in celebrating Christmas if you do not pay attention to what is happening in Palestine as it is the birthplace of Christ and where Christianity originated and spread its message throughout the world. The nativity grotto is in Bethlehem. The true light of Christmas emanated from Bethlehem.”

The American and European Christians

Former United Nations human rights investigator Richard Falk stated Israel is continuing the heritage of European-style colonialism by changing entire demographics. Equally disturbing, Israel’s most ardent supporters in the United States and elsewhere are devout Christians. Thomas Getman, former director of World Vision in Jerusalem, said that 80 percent of US evangelicals misrepresent the Bible for political gain.

“We reject America’s unjust decisions which come in support of Israeli policies and the occupation of Jerusalem.”, said Archbishop Hanna.

*

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

Premise

The culture and nation state of the United States of America is founded on the egregious and forceful dispossession of others. You might even call it an earlier version of fascism – institutional dehumanization for private profit. A myth, or grand lie, was created that we are an exceptional people, effectively pre-empting openly experiencing the important feeling of social shame and, in turn, blocking any accountability or genuine inquiry into our genocidal origins built on stolen land and labor, that murdered millions with impunity.

Thus, we live by fantasy of our superiority, which functionally makes us stupid, as if in a stupor. Applying the legal exclusionary rule to the culture at large, the USA is the “fruit of the poisonous tree”, as with most “civilizations”, founded on forcefully stolen land and labor, thereby lacking any moral or legal validity.

Introduction

When I was a child in rural upstate New York in the 1940s and 1950s, I enjoyed small town life and the tranquility of a luscious surrounding nature. I had pictures of baseball stars plastered on all four of my bedroom walls. I recited a grateful prayer in my little sanctuary before going to sleep each night: “Thank you God for allowing me to have been born and raised in the United States, the greatest country in the history of the world, endowed by our Creator to bring prosperity to the impoverished, and Christianity to the heathen”. It was a wonderful story, greatly enhanced by our nation’s celebrated reputed victory over Fascism in Europe. Life was good, or so I thought.

Having been born on July 4, 1941, I was a patriotic baby of the World War II generation. My family was lower middle class, devout Baptists and, like my parents, I believed that the FBI under the “leadership” of J. Edgar Hoover protected our democratic Christian freedoms from the Russians. The Cold War propaganda was nothing short of spectacular, virtually all unchallenged by anyone I knew.

Brian Willson (right)

But there was another factor operating. Coinciding with the celebrated post-World War II victory, the nation experienced a unique 35-year blip in its history – an age of a large middle class imbibing in insatiable consumerism and optimism. My family replaced their icebox with a new electric refrigerator after the war, bought their first automobile, and by 1958 had purchased an 11-inch B&W television set. It was proof that we are an exceptionalpeople, and God’s chosen people to boot. However, this optimism was tempered by fear of the Soviet Union that severely prevented genuine liberal dialogue and critical thinking education.

1950s: “Positive Thinking/Prosperity Gospel” – Norman Vincent Peale and US Exceptionalism

Norman Vincent Peale (1898-1993), a Dutch Reformed minister, wrote The Power of Positive Thinkingin 1952, a bestseller for 186 consecutive weeks, a book prominently in our home library, as it was in the Trump family home in Queens, New York. Peale also wrote a monthly magazine, Guideposts,which my parents read regularly.Peale served as a guru for the post-depression, post-World War II generation with his cult-like, self-help “bible” for achieving material success with divine blessings. Peale described himself as a “missionary to American business”, opposing unions and the New Deal. Thus, he was exceedingly popular with ambitious US Americans, especially White folks, both the rich, and those seeking riches.

Donald L. Trump, as a 6-year-old child began to regularly attended Peale’s New York City church with his parents. Peale officiated at Trump’s first marriage with Ivana Zelnickova, and both Trump’s sisters were married at Peale’s church. To this day, Trump lauds Peale for his success, unrestrained self-confidence, and from whom he learned modern branding. In Trump’s 2015 book, Crippled America: How to Make America Great Again[1], he proclaimed that “I am a Christian…I love God, and I love having a relationship with Him…[and] the Bible is the most important book ever written”.

Many theologians considered Peale as “God’s salesman”, critiquing him as a dangerous con man and fraud since he convinced people to believe that all basic problems were personal, unrelated to social, political, or economic contexts. Personal failures, Peale, said, were a sign of spiritual weakness, preaching that everyone has the power to make oneself happy and rich.  It fits perfectly with US American exceptionalism and Trump’s narcissism[2].

Viet Nam – Great Awakening of the Grand Lie

I was in Viet Nam in 1969 where I turned 28 years, having been drafted in 1966 during my fourth semester of law school. It was there that my Disney bliss rapidly evaporated. The entrance sign to my squadron’s in-country headquarters said, “Welcome to Indian Country”. This reminded me of the slogan, “the only good Indian is a dead Indian”, hinting the same plight for the Vietnamese. Incidentally, Trump, five years my junior, enjoyed five deferments enabling him to avoid Viet Nam.

While performing auxiliary duty as a USAF Combat Security officer, I documented the immediate aftermath of atrocities committed from the air that annihilated inhabited, undefended villages. I was sickened from the sight of hundreds of villagers lying dead and suffering horribly in their villages. I wondered who the fuck am I, a 6’ 3” White man, 9,000 miles from my rural farming village in New York State? These Vietnamese were in their homevillages. Village life was the essence of Vietnamese culture and we were systematically destroying it. I felt depressingly unauthentic, like a dumb ideological robot, and began to realize that being a privileged White man was in fact an emotional and intellectual disability. White male supremacy was a powerful force, as it enabled a kind of mindless “sliding” through life, pre-empting the need to ask serious questions. However, my discovery of empathy began to radicalize me. I wondered whether we had become sadistic criminal psychopaths? Or have we always been?   Hmm?!

Accumulating high body counts, from babies to grandparents, and every age in between, was politically comforting to US politicians and to a large number of their their taxpaying constituents. We simply created a fiction that we were killing the “enemy” to satisfy the emotional, and political momentum of stopping the bogeyman – Communism – when in fact we were murdering innocent Vietnamese peasants. Mass murder was normalized. When the US war ended in 1975, 13,000 of 21,000 Vietnamese villages had been deliberately wiped out. Huge B-52 bombers left 26 million bomb craters, while targeting and destroying almost 950 churches and pagodas, 350 clearly marked hospitals, nearly 3,000 educational institutions, over 15,000 bridges, 18 power plants, 40 factories, 10 million cubic meters of dikes, and 25 million acres of farmland. The US also chemically poisoned food supplies and forests. Our cultural corruption is so extreme we proudly ordered B-52 death machines flying five miles high blessed by God-fearing chaplains to bomb unarmed, mostly Buddhist peasants living nine thousand miles across the Pacific.  What?!

Several million peasants were gruesomely, senselessly murdered, with countless additional millions permanently maimed. It was barbaric. It was genocidal. I felt personal shame for my participation, and intense anger of betrayal. At times I felt suicidal. My White male conditioning had made me “disabled”, i.e., a kind of stupidity whose mind hadn’t even thought to seriously ask whyI was putting my life on the line in a small country across the seas I knew nothing about? I had been part of a massive conspiracy to violate international law and destroy a sovereign people. Huh?! But I had been conditioned to think that “America” was nonetheless, exceptional.

Criminal Cruelty to Prevent Vietnamese Autonomy

US premeditated policy intended to destroy Vietnamese self-determination. As historian William Blum has succinctly concluded: “the thread common to the diverse targets of [US] American intervention…in virtually every case involving the Third World… has been, in one form or another, a policy of ‘self-determination’: the desire …to pursue a path of development independent of US foreign policy objectives”[3].

The US war (as with virtually all wars), was based on a Grand lie, in this case that the majority Vietnamese were being invaded by other Vietnamese who the US called “Communists”. And it was maintained by grotesque lies – every day – such as identifying all dead Vietnamese as a victory (body counts), all carried out by heinous war crimes. Official reports abounded about our making progress in the war – lies. The fictional “democratic” South Vietnamese government created by the US and CIA was so unpopular the US military was forced to invade and occupy South Viet Nam for 10 years with nearly 550,000 troops supported by countless daily bombing missions and unprecedented use of chemical warfare. We murdered millions and it still didn’t work. How demonic can you get?

Fake history about Viet Nam was confirmed in the 1971 release of the Pentagon Papers. Despite this, the highly publicized Burns-Novick 2017, The Vietnam War TV documentary, claimed the war was “begun in good faith by decent people out of fateful misunderstandings”. Lies die hard.

Dishonest Intelligence

Ralph McGehee, former starter on three Notre Dame national championship football teams in the late 1940s, a cum laude graduate, became one of the 700 CIA officers in Viet Nam. He was shocked when discovering the daily intelligence he was gathering was totally bastardized in official reports. Depressed about the dishonest intelligence system, he became suicidal. McGehee reported that the repressive, oligarchic government of US puppet Nguyen Van Thieu was so unpopular and corrupt that most Vietnamese were organized, committed, and dedicated to his defeat, and a Vietnamese Communist victory[4].

Cold War Redux

Now 78, fifty years out of Viet Nam, I am aghast that we are living through an even more virulent, Cold War. Cold War I propaganda cast an overwhelming toxic spell on the minds of three generations, including many intelligent people. Relentless rhetoric accomplished a near total indoctrination of our entire US culture. Virtually all systems colluded and cooperated to preserve unquestioning belief in the unique nobility of the US American system while instilling rabid, paranoid fear of “enemies” — in our midst as well as “out there”. We rationalized pathologically inexplicable behavior around the world, as well as at home. Indoctrination is so pervasive it generates a universally compelling mythology that conceals its own contradictions.

Today, the corporate and social media narrative managers so tightly control propaganda that once again our minds are saturated with rages against the evil “adversary”, Russia. The neoliberal religion of privatization makes everyone and everything for sale as a commodity, dictating both domestic and foreign policy. It is enforced at home by an overreaching national security state of surveillance (our Fourth Estate), and abroad with the most brutal “wholesale” terrorist machinery in history. The US government, and its compliant military, enables obscene profits for its Military-Congressional-Intelligence-Banking-Wall Street-Drug Complex. The US population de facto consents to destroying Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syrian and others, i.e, with diabolical imperialism.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Fool me three times, shame on both of us –US author Stephen King.

Orwell

In George Orwell’s novel, 1984[5], the Ministry of Truth rearranges facts and rewrites history. On the face of the building in which it is housed are engraved the slogans: “War Is Peace; Freedom Is Slavery; Ignorance Is Strength”. Language is one of the most important tools of the totalitarian state. If all citizens accept the lies that the ruling party imposes – if all records tell the same tale – then the lie passes into history and becomes truth. All that is needed is an unending series of victories over our own memory. This is called Reality control. In Orwell’s Newspeak, doublethink is the official state language. Everything becomes pretend, the lies told over and over in many different forms throughout time.[6] Meanwhile, wars easily continue[7], facilitated by deceit and lies[8], elaborate propaganda mind-control systems[9] that permeate our education institutions[10] and Hollywood[11] and are promoted by the concentrated monopoly of corporate mass media[12]. Our collective minds are systematically colonized to accept the unacceptable.

This McCarthy-like new Cold War dangerously speeds the world toward nuclear holocaust. I raise the question: Are we stupid? Can we not see that our behavior is leading to our ecocide/suicide – climate catastrophe and nuclear war?

US Exceptionalism Has Been Fatal – Creates Stupid, Shameful Monsters

The origins of the Grand Lie of Viet Nam, and the horrific cruelties committed there, are discoverable in the very origins of US America. The psychological and cultural conditioning growing up in US America, especially for a Eurocentric White male like myself, is emotionally and intellectually comfortable. But the noble “exceptional” history we have been taught about ourselves proves to be fantastic fakery which continues to serve as a comfortable escape from experiencing and feeling the horrible truth of the collective shame of our unspeakable criminal genocidal origins. Capitalism itself would not have existed without centuries of egregious colonial plunder of millions of Indigenous Americans, or millions of enslaved Africans. So, not only does the lie of “exceptionalism” enable us to avoid extremely unpleasant thoughts and feelings, but it also discourages asking enlightening, delving questions, about who we really are as a people. This makes us dangerously stupid. Why mess with the apparent successful myth of being exceptional? But thoughtlessness – a suspension of critical thinking – today leads to a dangerous, nuclear, arrogant war-making society. Not unintelligent, but stupid. And the power brokers, and many in the population, have a vested interest in remaining stupid to protect the comfortable original lie, that requires countless subsequent lies, in turn, to preserve that original lie. We have told ourselves a nice story. But it is a lie and as long as we continue to believe in our superiority we deepen our stupidity.

Thus, throughout our history we have lived by a slick Grand “American” lie, granting us comfort and security in our “superior” cultural identity. Spellbound and flattered we live by our favorite mythological maxims: “Founding Fathers”, “democracy”, “Constitution”, “Rule of Law”, and “greatest country ever”. Our political-religion of US American predatory corporate capitalism (privatization)blocks experiencing the most critical of all social emotions – empathy– that ties all humanity together, something I so painfully, but thankfully learned in Viet Nam. The Grand lie is so huge and pervasive we do not generally recognize it.

Cultural analysts such as Lewis Mumford have described how unchecked “power punctuates the entire history of mankind with outbursts of collective paranoia and tribal delusions of grandeur mingled with malevolent suspicions, murderous hatreds, and atrociously inhumane acts”.[13] So, in effect, much of human civilization history is based on institutionalized dehumanization, a form of Fascism.  Mumford again: “A personal over-concentration of power as an end in itself is suspect to the psychologist as an attempt to conceal inferiority, impotence, and anxiety. When this inferiority is combined with defensive inordinate ambitions, uncontrolled hostility and suspicion, and a loss of any sense of the subject’s own limitation, ‘delusions of grandeur’ result, which is the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise”[14].

The US nation, as a criminal enterprise, is a perfect example of what Mumford described as a civilization maintained by “collective paranoia” without sense of “limitation”, the result being “delusions of grandeur”, the typical syndrome of paranoia, one of the most difficult psychological states to exorcise”. Built on forceful dispossession, deceit, and fantasy, the USA lives with a DNA of selfishness, arrogance and violence that began long ago, and we seem content to leave it be, increasing our dangerousness to ourselves and the world.

*

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

Viet Nam veteran, trained lawyer, author, Blood on the Tracks: The Life and Times of S. Brian Willson (PM Press, 2011); Don’t Thank Me For My Service: My Viet Nam Awakening to the Long History of US Lies (Clarity Press, 2018); subject of documentary Paying the Price For Peace: The Story of S. Brian Willson(Bo Boudart Productions, 2016); essays: brianwillson.com.  

Brian Willson is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Notes

[1] Simon & Schuster, pp 130-1.

[2] Chris Lehman, “The Self-Help Guru Who Shaped Trump’s Worldview: How the Commander-in-Chief Succumbs to the Perils of Positive Thinking”, In These Times, December 13, 2017; Gwenda Blair, “How Norman Vincent Peale Taught Donald Trump to Worship Himself”, PoliticoMagazine, October 6, 2015.

[3] William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II(Monroe, Maine: Common Courage Press, 1995), 15.

[4] Ralph McGehee, Deadly Deceits: My 25 Years in the CIA(New York: Sheridan Square, 1983), 125-26, 147-157.

[5] George Orwell, 1984: A Novel(New York: Harcourt Brace & Co., 1949).

[6] S. Brian Willson, “The Pretend Society,” http://www.brianwillson.com/the-pretend-society

[7] Norman Soloman, War Made Easy: How Presidents and Pundits Keep Spinning Us to Death (Hoboken,

NJ: Wiley & Sons, 2005).

[8] David Model, Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face(Monroe, ME:

Common Courage Press, 2005); Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of

Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq(New York: Jeremy P. Tarcher/Penguin, 2003); John R. MacArthur, Second

Front: Censorship and Propaganda in the Gulf War (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1992).

[9] Christopher Simpson, Science of Coercion: Communication Research & Psychological Warfare1945-

1960 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1994); Herbert I. Schiller, The Mind Managers(Boston: Beacon

Press, 1973).

[10] John Taylor Gatto, Dumbing Us Down: The Hidden Curriculum of Compulsory Schooling(Vancouver,

Canada, New Society, 1992); Ivan Illich, Deschooling Society(New York: Harper & Row, 1971).

[11] Carl Boggs and Tom Pollard, The Hollywood War Machine: US Militarism and Popular Culture(Boulder,

CO: Paradigm Publishers, 2007).

[12] Ben H. Bagdikian, The Media Monopoly(Boston: Beacon Press, 2000).

[13] Lewis Mumford, The Myth of the Machine: Technics and Human Development(New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967), 204.

[14] Mumford, 1967, 218.

Der Jugoslawienkrieg in den 1990er Jahren war ein klassischer imperialer Krieg zur Neuordnung Süd ost europas. Die USA setzten dafür unter anderem auch jene Milizen ein, mit denen sie zuvor in Afghanistan die UdSSR bekämpften, und die sie später »Al Kaida« nennen sollten.

Die politische und mediale Propaganda zum Jugoslawien krieg ist inzwischen gut erforscht. Interes santer weise versuchen dennoch zahlreiche Medien und Kommentatoren bis heute an der offiziellen Darstellung von damals festzuhalten, im Unterschied etwa zum Irak krieg.

Hierfür mag es verschiedene Gründe geben. Einerseits stammt die fragliche Propaganda noch aus der Frühzeit des Internets und ist deshalb in der Öffentlichkeit im Allgemeinen etwas weniger bekannt. Andererseits sind die Implikationen für Europa in diesem Fall besonders groß.

Aus heutiger Sicht ist es freilich eine triviale Feststellung, dass gewisse Medien den Jugo sla wien krieg der NATO unterstützten, doch damals glaubten selbst Kritiker noch an ein mediales »Versagen«, zumal die entscheidenden Medienstrukturen noch nicht allgemein bekannt waren.

Aus Schweizer Perspektive ist ferner die tragische Rolle der UNO-Chef an klägerin hervor zu heben, die vermutlich bis heute nicht realisiert hat, wofür sie in Den Haag letztlich eingespannt wurde.

Es folgt eine Übersicht der bekanntesten Propagandabeispiele aus dem Jugoslawienkrieg sowie Hinweise auf weiterführende Literatur und Dokumentationen.

1. Das serbische »Todeslager« (1992)

Eines der bekanntesten Propagandabeispiele aus dem Jugoslawienkrieg ist das angebliche serbische Todeslager von Trnopolje in Bosnien. Dabei besuchten drei britische Journalisten im August 1992 ein Flüchtlingslager, dessen Insassen betonten, sehr gut behandelt zu werden (siehe unten).

Die Journalisten begaben sich indes auf ein abgesperrtes Trafo-Areal direkt neben dem Flüchtlings lager und filmten die Männer durch einen Stachel draht zaun hindurch, was den Eindruck erweckte, die Männer seien eingesperrt. Sodann baten die Journalisten einen aufgrund von Krankheit oder kriegsbedingter Mangelernährung abgemagerten Mann, sein T-Shirt auszuziehen.

Das so entstandene Foto landete – sorgfältig zurecht geschnitten – auf den Titelseiten der meisten westlichen Medien als »Beweis« für serbische »Todeslager«, die wiederum als Begründung für die nachfolgende NATO-Intervention in Bosnien dienten, beginnend mit einer Flugverbotszone.

Der deutsche Journalist, der die Täuschung 1997 aufdeckte, wurde von den britischen Journalisten wegen Verleumdung verklagt und verurteilt, da er Ihnen keine Absicht nachweisen konnte.

Der Chef einer amerikanischen PR-Agentur, die die Falschmeldung der Todeslager aktiv verbreitete, erklärte in einem späteren Interview: »Wir sind Professionals. Wir hatten einen Auftrag und wir erledigten ihn. Wir sind nicht dafür bezahlt, moralisch zu sein.«

Ausschnitt aus dem Film Yugoslavia: The Pictures that Fooled the World (2000)

TV, Presse und Lageplan zum Lager bei Trnopolje

2. Die Marktplatz-Massaker in Sarajewo (1992-1995)

Ein weiteres bekanntes Propaganda beispiel sind die sogenannten Marktplatz-Massaker in Sarajewo, darunter insbesondere das Bäckerei-Massaker vom Mai 1992 sowie die beiden Markale-Massakervom Februar 1994 und August 1995.

Diese Massaker erfolgten durch Granatenbeschuss (oder Bombenexplosionen) und fanden zumeist kurz vor wichtigen politischen Beratungen der UNO oder EU statt. Sie führten letztlich zu einem direkten militärischen Eingreifen der NATO und damit zur Wende im Bosnienkrieg.

In den oben genannten sowie einigen weiteren Fällen kamen Untersuchungen durch Offiziere der UNO-Schutzmission zum Ergebnis, dass diese Massaker wahrscheinlich von der bosnischen Seite auf ihre eigene Bevölkerung verübt wurden (sogenannter False-Flag-Angriff).

Die entsprechenden UNO-Berichte wurden jedoch geheim gehalten. Stattdessen behaupteten amerikanische Medien – insbesondere CNN – sowie die US-Regierung meist innerhalb von wenigen Stunden, dass der jeweilige Angriff vermutlich von serbischer Seite erfolgt sei.

Im Folgenden finden sich die wichtigsten Artikel aus der damaligen Zeit von Journalisten, die die geheim gehaltenen UNO-Berichte einsehen oder mit Beteiligten darüber sprechen konnten:

• Bosnia bread queue massacre was propaganda ploy, UN told  (Independent, 1992)
• Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press (Peter Brock, Foreign Policy, 1994, Archiv)
• Anatomy of a Massacre (David Binder, Foreign Policy, 1994, Archiv)
• Bosnia’s Bombers (David Binder, The Nation, 1995, Archiv)
• Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre (DPA, 1996, Archiv)

Als der Auslandschef der Schweizer Weltwoche den obigen Text von Peter Brock unter dem Titel »Bosnien: So logen Fernsehen und Presse uns an« 1994 auf Deutsch veröffentlichte, gab es derart starke Proteste durch andere Medien, dass er ein vorläufiges Schreibverbot zu Bosnien erhielt.

Zwanzig Jahre später wurden die bosnischen Markale-Massaker von 1994/95 wieder in Erinnerung gerufen, als sich Giftgas-Angriffe im Rahmen des Syrienkrieges als inszeniert herausstellten und wie damals Unter suchungs ergebnisse der UNO bzw. OPCW unterdrückt wurden.

Das Markale-Massaker vom Februar 1994 (Quelle: BBC, The Death of Yugoslavia, 1995)

3. Der »Genozid von Srebrenica« (1995)

Als trauriger Höhepunkt des Bosnienkriegs gilt der »Genozid von Srebrenica« im Juli 1995. Dabei sollen laut westlichen Angaben mehr als 8000 bosnische Zivilisten umgebracht worden sein.

Auch in diesem Fall deutet die tatsächliche Evidenz jedoch auf einen komplexeren Sachverhalt und Kontext hin. Der Politologe Edward Herman und der ehemalige CIA-Offizier Robert Baer, der damals in Jugoslawien operierte, sprachen in diesem Zusammenhang sogar von einem »Betrug«.

Für weitere Details sei beispielsweise auf folgende Artikel und Bücher verwiesen:

• The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre (Edward S. Herman, Global Research, 2005)
• Srebrenica Revisited (Diana Johnstone, Essay, Counterpunch, 2005)
• Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed (Norwegische Dokumentation, 60 Minuten, 2010)
• The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics (Edward S. Herman, Buch, 2011)
• DE: Nobelpreis für einen »Genozid-Leugner« (Michael Ewert, Telepolis, 2019)

Generell müssen auch Ereignisse mit sehr hohen berichteten Opferzahlen bisweilen kritisch hinter fragt werden. Dies zeigte etwa das »Timisoara-Massaker« von 1989 mit angeblich 4630 Toten, das sich später als psychologische Operation im Rahmen der rumänischen Revolution herausstellte.

Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed (60 Minuten, 2010, Wikipedia)

4. Kosovo: »Hufeisenplan«, Račak und Rogovo, etc. (1999)

Nach der Abtrennung von Slowenien, Kroatien und Bosnien starteten die USA und die NATO 1999 einen weiteren Krieg gegen das verbleibende Jugoslawien bzw. Serbien zur Abtrennung der Provinz Kosovo. Auch dieser Krieg musste durch Propaganda und Desinformation begründet werden.

Hierzu wurden insbesondere angebliche Vertreibungspläne, Konzentrationslager und Massaker medial thematisiert, die sich später jedoch als erfunden oder fragwürdig herausstellten. Beispiele hierfür sind etwa der angebliche »Hufeisenplan« sowie die Vorfälle von Račak und Rogovo.

Für weitere Details wird im Folgenden die WDR-Doku »Deutschlands Weg in den Kosovo-Krieg – Es begann mit einer Lüge« von 2001 gezeigt. Diese belegt, dass westliche Politiker und Militärs die Falschinformationen bewusst veröffentlichten, um den Krieg legitimieren zu können.

Deutschlands Weg in den Kosovo-Krieg – Es begann mit einer Lüge (WDR, 2001) Dokumentation zur Sendung (AKF Heidelberg)

On November 27 this year, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Nils Melzer, delivered an address to the German Bundestag outlining his approach to understanding the mental health of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange.  These comprised two parts, the initial stage covering his diplomatic asylum in the Ecuadorean embassy, the second dealing with his formal detention in the United Kingdom at the hands of the UK legal and judicial system.  The conclusion was a recapitulation of previous findings: that Assange has been subjected to a prolonged, state-sponsored effort in torture, nothing less than a targeting of his being.

Melzer’s address is an expansive portrait of incremental inter-state torment that led to Assange’s confinement “in a highly controlled environment within the Ecuadorean embassy for more than six years.”  There was the eventually justified fear that he would be sought by the United States in extradition proceedings.  The Swedish authorities threw in their muddled lot between 2010 and 2019, attempting to nab Assange for rape claims despite “not being able to produce enough evidence for an indictment, and which now, after almost a decade, has been silently closed for the third time based on precisely that recognition.”

Then came the British contribution, consisting of encouragement to the Swedes by the Crown Prosecution Service that the investigation should not be closed, inspiring them not to get “cold feet”.  (The cold feet eventually came.)  The Ecuadorean contribution completed the four-piece set, with the coming to power of a pro-Washington Lenín Moreno.  Embassy personnel in London were encouraged to make conditions that less pleasant; surveillance operations were conducted on Assange’s guests and meetings.

Melzer, along with a medical team, attended to Assange on May 9, 2019 in Belmarsh, finding a man with “all the symptoms that are typical of persons having been exposed to psychological torture for a prolonged period of time.”  There was little doubt, in Melzer’s mind, that symptoms “already measurable physically, neurologically and cognitively”, had been shown.

These calls went unheeded.  Melzer, in early November, accused the UK authorities of showing “outright contempt for Mr Assange’s rights and integrity.”  Despite warnings issued by the rapporteur, “the UK has not undertaken any measures of investigation, prevention and redress required under international law.”  Melzer’s prognosis was bleak.  “Unless the UK urgently changes course and alleviates his inhumane situation, Mr Assange’s continued exposure to arbitrariness and abuse may soon end up costing his life.”

This point has been restated by Dr. Stephen Frost, a chief figure of the dedicated outfit calling itself Doctors for Assange. “We repeat that it is impossible to assess adequately let alone treat Mr Assange in Belmarsh prison and that he must as a matter of urgency be moved to a university teaching hospital.  When will the UK government listen to us?”

The medical degrading of Assange has assumed ever greater importance, suggesting unwavering state complicity.  On November 22, over 65 notable medical doctors sent the UK Home Secretary a note based on Melzer’s November 1 findings and Assange’s state at the October 21 case management hearing at Westminster Magistrates Court.  “It is our opinion that Mr Assange requires urgent expert medical assessment of both his physical and psychological state of health.  Any medical treatment indicated should be administered in a properly equipped and expertly staffed university teaching hospital (tertiary care).”

In a second open letter to the UK Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice dated December 4, the Doctors for Assange collective warned that the UK’s “refusal to take the required measures to protect Mr Assange’s rights, health and dignity appears [to] be reckless at best and deliberate at worst and, in both cases, unlawfully and unnecessarily exposes Mr Assange to potentially irreversible risks.”

The same grounds were reiterated in a December 16 letter to Australian Foreign Minister Marise Payne, with a curt reminder that she had “an undeniable legal obligation to protect your citizen against the abuse of his fundamental rights, stemming from US efforts to extradite Mr Assange for journalism and publishing that exposed US war crimes.”  In the event that Payne took no action on the matter, “people would want to know what you […] did to prevent his death.”

In the addendum to the open letter, further to reiterating the precarious state of Assange’s health and medical status as a torture victim, the doctors elaborate on the circular cruelty facing the publisher.  An individual deemed “a victim of psychological torture cannot be adequately medically treated while continuing to be held under the very conditions constituting psychological torture, as is currently the case for Julian Assange.”  Appropriate medical treatment was hardly possible through a prison hospital ward.

A lesson in understanding mental torture is also proffered.  “Contrary to popular misconception, the injuries caused by psychological torture are real and extremely serious.  The term psychological torture is not a synonym for mere hardship, suffering or distress.”

At Assange’s case management hearing on December 19, restrictions on medical opinion were again implemented; psychiatrist Marco Chiesa and psychologist David Morgan were prevented from attending.  Both had been signatories to the spray of open letters.  According to Morgan, he had hoped to “provide some observations about Julian Assange’s health, psychologically, and with my colleagues, physically.”  Instead, it transpired that access was denied, according to psychologist Lissa Johnson, “despite members of the public offering to give up seats for them.”

Cold-shouldering expert opinion can be counted as one of the weapons of the state in punishing whistleblowers and publishers.  The State has always made it a bureaucratic imperative to sift the undesirable evidence from the apologetic message.  Accepting Assange’s condition would be tantamount to admission on the part of UK authorities, urged on by the United States, that intolerable, potentially martyring treatment, has been meted out to a publisher.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Medium

Claire Edwards in conversation with Phillip Farruggio of It’s the Empire, Stupid talking about the dangers of 5G, 4G, 3G, all wireless technology and cell phones. Claire explains the history of electromagnetic radiation’s health effects and how the US military has hidden the devastating biological effects from the public in order to be able to develop microwave weapons; how the TETRA communications system used by the police in the US and Europe is deleting their capacity for empathy and pushing them to rage and violence; the devastating health consequences of 25 years of cell phone use, including astronomical rates of autism; the true cause of colony collapse disorder and much more …

***

Listen to the interview below. Claire Edward and Philip A. Farruggio

Research references

UN & 5G

UN Staff Member: 5G is a War on Humanity (CE).

Appeal

International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (CE).

History of Electricity

Summary of the Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life by Arthur Firstenberg

RT Dutch – 5G The Trojan Horse ((CE) video – at 1 hour point)

The 5G Dementors Meet the 4G Zombie Apocalypse (CE)

Microwaves

Jerry Flynn, Canadian microwave weapons expert

Wireless Technology: The Worst Threat to our Health, Personal Privacy, Democracy and National Security in Canada’s Entire History by Jerry Flynn 

Barrie Trower, UK microwave weapons expert

Confidential Report on TETRA for the Police Federation of England and Wales

Mind Control

CIA Project Pandora Radio Remote Brain Manipulation

Currently Deployed Psychotronic Mind-Control Technologies

Tim Rifat: Mass UK Mind Control Technology Now A Reality

… Use of the TETRA system by the police will lead to psychotronicaly controlled officers who may be totally controlled in any situation and are very useful for states of economic or social chaos where extreme and violent behaviour is needed without any conscious or moral compunction – so-called police robots. 30,000 transmitters will be placed around the country to maximise the effects on the local UK population – mass mind control. …

Reports in 2019 on Health Effects

How the Telecom Companies Are Losing the Battle to Impose 5G Against the Will of the People (CE)

(Numbers may be subject to change as the article is updated)

3          Autism

2          Exposure to Cell Phone and Wireless WiFi Radiation Can Reduce Impulse Control and Cause Violence

4          Irritable behaviour

7          Vienna EMF injuries

15        Italian Court: brain tumour caused by cell phone

16        US Senator Blumenthal: no safety studies on 5G

19        Swiss  study: “smart” phones may impair memory in teens

27        Insurers announce premature death trend

77        US suicide rates at highest level since World War II; life expectancy – first             three-year drop since 1915-1918

83        UK: Glastonbury festival-goers guinea pigs in 5G trial

103      Swiss mainstream magazine L’Illustréreports first 5G injuries

109      US: Cardiology Magazine: “smart” phones promote obesity

115      Children’s exposure to magnetic fields from cell phones breaches WHO safety limit by a factor of 20,000

113      Medical doctor warns that cell phone use of teenagers and children is disabling compassion and empathy

117      Kuwait Timeshighlights 5G health threats

171      Smartphones and tablets detrimental to toddlers’ speech, thinking, and reading skills

174      France: 4 times more new cases of glioblastoma in 2018

182      US: Cell tower company President tells child she will not get cancer if tower is installed at her school

198      Taiwan has removed 1,700 towers from a heavily populated area due to miscarriages, cancers, neurological damage, depression and suicide

5G Satellites

Video: The Madness of Putting 53,000 5G Satellites in Space (CE)

Video: The 5G Space Weapon, Mind Control Agenda & Kill Grid (CE)

5G Satellites and NATO Putting the World at Risk (CE)

Operation Gladio

Operation Gladio is undisputed historical fact. Gladio was part of a post-World War II program set up by the CIA and NATO supposedly to thwart future Soviet/communist invasions or influence in Italy and Western Europe. In fact, it became a state-sponsored right-wing terrorist network, involved in false flag operations and the subversion of democracy …

Professor Olle Johansson

To bee, or not to bee, that is the five “G” question – Olle Johansson

Cancer trends during the 20th century

Skin melanoma is a cancer that started to explode in 1955 (see Figure 3). It is interesting to note that a similar steep increase in melanoma mortality was also reported from Queensland, Australia, when comparing 1951-1959 with 1964-1967.10  This increase was related to the introduction of high power TV broadcasting transmitters. Skin melanoma has also been associated with the expansion of broadcasting networks in Sweden, Norway, Denmark and USA.  Lung cancer has an almost identical development as melanoma has had in Sweden with a scale factor of 10 (see Figures 3 and 4). Breast, bladder, prostate, lung, colon and cutaneous melanoma cancers are all associated with each other. Figures 15-17 and ref. 11 relate melanoma to radio-frequency EMF.

Fake news on 5G 

BBC Fake News on 5G Decoded (CE) 

Alternatives

SafeG

What is SafeG? SafeG means safe, fast, reliable, secure Internet and telecommunications services brought into our homes and businesses by wired technology. It means technology that safeguards our health, privacy and security and that evolves over time with the goal of reducing exposure to harmful wireless radiation.

*

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: Demonstrators at the anti-5G protest in Bern on Friday. (© Keystone / Peter Klaunzer)

During a hearing before the Westminster Magistrates’ Court in London, Julian Assange’s lawyer, Edward Fitzgerald, requested Thursday that the founder of Wikileaks not be extradited to the United States arguing that the alleged crimes of his defendant have a political character.

Fitzgerald mentioned that the United Kingdom-United States extradition treaty bans extradition of persons linked to political offenses, which is precisely the situation of his defendant.

Today’s judicial action is part of the preparation of Assange’s extradition trial to the U.S., which is expected to take place on February 24, 2020.

On this matter, however, Clair Dobbin, representing the U.S. authorities, asked for the case to be delayed until April, which the Westminster Court did not accept.

The defense lawyer also reiterated his complaints about the “big problems” his team faces in contacting Assange in prison and recalled that the Australian journalist does not have access to a suitable computer to prepare his argument.​​​​​​

“On 22 Oct. 2019, Craig Murray, a former British Ambassador, published a detailed & shocking eye witness account of Mr Assange’s hearing the previous day, stating that he “exhibited exactly the symptoms of a torture victim.”https://t.co/driFrNl1Mw #StopTheTorture#FreeAssange pic.twitter.com/kZ3I3DXcvW

— Ariyana Love (@mideastrising) December 19, 2019

In November, 60 doctors from several countries sent an open letter to British Home Secretary Priti Patel warning her him that Assange could die in jail if he did not receive urgent medical attention.​​​​​​​

Although he already served the 50-week jail sentence for breaking the conditions of his probation in 2012, he remains jailed because a court considered that he could escape the U.K. if he left the cell.

In June, former Home Secretary Sajid Javid signed an order to allow Assange to be handed over to the United States, where he could be sentenced up to 170 years in prison.​​​​​​​

The U.S. authorities accuse him of conspiring to hack government computers and extract secret documents, which ​​​​​​​would have been published at the WikiLeaks portal.

On Friday, the Spanish judge Jose de la Mata will take a statement from Assange about the alleged espionage he was subjected to during his stay at the Ecuadorian embassy in London.

This interrogation is part of an investigation of the Spanish company Undercover Global, which was responsible for the security of the embassy.​​​​​​​

*

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 Another Day in the Empire

The Washington Post’s publication of the “Afghanistan Papers” (12/9/19) unveiled over 2,000 pages of unpublished notes of interviews with US officials involved in the Afghanistan War, from a project led by the Office of the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR) to investigate waste and fraud. Hailed by some as the “Pentagon Papers of Our Generation” after the Post won access to those documents under the Freedom of Information Act in a three-year legal battle, the Post’s exposé found that

senior US officials failed to tell the truth about the war in Afghanistan throughout the 18-year campaign, making rosy pronouncements they knew to be false and hiding unmistakable evidence the war had become unwinnable.

The paper published direct remarks on the war by US officials who assumed that “their remarks would not be made public”:

“Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” Bob Crowley, an Army colonel who served as a senior counterinsurgency adviser to US military commanders in 2013 and 2014, told government interviewers. “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

While more explicit admissions of deception on the part of US officials involved in wars are always appreciated, one question rarely discussed among the reports and opinion pieces praising the “Afghanistan Papers” is what this scoop says about the Washington Post.

If the Post is now publishing material demonstrating that US officials have been “following the same talking points for 18 years,” emphasizing how they are “making progress,” “especially” when the war is “going badly,” shouldn’t the paper acknowledge that it has been cheerleading this same line for all of those 18 years? Doesn’t it have a responsibility to examine how it served as a primary vehicle for those officials to spread these same “talking points” to spin the coverage in the desired fashion?

FAIR has been tracking the Post’s coverage of the Afghanistan War from the very beginning, when the paper—along with the rest of corporate media—was actively following the Bush administration’s “guidance” on how to cover the war. In 2001, a FAIR survey (11/2/01) of the Post’s op-ed pages for three weeks following the September 11 attacks found that

columns calling for or assuming a military response to the attacks were given a great deal of space, while opinions urging diplomatic and international law approaches as an alternative to military action were nearly nonexistent.

Eight years later, FAIR (3/1/09) found that the Post’s cheerleading coverage didn’t change much from 2001, as 7 out of 9 Post op-eds and 4 out of 5 editorials supported some kind of military escalation from the day Barack Obama was elected president (11/4/08) through March 1, 2009, as the US was debating a “surge” of additional troops in Afghanistan later that year.

Another study (Extra!, 11/1/09) of the first ten months of the Post’s opinion columns that same year found that

pro-war columns outnumbered antiwar columns by more than 10 to 1: Of 67 Post columns on US military policy in Afghanistan, 61 supported a continued war, while just six expressed antiwar views. Of the pro-war columns, 31 were for escalation and 30 for an alternative strategy.

The Post offered this lopsided coverage even though there were several polls at the time showing a majority of the US public opposed the war, because they believed that the Afghan War was “not worth fighting.”

The Post also has a history of facilitating official spin for the war. When WikiLeaksposted tens of thousands of classified intelligence documents related to the Afghanistan War, FAIR (7/30/10) found that the Post either dismissed them as not being as important as the Pentagon Papers (7/27/10), or absurdly spun the leaks as good news for the US war effort (7/27/10) because the “release could compel President Obama to explain more forcefully the war’s importance,” and because they “bolstered Obama’s decision in December to pour more troops and money into a war effort that had not received sufficient attention or resources from the Bush administration.”

The Post also buried attempts by whistleblowers and other journalists who were working to expose official lies and war crimes in Afghanistan. When US Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning was sentenced to serve 35 years in prison for sharing intelligence documents that first exposed what the “Afghanistan Papers” are now corroborating, the Post, along with other corporate outlets, largely neglected Manning’s legal trials and punishment (FAIR.org, 12/4/12, 6/18/14, 1/18/17, 4/1/19). The New York Times, to its credit, did give Manning space for an op-ed (6/14/19) to explain why she risked her freedom to expose matters that the US military recorded but left unreported, including hundreds of US military attacks on Afghan civilians. The Post, for its part, found room to publish frequent op-eds by the Brookings Institution’s Michael O’Hanlon (e.g., 11/16/09, 6/26/10, 6/3/11, 2/10/13, 7/12/13) spouting the same optimistic US official talking points that the Post’s “Afghanistan Papers” has now exposed as lies (FAIR.org, 1/3/14).

In fact, one major reason why the Afghanistan Papers are unnecessary to discern deceit from US officials is that—as Michael Parenti pointed out in The Face of Imperialism—when US officials constantly provide new and different justifications for invasions, it’s a sign that they’re being dishonest, not incompetent.

The Post (12/9/19) admits this when it mentions that the US “largely accomplished what it set out to do,” with Al Qaeda and Taliban officials “dead, captured or in hiding,” yet “veered off in directions that had little to do with Al Qaeda or 9/11.” This is consistent with FAIR’s finding (Extra!, 7/11) that corporate media largely ignored the question of whether to end the Afghanistan War after the ostensible goal of the invasion—to capture or kill the leader of the group that carried out the September 11 attack—was accomplished in the death of Osama bin Laden.

It shouldn’t be a surprise that the Post’s Afghanistan Papers have inadvertently exposed the Post as a subservient accomplice in disseminating US official lies; corporate media rely on official sources for free content and “scoops” to subsidize their journalism, which often spreads dishonest but convenient talking points by these same sources to retain “access” to this information, trustworthy or not (Extra!, 5/02; New York Times, 4/20/08; FAIR.org, 12/12/19).

Political cartoonist and journalist Ted Rall pointed out, in an account (Common Dreams, 12/11/19) of being marginalized by corporate outlets like the Post:

“The Afghanistan Papers” is a bright, shining lie by omission. Yes, our military and civilian leaders lied to us about Afghanistan. But they could never have spread their murderous BS—thousands of US soldiers and tens of thousands of Afghans killed, trillions of dollars wasted—without media organizations like the Washington Post, which served as unquestioning government stenographers.

Press outlets like the Post and New York Times weren’t merely idiots used to disseminate pro-war propaganda. They actively censored people who knew we never should have gone into Afghanistan and tried to tell American voters the truth.

It’s this mutually beneficial relationship between the need for corporate media outlets like the Post for “access” to US official sources, and US officials who need corporate media outlets to propagate their preferred spin on US foreign policy to manipulate public opinion, that explains what the Afghanistan Papers expose as the Post’s own role in deceiving the US public. It’s why the Post’s coverage and editorial board can argue that the Trump administration shouldn’t “abandon the country in haste” (even though it’s been 18 years), and rally around the US’s “forever war” in Afghanistan (FAIR.org, 1/31/19, 9/11/19), even as the paper investigates the official lies the continuing occupation depends on.

Of course, this is also the reason why it’s systemically impossible for corporate outlets like the Post to take the opportunity to raise more substantive and provocative questions about whether deceit is a constant and essential aspect of US foreign policy, and not merely confined to isolated military invasions of “quagmire” countries like Vietnam and Afghanistan, despite the Afghanistan Papers providing a perfect opportunity to do so. To say nothing of challenging a worldview that invokes “winnable” wars, in which predictions of increasing numbers of (enemy) human deaths are best described as “rosy.”

There’s quite a long history of US media assisting officials in fabricating moral pretexts for invasion—from fictional accounts of North Vietnamese attacks on American destroyer ships in the Gulf of Tonkin (FAIR.org, 8/5/17), to conflating very different Islamic groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda, or claims that formerly US-backed dictator Saddam Hussein possessed WMDs and the intent to use them against the US (CounterPunch, 6/11/14; FAIR.org, 3/19/07).

Observers note that the Afghanistan Papers “only confirm what we already know” (Daily Beast, 12/14/19), or that “the shocking thing about the Poststories…is how unshocking they are” (Atlantic, 12/9/19); even the Washington Post (12/12/19) reminds us that only people who “haven’t been paying attention” to the Afghan War are “surprised” by what’s found in the Afghanistan Papers.

Perhaps instead of pursuing FOIA requests to confirm the obvious, the Post could just interrogate its own contradictory coverage of the Afghan War and stop functioning as credulous mouthpieces for the US government. But to do that would also require confronting the lie that this entire so-called “War on Terror” has any moral credibility, when the US is a leading terrorist state that consciously pursues imperial policies that inflame hatred against the US to serve corporate interests (FAIR.org, 3/13/19, 11/22/19).

Absent that, an exercise like the Afghanistan Papers come off more as a “please consider” note to the Pulitzer judges than as an earnest effort to use the spotlight of journalistic investigation to speak truth to power and halt the ongoing, generation-long destruction of a foreign nation.

*

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

Joshua Cho is a writer based in Virginia.

Featured image is from FAIR

In order to evaluate the claims of massive human rights violations of the Uyghurs, an ethnic and religious minority in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region of China, it is important to know a few facts.

Xinjiang Province in the far western region of China is an arid, mountainous and still largely underdeveloped region. Xinjiang has significant oil and mineral reserves and is currently China’s largest natural-gas-producing region.

It is home to a number of diverse ethnic groups, including Turkic-speaking Muslim Uyghurs, Tibetans, Tajiks, Hui and Han peoples.

Xinjiang borders five Central Asian countries, including Afghanistan and Pakistan, where more than 1 million U.S. troops and even more mercenaries, contractors and secret agents have operated over four decades in an endless U.S. war.

What is happening in Xinjiang today must be seen in the context of what has been happening throughout Central Asia.

Xinjiang is a major logistics center for China’s ambitious Belt and Road Initiative. Xinjiang is the gateway to Central and West Asia, as well as to European markets.

The Southern Xinjiang Railway runs to the city of Kashgar in China’s far west where it is now connected to Pakistan’s rail network under the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor, a project of the BRI.

The U.S. government is deeply hostile to this vast economic development project and is doing all it can to sabotage China’s plans. This campaign is part of the U.S. military’s “Pivot to Asia,” along with naval threats in the South China Sea and support for separatist movements in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Tibet.

Map features Central Asia and China, including Xinjiang.

No U.N. report on Xinjiang

The U.S. and its corporate media charge that the Chinese government has rounded up 1 million people, mainly Uyghurs, into concentration camps. News reports cite the United Nations as their source.

This was disputed in a detailed investigative report by Ben Norton and Ajit Singh titled, “No, the UN did not report China has ‘massive internment camps’ for Uighur Muslims.” (The Grayzone.com, Aug. 23, 2018) They expose how this widely publicized claim is based entirely on unsourced allegations by a single U.S. member, Gay McDougall, on an “independent committee” with an official sounding name: U.N. Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.

The U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights has confirmed that no U.N. body or official has made such a charge against China.

CIA/NED-funded ‘human rights’

After this fraudulent news story received wide coverage, it was followed by “reports” from the Washington-based Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders. This group receives most of its funds from U.S. government grants, primarily from the CIA-linked National Endowment for Democracy, a major source of funding for U.S. “regime change” operations around the world.

The Network of Chinese Human Rights Defenders shares the same Washington address as Human Rights Watch. The HRW has been a major source of attacks on governments targeted by the U.S., such as Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Syria and China. The network has long called for sanctions against China.

The CHRD’s sources include Radio Free Asia, a news agency funded for decades by the U.S. government. The World Uighur Congress, another source of sensationalized reports, is also funded by NED. The same U.S. government funding is behind the International Uyghur Human Rights and Democracy Foundation and the Uyghur American Association.

The authors of the Grayzone article cite years of detailed IRS filing forms to back up their claim. They list millions of dollars in generous government funding — to generate false reports.

This whole network of supposedly impartial civil society groups, nongovernmental organizations, think tanks and news sources operates under the cover of “human rights” to promote sanctions and war.

CIA-funded terror

Central Asia has experienced the worst forms of U.S. military power.

Beginning in 1979, the CIA, operating with the ISI Pakistani Intelligence Service and Saudi money, funded and equipped reactionary Mujahedeen forces in Afghanistan to bring down a revolutionary government there. The U.S. cultivated and promoted extreme religious fanaticism, based in Saudi Arabia, against progressive secular regimes in the region. This reactionary force was also weaponized against the Soviet Union and an anti-imperialist Islamic current represented by the Iranian Revolution.

For four decades, the CIA and secret Pakistan ISI forces (Pakistan Military, Inter Services Intelligence) in Afghanistan sought to recruit and train Uyghur mercenaries, planning to use them as a future terror force in China. Chechnyans from Russia’s Caucasus region were recruited for the same reason. Both groups were funneled into Syria in the U.S. regime-change operation there. These fanatical religious forces, along with other small ethnic groups, formed the backbone of the Islamic State group (IS) and Al-Qaida.

After the Sept. 11, 2001, World Trade Center bombing, the very forces that U.S. secret operations had helped to create became the enemy.

Uyghurs from Xinjiang were among the Al-Qaida prisoners captured in Afghanistan and held in the U.S. prison at Guantanamo for years without charges. Legal appeals exposed that the Uyghur prisoners were being held there under some of the worst conditions in solitary confinement.

U.S. wars dislocate region

The U.S. occupation of Afghanistan and the massive U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003 created shockwaves of dislocation. Social progress, education, health care and infrastructure were destroyed. Sectarian and ethnic division was encouraged to divide opposition to U.S. occupations. Despite promises of great progress, the U.S. occupations sowed only destruction.

In this long war, U.S. prisons in Afghanistan, Pakistan and Iraq were notorious. The CIA used “enhanced interrogation” techniques — torture — and secret rendition to Guantanamo, Bagram and the Salt Pit in Afghanistan. These secret prisons have since been the source of many legal suits.

According to U.N. investigations, by 2010 the U.S. held more than 27,000 prisoners in over 100 secret facilities around the world. Searing images and reports of systematic torture and prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib in Iraq and Bagram airbase in Afghanistan surfaced.

Exposing coverup of war crimes

In July 2010 WikiLeaks published more than 75,000 classified U.S./NATO reports on the war in Afghanistan.

In October of that year, a massive leak of 400,000 military videos, photos and documents exposed, in harrowing detai,l torture, summary executions and other war crimes. Army intelligence analyst former Private Chelsea Manning released this damning material to WikiLeaks.

Based on the leaked documents, the U.N. chief investigator on torture, Manfred Nowak, called on U.S. President Barack Obama to order a full investigation of these crimes, including abuse, torture, rape and murder committed against the Iraqi people following the U.S. invasion and occupation.

The leaked reports provided documentary proof of 109,000 deaths — including 66,000 civilians. This is seldom mentioned in the media, in contrast to the highly publicized and unsourced charges now raised against China.

Prosecuting whistle blowers

The CIA’s National Endowment for Democracy pays handsomely for unsourced documents making claims of torture against China, while those who provided documentary proof of U.S. torture have been treated as criminals.

John Kiriakou, who worked for the CIA between 1990 and 2004 and confirmed widespread use of systematic torture, was prosecuted by the Obama administration for revealing classified information and sentenced to 30 months in prison.

Chelsea Manning’s release of tens of thousands of government documents confirming torture and abuse, in addition to horrific photos of mass killings, have led to her continued incarceration. Julian Assange of WikiLeaks is imprisoned in Britain and faces deportation to the U.S. for his role in disseminating these documents.

Rewriting history

How much of the coverage of Xinjiang is intended to deflect world attention from the continuing crimes of U.S. wars — from Afghanistan to Syria?

In 2014 a Senate CIA Torture Report confirmed that a torture program, called “Detention and Interrogation Program,” had been approved by top U.S. officials. Only a 525-page Executive Summary of its 6,000 pages was released, but it was enough to confirm that the CIA program was far more brutal and extensive than had previously been released.

Mercenaries flood into Syria

The U.S. regime-change effort to overturn the government of Syria funneled more than 100,000 foreign mercenaries and fanatical religious forces into the war. They were well-equipped with advanced weapons, military gear, provisions and paychecks.

One-third of the Syrian population was uprooted in the war. Millions of refugees flooded into Europe and neighboring countries.

Beginning in 2013, thousands of Uyghur fighters were smuggled into Syria to train with the extremist Uyghur group known as the Turkistan Islamic Party. Fighting alongside Al-Qaida and Al-Nusra terror units, these forces played key roles in several battles.

Reuters, Associated Press and Newsweek all reported that up to 5,000 Turkic-speaking Muslim Uyghurs from Xinjiang were fighting in various “militant” groups in Syria.

According to Syrian media, a transplanted Uyghur colony transformed the city of al Zanbaka (on the Turkish border) into an entrenched camp of 18,000 people. Many of the Uyghur fighters were smuggled to the Turkish-Syrian border area with their families. Speaking Turkish, rather than Chinese, they relied on the support of the Turkish secret services.

China follows a different path

China is determined to follow a different path in dealing with fanatical groups that are weaponized by religious extremism. China’s action comes after terror attacks and explosives have killed hundreds of civilians in busy shopping areas and crowded train and bus stations since the 1990s.

China has dealt with the problem of religious extremism by setting up large-scale vocational education and training centers. Rather than creating worse underdevelopment through bombing campaigns, it is seeking to engage the population in education, skill development and rapid economic and infrastructure development.

Terrorist attacks in Xinjiang have stopped since the reeducation campaigns began in 2017.

Two worldviews of Xinjiang

In July of this year, 22 countries, most in Europe plus Canada, Japan, Australia and New Zealand, sent a letter to the U.N. Human Rights Council criticizing China for mass arbitrary detentions and other violations against Muslims in China’s Xinjiang region. The statement did not include a single signature from a Muslim-majority state.

Days later, a far larger group of 34 countries — now expanded to 54 from Asia, Africa and Latin America — submitted a letter in defense of China’s policies. These countries expressed their firm support of China’s counterterrorism and deradicalization measures in Xinjiang.

More than a dozen member countries of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation at the U.N. signed the statement.

A further statement on Oct. 31 to the Third Committee of the U.N. General Assembly explained that a number of diplomats, international organizations, officials and journalists had traveled to Xinjiang to witness the progress of the human rights cause and the outcomes of counterterrorism and deradicalization.

“What they saw and heard in Xinjiang completely contradicted what was reported in the [Western] media,” said the statement.

*

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 Workers World.

Featured image is from United World International

Thursday was a busy news day, what with Trump’s impeachment and the Queen’s speech in Westminster, but another item given less coverage in UK mainstream media was arguably more significant than anything else making the headlines. Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon’s speech, formally asking the UK Prime Minister to transfer the powers to hold a referendum on independence from Westminster to the Scottish parliament, may well go down in history as the beginning of the end of the United Kingdom.

Having bagged a landslide election victory, winning 48 out of the 59 seats in Scotland, Nicola Sturgeon has wasted no time in confronting Boris Johnson with what is, for him, an uncomfortable truth: that Scotland wants a second referendum on independence, and it’s not going to go away. Sturgeon’s rhetoric so far has been bold, saying that Scotland would not be ‘imprisoned’ inside the Union and that the UK government had to ‘confront reality’.  On Thursday in her speech from Bute House she said her government now had an ‘unarguable mandate by any standards of democracy’ to hold another referendum on independence.

Alongside her letter to Boris Johnson requesting the powers to legally hold a second referendum under Section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act, she published a 38 page document detailing proposed amendments to the statute, which would devolve the right to vote on leaving the UK to the Holyrood parliament. Entitled Scotland’s Right to Choose, the paper outlines her argument that there has been a “material change of circumstances” since the 2014 referendum, based on “the prospect of Scotland leaving the EU against its will and what EU exit has revealed about Scotland’s position within the UK”.

The Nationalists’ leader has a fair point. For we can debate about voters’ motivations till the cows come home, but facts are facts, and the fact remains that on 12th December the majority of Scots put their support behind a party which stands on an independence platform. Brexit hit Scotland twofold: it wasn’t simply the issue of leaving the EU itself which Scotland was against, but moreover this proud, northern nation has taken great exception to its views not being taken into account whatsoever in negotiations. In the draft Withdrawal Agreement there are umpteen mentions of Northern Ireland, but very little about how Scotland’s interests will be protected. The attitude has been something along the lines of ‘Scotland voted to remain in the UK in 2014 so it just has to put up with whatever Westminster decides’.

Indeed to say that Westminister is reluctant to grant another referendum is an understatement. Boris Johnson made it clear to Sturgeon in a telephone conversation last week that he was against it. This was reiterated by his minister Michael Gove this week when he said that there was ‘absolutely’ no prospect of the UK government ‘allowing’ another vote in the next five years.  And herein lies the problem. For Westminster is always going to protect the Union, and oppose Scotland breaking away at all costs, as Spain has with Catalonia. Thinking that the EU would support Scotland when it hasn’t offered any help to Catalonia is futile.

Opponents are currently arguing that in fact, Sturgeon only won 45% of the vote last week, echoing the 2014 referendum result, and therefore, they suggest that there is no more appetite now than there was before. But one has to take into account the turnout for these two elections, and demographics. Many more people voted in the 2014 referendum than in last week’s election – 84% compared to 68%, and in particular, voters aged 16 and 17 were allowed to vote, as Scotland passed a law in 2014 allowing young people to do so in Scottish matters. Sturgeon knows that independence is popular amongst Scotland’s youth and therefore with the right campaign strategy, she must believe she can persuade young people to get out and vote for independence. A survey, organised by Conservative peer Lord Ashcroft in 2014, revealed that 71% of 16 to 17-year-olds voted for Scotland to be independent and 29% voted against.

Sturgeon is careful. Independence activists have been calling on her for years now to demand a second referendum and she is regularly accused of even secretly not wanting independence herself. But clearly she has just been biding her time and her patience has paid off. She could not have chosen a better time now to call for indyref2, the momentum is behind her after the election, with the political divide between Scotland and England more stark than ever before. And Westminster’s obstinance could just play into her hands, as the more reluctant they are to grant the referendum, the more resentment towards them will build up north of the border. Johnson should be advised to grant Sturgeon’s wishes now, or risk fostering such levels of antagonism towards him and his government in Scotland, from which there would be no way back…

*

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.

Canada voted in favour of a United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) resolution supporting the Palestinian right to self-determination yesterday, in a defeat for pro-Israel groups.

The General Assembly adopted the resolution by 167 votes to five, with 11 abstentions, with only Israel, the United States, in addition to US-dependent Pacific island states Marshall Islands, Micronesia and Nauru, voting against the text.

The resolution reaffirms “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination, including to their independent State of Palestine”, urging states and UN agencies “to continue to support and assist Palestinians in the early realization of their right to self-determination”, stated the UN press release.

In Canada, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s administration had been under pressure from Israel and pro-Israel advocacy groups to vote “no”, and those same groups reacted with outrage when Ottawa joined 166 other governments in affirming the Palestinian right to self-determination.

As noted by CBC,

“Canada regularly votes against or abstains on the 16 recurrent resolutions on Palestinian issues which go before the General Assembly every year, including on East Jerusalem, sovereignty over natural resources, and Israeli settlements.”

This pattern “began in 2006 under former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper”, only for Canada to “abruptly” reverse course last month on “the right of the Palestinian people to self-determination” during a preliminary vote at committee stage.

Israel advocacy group “UN Watch” organised an online petition ahead of yesterday’s vote, hoping Canada would vote “no” or at least abstain, while another pro-Israel group, B’nai Brith Canada, had also urged the Canadian government not to support the resolution.

“Although it was a slow process…I am delighted,” said the Palestinian envoy to the UN, Riyad Mansour, as quoted by CBC, adding that the vote was “very significant, very positive”.

*

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.

94-year old Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, himself a highly respected Muslim leader really took affection to our Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan when the latter visited Malaysia. It was clear that Dr. Mahathir immediately picked up that this would be a promising Muslim leader in a sea of mostly ineffectual pawns and puppets. After our PM’s UN speech, the bonds grew stronger. Along with Dr. Mahathir and Erdogan in Turkey, our PM boldly asserted an initiative to combat Islamophobia and did not tire of mentioning these two Muslim leaders as ones he admires greatly.

And now, our PM decides to abandon an incredibly important summit – all at the strict orders of the House of One Saud. The joke on our beloved PM is that his friend MBS is aligned with the most Islamophobic countries and international networks of the Anglo-Zionist empire from where MBS takes his orders.

Our PM has been praised endlessly for his eloquent and passionate defense of the Kashmiris’ right to self-determination and liberation from Indian state terror. On the issue of Kashmir, the two other countries that spoke most vocally about India’s unacceptable behavior were Turkey and Malaysia, despite whatever economic losses they would suffer in their ties with New Delhi.

And the country that seemed like it had to be first in a marathon race to bless the annexation of Kashmir by India was that of the House of ONE Saud.

Our PM, who we thought had incredible vision on both domestic and international fronts from his UN speech, has now displayed behavior that could very well be the definitive turning point in deciding whether he has the courage to actually practice what he preaches, or is just verging on pure opportunistic realpolitik. Such action was not expected from this man.

If this disgraceful humiliation of a well-respected Muslim leader like Dr. Mahathir was done by previous jokers and thieves that ran this country, no one would have batted an eyelid. The fact that many of us sincere critical supporters of our beloved PM, not necessarily his incompetent and corrupt party members, had to see this day is more painful that the beloved PM will ever know.

I wonder how someone whose heart has for the better part of his life seemed like it was in the right place  – a man whose mother’s return to her Creator precipitated him to construct a world-class Cancer hospital in her name – I wonder how she looks down upon him now that he has disgustingly treated a 94-year old man convening a summit in Kuala Lumpur in keen excitement for the arrival of  the Pakistani leader that he admired so much and virtually treated like a son.

Our beloved PM was keen to speak of not being an ‘America’s hired gun’ anymore. It was a catchy line, and all of us who deeply abhorred the death and destruction unleashed by the ‘war on terror’ supported him wholeheartedly on that.

But all that feels like rhetorical flourishing and political posturing, rather than any principled affirmation of sovereignty and dignity of the nation. It’s crystal clear that our  PM is willing to be the House of One Saud’s ‘hired gun’ and quisling – which in effect means that nothing has changed: the Saudi-UAE-Israel-US nexus is one, and if you’re a ‘hired gun’ for one, you are a ‘hired gun’ for the rest.

And despite the laudable Pakistani decision of not explicitly participating in the Saudi slaughter of Yemen in 2015, what does it mean for our beloved PM to commit to defending the holy city of Mecca at this point in time? It means to defend a Las Vegas in the dessert with the only thing visible being luxury hotels and shopping malls – all of this ostensibly called a holy pilgrimage. The man speaks of our religion, our culture, our heritage. The House of ONE Saud is not that place.

And on the topic of the Saudi-UAE launch of the war in Yemen, does our PM have historical amnesia about what language was used against Pakistan when Islamabad decided to opt out? How many times have the Turks or the Malaysians threatened to ‘teach you a lesson’ (as the reactionary royals pontificated to Pakistan at the time) – if Islamabad did not agree to help them slaughter a neighboring country (in this case, Yemen)?

Though much of history is determined by all sorts of forces and not by elite individuals just being the movers and shakers, there are exceptions. The German philosopher Hegel, with all of his Eurocentric biases, may have had a point that at certain historical junctures, there are destined to be world-historical figures that can serve a significant purpose in moving the ‘march of history’ forward – or backward!

The rapidly shifting global geopolitical order is one in which, arguably, a Donald Trump can be considered one of those figures whose essential task is to accelerate an already unfolding situation: the collapse of the American empire and the ushering in of an age of transition which will be chaotic and unpredictable, but certainly multipolar.

Within Muslimistan, though it may be a stretch, the man in charge in Pakistan could have – should have – precisely played this Hegelian role. With the charisma and global standing he had achieved, despite whatever domestic failings may have existed in his short time in power, he had the historic opportunity to accelerate the unraveling of the Anglo-Zionist empire by completely annihilating old Cold War constraints and de-linking from imperial petromonarchy stooges that consider his people as scum to be super-exploited and enslaved. Our PM could have been part of a meaningful Islamicate project, with partner nations that maintain tremendous dignity – something that would have challenged the reactionary hegemony of the House of Saud lasting for over half a century now.

The irony is that the man we thought was a man of steel, a man who could not be bought, freely chose to enslave himself when his poor compatriots who have to work as migrant laborers have no choice but to submit to the political tyranny of the House of ONE Saud. But our beloved PM has willingly subordinated himself. And that, too, in the most comical way possible. Days before this Kuala Lumpur Summit, it is so evidently obvious to anyone with even half a functioning brain cell that he has been summoned by reactionary royals in Bahrain and Saudi to command him not to go. Does the man think his people – the people he says he loves so much and for whom he desires justice so badly – are so dumb as to not see what happened?

And the laughable, primary school explanation our beloved PM has to offer: what will be done, i.e. whether he participates or not, will be in the ‘national interest.’ Such a lovely phrase that is because it’s so remarkably easy to unpack. The ‘national interest’ is doing sajjadah to a Mohammad ‘Bonesaw’ (remember our friend Kashoggi?) Salman whose every command must be treated like a revelation from the Almighty. Perhaps our beloved PM has a fetish to enact a Saad Hariri (former Lebanese PM) part deux, where, like Hariri, our beloved PM also visits his friend MBS and then all of a sudden finds himself kidnapped by his ‘friend’ only to be told to read a prepared script on Arab TV about whatever MBS wants him to say.

The nations and the leaders that are attending this KL summit: Turkey, Iran, Qatar, and Malaysia – all have been subject to intense levels of threats of economic devastation and invasions by the Empire but have never abandoned their dignity and simply ignored whatever rigmarole is vomited endlessly from Washington and European capitals. Turkey’s economy was just threatened with utter devastation. It was like Erdogan didn’t even hear or at least care about the American threat. Iran confronts daily illegal warmongering threats from the US and Israel, not to mention its Saudi puppet, and faces the most grueling economic sanctions possible, but the nation and its leader have dignity and will not bow down if they are being victimized for a crime that the US committed – unilaterally and unlawfully withdrawing from the Iran nuclear accord that took years and years to accomplish.

And Pakistan, a nuclear-armed country of 220 million and a conventional military force larger than all of these other countries, submits slavishly when it comes to the House of ONE Saud. Things should have been different under our new beloved PM, but clearly th are not.

Even two fierce enemies over the past Syrian tragic fiasco finally agreed to put aside their differences to ensure that Mahathir’s goodwill gesture in the form of this Summit would be a meaningful step to defend and protect the interests, sovereignty, autonomy, and dignity of Muslimistan from the cruelties and injustices to which it has incessantly been subjected, most often with the connivance of the Islamophobic regimes of the House of ONE Saud, the Emiratis, and the totalitarian fiefdom of Sisi in Egypt.

There is a scene in the excellent film, The General’s Daughter, where the chief protagonist, a military attorney (John Travolta), frustratingly grills another decent senior military official behind bars about what type of crime happened to force the general’s daughter to submit herself to virtual suicidal murder. Travolta lays out the usual heinous crimes: murder, rape, etc. The military official says no to all of Travolta’s attempted answers, and dies before he can reveal the answer himself. But Travolta discovers it at the end. The general’s daughter, a superb military officer, was gruesomely gang-raped by others in her regimen during a training exercise. The general is informed of the news and comes immediately to the hospital, only to take his ‘higher-ups’ advice to not publicize this ‘event’ and to just tell the daughter to ‘forget about what happened.’

Travolta then discovers what the military official meant when asserting that yes, indeed, there can be something worse than murder or rape or any other heinous act: the act of betrayal by a trusted and loved one

It may seem harsh, not only to Pakistanis who adored the man for his integrity, but to all Muslimistan, to respected Muslim leaders like Dr. Mahathir, this was betrayal. And it may be the biggest unethical blunder he has made in an otherwise extraordinarily admirable career in cricket, social welfare, and politics. There could not have been a graver let-down than what the man has decided (or has had decided for him), and his world-historical possibility to reorder the Muslim world to really alleviate the pain and suffering of the social majorities throughout the Islamicate world should really cause him some sleepless nights, if he is a man with a good soul – which many of us believe he is.

*

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.

Junaid S. Ahmad is Professor of Islam and Decolonial Thought and the Director of the Center for Global Studies at the University of Lahore, Pakistan.

The whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, argues Scott Ritter.

***

The whistleblower. A figure of great controversy, whose actions, manifested in an 11-page report submitted to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) on August 12 alleging wrongdoing on the part of the president of the United States, jump-started an ongoing impeachment process targeting Donald Trump that has divided the American body politic as no other issue in contemporary time.

His identity has been cloaked in a shroud of anonymity which has proven farcical, given that his name is common knowledge throughout the Washington-based national security establishment in whose ranks he continues to serve. While Trump publicly calls for the identity of the whistleblower to be revealed, the mainstream media has played along with the charade of confidentiality, and Congress continues to pretend his persona is a legitimate national security secret, even as several on-line publications have printed it, along with an extensive document trail sufficient to corroborate that the named man is, in fact, the elusive whistleblower.

There is no legitimate reason for the whistleblower’s identity to remain a secret. The Democratic chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Representative Adam Schiff, (D-CA) has cited statutory protections that simply do not exist while using his authority as chairman to prohibit any probe by his Republican colleagues designed to elicit information about the whistleblower’s identity. “The whistleblower has a right, a statutory right, to anonymity,” Schiff recently opined during recent impeachment-related testimony. And yet The Washington Post, no friend of Trump, was compelled to assign Schiff’s statement three “Pinocchios”, out of a scale of four, in rejecting the claim as baseless.

The myth of statutory protection for the whistleblower’s identity has been aggressively pursued by his legal counsel, Andrew Bakaj, the managing partner of the Compass Rose Legal Group, which has taken on the whistleblower’s case pro bono. In a letter to the president’s legal counsel, Pat Cippolone, Bakaj demanded that Trump “cease and desist in calling for my client’s identity”, claiming that the president’s actions, undertaken via Twitter and in press briefings, constituted violations of federal statutes prohibiting, among other things, tampering with a witness, obstruction of proceedings, and retaliating against as witness.

All of Bakaj’s claims are contingent upon the viability of the whistleblower’s status as a legitimate witness whose testimony can, therefore, be tampered, obstructed or retaliated against. The legal foundation of the whistleblower’s claims are based upon the so-called Intelligence Community whistleblower statute, 50 USC § 3033(k)(5), which stipulates the processes required to report and sustain an allegation of so-called “urgent concern” to the U.S. intelligence community. An “urgent concern” is defined, in relevant part, as: “A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of the law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.”

The Call

At issue was a telephone call made between President Trump and the newly elected President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, on July 25 of this year. According to the whistleblower’s report to the ICIG, “Multiple White House officials with direct knowledge of the call informed me that, after an initial exchange of pleasantries, the President used the remainder of the call to advance his personal interests.” President Trump, the whistleblower alleged, “sought to pressure the Ukrainian leader to take actions to help the President’s 2020 reelection bid,” an act which the whistleblower claimed presidential abuse of his office “for personal gain.”

Upon review of the whistleblower’s report, which consisted of a nine-page unclassified letter and a separate two-page classified annex, Michael K. Atkinson, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, initiated an investigation of the complaint as required by the whistleblower statute. This investigation must be completed within a 14-day period mandated by the statute, during which time the ICIG “shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible.”

While the statute is silent on the methodology to be used by the ICIG in making this determination, Atkinson had testified during his Senate confirmation hearing that, when it came to any investigation of a whistleblower complaint,

“I will work to ensure that ICIG personnel conduct investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews in accordance with Quality Standards promulgated by CIGIE (Council of the Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency) to keep those activities free from personal, external, and organizational impairments.”

The CIGIE standard in question requires that, “Evidence must be gathered and reported in an unbiased and independent manner in an effort to determine the validity of an allegation or to resolve an issue.”

In a letter transmitting the whistleblower complaint to the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), Atkinson stated that he had “determined that the Complainant (i.e., whistleblower) had official and authorized access to the information and sources referenced in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix, including direct knowledge of certain alleged conduct, and that the Complainant has subject matter expertise related to much of the material information provided in the Complainant’s Letter and Classified Appendix.”

However, when it came to assessing whether or not the whistleblower, in reporting the second-hand information provided to him by White House persons familiar with the July 25 Trump-Zelensky phone call, had done so accurately, Atkinson did not review the actual records of the telephone call, noting that he “decided that access to records of the telephone call was not necessary to make my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible.’”

Zelensky and Trump at UN in September. (Wikimedia Commons)

Atkinson declared that “it would be highly unlikely for the ICIG to obtain those records within the limited remaining time allowed by statute,” and opted to perform an investigation in violation of the very CIGIE standard he had promise to adhere to in his Senate testimony. In short, no evidence was gathered by the ICIG to determine the validity of the whistleblower’s allegation, and yet Atkinson decided to forward the complaint to the DNI, certifying it as “credible.”

The whistleblower statute allows the DNI seven days to review the complaint before forwarding it to the House Committee on Intelligence, with comments if deemed appropriate. However, in reviewing the actual complaint, Joseph McGuire, the acting DNI who took over from Dan Coats, who was fired by President Trump in early August, had questions about whether or not the matters it alleged fell within the remit of the whistleblower statute, and rather than forwarding it to the House Intelligence Committee, instead sent it to the Justice Department Office of Legal Counsel for legal review.

The Office of Legal Council, on September 3, issued a legal opinion rejecting the ICIG’s certification of the whistleblower complaint as constituting an “urgent concern” under the law. “The complaint,” the opinion read,

“does not arise in connection with the operation of any U.S. government intelligence activity, and the alleged misconduct does not involve any member of the intelligence community. Rather, the complaint arises out of a confidential diplomatic communication between the President and a foreign leader that the intelligence-community complainant received secondhand. The question is whether such a complaint falls within the statutory definition of ‘urgent concern’ that the law requires the DNI to forward to the intelligence committees. We conclude that it does not. The alleged misconduct is not an ‘urgent concern’ within the meaning of the statute.”

DOJ Rejected Complaint as Urgent

As related in the Office of Legal Counsel’s opinion, the Justice Department did, however, refer the matter to the Criminal Division of the Department of Justice for appropriate review. After considering the whistleblower’s complaint and classified annex, the Criminal Division opted not to pursue charges, in effect determining that no crime had been committed.

Under normal circumstances, this would have concluded the matter of Trump’s phone call with Zelensky, and the second-hand concerns unnamed White House officials had reported to the whistleblower. But this was not a normal circumstance. Far from diffusing an improperly predicated complaint, the failure of the acting DNI to forward the whistleblower complaint to the House Intelligence Committee, and the concurrent legal opinion of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel rejecting the “urgent concern” certification of the ICIG, opened the door for the whistleblower, through legal counsel, to reach out to the House Intelligence Committee directly.

The whistleblower followed procedures set forth in the whistleblower statute detailing procedures for a complaint, which had not been certified as an “urgent concern,” to be forwarded to Congress. The issue is that the matter was being treated by the ICIG, Congress and the whistleblower’s attorney’s as an “urgent concern”, a status that it did not legally qualify for.

On September 24, Bakaj sent a “Notice of Intent to Contact Congressional Intelligence Committees” to acting DNI McGuire providing “formal notice of our intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly” on behalf of the whistleblower, identified only as “a member of the Intelligence Community.” Almost immediately, Schiff announced via Twitter that

“We have been informed by the whistleblower’s counsel that their client would like to speak to our committee and has requested guidance from the Acting DNI as to how to do so. We‘re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week.”

Thus was set in motion events which would culminate in impeachment proceedings against President Trump. On the surface, the events described represent a prima facia case for the efficacy of statutory procedures concerning the processing of a whistleblower complaint. But there were warning signs that all was not right regarding both the whistleblower himself, and the processes involved leading to the whistleblower’s complaint being presented to Congress.

Political Bias?

Far from an exemplar in bureaucratic efficiency, the whistleblower complaint has opened a window into the politicization of the intelligence community, and the corresponding weaponization of the national security establishment, against a sitting president.

As I shall show, such actions are treasonous on their face, and the extent to which this conduct has permeated the intelligence community and its peripheral functions of government, including the National Security Council and Congress itself, will only be known if and when an investigation is conducted into what, in retrospect, is nothing less than a grand conspiracy by those ostensibly tasked with securing the nation to instead reverse the will of the American people regarding who serves as the nation’s chief executive.

The key to this narrative is the whistleblower himself. Understanding who he is, and what role he has played in the events surrounding the fateful July 25 telephone conversation, are essential to unravelling the various threads of this conspiracy.

Much has been made about the political affiliation of the whistleblower, namely the fact that he is a registered Democrat who supports Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate for the 2020 presidential election. On the surface this information is not dispositive—the intelligence community is populated by thousands of professionals of diverse political leanings and affiliations, all of whom have been trained to check their personal politics at the door when it comes to implementing the policies promulgated by the duly elected national leadership.

Indeed, Inspector General Atkinson, while acknowledging in his assessment of the whistleblower’s complaint an indication of possible political bias on the part of the whistleblower in favor of a rival political candidate, noted that “such evidence did not change my determination that the complaint relating to the urgent concern ‘appears credible’”. But when one reverse engineers the whistleblower’s career, it becomes clear that there in fact existed a nexus between the whistleblower’s political advocacy and professional actions that both influenced and motivated his decision to file the complaint against the president.

A Rising Star

Like most CIA analysts, the whistleblower possessed a keen intellect born of stringent academic preparation, which in the whistleblower’s case included graduating from Yale University in 2008 with a degree in Russian and East European studies, post-graduate study at Harvard, and work experience with the World Bank.

Andrea Kendall-Taylor (image on the right by Center for a New American Security), a contemporary colleague of the whistleblower, has provided an apt account for what is expected of a CIA analyst.

“The CIA is an intensely apolitical organization,” Kendall-Taylor wrote. “As intelligence analysts, we are trained to check our politics at the door. Our job is to produce objective analysis that the country’s leaders can use to make difficult decisions. We undergo rigorous training on how to analyze our own assumptions and overcome biases that might cloud our judgement.”

The training program Kendall-Taylor referred to is known as the Career Analyst Program (CAP), a four-month basic training program run out of the CIA’s in-house University, the Sherman Kent School, which “introduces all new employees to the basic thinking, writing, and briefing skills needed for a successful career. Segments include analytic tools, counterintelligence issues, denial and deception analysis, and warning skills.”

The standards to which aspiring analysts such as the whistleblower were trained to meet were exacting, and included a requirement to be “independent of political considerations,” meaning the product produced should consist of objective assessments “informed by available information that are not distorted or altered with the intent of supporting or advocating a particular policy, political viewpoint, or audience.” As an analyst, the whistleblower would have chosen a specific specialization, which in his case was as a “Political Analyst”, charged with examining “political, social, cultural, and historical information to provide assessments about foreign political systems and developments.”

By the time the whistleblower completed his application process with the CIA, which requires a detailed background check, several rounds of interviews, and final security and psychological evaluation before an actual offer of employment can be made, and by the time he finished his basic analytical training, the U.S. had undergone a political and social revolution of sorts with the election of Barack Obama as the 44^th president of the United States.

The whistleblower was assigned to the Office of Russian and Eurasian Analysis (OREA), within the CIA’s Directorate of Intelligence, at a time when U.S.-Russian policy was undergoing a radical transformation.

Under the guidance of Michael McFaul, President Obama’s special advisor on Russia and the senior director of Russian and Eurasian Affairs at the National Security Council, the Obama administration was seeking to take advantage of the opportunity afforded by the election of Dmitri Medvedev as Russia’s president in 2008. Medvedev had succeeded Vladimir Putin, who went on to serve as prime minister. Medvedev was a more liberal alternative to Putin’s autocratic conservatism, and McFaul envisioned a policy “reset” designed to move relations between the U.S. and Russia in a more positive trajectory.

As a junior analyst, the whistleblower worked alongside colleagues such as Andrea Kendall-Taylor, who joined OREA about the same time after graduating from UCLA in 2008 with a PhD is Slavic and Eurasian studies. A prolific writer, Kendall-Taylor wrote extensively on autocratic leaders and Putin in particular. Her work was in high demand at both the CIA and NSC, which under the Obama administration had undergone a massive expansion intended to better facilitate policy coordination among the various departments that comprised the NSC.

The whistleblower had a front-row seat on the rollercoaster ride that was U.S.-Russian policy during this time, witnessing the collapse of McFaul’s Russian “reset,” Putin’s return to power in 2012, and the U.S.-backed coup in Ukraine that led to the annexation of Crimea and Russian support for rebels in the Donbas region.

During his tenure at OREA, the whistleblower obviously impressed his superiors, receiving several promotions and, in July 2015, he detailed to the NSC staff at the Obama White House as the Director for Ukrainian Affairs. According to a former CIA officer, any high-performing analyst who aspires to be promoted into the ranks of the Senior Intelligence Service must, prior to that time, do a rotation as part of the overall policy community, which includes the NSC or another department, such as Defense or State, as well as a tour within another directorate of the CIA.

NSC positions were originally intended for senior CIA analysts, at the GS-15 level, but waivers could be made for qualified GS-14 or “very strong” GS-13’s (the whistleblower was a GS-13 at the time of his assignment at the NSC, a reflection of both his qualification and the regard to which he was held by the CIA.) NSC assignments do not coincide with the political calendar—detailees (as career civil servants who are detailed to the NSC are referred) are expected to serve in their position regardless of what political party controls the White House. When an opening becomes available (usually when another detailee’s assignment has finished), prospective candidates apply, and are interviewed by their senior management, who forward qualified candidates to another board for a final decision.

Image below: Brennan briefing Obama May 3, 2010. He approved whistleblower. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

Assignments to the NSC are considered highly sought after, and while the process for application must be followed, the selection process is highly political, with decisions being signed off by the director of the CIA. In the case of the whistleblower, his candidacy would have been approved by both Peter Clement, the director of OREA, and John Brennan, the CIA director.

Into the Lion’s Den

By the time the whistleblower arrived at the NSC, the NSC staff had grown into a well-oiled policy machine managing the entire spectrum of Obama administration national security policy-making and implementation. The NSC staff operated in accordance with Presidential Policy Memorandum (PPM) 1, “Organization of the National Security Council System”, which outlined the procedures governing the management of the development and implementation of national security policies by multiple agencies of the United States Government.

The vehicle for accomplishing this mission was the NSC Interagency Policy Committee (NSC/IPC). The NSC/IPCs were the main day-to-day fora for interagency coordination of national security policy. They provided policy analysis for consideration by the more senior committees of the NSC system and ensured timely responses to decisions made by the president. NSC/IPCs were established at the direction of the NSC Deputies Committee and were chaired by the relevant division chief within the NSC staff.

The whistleblowers job was to develop, coordinate and execute plans and policies to manage the full range of diplomatic, informational, military and economic national security issues for the countries in his portfolio, which included Ukraine. The whistleblower coordinated with his interagency partners to produce internal memoranda, talking points and other materials for the National Security Advisor and senior staff.

The whistleblower reported directly to Charles Kupchan, the Senior Director for European Affairs on the NSC. Kupchan, a State Department veteran who had previously served on the NSC staff of President Bill Clinton before turning to academia, in turn reported directly to Susan Rice, President Obama’s national security adviser.

When the whistleblower first arrived at the NSC, he volunteered for the Ukraine portfolio. Kupchan was impressed by the whistleblower’s work ethic and performance, and soon expanded his portfolio to include the fight against the Islamic State. The whistleblower was aided by another organizational connection—his colleague and mentor at OREA, Andrea Kendall-Taylor, had been selected to serve in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Among Kendall-Taylor’s responsibilities was to closely coordinate with the NSC staff on critical issues pertaining to Russia and Ukraine.

The whistleblower’s arrival at the NSC staff also coincided with the start of Trump’s improbable candidacy for the presidency of the United States. As 2015 transitioned into 2016, and it became apparent that Trump was the presumptive nominee for the Republican Party, allegations about the Trump campaign colluding with Russia began to circulate within the interagency. Trump’s electoral victory in November 2016 , the shocked the whistleblower, like everyone else on the NSC staff.

Alarmed By Trump on Russia

The line between policy and politics began to blur, and then disappeared altogether. National Security Advisor Rice was becoming increasingly alarmed by the activities of the Trump transition team, especially when it came to issues pertaining to Russia. According to The Washington Post, “Rice apparently was closely monitoring the high-profile investigation into Russian interference.”

The President-elect had, during the campaign, openly advocated for better relations between the U.S. and Russia and had even suggested that the Russian annexation of Crimea could eventually be accepted by the U.S. This stance was anathema to the policies that had been massaged into place by the NSC in general, and the whistleblower in particular. According to multiple sources familiar with the whistleblower during this time, his animus against Trump was palpable.

In December 2016, Rice was involved in the unmasking of the identities of several members of the Trump transition team. Various sensitive intelligence reports were circulating within the NSC regarding the interaction of unnamed U.S. citizens with foreign targets of intelligence interest. In order to better understand the significance of such a report, Rice has acknowledged that, on several occasions, she requested that the identity of the U.S. persons involved be “unmasked.”

The U.S. intelligence community is prohibited by law from collecting information about U.S. citizens. As such, when a conversation undertaken by a foreign national of intelligence interest was captured, and it turned out the person or persons whom the target was speaking to was a U.S. citizen, the analysts preparing the report for wider dissemination would “mask”, or hide, the identities of the U.S. citizens involved. Under relevant laws governing the collection of intelligence, up to 20 officials within the Obama administration had the authority to unmask the identities of U.S. citizens. One of those was Rice.

In late December 2016, the crown prince of the United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al-Nahyan, arrived in New York for a meeting with several top Trump transition officials, including Michael Flynn, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and the President-elect’s top strategist Steve Bannon. Intelligence reports had been circulating about the UAE coordinating a backchannel for the Trump transition team and Russia.

Zayed’s arrival, which was unannounced and had not been coordinated with the U.S. government, caused great concern among the NSC staff especially given the context of allegations of collusion between Trump and Russia to influence the outcome of the 2016 election.

The principle NSC staffers who would logically been advising Rice on this matter were Kupchan, the whistleblower, and Sean Misko, a State Department detailee who served as the director for the Gulf Arab States (According the NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time, Misko and the whistleblower were said to be close friends, frequently socializing with one another after hours, and possessing a common dislike for Trump.) Rice requested that the intelligence reports pertaining to Zayed’s visit be subjected to unmasking procedures.

While the subsequent reporting about the three-hour meeting between Zayed and the Trump transition team failed to uncover any evidence of a secret communications channel with Russia, Rice (who would logically have been assisted by Kupchan and the whistleblower) facilitated the near continuous unmasking of intelligence reports involving Flynn, who was in contact with Russian officials, including Sergei Kislyak, the Russian ambassador to the U.S.

The Greatest Sin

Susan Rice, center, with Obama, March 10, 2009. (White House photo)

As a professional intelligence analyst detailed to the NSC, the whistleblower was committed to a two-year assignment, extendable to three years upon the agreement of all parties. President Obama’s departure from the White House did not change this commitment. According to NSC staffers who served in the White House at the time, the whistleblower, like many of his fellow detailees, had grown attached to the policies of the Obama administration which they had fought hard to formulate, coordinate and implement. They viewed these policies to be sacrosanct, regardless of who followed in the White House.

In doing so, they had committed the greatest sin that an intelligence professional could commit short of espionage—they had become political.

In December 2016, the whistleblower was, based upon his role as a leading Russian analysts advising Rice directly, more than likely helping unmask Flynn’s communications with Russians; a month later, he was working for Flynn, someone he  had likely actively helped conspire against, using the unfettered power of the intelligence community.

The Trump administration had inherited a national security decision-making apparatus that was bloated, and which fostered White House micromanagement via the NSC. While the Obama NSC had proven able to generate a prolificate amount of “policy”, it did so by relying on a staff that had expanded to the largest in the history of the NSC, and at the expense of the various departments of government that were supposed to be the originators of policy.

As the new national security adviser, Flynn let it be known from day one that there would be changes. One of his first actions was to hire four new deputies who centralized much of the responsibilities normally tasked to regional directors such as the whistleblower. Flynn was putting in place a new level of bureaucracy that shielded professional detailees from top level decision makers.

Moreover, it recognized that the NSC, while staffed with professionals who are supposed to be apolitical, was viewed by the White House as a partisan policy body whose work not only furthered the interests of the United States, but also the political interests of the president. When Trump included his top political advisor, Bannon, on the list of people who would comprise the National Security Council (normally limited to cabinet-level officials), it sent shockwaves through the national security establishment, which accused Trump of politicizing what they claimed was an apolitical process.

But the reality was that the NSC had always functioned as a partisan decision-making body. Its previous occupants may have tried to temper the level to which domestic politics intruded on national security decision-making, but its presence was an unspoken reality. All Trump did by seeking to insert Bannon into the mix was to be open about it.

Like the other professional detailees who comprised 90 percent of the NSC staff and were expected to remain at their posts as part of a Trump administration, the whistleblower was dismayed by the changes. Some accounts of the early days of the Trump NSC indicate that the whistleblower was defensive of the Ukraine policies he had helped craft during his tenure at the NSC.

When his immediate superior, Kupchan (a political appointee) departed the NSC, the whistleblower was temporarily elevated to the position of senior director for Russia and Eurasia until a new replacement could be found. (Flynn had reached out to Fiona Hill, a former national intelligence officer for Russia under the administration of George W. Bush, to take this job; Hill had accepted, but would not be available until April.)

The whistleblower was a known quantity within the NSC, as were his decidedly pro-Obama political leanings. As such, he was not trusted by the incoming Trump officials, and his access to the decision-making process was limited.

According to persons familiar with his work at the NSC during the Trump administration, the whistleblower’s frustration and anger soon led to acts of resistance designed to expose, and undermine public confidence in President Trump.

Cut Out of Call to Putin

In late January 2017 Trump made several introductory telephone calls to world leaders, including President Putin. Normally the NSC director responsible for Russia would help prepare the president for such a call by drafting talking points and supporting memoranda, and then monitor the call directly, either from within the Oval Office or from the White House situation room.

According to sources familiar with the incident, Flynn did not coordinate Trump’s call with NSC staff, and as such the whistleblower, who was acting as the director for Russia and European Affairs at the time, would have been cut out of the process altogether. When the whistleblower tried to access the read out of the phone call afterwards, he found that no verbatim record existed, only a short summary released by the White House, presumably prepared by Flynn.

More frustrating was the fact that the official readout of the call released by the Kremlin contained much more information, putting Russia in the driver’s seat in terms of defining U.S.-Russian policy priorities—the very policy blunder the NSC was supposed to prevent from happening. While searching for the non-existent records of the Putin-Trump conversation, however, the whistleblower came across detailed verbatim transcripts of two other calls made by Trump that day—one with Mexico, and one with Australia.

Within days the details of these calls were leaked to the media, resulting in a series of unflattering articles being published by the mainstream media. While no direct evidence has emerged about who was responsible for leaking these calls, NSC staffers who worked in the White House at the time suspected the whistleblower. (One of the byproducts of this incident was the decision by NSC lawyers to move the records of Presidential phone calls to a more secure server, significantly limiting access by NSC staff.)

On February 13, 2017, Flynn resigned from his position as President Trump’s national security adviser. The reason given was Flynn’s having misrepresented his conversations with Russian Ambassador Kislyak when questioned by Vice President Mike Pence. For the whistleblower, whose previous work in the Obama NSC appeared to help Rice’s efforts to unmask the very conversations Flynn was being held accountable for, this had to have been a satisfying moment. He had to have been even more pleased by Trump’s choice to replace Flynn —Lieutenant General H. R. McMaster, a decorated combat veteran known for his intelligence and willingness to challenge the establishment.

In the little more than a month that transpired between McMaster coming on board and the arrival of Hill as the new director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower would have had the opportunity to meet his new boss and work with him on repairing what they both viewed as the flawed changes undertaken by Flynn at the NSC.

McMaster rewrote the presidential guidance regarding the functioning of the NSC, replacing the original Presidential Policy Memorandum 1 with a new version, PPM 4, which removed Bannon from the NSC and restored much of the policy coordinating functions that characterized the NSC under Obama.

Moreover, McMaster stuck up for the professional detailees, such as the whistleblower. When Hill arrived in April 2017 to assume her responsibilities as the NSC director for Russia and Europe, the whistleblower found himself without a job.

But instead of being returned to the CIA, McMaster, who had come to know the whistleblower during his first month as national security adviser, appointed him to serve as his personal assistant. The whistleblower moved from his desk next door in the Executive Office Building, where most NSC staffer work, to the West Wing of the White House, a move which gave him direct access to every issue that crossed McMaster’s desk.

Oval Office Leak

The new job, however, did nothing to diminish the disdain the whistleblower had for Trump. Indeed, the proximity to the seat of power may have served to increase the concern the whistleblower had about Trump’s stewardship. On May 10, President Trump played host to Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Kislyak. During the now-infamous meeting, Trump spoke about the firing of former FBI Director Jim Comey; a sensitive Israeli intelligence source related to the ongoing fight against ISIS in Syria; and alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

As McMasters’ assistant, the whistleblower was privy to the readout of the meeting, and was so alarmed by what he had seen that he sent an email to John Kelly, who at that time was serving as director of the Department of Homeland Security, detailing the president’s actions and words. All materials relating to this meeting were collected and secured in the NSC’s top secret codeword server;the only unsecured data was that contained in the whistleblower’s email. When the media subsequently reported on the details of Trump’s meeting with the Russians, the White House condemned the “leaking of private and highly classified information” which undermined “our national security.”

Trump meets with Lavrov on May 10, 2017. (TASS/Wikipedia)

According to a NSC staffer who worked in the White House at the time, an internal investigation pointed to the whistleblower’s email as the likely source of the leak, and while the whistleblower was not directly implicated in actually transmitting classified information to the press, he was criticized for what amounted to unauthorized communication with an outside agency, in this case the Department of Homeland Security. When his initial two-year assignment terminated in July 2017, the White House refused to authorize a one-year extension (a courtesy offered to the vast majority of detailees).

The whistleblower had become a liability, publicly smeared by right-wing bloggers and subjected to death threats. He was released from the NSC and returned to the CIA, where he resumed his role as a Eurasian analyst. Shortly after the whistleblower left the NSC, the full transcripts of President Trump’s January 28, 2017 conversations with the leaders of Mexico and Australia were leaked to the press. While several colleagues in the NSC believed that the whistleblower was behind the leaks, McMaster refused to authorize a formal investigation which, if evidence had been found that implicated the whistleblower, would have effectively terminated his career at the CIA.

It is at this juncture the saga of the whistleblower should have ended, avoiding the turn of events which ended up labeling him with the now famous (or infamous) appellation. However, in June 2018 the whistleblower’s colleague, Kendall-Taylor, ended her assignment as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. An announcement was made to fill the vacancy, and the whistleblower applied.

Despite having left the NSC under a cloud of suspicion regarding the unauthorized disclosure of sensitive information, and even though his anti-Trump sentiment was common knowledge among his colleagues and superiors, the whistleblower was picked for a position that would put him at the center of policy formulation regarding Russia and Ukraine, and the sensitive intelligence that influenced such. His appointment would have been approved by Director of National Intelligence Dan Coates.

Enter Vindman

The whistleblower was well versed in the collaborative functions of the deputy national intelligence officer position, having worked with Kendall-Taylor during his time at the NSC. He began to develop professional relationships with a number of individuals, including the new director of Ukraine at the NSC, Army Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman. Vindman had extensive experience regarding Ukraine and had been detailed to the NSC from the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The two soon appeared to share a mutual concern over President Trump’s worldview of both Russia and Ukraine, which deviated from the formal policy formulations promulgated by the interagency processes that both Vindman and the whistleblower were involved in.

The whistleblower’s concerns about President Trump and Ukraine predated the July 25, 2019 telephone call, and mirrored those expressed by Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, both in chronology and content, provided during his testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. While Vindman was critical of President Trump’s deviation and/or failure to conform with policy that had been vetted through proper channels (i.e., in conformity with PDD 4), he noted that, as president, “It’s his prerogative to handle the call whichever way he wants.”

Vindman took umbrage at the non-national security topics brought up by the president, such as investigating former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, regarding their relationship with a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings, and other references to the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

According to Vindman, it was this aspect of the telephone call Vindman believed to be alarming, and which he subsequently related to an authorized contact within the intelligence community. While Vindman remained circumspect about the identity of the intelligence community official he communicated with about his concerns over Trump’s Ukraine policy, the fact that the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee refused to allow any discussion of this person’s identity strongly suggests that it was the whistleblower who, as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Ukraine, would be a logical, and fully legitimate, interlocuter.

According to an account published in The Washington Post, sometime after being informed by Vindman of the July 25 Trump-Zelensky telephone call, the whistleblower began preparing notes and assembling information related to what he believed was untoward activity vis-à-vis Ukraine on the part of President Trump and associates who were not part of the formal Ukraine policy making process. He made numerous telephone calls to U.S. government officials whom he knew from his official work as the deputy national intelligence officer for Russia and Eurasia. Because much of the information he was using was derived from classified sources, or was itself classified in nature, the whistleblower worked from his office, using a computer system approved for handling classified data.

Off Limits

From the perspective of security, the whistleblower’s work was flawless. There was one problem, however; investigating the actions of the president of the United States and officials outside the intelligence community who were carrying out the instructions of the president was not part of the whistleblower’s official responsibilities.

Indeed, anything that whiffed of interference in domestic American politics was, in and of itself, off limits to members of the intelligence community.

Robert Gates, a long-time CIA analyst and former CIA director, had warned about this possibility in a speech he delivered to the CIA in March 1992 on the issue of the politicization of intelligence. “National intelligence officers”, Gates noted, “are engaged in analysis and—given their frequent contact with high-level policymakers—their work is also vulnerable to distortion.”

There was no greater example of politicized distortion than the rabbit hole the whistleblower had allowed himself to fall into.  From Gates’ perspective, the whistleblower had committed the ultimate sin of any intelligence analyst—he had allowed his expertise to become tarnished by political considerations.

Worse, the whistleblower had crossed the threshold from advocating a politicized point of view to becoming political—that is, to intervene in the domestic political affairs of the United States in a manner which influenced the political future of a sitting president of the United States.

Once he had assembled his notes, he sought out staffers on the House Intelligence Committee for guidance on how to proceed. Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, had hired two former members of the Trump NSC staff who had served at the same time as the whistleblower.

One, Abigail Grace, had worked at the NSC from 2016-2018, covering U.S.-Chinese relations. Grace was hired by Schiff in February 2019 for the express purpose of investigating the Trump White House. A second NSC veteran was hired in August 2019, around the same time that the whistleblower was preparing his complaint. That staffer was none other than Sean Misko, the whistleblowers friend and fellow anti-Trump collaborator.

Both Misko and the whistleblower departed the NSC in 2017 under a cloud. Misko went on to work for the Center for New American Security, a self-described bipartisan think tank set up by two former Obama administration officials, Michèle Flournoy and Kurt M. Campbell, before being recruited by Schiff. It is not known if Misko was one of the House Intelligence staffers the whistleblower approached, or if there had been any collaboration between the whistleblower and Misko about the nature of the complaint prior to Misko being recruited by Schiff.

After conferencing with the House Intelligence Committee staffers, the whistleblower sought legal counsel. He reached out to a lawyer affiliated with Whistleblower Aid, a group of national security lawyers who came together in September 2017—eight months after the inauguration of President Trump—to encourage whistleblowers within the U.S. government to come out agains Trump, and provide legal and financial assistance to anyone that chose to do so. One of Whistleblower Aid’s founding members was a lawyer named Mark Zaid.

In the days following Trump’s swearing in as president, Zaid turned to Twitter to send out messages supportive of a “coup” against Trump that would lead to the president’s eventual impeachment. The identity of the lawyer who met with the whistleblower is not known. However, this lawyer referred the whistleblower to Bakaj, a fellow member of Whistleblower Aid, who took on the case and provided procedural guidance regarding the preparation of the complaint. Bakaj later brought on Zaid and another lawyer, Charles McCullough, with close ties to Senator Chuck Schumer and Hillary Clinton, to assist in the case.

On August 12, the whistleblower completed his complaint, and forwarded it to the intelligence community inspector general, thereby setting in motion events that produced weeks of hearings before the House Intelligence Committee that will very likely result in Trump’s impeachment.

Shielded from Questions

While the whistleblower, through counsel, had expressed a desire to testify before the House Intelligence Committee about the issues set forth in his complaint, he was never called to do so, even in closed-door session. The ostensible reason behind this failure to testify was the need to protect his anonymity, a protection that is not contained within the relevant statutes governing whistleblower activities within the intelligence community.

Later, as witnesses were identified from the content of the whistleblower’s complaint and subpoenaed to testify before the House Intelligence Committee, both Schiff and Bakaj indicated that the whistleblower’s testimony was no longer needed, since the specific issues and events covered in his complaint had been more than adequately covered by the testimony of others.

But the apparent reason Schiff and Bakaj refused to allow the whistleblower to testify, or to be identified, was to avoid legitimate questions likely to be asked by Republican committee members.

Namely, what was a deputy national intelligence officer of the U.S. intelligence community doing investigating activities of a sitting president? Who, if anyone, authorized this intervention in U.S. domestic political affairs by a CIA official? How did the whistleblower, who had a history of documented animosity with the Trump administration that included credible allegations of leaking sensitive material to the press for the express purpose of undermining the credibility of the president, get selected to serve as a deputy national intelligence officer? Who signed off on this assignment? What was the precise role played by the whistleblower in unmasking the identities of U.S. citizens in 2016, during the Trump transition?

Did the whistleblower maintain his friendship with Misko after leaving the NSC in July 2017? Did the whistleblower collaborate with Misko to get the House Intelligence Committee to investigate the issues of concern to the whistleblower before his complaint was transmitted to the ICIG? Who did the whistleblower meet on the House Intelligence staff? What did they discuss? Who was the lawyer the whistleblower first met regarding his intent to file a complaint? Did the whistleblower have any contact with Whistleblower Aid prior to this meeting?

Answers to these questions, and more, would have been useful in understanding not only the motives of the whistleblower in filing his complaint—was he simply a concerned citizen and patriot, or was he part of a larger conspiracy to undermine the political viability of a sitting president? There is no doubt that Congress has a constitutional right and obligation to conduct proper oversight of the operations of the executive branch, and to hold the president of the United States accountable if his conduct and actions are deemed unworthy of his office. Whether or not the facts surrounding the July 25, 2019 telephone call between Trump and Zelensky constitute grounds for impeachment is a political question for Congress to decide.

Intervening in Domestic Affairs

There is, however, the major issue looming in the background of this impeachment frenzy: the intervention by elements of the intelligence community in the domestic political affairs of the United States. There is no question that the whistleblower’s complaint served as the genesis of the ongoing impeachment proceedings.

The American people should be deeply concerned that an inquiry which could result in the removal of a duly elected president from office was initiated in secrecy by a member of the intelligence community acting outside the four corners of his legal responsibilities. The legitimacy of the underlying issues being investigated by the House Intelligence Committee is not at issue here; the legitimacy of the process by which these proceedings were initiated is.

To find out what happened, the whistleblower should not only be identified, called before the House Intelligence Committee, and other relevant Congressional committees, and be compelled to answer for his actions.

Impeachment is a constitutional remedy afforded to the U.S. Congress to deal with the political issues surrounding the conduct of a sitting president. If this constitutional remedy can be triggered by the intelligence community in a manner which obviates laws prohibiting the intrusion of intelligence agencies into the domestic political affairs of the United States, and done so in a manner where the identities of the persons and organizations involved, along with their possible motives, are shielded from both American people and those whom they elect to represent them in Congress, then a precedent will have been set for future interventions of this nature which undermine the very foundation of American democracy.

The political weaponization of intelligence represents a significant threat to the viability of the American constitutional republic that cannot be ignored.

*

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.

Scott Ritter is a former Marine Corps intelligence officer who served in the former Soviet Union implementing arms control treaties, in the Persian Gulf during Operation Desert Storm, and in Iraq overseeing the disarmament of WMD.

Featured image is from Flickr

On 16th December 2019, the Swiss “Conseil des Etats” the upper house of the Swiss Parliament, approved the draft law on whistleblowing, in pipeline since 2003. The proposed law on whistleblowing and related labour laws in Switzerland are not only important for the Swiss population, but also for the entire world.

Switzerland is home to many international organisations and multinational companies in important areas, including pharmaceuticals and foods as well as banking. It is from their headquarter in Switzerland that many of these organisations and companies govern worldwide activities. The role of Switzerland, as cockpit for world’s economy, is demonstrated by global events, such as the Davos Forum, where political, business and cultural leaders get together to shape world policies. The World Economic Forum, the international organisation for public-private cooperation, which hosts this event, is located in Geneva (Switzerland).

Thus, employees of these organisations and businesses are well placed to have an overview of global activities and signal any misdoings of global importance. Yet, their rights and protection fall under Swiss labour laws and they are prohibited from reporting their observations, irrespective of how critical they may be for society. Thus, there is conflict of interests, where a national government is asked to take a stand and judge cases of global importance.

Whistleblowing is essentially intended to protect society from corruption, illegal acts or situations endangering people. The Swiss “Responsible Business Initiative” was created in recognition of the need to protect the world’s population from misdoings by Swiss multinational companies. Given the intent of whistleblowing, why should the Swiss people and wider society not benefit from effective laws that not only allow reporting of wrong-doing, but actively encourages and protects employees doing so? Are these not good reasons for Switzerland to adopt the best possible laws as other countries, such as the Republic of Serbia, have done?

The European Commission has just adopted Directives to protect whistleblowers. However, the European Union Directives were strongly inspired by the experiences of whistleblowers in the financial sector. As a result, some of the provisions are difficult to apply to sanitary and health risks, such as the safety of food and pharmaceutical products or medical devices. The EU Directives allow companies a period of three months to react to an alert followed by a further three months for the authorities overseeing their activities. Such a timeframe is too long where inaction could impact on population-wide health. Also, the EU Directives restrict definition of a whistleblower to employees, where any citizen who reports irregularities should benefit from judicial protection.

The Swiss draft law has the advantage of clarifying the situation, which until now has been ambiguous. However, it is a law that regulates the alert process rather than protecting whistleblowers. In fact, it offers no protection. In the framework of the Swiss labour law, a law, obliging whistleblowers to report internally, would result in their professional and social death. Indeed, according to recent court decisions, under certain conditions, psychological harassment or mobbing is not illegal in Switzerland. In addition, sanctions against unfair dismissal are trivial: compensation is generally few months salary (maximum six months), which is insignificant for someone who is at high risk of being socially and professionally excluded as a consequence of their actions to protect others.

For example, in a lawsuit related to a food safety alert, the Court of the Canton of Vaud acknowledged the harassment of a manager, without condemning the employer or compensating the victim. It stated that law had not been violated. The Court also disregarded the context, specifically that the employer did not take any action to deal with the lapses in food safety, which led to serious incidents across the world. In another case in the Canton of Fribourg, judges held that the whistleblowers received a good salary and should have endured and accepted the abuse. Under such circumstances, we cannot expect managers, the most knowledgeable people in an organisation or a company, to report irregularities to senior staff, especially if they are part of the problem.

For whistleblowing to be effective, the issue must be considered in the broader context of labour laws, specifically laws governing harassment and bullying, unfair dismissal, criminal prosecution for failure to follow up alerts internally and potential obstacles in the course of justice. Developing functional and effective laws requires that the experiences of whistleblowers are examined closely, since no one knows better the difficulties in navigating the system.

Finally, in the light of the global importance of information provided by whistleblowers of multinational companies or international organisations, these courageous individuals must be protected by international laws and their cases directly heard in international courts of justice.

*

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.

Yasmine Motarjemi is co-winner of the GUE/NGL Award for ‘Journalists, Whistleblowers and Defenders of the Right to Information.

Kate Raworth calls herself ‘a renegade economist’. She was born in 1970 and earned a bachelor’s degree in Politics, Philosophy and Economics and then followed it with a master’s degree in Economics for Development, both from Oxford University where she is now employed.

She has worked for the United Nations where she coauthored a report for its Development Program, that’s a program promoting projects that are sustainable. She also spent a decade as a Senior Researcher for Oxfam. That position especially interests me because I was a delegate at the Oxfam International meeting in 1974 when the decision to focus on the causes of poverty was reinforced.

She has been named by The Guardian as one of the top ten tweeters on economic transformation, how is that for a modern accolade!

Early in her studies, she noticed a simplistic graphic which was used in the most popular textbook at that time to explain how economics worked, it’s pictured below. She learned to see is as flawed. It showed what appeared to be the neutral, simple and apparently fair system shifting value from the public to business and back again. The world she knew was not that simple.

The model didn’t account for money taking routine trips outside this circle, nor did it account for the free labor that is given to parenting, or elder care, or volunteering, time spent on the arts or social campaigns, all of which enrich our lives and are  outside the model. Her biggest worry was about how this simplified model distorted thinking and insulated economics from the real world.

She learned to see is as flawed. It showed what appeared to be the neutral, simple and apparently fair system shifting value from the public to business and back again.

The world she knew was not that simple. The model didn’t account for money taking routine trips outside this circle, nor did it account for the free labor that is given to parenting, or elder care, or volunteering, time spent on the arts or social campaigns, all of which enrich our lives and are  outside the model. Her biggest worry was about how this simplified model distorted thinking and insulated economics from the real world.

This chart was in Paul Samuelson’s immensely influential 1948 book ‘Economics’. You can read more about it and him here; http://www.aninsidersmemoir.com/economics-by-paul-samuelson-a-retrospective-book-review/

So, she took it on herself to create a model that she thought more accurately reflected the real world.

The doughnut was the result, the circle with a hole in the middle which she explains is a ‘playfully serious approach to framing the challenge we face’.

We also need to focus economics on our true nature. If it wasn’t for our caring nature, our children would never survive. For their first many years they totally depend on parental care. That’s our nature. What is not our nature, is the neocon explanation that we are driven solely by greed, the greed is good philosophy that has been dumped on us.

Her seven goals include adopting a system that fairly distributes what we produce. No longer should we accept that inequality is an unavoidable rule of economics. Similarly, and probably her biggest change, is that we no longer accept the myth that economic growth is essential. What is essential is our ability to survive! We need a system that will sustain us for our next generations. We need to, as she writes,  become agnostic about growth.

And possibly the most interesting lesson from Raworth’s book is her view that “we are all economists now.” No longer does the church or public morality dominate our world, those now obsolete forces have been usurped by markets. Now, it’s all about money and wealth and the assumptions the fans of markets bring with it. These factors are reinforced by minute to minute stock marked reports as if they are what life is all about.

She sees herself as a glass half full person, as she says ‘ours is the first generation to deeply understand the damage we have been doing to our planetary household, and probably the last generation with the chance to do something transformative about it.’

She has provided us with a guide book to  help insure our survival. It is well worth reading.

The path we are currently on is leading to our demise.

Economic analyst and author Bryant Brown is a frequent contributor to Global Research

*

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

A devastating investigative report was published in the Washington Post on December 9^th. Dubbed the “Afghanistan Papers” in a nod to the Vietnam War’s famous “Pentagon Papers,” the report relied on thousands of documents to similarly expose how the US government at the presidential level across three administrations, acting in collaboration with the military brass and civilian bureaucracy, deliberately and systematically lied repeatedly to the public and media about the situation in Afghanistan.

Officials from the Bush, Obama and Trump administrations have all surged additional troops into Afghanistan while also regularly overstating the “success” that the United States was attaining in stabilizing and democratizing the country. While they were lying, the senior officers and government officials understood clearly that the war was, in fact, unwinnable.

The story should have been featured all across the US as Afghanistan continues to kill Americans and much larger numbers of Afghans while also draining billions of dollars from the United States Treasury, but the mainstream media was largely unresponsive, preferring to cover the impeachment saga.

Rather more responsive were the families of Army Chief Warrant Officer Second Class David C. Knadle, 33, of Tarrant, Texas, and Chief Warrant Officer Second Class Kirk T. Fuchigami Jr., 25, of Keaau, Hawaii. Both were killed in a helicopter crash on November 20^th in Afghanistan’s Logar province while assisting troops on the ground, according to a Pentagon press release. They were participating in what was characteristically dubbed Operation Freedom’s Sentinel. Both men were assigned to the 1st Battalion, 227th Aviation Regiment, 1st Air Cavalry Brigade, 1st Cavalry Division in Fort Hood, Texas. The Taliban took credit for the downing of the chopper, but the Army is still investigating the cause.

Knadle and Fuchigami are only the most recent of the more than 2,400 American service members who have been killed in Afghanistan since October 2001, together with 20,589 wounded and an estimated 110,000 Afghan dead. In the wake of the Post’s report, Daniel Ellsberg, who leaked the Pentagon Papers in 1974, told a CNN reporter that the Pentagon and Afghanistan Papers exposed the same governmental dysfunction: “The presidents and the generals had a pretty realistic view of what they were up against, which they did not want to admit to the American people.”

The New Republic observes how

“The documents are an indictment not only of one aspect of American foreign policy, but also of the US’s entire policymaking apparatus. They reveal a bipartisan consensus to lie about what was actually happening in Afghanistan: chronic waste and chronic corruption, one ill-conceived development scheme after another, resulting in a near-unmitigated failure to bring peace and prosperity to the country. Both parties had reason to engage in the cover-up. For the Bush administration, Afghanistan was a key component in the war on terror. For the Obama administration, Afghanistan was the ‘good war’ that stood in contrast to the nightmare in Iraq.”

The Afghan War’s true costs have never been precisely calculated, though they certainly exceed $1 trillion and counting. The documents relied upon for the Postreport include more than 2,000 pages of confidential interviews with people who played a direct role in the war, including soldiers and diplomats, as well as civilian aid workers and Afghan officials. Many of the interviews were initially carried out by the Special Inspector General for Afghanistan Reconstruction (SIGAR). The Post divided the interviews and supporting documentation into subject categories that demonstrate how the situation in Afghanistan began to deteriorate as soon as the United States followed up on its rapid invasion with a plan for nation building. Resorting to the usual American expedient, the occupiers flooded the country with money, which meant that the only thing blooming on the thin soil was corruption, apart from the poppies that have made Afghanistan the world’s leading supplier of opium.

One contractor who was involved in nation building described how he was required to spend $3 million daily for projects in an Afghan district roughly the size of a US county. He asked a visiting congressman if he could be authorized to spend that much money in the US “[The lawmaker] said hell no. ‘Well, sir, that’s what you just obligated us to spend and I’m doing it for communities that live in mud huts with no windows.’ ”

In another interview the report cites Lieutenant General Douglas Lute, the White House Afghan war czar during the Bush and Obama administrations, who told the interviewers in 2015. “We were devoid of a fundamental understanding of Afghanistan — we didn’t know what we were doing,” later adding “What are we trying to do here? We didn’t have the foggiest notion of what we were undertaking.”

Army Colonel Bob Crowley, who served in Kabul in 2013-4, described how at headquarters “Every data point was altered to present the best picture possible,” adding also how “Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice cream cone.”

Part of the problem with Afghanistan was the rotation of American soldiers in and then out after one year or less, just as they were learning about the country and the problems they faced. It has led to the joke that the United States has not fought an eighteen-year war in Afghanistan: it has fought a one-year war eighteen times.

The Post investigative report coincides with an interesting deconstruction of the US military and how it operates. David Swanson of World BEYOND War provides a lengthy review of West Point Professor Tim Bakken’s new book The Cost of Loyalty: Dishonesty, Hubris, and Failure in the US Military. Per Swanson, the book “traces a path of corruption, barbarism, violence, and unaccountability that makes its way from the United States’ military academies (West Point, Annapolis, Colorado Springs) to the top ranks of the US military and US governmental policy, and from there into a broader US culture that, in turn, supports the subculture of the military and its leaders. The US Congress and presidents have ceded tremendous power to generals. The State Department and even the US Institute of Peace are subservient to the military. The corporate media and the public help maintain this arrangement with their eagerness to denounce anyone who opposes the generals. Even opposing giving free weapons to Ukraine is now quasi-treasonous.”

Bakken even disputes the widely held view that the military academies have high academic standards. He describes how the “system” pays to get potential athletes and accepts students nominated by congressmen commensurate with donations made to fund re-election campaigns. Swanson sums it up by observing how the academies offer “a community college-level education only with more hazing, violence, and tamping down of curiosity. West Point takes soldiers and declares them to be professors, which works roughly as well as declaring them to be relief workers or nation builders or peace keepers. The school parks ambulances nearby in preparation for violent rituals. Boxing is a required subject. Women are five times more likely to be sexually assaulted at the three military academies than at other US universities.”

Bakken concludes that appreciating the fundamental structural flaws in the US armed forces “leads to a clearer understanding of the deficiencies in the military and how America can lose wars.” In fact, he does not even seek to identify a war that the United States has won since World War 2 in spite of the country being nearly constantly engaged in conflict.

Together the Bakken book and the Afghanistan Papers reveal just how much the American people have been brainwashed by their leaders into believing a perpetual warfare national narrative that is more fiction than fact. Donald Trump may have actually appreciated that the voters were tired of the wars and was elected on that basis, but he has completely failed to deliver on his promise to retrench. It suggests that America will remain in Afghanistan for the foreseeable future and the inevitable next war, wherever it might be, will be another failure, no matter who is elected in 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.

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.

Major food companies like General Mills continue to sell popular children’s breakfast cereals and other foods contaminated with troubling levels of glyphosate, the cancer-causing ingredient in the herbicide Roundup.

The weedkiller, produced by Bayer-Monsanto, was detected in all 21 oat-based cereal and snack products sampled in a new round of testing commissioned by the Environmental Working Group. All but four products contained levels of glyphosate higher than what EWG scientists consider protective for children’s health with a sufficient margin of safety.

.

.

The new tests confirm and amplify EWG’s findings from tests in July and October of last year, with levels of glyphosate consistently above EWG’s children’s health benchmark. The two highest levels of glyphosate were found in Honey Nut Cheerios Medley Crunch, with 833 parts per billion, or ppb, and Cheerios, with 729 ppb. The EWG children’s health benchmark is 160 ppb.

EWG purchased products via online retail sites. Approximately 300 grams of each product were packed in our Washington, D.C., office and shipped to Anresco Laboratories in San Francisco. Glyphosate levels were analyzed by a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method described here.

Since 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a part of the World Health Organization, has classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans.” In 2017, glyphosate was classified as a known carcinogen by California’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.

Since last August, three California juries have awarded more than $2.2 billion total in three separate verdicts against Bayer-Monsanto over claims that Roundup caused cancer and that Monsanto knew about the risks for decades and went to extraordinary lengths to cover it up.

Glyphosate is used mostly as a weedkiller on genetically modified corn and soybeans. But it is also sprayed on oats just before harvest as a drying agent, or desiccant. It kills the crop, drying it out so it can be harvested sooner, which increases the likelihood that glyphosate ends up in foods children love to eat.

EWG and 19 food companies recently delivered more than 80,000 names on a petition urging the Environmental Protection Agency to sharply limit glyphosate residues allowed on oats and prohibit its use as a preharvest drying agent.

All but one of the tested products contained glyphosate at levels higher than what EPA previously allowed on oats, in 1993. EWG’s petition, currently under consideration by EPA, calls on the agency to return to its health-protective 1993 standard. But it could take years for EPA to act, and the agency has been caught colluding with Monsanto to promote the claim that the chemical is safe.

The only way to quickly remove this cancer-causing weedkiller from foods marketed to children is for companies like General Mills and Quaker to use oats from farmers who do not use glyphosate as a desiccant.

More than 236,000 people have signed a petition directed at these food companies, calling on them to take action to protect consumers’ health.

*

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 EWG

The Big Reveal for the Washington Post this week is the release of the Afghanistan Papers. A series of interviews and documents “compiled in secret” and then the subject of a “legal challenge” from the US government.

The WaPo baldly calls it: “A secret history of the war”

But there’s nothing here that’s really secret, and very little actual history.

What do they tell us? Absolutely nothing, except what we’re supposed to believe.

An awful lot of modern “leaks” are no such thing. They are Orwellian exercises in controlling the conversation.

And this is no exception, carefully making sure the “establishment” and the “alternative” are joined in the middle, controlled from the same source.

It presents apologism, simplifications and outright fabrication as if they are classified information.

Telling us about “bad intelligence” and a “lack of coherent strategy”, as if THOSE are the biggest crimes of NATO in Afghanistan.

The Guardian articles on the release reinforce the official version of 9/11, The WaPo itself drops nods to the mythologised death of Osama Bin Laden.

It’s all about enforcing the establishment line, disguised as criticism. Real crimes are ignored, whilst smaller, simpler “well-intentioned mistakes” are reluctantly acknowledged.

Nowhere is the illegality of the invasion addressed.

Not once is anyone accused of war crimes.

The Guardian reports don’t mention the word opium, which is bad enough. The Washington Post goes even further – daring to relate the US Army’s struggle to “curb” the spread of the opium trade.

This is an outright lie. Before the 2001 invasion, the opium trade had been all but destroyed by the Taliban.

The Taliban banned the production of heroin in 2001 (just before the invasion). It dropped to almost nothing by the end of the year.

Since the US took control the heroin production of the region has increased almost every year. Today, Afghanistan produces 90% of global heroin.

All this, we are told, while the most powerful military force on the planet desperately tries to stop them. The Taliban did in 6 months what the US army has been unable to do in 18 years.

They say it, and they expect us to believe it. It is nonsense.

It’s all just so pathetic. A weak attempt to clean up a mess twenty-years in the making.

Feeble efforts establish a narrative of false “controversy” by presenting us with a fully-formed, ready-meal “alternative opinion”, so all those people who fancy themselves anti-establishment can gorge on outrage, whilst never having to do the difficult job of cancelling their newspaper subscriptions or doing their own research.

Here’s the real “secret history” of the Afganistan war: It wasn’t a failure, it was a success.

In every facet, on every front, Afghanistan is exactly what America needed it to be.

They dripfeed in the blood of young Americans, they destroy 100,000s of Afghan lives, and they reap the rewards they always intended to reap:

1. The permanent slow-simmer conflict gives them an excuse to keep thousands of US military personnel in a country which borders Iran, Pakistan AND China. (Not to mention a host of ex-Soviet states).
2. It keeps military expenditure nice and high, so Congressman, ex-generals and everyone else on the boards of Boeing or Lockheed Martin get great big bonuses every year.
3. They have sole access to the rare-Earth elementsand other vital metals in the Afghan mountains. Lithium, most importantly of all.
4. They have control of the world’s opium industry. A vital cog in the relations of the US intelligence agencies, and organised crime. It’s essentially reverse money-laundering – turning tax-payer funds into dark money that can be spent hiring mercenaries, organising assassinations, arranging coups…or simply be stolen.
5. They have access to all the “radicalised” young men they could ever want. A little Jihadi farm, where “terrorists” can be named, trained and sent off to fight proxy wars in Syria, or spread fear and chaos in the West.

Afghanistan is a great asset to the Empire. The US Deep State has spent a fortune making it so. They could at least be honest about it.

*

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

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook

Several features stand out in the impeachment quest against President Donald J. Trump.  There is constitutional discourse as mythology and fetish.  There is outrage that the executive office could have been used to actually investigate political opponents through foreign agents.  There is cattiness over whether the conduct of the president veered into the territory of criminality, or fell somewhat short in his incessant obstruction.

One theme stands out:  The sheer divisiveness of this effort, which tore at the Democratic camp even as it encouraged Trump.  As Democrats reflected over the House vote (230 to 197) to give Trump the constitutional heave-ho to the Senate, no sores have been healed, or divisions patched across the country.  House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was also careful not to give an explicit show of delight.  Trump the symptom remains, his voting base not necessarily convinced or persuaded.

This is something Trump is reaping with manic persistence.  In a letter to Pelosi, he blustered that, “More due process was afforded those accused in the Salem Witch Trials.”  He had been “denied the most fundamental rights afforded by the Constitution, including the right to present evidence.”  The Democrats had been, he charged, obsessed by a “partisan impeachment crusade”.

He also reiterated the basis of murky political strategy, something that resists the parameters of legal fettering.  “You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of US aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars.”  This is a less than noble reminder that US politics remains, at its heart, darkened, a condition that refuses to heal.

The position taken by moderate Democrats is that voting for the measure might not have been a politically sound thing from a self-interested point of view, but was inevitable.

“If I lose my seat, so be it,” reflected New York Democratic Rep. Anthony Brindisi.  “At the end of the day, I had to do what I felt was right for our country and the rule of law.”

What the impeachment process cannot escape from is politics.  As Gerald Ford stated while a House Rep., an impeachable offence might be best described as “whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers to be at a given moment in history.”  The very idea of what consists of “high crimes and misdemeanours” outlined in Article II, Section 4 encourages sufficient vagueness and manipulation.  That particular edition was George Mason’s contribution nine days before the Framers signed the Constitution, one made out of concern that “treason” failed to appropriately net other attempts “to subvert the Constitution”.  But in Law’s empire, there is no agreement as to whether such words suggest a criminal threshold.

Even then, terms such as “bribery” are up for debate.  Philip Bobbitt of Columbia University suggests that President Trump did sail close to it in his dinner with then-FBI director James Comey.  The occasion saw Trump inquiring of Comey as to whether he wanted to keep his job, suggesting that he terminate the Russia investigation. But even Comey was reluctant to suggest that there had been such an explicit point.

The relevant part of the Constitution highlighting the powers of the Senate vis-à-vis impeachment can be found in Article I, section 3, clause 6:  “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.  When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation.  When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.”  The requirement for the Chief Justice’s presence furnishes a legal gloss, but nothing more.

However framed, be it legal or judicial, the senators will not be required to have legal training or awareness of the finer points of law to deal with the matter.  The Senate now assumes the position of judge and jury, a problematic state of affairs that involves, as Charles L. Black Jr. wrote in 1974, “the conscience of each senator, who ought to realize the danger and try as far as possible to divest himself of all prejudice.  I see no reason why this cannot produce a satisfactory result.”

Black’s confidence in senatorial capacity is charming and misplaced.  It challenges the senators to shed partiality and examine the evidence with sobriety and confidence.  Perhaps it is for that reason that his words, as Akhil Amar suggests in a foreword to a second edition of Black’s Impeachment: A Handbook, “are cool, not hot.”  Be mindful of haste and impulse; “shrink from this most drastic of measures”, he cautions.  Only when “the rightness of diagnosis and treatment is sure” should such a process be deployed.

Already, we know what Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell has promised. “I’m not an impartial juror.  This is a political process.  There’s not anything judicial about it.”  For Senator McConnell, the entire episode regarding Trump has been a matter of highest and most venomous partisanship.  “The House made a partisan political decision to impeach.  I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate.”

The Republicans have trained their weapons upon the Democrats, expecting a vengeful US electorate to be suitably punitive come 2020.  They, like the Democrats, have also made a gamble on Trump, albeit from the opposite side of the chamber.  “Today, December 18, 2019,” posed Representative Mike Kelly of Pennsylvania, “is another date that will live in infamy.”  How that infamy translates in Trumpland promises to be decidedly toxic and volatile.

*

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

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

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore

The Syrian Army has finalized military preparations and is awaiting orders to launch a large-scale ground operation in Greater Idlib, according to reports by Syrian media. The operation will allegedly be aimed at liberating the militant-held part of the M5 highway.

Together with the separation of terrorists from the so-called “moderate opposition”, the reopening of the highway is one the key terms of the Idlib de-escalation agreement. Nonetheless, diplomatic efforts and peaceful measures did not achieve enough progress and Greater Idlib remained the hotbed of the terrorism in the country.

If the Syrian Army wants to reopen the M5 highway, it will need to liberate Maarat al-Numan and Saraqib, two the biggest urban centers, in southern Idlib and several dozens of villages along the highway. Another obstacle is Turkish observation posts that were established in Greater Idlib in the framework of the de-escalation agreement. It was supposed that these observation posts would be used to observe the established ceasefire. However, Ankara also used them as a measure to limit the Syrian Army offensive into southern Idlib.

Reports on the new upcoming Syrian Army advance in southern Idlib came, when artillery units and warplanes of the Syrian military were carrying out intense airstrikes on militants’ positions along the M5 highway.

If this advance does not start by some reason, the area of Idlib will continue remaining one of the main sources of the terrorist threat in Syria.

In the interview with Asharq al-Awsat released on December 17, the Commander-in-Chief of the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) Mazloum Abdi said that the SDF should be a part of the Syrian national defense system. The SDF leader claimed that the SDF includes 80,000 fighters as well as 30,000 security personnel. He claimed that the SDF should remain in northeastern Syria and keep its command. Nonetheless, Abdi noted that the SDF could carry out its duty as a part of Syria’s armed forces.

When the SDF leader was asked about a possible political agreement with Damascus, Abdi said that such an agreement would require “more time and longer talks.”

In October, the SDF and the Damascus government reached a breakthrough agreement that allowed the deployment of the Syrian Army in the SDF-held area. However, the Kurdish group accepted the deal as a tactical measure only in order to rescue itself rom the Turkish-led attack on the region. So, it still sees itself as a kind of powerbroker in the region despite the fact that it lost most of its influence after the US-led coalition had de-facto abandoned the group.

*

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 trove of U.S. “Lessons Learned” documents on Afghanistan published by the Washington Post portrays, in excruciating detail, the anatomy of a failed policy, scandalously hidden from the public for 18 years. The “Lessons Learned” papers, however, are based on the premise that the U.S. and its allies will keep intervening militarily in other countries, and that they must therefore learn the lessons of Afghanistan to avoid making the same mistakes in future military occupations. 

This premise misses the obvious lesson that Washington insiders refuse to learn: the underlying fault is not in how the U.S. tries and fails to reconstruct societies destroyed by its “regime changes,” but in the fundamental illegitimacy of regime change itself. As former Nuremberg prosecutor Ben Ferencz told NPR just eight days after 9/11, “It is never a legitimate response to punish people who are not responsible for the wrong done. If you simply retaliate en masse by bombing Afghanistan, let us say, or the Taliban, you will kill many people who don’t approve of what has happened.”

The “Lessons Learned” documents reveal the persistent efforts of three administrations to hide their colossal failures behind a wall of propaganda in order to avoid admitting defeat and to keep “muddling along,” as General McChrystal has described it. In Afghanistan, muddling along has meant dropping over 80,000 bombs and missiles, nearly all on people who had nothing to do with the crimes of September 11th, exactly as Ben Ferencz predicted.

How many people have been killed in Afghanistan is contested and essentially unknown. The UN has published minimum confirmed numbers of civilians killed since 2007, but as Fiona Frazer, the UN human rights chief in Kabul, admitted to the BBC in August 2019, “more civilians are killed or injured in Afghanistan due to armed conflict than anywhere else on Earth…(but) due to rigorous methods of verification, the published figures almost certainly do not reflect the true scale of harm.” The UN only counts civilian deaths in incidents where it has completed human rights investigations, and it has little or no access to the remote Taliban-held areas where most U.S. air strikes and “kill or capture” raids take place. So, as Fiona Frazer suggested, the UN’s published figures can be only a fraction of the true numbers of people killed.

It shouldn’t take 18 years for U.S. officials to publicly admit that there is no military solution to a murderous and unwinnable war for which the U.S. is politically and legally responsible. But the debacle in Afghanistan is only one case in a fundamentally flawed U.S. policy with worldwide consequences. New quasi-governments installed by U.S. “regime changes” in country after country have proven more corrupt, less legitimate and less able to control their nation’s territory than the ones the U.S. has destroyed, leaving their people mired in endless violence and chaos that no form of continued U.S. occupation can repair.

“Regime change” is a process of coercion designed to impose the political will of the U.S. government on countries around the world, violating their sovereignty and self-determination with an arsenal of military, economic and political weapons:

1. Delegitimization. The first step in targeting a country for regime change is to delegitimize its existing government in the eyes of U.S. and allied publics, with targeted propaganda or “information warfare” to demonize its president or prime minister. Painting foreign leaders as villains in a personalized Manichean drama psychologically prepares the American public for U.S. coercion to remove them from power. One lesson for those of us opposed to regime change operations is that we must challenge these campaigns at this first stage if we want to prevent their escalation. For example, Russia and China today both have strong defenses, including nuclear weapons, making a U.S. war with either of them predictably catastrophic, or even suicidal. So why is the U.S. stoking a new Cold War against them? Is the military-industrial complex threatening us with extinction only to justify record military budgets? Why is serious diplomacy to negotiate peaceful coexistence and disarmament “off the table,” when it should be an existential priority?
2. Sanctions. Using economic sanctions as a tool to force political change in other countries is deadly and illegal. Sanctions kill people by denying them food, medicine and other basic necessities. UN sanctions killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis in the 1990s. Today, unilateral U.S. sanctions are killing tens of thousands in Iran and Venezuela. This is illegal under international law, and has been vigorously condemned by UN special rapporteurs. Professor Robert Pape’s research shows that economic sanctions have only achieved political change in 4% of cases. So their main purpose in U.S. policy is to fuel deadly economic and humanitarian crises that can then serve as pretexts for other forms of U.S. intervention.
3. Coups and proxy wars. Coups and proxy wars have long been the weapons of choice when U.S. officials want to overthrow foreign governments. Recent U.S.-backed coups in Honduras, Ukraine and now Bolivia have removed elected governments and installed right-wing U.S.-backed regimes. The U.S. has relied more heavily on coups and proxy wars in the wake of its military disasters in Korea, Vietnam, and now Afghanistan and Iraq, to attempt regime change without the political liability of heavy U.S. military casualties. Under Obama’s doctrine of covert and proxy war, the U.S. worked with Qatari ground forces in Libya, Al Qaeda-linked groups in Syria and military leaders in Honduras. But outsourcing regime change to local coup leaders and proxy forces adds even more uncertainty to the outcome, making proxy wars like the one in Syria predictably bloody, chaotic and intractable.
4. Bombing campaigns. U.S. bombing campaigns minimize U.S. casualties but wreak untold and uncounted death and destruction on both enemies and innocents. Like “regime change”, “precision weapons” is a euphemism designed to obscure the horror of war. Rob Hewson, the editor of the arms trade journal Jane’s Air-Launched Weapons, told the AP during the “Shock and Awe” bombing of Iraq in 2003 that the accuracy of U.S. precision weapons was only 75-80%, meaning that thousands of bombs and missiles predictably missed their targets and killed random civilians. As Rob Hewson said. “… you can’t drop bombs and not kill people. There’s a real dichotomy in all of this.” After Mosul and Raqqa were destroyed in the U.S.-led anti-IS campaign that has dropped over 100,000 bombs and missiles on Iraq and Syria since 2014, journalist Patrick Cockburn described Raqqa as “bombed to oblivion,” and revealed that Iraqi Kurdish intelligence reports had counted at least 40,000 civilians killed in Mosul.
5. Invasion and hostile military occupation. The infamous “last resort” of full-scale war is predicated on the idea that, if nothing else works, the U.S.’s trillion-dollar military can surely get the job done. This dangerous presumption led the U.S. into military quagmires in Iraq and Afghanistan despite its previous “lessons learned” in Vietnam, underlining the central unlearned lesson that war itself is a catastrophe. In Iraq, journalist Nir Rosen described the U.S. occupation force as “lost in Iraq…unable to wield any power except on the immediate street corner where it’s located.” Today, about 6,000 U.S. troops remain in Iraq, confined to their bases, under frequent missile attack, while a new generation of Iraqis rises up to reclaim their country from the corrupt former exiles the U.S. flew in with its invasion forces 17 years ago.

Any responsible government Americans elect in 2020 must learn from the well-documented failure and catastrophic human cost of U.S. regime change efforts in Afghanistan, Iraq, Haiti, Somalia, Honduras, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Yemen, Venezuela, Iran and now Bolivia.

These “lessons learned” should lead to U.S. withdrawal from the countries we have wrecked, opening the way for the UN and other legitimate mediators to come in and help their people to form sovereign, independent governments and to resolve the intractable secondary conflicts that U.S. wars and covert operations have unleashed.

Secondly, the U.S. must conduct global diplomatic outreach to make peace with our enemies, end our illegal sanctions and threats, and reassure the people of the world that they need no longer fear and arm themselves against the threat of U.S. aggression. The most potent signals that we have really turned over a new leaf would be serious cuts in the U.S. military budget – we currently outspend the next seven or eight militaries combined, despite our endless military failures; a reduction in U.S. conventional forces and weapons to the level needed to meet our country’s legitimate defense needs; and the closure of most of the hundreds of U.S. military bases on the territories of other nations, which amount to a global military occupation.

Maybe most vitally, the U.S. should reduce the threat of the most catastrophic of all wars, nuclear war, by finally complying with its obligations under the 1970 Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires the U.S. and other nuclear-armed countries to move towards “full and complete nuclear disarmament.”

In 2019, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists kept the hands of its Doomsday clock at two minutes to midnight, symbolizing that we are as close to self-destruction as we have ever been. Its 2019 statement cited the double danger of climate change and nuclear war: “Humanity now faces two simultaneous existential threats, either of which would be cause for extreme concern and immediate attention.” So it is a matter of survival for the U.S. to cooperate with the rest of the world to achieve major breakthroughs on both these fronts.

If this seems far-fetched or overly ambitious, that is a measure of how far we have strayed from the sanity, humanity and peaceful cooperation we will need to survive this century. A world in which war is normal and peace is out of reach is no more survivable or sustainable than a world where the atmosphere gets hotter every year. Permanently ending this entire U.S. policy of coercive regime change is therefore a political, moral and existential imperative.

*

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.

Medea Benjamin, co-founder of CODEPINK for Peace, is the author of several books, including Inside Iran: The Real History and Politics of the Islamic Republic of Iranand Kingdom of the Unjust: Behind the U.S.-Saudi Connection.

Nicolas J. S. Davies is an independent journalist, a researcher for CODEPINK, and the author of Blood on Our Hands: The American Invasion and Destruction of Iraq.

Featured image is from Rare Historical Photos

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

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

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

“Who have given the Americans the right to do this? And, at whose invitation is the US protecting Syria’s oil fields?” Xie Xiaoyan said at a press conference in Moscow on Wednesday.

“Let’s think the other way around: will the US allow Syria to send troops to US territory to protect oil fields there?” he said.

In late October, Washington reversed an earlier decision to pull out all of its troops from northeastern Syria, announcing the deployment of about 500 soldiers to the oil fields controlled by Kurdish forces in the Arab country.

The US claimed that the move was aimed at protecting the fields and facilities from possible attacks by the Takfiri Daesh terrorist group. That claim came even as US President Donald Trump had earlier suggested that Washington sought economic interests in controlling the oilfields.

Pentagon chief Mark Esper then threatened that the US forces deployed to the oil fields would use “military force” against any party that might seek to challenge control of the sites, even if it were Syrian government forces or their Russian allies.

Syria, which has not authorized American military presence in its territory, has said the US is “plundering” the country’s oil.

Xie, the Chinese envoy for Syria, said he was in Moscow for a second time this year to continue consultations with the Russian side on the Syrian issue.

He said a political settlement was the sole way to resolve the Syrian crisis, calling on all parties involved to unite their efforts to this end.

“We hope that all parties and players involved in the Syrian crisis will join hands and put their efforts together, try to maintain the momentum of the political settlement,” he said.

“The sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Syria must be respected and upheld. The future of Syria must be left in the hands of the Syrian people. Let them independently decide their own future,” he said.

The Chinese envoy said, however, that there were still uncertainties in north Syria and the threat of terrorism remained, calling for “immediate attention” by the international community as displaced Syrians gradually return to their homes and the issue of Syria’s reconstruction is back on the agenda.

He said China and Russia could play a role together in swiftly finding a lasting solution to the Syrian crisis.

*

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

Will or won’t House Speaker Pelosi select Dem impeachment managers (prosecutors) and transmit articles of impeachment against Trump to the Senate for trial?

Knowing the GOP controlled body will reject House charges against Trump and acquit him, will Pelosi and relevant House committee chairmen decide against a Senate trial?

Impeaching Trump by House Dems was and remains all about wanting him weakened and delegitimized ahead of November 2020 elections, not removing him from office — what majority Senate Republicans reject.

Ahead of Wednesday’s impeachment vote, Pelosi said the following:

“(I)f we impeach the president immediately, everybody moves on to the next thing.”

“The next thing for us will be when we see the process that is set forth in the Senate.”

“Then we’ll know the number of managers that we may have to go forward, and who we would choose.”

“When we see what they have, we’ll know who and how many we will send over. That’s all I’m going to say about that now.”

“(W)e would like to see a fair process (sic), but we’ll see what they have, and we’ll be ready for whatever it is.”

“I heard some of what (Senate Majority Leader) Mitch McConnell said today (about not being impartial). (W)e…have a rogue president and a rogue leader in the Senate at the same time.”

“I’m not going to answer any more questions on this.”

“Clearly, do you understand, when we see what their process is, we will know who and how many we want to send over. Not until then. I’m not going to go there anymore.”

Selecting impeachment managers is the next step to make House case, along with transmitting articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. If these steps aren’t taken, there’s no formal impeachment,  no trial.

The House is in recess for the holiday period until January 7. According to Roll Call, the Senate’s 2020 calendar includes no scheduled January impeachment trial, an unnamed Senate aide saying:

“Unfortunately due to uncertainty on the floor schedule for start of the year, the Senate is unable to establish a schedule for January at this time. When we have clarity on a date to convene and what January will look like we will get that information out as soon as possible.”

On Thursday, McConnell said the following:

“(F)ollowing (House Dems) rush to impeachment…the prosecutors appear to have developed cold feet,” adding:

“(A)s of today, we remain at an impasse because (Dem Minority Leader Schumer) demand(s) a new and different set of rules for President Trump.”

“He wants us to break from…unanimous bipartisan precedent and force an all-or-nothing approach.”

‘He wants a special pre-trial guarantee of certain witnesses whom (House Dems) did not even bother to pursue themselves as they assembled their case…or he wants to proceed without any organizing resolution whatsoever.”

“So as I said…we remain at an impasse on these logistics.”

As for House articles of impeachment, Speaker Pelosi “continues to hem and haw about whether and when she intends to take the normal next step and transmit the House’s accusations to the Senate…for some kind of ‘leverage’ so they can dictate the Senate process…”

“I am not sure what leverage there is in refraining from sending us something we do not want.”

Other House Dems “seem to be suggesting they’d prefer never to transmit the articles. Fine with me.”

“(T)he Speaker of the House herself has been unclear on this. Her message has been somewhat muddled.”

House Dems seem “unsure whether they even want to proceed to a trial.”

“So we’ll continue to see how this develops, and whether the House Democrats ever work up the courage to take their accusations to trial.”

According to hostile to Trump Law Professor Noah Feldman “impeachment is a process, not a vote.”

“If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president.”

“If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

“The Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. Some modest delay is not inconsistent with the Constitution, or how both chambers usually work.”

“But an indefinite delay would pose a serious problem.”

“Impeachment as contemplated by the Constitution does not consist merely of the vote by the House, but of the process of sending the articles to the Senate for trial.”

“Both parts are necessary to make an impeachment under the Constitution.”

“The House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.”

If both parties remain at impasse going forward, perhaps they’ll be no Senate trial, no de jure impeachment —  what Dems may prefer as part of their electoral campaign strategy, not Trump, tweeting:

The Senate “can set a date (on its own) and put this whole SCAM into default if (Dems) refuse to show up!”

He wants Senate proceedings to formally absolve him of charges.

According to attorney/impeachment expert Ross Garber, the “Constitution doesn’t mention transmission. And (the) Supreme Court has said (the) Senate has sole power to set trial rules.”

The “Senate could set a deadline for trial regardless. Or not. (The) Senate and Trump probably don’t care. Either way, not a good look for the House Ds.”

McConnell said he’s “not anxious to have (a) trial.” He wants proceedings to acquit Trump quickly if it’s held. Neither he or Trump appear willing to make concessions to Dems, especially regarding witnesses and trial procedure if held.

For now, things are in limbo for until January. Knowing acquittal is certain if a Senate trial is held, hostile to Trump Law Professor Laurence Tribe argued against holding one, saying it’ll “fail to render a meaningful verdict.”

This drama will likely drag on in the new year, both parties manipulating things for political advantage in the run-up to November 2020 elections.

*

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.

Information on what may be in Trump’s no-peace/peace plan was leaked before — its accuracy unknown unless and until a plan is released.

It hardly matters. It was dead before arrival. Trump’s one-sided support for Israel is more extreme than any of his predecessors.

He cut off vitally needed humanitarian aid for Palestinian refugees, suspended other US aid to the PA other than for security to serve as Israel’s enforcer, and closed the PLO mission in Washington.

He illegally recognized Jerusalem (a UN-established international city) as Israel’s exclusive capital, moved the US embassy there, abandoned a legitimate two-state solution, recognized Israel’s unlawful Golan annexation, and no longer considers illegal settlements occupied territory.

His so-called $50 billion investment fund for Palestinians and neighboring Arab states that’s part of his no-peace/peace plan is all about enriching Western and Israeli monied interests, unrelated to aiding long-suffering Palestinians.

He’s no friend of ordinary people anywhere, not at home or abroad, especially ones most disadvantaged, waging war on social justice domestically to pay for the great GOP tax cut heist benefitting corporate America and high net-worth households, along with supporting record spending for militarism and endless wars.

On Monday, Lebanon’s Al Mayadeen television reported what it called information on what’s in Trump’s so-called deal of the century.

From what’s reported, it establishes the illusion of a “New Palestine” state in parts of the West Bank and Gaza, short of the real thing Israel and the US reject, both areas connected by an elevated highway.

It excludes 70% or more of West Bank land controlled by Israel, including the Jordan Valley, closed military zones, exclusive Jewish commercial areas, tourist sites, no-go areas, and illegal settlements on stolen Palestinian land, Jerusalem to remain undivided, the city “shared between Israel and New Palestine.”

On July 30, 1980, the Knesset Jerusalem Law officially annexed the city as Israel’s exclusive capital.

On March 1, 1980, UN Security Council Resolution 465 declared that “all measures taken by Israel to change the physical character, demographic composition, institutional structure or status of the Palestinian and other Arab territories occupied since 1967, including Jerusalem, or any part thereof, have no legal validity and that Israel’s policy and practices of settling parts of its population and new immigrants in those territories constitute a flagrant (Fourth Geneva) violation…”

Its actions relating to the city also “constitute a serious obstruction to achieving a comprehensive, just and lasting peace in the Middle East.”

On July 4, 2004, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) ruled that “Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territory, including East Jerusalem, are illegal and an obstacle to peace and to economic and social development (and) have been established in breach of international law.”

What Security Council resolutions and other international laws established cannot be legally changed by nations for any reasons.

Trump’s deal of the century does nothing to alter absolute Israeli control of the Occupied Territories, including Gaza, attacking the Strip at its discretion, maintaining a suffocating medieval blockade for political reasons.

Other reported deal of the century provisions include establishing a Palestinian industrial zone from land bought from Egypt, Palestinians not allowed to live there.

Palestinian residents of East Jerusalem would becoming New Palestine citizens. Al Aqsa mosque stewardship would shift from Jordan to Saudi Arabia.

Except for education, Israel would sell electricity, water, and other services to Palestinians, maintaining a chokehold on them like now.

The so-called new state would be prohibited from forming a military force or acquiring heavy weapons, Hamas to be disarmed, clearly what it won’t agree to.

A Trump regime statement denied the accuracy of the above information, saying:

“Rumors about the content of (Trump’s) peace plan are false. We are confident that the so-called source has not seen the plan.”

On Tuesday, Haaretz reported that Congress rejected a Trump regime request for $175 million to support his deal of the century — a so-called “Diplomatic Progress Fund.”

Haaretz quoted an unnamed congressional source, saying “(o)ne argument against (the budget request is that) no one thinks (Trump’s) peace plan is coming out any time soon, so why devote money to it,” adding:

“If it becomes serious, (they’ll be congressional) support. No one in Congress will stand in the way of a peace plan if it seems like it has a chance to succeed.”

Since 2017, the PA rejected Trump’s no-peace/peace plan. On Wednesday, Mahmoud Abbas repeated that “(f)rom day one, we said no to the deal of the century…”

Whatever is in the one-sided deal clearly favors Israel. Palestinian rejection leaves it unclear if it’ll ever be released.

An earlier Financial Times report called Trump’s plan “a fraud…a smokescreen for the burial of the two-state solution,” adding:

It’s been delayed so many times PLO secretary general Saeb Erekat called it “the deal of the next century.”

“The truth is that it was never really alive or likely ever to arrive,” said the FT.

It’s a scheme to let Israel officially annex all valued West Bank land and East Jerusalem.

So-called “New Palestine” won’t likely be more than isolated cantons on worthless scrubland, a state in name only surrounded by hostile settlers, supported by Israeli security forces.

*

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: President Trump meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in New York on Sept. 18, 2017. (Screenshot from Whitehouse.gov)

Updated on December 31, 2019.

From a geopolitical perspective, the war on Yugoslavia in the 1990s was about restructuring South east Europe after the end of the Cold War. To this end, the US even deployed the combatants with which it had previously fought the USSR in Afghanistan and which it would later call “Al Qaeda”.

The political and media propaganda regarding the war on Yugoslavia has been well researched by now. Interestingly, however, many media outlets and commentators are still trying to uphold the official narrative of the time, in contrast to the later war in Iraq, for example.

There may be various reasons for this. On the one hand, the propaganda in question dates back to the early days of the Internet and is therefore generally less well known to the public. On the other hand, the implications, notably for Europe, are particularly far-reaching in this case.

From today’s perspective, it is a rather trivial statement that most Western media outlets supported NATO’s war on Yugoslavia, but at the time even critics believed in a media “failure”, especially because the influence of foreign policy groups on media reporting was not yet broadly known.

The following sections provide an overview of propaganda in the war on Yugoslavia as well as references to further literature and documentation. Please note that the analysis does not call into question regional aspects of the conflict or any actual war crimes on any side of the conflict.

1. The Serbian “Death Camp” (1992)

One of the most notorious cases of propaganda concerns the alleged Serbian “death camp” of Trnopolje in Bosnia. The story began in August 1992, when three British journalists visited a refugee camp whose inmates stressed that they were being treated very well (see video below).

The journalists, however, went inside a fenced-in storage area right next to the refugee camp and filmed the men on the outside through a barbed wire fence, making it appear as if the men were imprisoned, which in fact they were not (see site map below). The journalists then asked a man emaciated from illness or war-related malnutrition to take off his T-shirt.

The resulting photograph – carefully cut to size – landed on the front pages of most Western media as “proof” of Serbian “death camps”, which in turn served as justification for NATO’s subsequent intervention in Bosnia, starting with a no-fly zone.

The Trnopolje death camp deception was exposed by a German journalist in 1997. A British magazine that republished his article got sued by the three British journalists for libel and eventually lost the case because it couldn’t prove their intent.

The head of an American PR agency that had spread the false death camp reports later explained: “We are professionals. We had a job to do and we did it. We are not paid to be moral.”

Full documentary: Yugoslavia: The Pictures that Fooled the World (2000)
The German captions explain how the men being filmed were standing outside of the barbed wire fence and what type of questions the British journalists were asking them.

TV screenshot, press headlines and site map of the Trnopolje refugee camp

2. The Sarajevo Marketplace Massacres (1992-1995)

Another well-known case of propaganda concerns the so-called marketplace massacres during the four-year siege of Sarajevo, in particular the so-called bread line massacre of May 1992 and the two so-called Markale massacres of February 1994 and August 1995.

These incidents allegedly took place by mortar fire from outside of the city and often happened shortly before important political consultations at the UN or EU. They ultimately led to a direct military intervention by NATO – the first in its history – and thus to a turnaround in the Bosnian war.

In the cases mentioned above as well as some others, investigations by officers of the UN protection mission came to the conclusion that these incidents may have been carried out by the Bosnian side itself, perhaps to influence Western public opinion (so-called false flag attacks).

The relevant UN reports, however, were kept secret. Instead, American media — notably CNN — and the US government usually claimed without delay that the respective attack had probably been carried out by the Serbian side (see video below).

Canadian General Lewis MacKenzie, commander of the UN forces in Sarajevo, wrote about the 1992 incident: “Our people told us there were a number of things that didn’t fit. The street had been blocked off just before the incident. Once the crowd was let in and had lined up, the media appeared but kept their distance. The attack took place, and the media were immediately on the scene.”

About the 1994 incident, a BBC journalist noted with surprise how “television crews were on the scene, filming within seconds of the blast”, while UN officers and even doctors were prevented from entering the site, and all of the alleged 197 victims were carried away within 25 minutes. Others pointed out that the market was in fact closed at the time of the incident (see video below).

Regarding the 1995 incident, the London Sunday Times later revealed that British and French UN ammunition experts had concluded the Serbian side was “not guilty”, but they were then “overruled by a senior American officer”, and NATO air strikes began within less than 48 hours.

US professor Yossef Bodansky, the longtime director of the US Congressional Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare, later described these incidents as “expertly-staged spectacle of gore” that included the use of “corpses of Bosnian troops recently killed in action”.

In the following you will find the most important articles from that time by journalists who were able to study the unpublished UN reports or talk to officials involved in writing them.

• Bosnia bread queue massacre was propaganda ploy, UN told  (Independent, 1992)
• Dateline Yugoslavia: The Partisan Press (Peter Brock, Foreign Policy, 1994, archived)
• Anatomy of a Massacre (David Binder, Foreign Policy, 1994, about Markale I, archived)
• Bosnia’s Bombers (David Binder, The Nation, 1995, about Markale II, archived)
• “Serbs not guilty of massacre” (Hugh McManners, The Sunday Times, 1995, archived)
• Senior official admits to secret U.N. report on Sarajevo massacre (DPA, 1996, archived)
• 2004: Sarajevo massacre remembered (BBC; see quote by General Michael Rose)

Twenty years later, the Bosnian Markale massacres of 1994/95 were recalled when poison gas attacks during the Syrian war turned out to be questionable and the results of UN and OPCW investigations were again suppressed to justify military strikes by NATO countries.

The 1994 Markale massacre (Source: BBC, The Death of Yugoslavia, 1995)

3. The “Genocide of Srebrenica” (1995)

The “Genocide of Srebrenica” in July 1995 is regarded as the sad climax of the Bosnian war. According to Western accounts originally based on a report by the US government, more than 8000 Bosnian civilians may have been killed.

But according to Phillip Corwin, the highest-ranking UN civilian official in Bosnia during the war, the actual evidence points to a more complex situation and a somewhat different context. Corwin calledthe official Western account of events in Srebrenica a “distortion”.

The late political scientist Edward S. Herman and the former CIA officer Robert Baer, who was operating in Yugoslavia during the war, even spoke of a “fraud” in this regard.

For further details, please refer to the following articles and documentaries:

• The Politics of the Srebrenica Massacre (Edward S. Herman, Global Research, 2005)
• Srebrenica Revisited (Diana Johnstone, Counterpunch Magazine, 2005)
• Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed (Norwegian documentary, 60 minutes, 2010)
• The Srebrenica Massacre: Evidence, Context, Politics (Edward S. Herman, ed., 2011)
• Video: Evacuation of Srebrenica refugees (AP, original footage of July 12, 1995)

In general, even events with very high reported victim numbers must sometimes be critically examined. This was shown, for example, by the “Timisoara Massacre” of 1989 with allegedly 4630 dead, which later turned out to be a psychological operation to launch the Romanian revolution.

Srebrenica: A Town Betrayed (Norwegian documentary, 60m, 2010, Wikipedia)

4. Kosovo: “Operation Horseshoe”, Račak and Rogovo, and more (1999)

After the separation of Slovenia, Croatia and Bosnia from Yugoslavia, the US and NATO started another war in 1999 against the remainder of Yugoslavia to additionally separate the province of Kosovo from Serbia. This war again had to be justified by propaganda and disinformation.

In particular, politicians and the media discussed alleged expulsion plans, concentration camps and massacres, which later turned out to be fabricated or questionable. Examples include the alleged “Operation Horseshoe” (to expulse Albanians) and the alleged “Račak massacre”.

In the case of Račak, for instance, Finnish forensic experts concluded that the bodies of KLA fighters killed in action had been moved, redressed, and presented as civilian victims of an execution.

After the war, the head of an American public relations agency that had spread such dubious stories about the situation in Kosovo stated in an interview: “To be honest, when NATO finally attacked in 1999, we opened a bottle of champagne.”

For further details, the German documentary “It Began with a Lie” from 2001 will be shown below (English subtitles available). The documentary shows how Western governments deliberately published false information in order to legitimize the war.

Kosovo War: It Began with a Lie (German documentary, 2001)

*

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.

Rania  “if death will come in 5 years or 7 or 10 I would urge it to come now because they have ripped us up of all hopes for any foreseen future… they have killed us while we are still breathing, they have taken any shred of dignity pushing us to strive for our daily bread … I wonder what else they may ask for if we keep compromising ….”

[the full identity of the testimonies is not available]

1. Ayham   I wonder what does the American Government have  against the Syrian people and for what reason we are being punished?!

We’ve never been a threat to anyone, never hated anyone and certainly never been against Americans.

Now about the petrol crisis, we had a harsh winter, but we managed to overcome the cold. Now we face lack of Gasoline and most cars stay in queues for about two days on Gas stations to get about 20 liters a week.

2. I do not understand this American intransigence … Why do they want to kill us? We love our country and we do not want to leave it. My young son lost this 20 year old damned war Why does America support terrorism to earn money at the expense of people? The killing of my son I accused him is the one who helped the terrorists and killed our children and today we are counting on the top of our lives Yes, gasoline is the main source of movement Mechanisms, factories and cars … Also heating Thousands of children have been hurt because of the cold and the children of their sons … The livelihoods of people working on cars and engines Small and electricity …. why not talk The American people as long as they sleep in democracy … Hands for living in dignity in our country We have not attacked you … Let us live in peace … …

Thank you janice…

3. Aiham   The US government imposed economic sanctions on our government to force it to accept the entry of Muslim Brotherhood extremists into our government.

We, as a Syrian people, have’t found fuel for heating for two days during the snowfall on Easter night.. not enough fuel for cars …

Is not it enough that the US government create ISIS terrorist in our country as Hillary Clinton said?

Aiham , Damascus

4. Soumaya :  yes it is a real torture, in Aleppo everybody want to get out of the country.. it s a humanitarian shame.. and everything is more expensive.. they want Syria to die.. pray for the people.. I stay strong like you and we will do our best to help..

5. Adnan  : Economic sanctions are enforced by US, WHY NOW ? The prohibition of oil supplies to enter Syria indicates an economic war after 8 years of fierce and bloody war waged by US and its allies by deploying hundreds of thousands of terrorists and mercenaries. It is a punishment to the Syrian people especially the poor, who are cleary are badly affected and suffer the rarity and high prices of most necessities to their lives. I think it’s for imposing agendas, opposition names and constitution change. Take it from a Syrian from Aleppo, THOSE WHO WITHSTOOD THE MOST VICIOUS AND BLOODY WAR WILL NEVER GIVE UP TO SANCTIONS

6. Mohammad  : US government claiming that America it’s the country of freedom and it’s the greatest country… Etc
What are you doing for God sake???

You have created ISIS and pretending that you’re fighting them? But in fact you are training and arming and supporting them by all ways possible, for what? For power or oil or helping your child so-called Israel?? Israel are fake country that’s why they named it (is real ) the real country is Palestine…

I lost my young brother in this horrible war that you started in my country, he was fighting YOUR ISIS and me as a soldier i spent 8 years of my life fighting them ,my best 8 years of youth, i can’t get married or making a family because i scarified of my whole life for my country, for my people, and I WILL KEEP FIGHTING.

Leave us alone we can handle our business, i have a lot of Americans friends, they are good people, but you as a government ARE SHIT.

I have a lot to say, i don’t know where can i start,  We lost a lot because they faking the truth about my country especially in media… I’m not done but i think this enough because they know the truth, they know what exactly happened to my country because they did it.

P.S : I’ve learned English during this war to send this kind of messages to the world, we as Syrians we don’t know what give up means, country who loves all kind of education.. Just take a look of the difference between us and Saudi Arabia, your beloved friend that has a bloody hands in Yemen with your blessings.

I’m not done……

7. Salma  : I already have financial difficulties so imagine now with even higher food prices.. Every end of every month I stay without food for days because I have enough money to either feed myself or my dogs and I choose to feed my dog.. Who is a vegan dog most days of the month BTW.. I am vegan everyday of the year.. And I still can’t make it..

8. Nourhanne :  Well, I will be clear … I am 25 years old. I live in Damascus, the old neighborhoods of Bab Touma. Sanctions significantly affected the car’s long queues on gas stations for long hours Public conductors were weak for staff and students go to work It took a lot of time Export to other areas was also difficult.

These sanctions are certainly a mistake to be decided by the United States which considers itself with human rights

9.  I live in tartus and i have an advice to these sick minds in washington D.C

By punishing us the people of syria , You are not turning us against our government ..despite the hell we live in everyday we know who is doing this and this made us more united . The only hate is happening here is against you . Why you hate us why….

10. I spent 4 hours to fill my car with only 20 litters and these are my share for 5 days

My father 85 years old in drykish near safita 35 km away from tartus i must go there every day to stay with him because he is sick .

My work in tartus i have no oil to visit him daily i dont know what to do.

11. Ali  I remember watching western movies when i was a kid with my siblings… “Once upon a time in the west” exactly… I remember the fly scene at the beginning… At that moment i fell in love with the American lifestyle and mentality. Later i watched more movies and read as many books as i could after learning English just to know more about America… I have always admired and trusted the American people… But i never saw a wider gap between poeple and their politicians. The sanctions you impose are not harming anyone but people like me, people who can never teach their kids to love America as we did… What am i supposed to tell my 4 years old kid?! America is good but you are not!!! He wouldn’t understand…

Sometimes i really wonder.. Is there really an “American people”?! can they change things like we see on tv?! Or is the “American people” as real as the “Avengers”..?!

I know these words wont change a thing… I wish you arrange a trip for us to meet Americans there and hold meetings to tell them what is really happening here… What has been happening since WW2…

But again… That’s rather impossible… Aliens like me cannot enter the heavens of America… A green card is needed!!! Right?!! Yet your soldiers can come oceans away.. No questions asked…

Democracy might not be at it’s best here in my country… But the world you created can only produce such an ugly truth

12. Hanan :  It’s Unbearable , I’m a college student and I need to get out early because of the difficulty of transportation ، I need to stand an hour under the sun after finishing classes to find a means of transport or bus to go home . Most of the time I go and back home on foot. I can’t wait.. Whether it is America’s or others this sanctions are absolute evil. We were talking today about they cut off everything, leaving only oxygen and Pepsi because it made in Damascus

13. Youssef   The economic siege on Syria increases my love for the Syrian national leadership. On the other hand there is great hatred of the United States of America.

14. Labib Syrian people in USA and elsewhere pose no threat to anyone and specially American. Syria has provided the best doctors, engineers etc to the world and it is not fair to treat Syria and Syrians with such barbaric sanctions

15. Heba 

I don’t care what exact reason is behind the economic sanctions, I care about my siblings’ future and mine.

Our parents used to narrate stories of them studying on the lights of candles, back to the days when there was no electricity.

Nowadays, we’re doing exactly the same! Studying on low-lit LEDs until our eyes start to hurt and get foggy. We had to save some money to get my sister a pair of glasses.

My previous job, as an online freelancer, was ALWAYS delayed because my laptop’s battery would die and there’s no way to charge it. I got fired because of this!

My brother has asthma and last week he had an attack by night, yet we had no gas nor did our neighbors, so we couldn’t go search for a pharmacy to bring him an inhaler.

Not to mention that our fridge is empty, like literally empty, most of the days. Only thing we can afford is pasta, rice, and bread, which is affecting our diet and now my sister and I are anemic. Vegetables and meats are things we should save some money for, in order to buy them like once or twice a month. Despite the fact that 3 out of 6 members of my family are working. So you may imagine how expensive everything is.

These may sound like silly things to a basic human being, but to us, these are things we live with and struggle with daily. No one deserves to live such a stressful life that affects their lifestyle, health, future, oh and their cortisol levels! Sounds like unimportant ‘third-world’ issues? Well, you can make it better with just a single statement of yours.

– G, Tartous

16. Lilly :  I live in Syria: my family’s business stopped 8 years ago when the war started. We have been living on savings since then, and a few sales we made to survive. He used to buy machines made abroad and import them for sale in Syria. Because of sanctions imposed by US and EU he can not wire transfer money to buy machines from Syria to the company abroad. Additionally, because of US and EU sanctions he can not buy machines from Europe, which is so close to Syria, or from any other country, because any country found selling to anyone in Syria will face fines and sanctions. You might think that he could just buy from China, for example, since it is a friendly country, but they will not accept any wire transfer on money from any person or bank in Syria either, due to the same problem: EU and US sanctions. The goal is to prevent anyone living in Syria from ordering any materials needed for reconstruction of homes in Syria. The US and EU goal is to prevent Syria from recovery, or peace

17. Ammar : Before the war, we used to dream how to develop and be better persons. How to get more degrees and move to a higher level.

Now the best achievement is to make enough money to mantain a decent life.

And the hero of his time who has his car full of gaz.

It’s not only about gaz or money, it’s about settlement and this has been lost long ago.

18. The economic blockade imposed by the United States on Syria is primarily aimed at the Syrian people, which is mainly suffering because of terrorism and the siege to exhaust the remaining elements of his life.

Damn the US government

Damn the Western Alliance

I do not mean the American people. The people have nothing to do with what the government does. I respect and love the American people.

19. From a Syrian American: Asker 

The American people need to understand that Syria has provided the world cultures many positive things, and Syria as an original Christian country doesn’t pose any threats to the world, the sanctions are effecting many innocent people specially children and it will not work because the purpose of it to turn the Syrian people against the government that will not work ,they love their president Bashar Assad.as Syrian born American citizen I can tell you that we come to America and we achieve the American dream, we don’t use or abuse the system ,some of us pay more income taxes than many politicians, we respect the American constitution, we love you Mr trump but please get out of Syria and let them rebuild their lives and have peace, I live in the commonwealth of Kentucky near Lexington, originally from California, love this country coast to coast.

20. Adadshams : انقلي هذا الكلام الى السناتور الامريكي والممثلين لايوجد اختلاف عندنا اذا كان حصارن وعقوبات لقد قتلنا ودمرت منازلنا وهجرنا وفقدنا الاخوه والاحبه باسم الحريه فلن نتراجع عن التضحيه للوطن والحب السيد الرئيس بشار الاسد…قولي لهم هم الامريكان وال سعود .هذه خيبة املكم واحلامكم …امه قائدها اسد لن تركع

Translation of statement # 20 by YK:

Please send the following to the American senators and congress: In the name of freedom we suffered death of family and love ones, destruction of our homes, forced to immigrate. Sanctions and blockades on top all that will not discourage us from sacrificing for our homeland, our love for president  Bashar Assad…tell them, the Americans, the Saudis that their hopes (schemes) and dreams will fail… A nation led by Assad will not kneel.

21. Faihaa : We Syrians have experienced awful things no one could imagine.. we faced the threat of death and killing thousand times throughout these 8 years. We face the difficulties of everyday lives and needs with hopeful hearts that tomorrow we are going to have our peace back. All neighboring countries have sancted us Syrians of entering their lands with no specific reason. Oils, water, electricity, wheat flour has been limited and we are and everyone knows that we are one of the leading countries to export these materials.

And what do you expect when the war ends? A better future right? For you and your family and friends and all your fellow citizens but what happened was the exact opposite! US have imposed sanctions and embargo on us and guess what who is the most affected one? It is the humble Syrian citizen. Don’t you have any humanity in your blood?

Don’t you see that we are the ones who suffer..

By doing this you put us in a new war; the war of survival…

22. Ghenwa  : As a Syrian, it’s so hard to adapt to life here, it’s like accepting to live in hell for the rest of your life and the sad part is that you can’t do anything about it. I wake up everyday feeling impressed that i survived another day in this place, and i try my hardest to make a difference or to do something that would make me feel good about this place. We’re living under a massive threat.

We face killers, kidnappers, thieves and all kinds of devils.

I’m a 23 year old college girl that needs to work 24/7 while studying to provide food and rent and to pay her duties, my family had to travel to Germany as refugees but i was stuck here because I’m older than 18 so the german refugee law can’t except me there.

You can’t imagine how awful it is living in Syria, and the worst part is that we’re not even allowed or welcomed in other countries

23. Malak  : The economic siege on Syria increases my love for the Syrian national leadership. On the other hand there is great hatred of the United States of America

24.

أنت يا صديقي تتحدث هنا عن متطلبات حياة و بقاء ، إن تناسينا التعليم و الجامعات و الذهاب إلى الوظائف أيضاً.
نتحدث عن شعب يضيّق عليه الخناق عسكرياً بحرب شعواء منذ ثمانية أعوام لا تزال مواكب الشهداء بالآلاف ، آلاف المفقودين و المختطفين ، آلاف المشردين و المهجرين ، الحصار يعني إيقاف لقمة عيش المزارع و العامل و المدني و العسكري ، وإيقاف أي تقدم لأي حلول يمكن لها أن تساهم في معالجة مفرزات الحرب على الأقل .
لا يمكن لنا إلقاء اللوم على الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية وحدها ، كل الأطراف الغربية و العربية مشاركة بكل الوسائل لتضييق الخناق على الشعب السوري ..
الشعب هنا ، لا يمكن لنا أن نخبركم عن قوته ، إنه جبار صامد .
يمتلك القدرة على الصمود من حيث لا يدري أحد .
إنها حرب قذرة حطمت حياة الكثيرين و الحصار اليوم يقضي على ما تبقى من النور… حتى لدى هؤلاء الذين تظنهم كالأطفال بابتساماتهم ، إنهم يتألمون حقاً يا صديقي.
عاشت سوريا و عاش الشعب السوري الصامد .

Translation of statement # 24 by YK:

(Janice, this is a long statement, allow me to simply re-order the sentences in it so that it has more clarity and impact. All I am doing is to start with the last paragraph which has most of the punch. If you like to put it in the original order, just move the first sentence and put it at the end).

This is a dirty war that destroyed the lives of many, the blockade today is extinguishing whatever light is left…even those smiling children are really suffering my friend. You my friend speak of survival and livelihood, you forget education, universities, and going to work. We speak about strangling a nation with a war now in its eighth year, still killing martyrs by the thousands, thousands of missing and kidnapped, thousands of displaced and exiled, the blockade means starving the peasants, the workers, the civilian and the soldier, it stops any progress towards any solution to the root cause of the war. We cannot only blame the USA, western and arab forces are complicit in many ways in tightening the noose on the Syrian people. The people here, you cannot imagine their strength, their resilience, their resistance will be beyond anyone’s imagination. 

25.

ان الولايات المتحدة الامريكية والدول الغربية، ومعها بعض الدول العربية والكيان الصهيوني، هم من اسسوا جميع الحركات الراديكالية الارهابية، وهم من دربوهم ومولوهم ودعموهم على كافة الاصعدة، وجميعنا نعرف أن كل ما مر به الشعب السوري منذ عام 2011 ولا زال، هم من يتحملون مسؤليته، وعندما فشلت تلك الدول باسقاط الدولة السورية عسكريا-وذلك طبعا بفضل صمود الشعب السوري وتضحياته ووقوفه مع قيادته – لجؤوا الى الحرب الاقتصادية التي يدفع ثمنها الشعب السوري بكل أطيافه، لانها تؤثر سلبا على مختلف سبل الحياة، وهي تستهدف لقمة عيش المواطنين الأبرياء، حيث انها تمنع وصول المحروقات التي تعد عصب حياة المواطنين، حيث لايقدر الموظفين الوصول الى اماكن عملهم، ولا الطلاب الوصول الى جامعاتهم ومدارسهم، حتى أن المرضى يجدون صعوبة بالغة بالوصول الى المستشفيات لتلقي علاجهم، وهناك بعض الحالات فمثلا، يعاني الكثير من المرضى خصوصا المصابين بالسرطان،،، يعانون مشقة الوصول الى العاصمة ومراكز المدن لأهذ جرعاتهم العلاجية، فهل ياسيد ترامب تيتطيع ان تشرح لنا ماهو الخطر الاستراتيجي الذي يشكله مريض السرطان على السلم العالمي؟! وماهو التهديد الذي يشكله الطالب الذي يريد الوصول الى جامعته؟! وليس ذلك فحسب بل ان منع وصول الوقود يشل الحركة الاقتصاديةة ويؤدي الى غلاء الاسعار وانعدام سلع رئيسة وبالتالي فأن تلك العقوبات تستهدف المواطن البريئ الفقير وليس اي جهة اخرى، وليت الامر يتوقف عند الوقود فحسب، بل ان السيد ترامب ينوي اتهاذ المزيد من الاجراءات العقابية ضمن قانون قيصر، لكن من صمد امام كل تلك الدول وارهابها وظلمها وعدوانها كل تلك السنين، لن يهزم الآن ابدا، ويبدو ان اعداءنا نسوا اننا طائر الفينيق السوري الذي سيبعث من تحت رماد حقدهم ليعود اقوى مما كان….

Translation of statement # 25 by YK: (this can be a headline from this message: “Mr Trump would you please explain to us how a cancer patient can be a threat to world peace?! What is the threat caused by a student who wants to reach is university?)

The USA, western nations, some Arab nations, Israel, are the ones who created all radical terrorist groups, provided funding, training and supported them in all aspects, we know that these countries are responsible for all the suffering of the Syrian people since 2011. After their failure with the military regime change war, they resorted to economic  warfare where all segments of the syrian population are victims are paying the price in every aspect of their lives, it targets the livelihood of innocent people,  with oil sanctions, it limits employees ability to go to work,  students to go to schools and universities, patients from getting to get to hospitals to receive care, for example and especially cancer patients who need to be treated in specialised centres in the cities, so Mr Trump would you explain to us how a cancer patient can be a threat to world peace?! What is the threat caused by a student who wants to reach is university? Economic sanctions only impact innocent citizens, causes huge inflation and deprivation. Those (Syrian people) who resisted the injustice, aggression and terror from all these countries over all these years, will never be defeated, it seems that our enemies have forgotten that we are the syrian phoenix that will rise from the ashes of their plot to become stronger than it was. 

26. Mark  : Personally, I’m happy with the less pollution in Aleppo. It’s hard for students to teach the university as they live far away from it. But I go there walking. It takes me 30 minutes to reach it walking, and less than 15 minutes in a microbus. I dont use microbuses unless it’s urgent or tired. I’m an athlete so I’m not affected. On the other side, there are thousands of cars waiting on the line in oil stations. I can take a picture of you want. So people are wasting their time (lives) waiting. Someone in my area died from a clot because of the long hours waiting on the line.

In Aleppo there are many many cars and lot of pollution caused by cars and the huge generators that generate electricity for homes instead of government electricity. Thanks that in these last 2 weeks, the government electricity has been very very good.

Janice  it has no effects to me personally. But it will affect us as people after few months .. there will be no food and the dollar price will raise up to 1700 s.p . That’s a crime.

I’m a mentally tough young person who can handle all kinds ofbad situations. That’s why it doesn’t affect me Personally, because I find solutions and don’t give up in front of small or huge problems. I hope this oil situation wont last too long because it will beat us all sooner or later

27.

سوسن سليمان حويجي بالرغم من الحرب الجائره على..صمدنا 8 سنوات..ذقنا بها الويلات..لم يبق منزل الا وقدم شهيد. او اثنان.دمرو حياتنا فقدنا مؤساساتنا.الحكوميه شردونا سرقو سكينتا…قتلو احلامنا ولكن صمدنا واعتلينا المجد.بانتصارات جيشنا وقائدنا ولكن لكي..نبقى في الظلام والتخلف وبعد ان حققنا انتصارات كبيره على الارض حولو حربهم الى..الى حرب اقتصاديه حاربونا بلقمة عيشنا..ضيقو علينا الخناق..انهارت عملتنا .منعو عنا كل مقومات الحياة..منعو استيراد الادويه والاجهزه الطبيه. منعو استيراد المحروقات.. سيطرو على ابار النفط والغاز..سيطرو على حقول القمح والقطن. والزيتون..ولكن ما زلنا نقاوم والى اخر رمق فينا سنحارب ارهابهم وندحرهم هم المارقون ونحنا الباقون متمسكين بحب الوطن.ومتمسكين بثوابتنا الوطنيه..ووحدة الشعب السوري ووحدة ارضنا. ونقول لهم برا جئتم بحرا جئتم..جوا جئتم ستهزمون ستهزمون..
انت ومشغليكم الامريكان ودول الخليج. سندحركم الى غير رجعه..
اننا مازلنا نعيش على الكفاف ولكن ما زلنا صامدين.. صامدين…. سنعلم اولادنا في مناهجهم بانكم انتم من قتل البراءه انتم من قتل علمائنا وقاماتنا…. وحرمونا الحياة الكريمه
انتم من ارسلكم الصهاينه لتحقيق حلمهم ولكن هيهات منا الذله..

Translation of statement # 27 by YK

(it seems to be a reply to sawsan sliman) Despite an 8 year war that didn’t leave a household without a martyr, a war that destroyed our lives, our government institutions, displaced us, stole our peace killed our dreams, despite all that we resisted and were glorioulsy victorious thanks to our army and our leader (Assad), so in order to keep us in the dark and backwardness they transformed their war into an economic war targeting our daily bread, strangling us, destroying our currency forbidding us from importing all life necessities,  medicines and medical equipment, fuel, they took control of (Syrian) oil and gas fields, they occupied our wheat, cotton and olive fields. We are still resisting and we will fight to our last breath against their terror, with our love of our homeland, our patriotic principles, we will fight for the unity of our land and our people, we will win against the Americans and their gulf allies, we are surviving, resisting and we will teach pour children that you killed innocents, killed our best and brightest minds, deprived us of an honourable life, all in the service of zionist dreams.  

28. Hade 

إن ماتمارسة الولايات المتحدة الأمريكية من حصار أقتصادي جائر يستهدف الشعب العربي السوري بكل اطيافة لا يستثني منهم أحد . ويهدف إلى أضعافه وتقوية المجموعات الأرهابية التي تعمل تحت سيطرتها .
فبما نفسر أحتلالها لشرقي الفرات ودخولها الأراضي السورية بدون إذن من القيادة السورية الممثل الوحيد للشعب السوري . ولما تسمح ببيع النفط والقمح الواقع تحت سيطرتها لتركيا . وكيف لها أن تدمر الصهاريج المحملة بالنفط وقوافل الشاحنات المحملة بالمواد الغذائية المتجهة للشعب السوري بالطيران الامريكي المسمى طيران التحالف … بينما صهاريج النفط السوري والغاز السوري المسروق من قبل قسد والمجموعات الارهابية الاخرى لاتراها وتغط الطرف عنها لا بل تساندها وتدعمها . فالإدارة الامريكية تدعم الأرهاب بكل انواعه في سورية وهي التي تمده بالعتاد وتؤمن له الحماية الغطاء .

Translation of statement # 28 by YK

The economic blockade imposed by the USA is targeting every Syrian citizen without exception. Its aim is to strengthen terrorist groups that operate under its (USA) control. How do you explain the occupation of the eastern Euphrates region without permission from the Syrian government, the sole representative of the Syrian people. It is selling oil and wheat under its control to Turkey. The (US and its allies) are bombing Syrian government convoys transporting fuel and food stuffs, while supporting terrorist groups continued theft of Syrian oil and gas. The American administration supports, protects and provides cover for terrorism in Syria. 

29.

نحن لا نريد الموت لاحد بل ندفع الموت عن أنفسنا و ندافع عن حقوقنا و ثرواتنا كما كرامتنا إن كان لدى الدول المتسلطة و المنظمات الأممية أدنى شك بالرضوخ للعقوبات المفروضة على الشعب السوري و قيادته فإنكم واهمون نحن كشعب سوري مؤمن بقضيته صامدون و سائرون على خطى قائدنا بشار حافظ الأسد و الجيش السوري الاسطوري . نحن أبناء هذه الأرض و نحن الباقون

Translation of statement # 29 by YK

We don’t wish death to anyone, but we are fighting for our lives, our rights, our treasures. If the (regime change cabal) are deluded believing that the sanctions will drive the Syrian people and its leadership into submission. We the syrian people are steadfast in our resistance and our trust in our leader Bashar Hafez alAssad and in our legendary Syrian army, we the children of this land, we are the remainers. 

30. Samuel :  I’m American, with Syrian heritage living in Syria since the illegal invasion of Syria, and can tell you that the US government has done nothing but lie against Syria.

31. Qusay

أنا طبيب أسنانوأتابع حاليا دراستي للحصول على شهادة الدكتوراه، لقد تأثرت شخصيا بشكل كبير بالعقوبات الأمريكية أحادية الجانب، فمثلا عندما كنت أقوم بدراسة الماجستير كانت المعاناة كبير في العثور على سبل لنشر بحثي العلمي في المجاَلات العلمية بشكل أساسي بسبب حظر كافة وسائط الدفع الالكتروني مثل باي بال وماستر كارد، كما أنه من شبه المستحيل أن أستطيع الارتقاء ببحثي العلمي الذي أجريه حاليا للحصول على شهادة الدكتور حيث يتعذر علي التعامل مع المختبرات العلمية و الاستفادة من التقنيات الحديثة المتوفرة لديها للوصول الى نتائج طبية أفضل تنعكس بشكل أساسي على الارتقاء بالقطاع الطبي السوري وانوه إلى عزمنا وتصميمنا كسوريين على المضي قدما وتأدية دورنا الحضاري فقد قمت بإجراد قسم من بحثي في دولة لبنان لتوفر جهاز أمكنني الإستفادة منه…
أما بالنسبة لعملي كطبيب أسنان فهو لم ينج أيضا من هذه العقوبات الظالمة، حيث أصبح من الصعب الحصول على المواد الطبية اللازمة لاتمام عملي وإن توفرت تكون بأسعار عالية ولا تتناسب مع مقدرة مرضاي على تحمل تكلفتها…
وقد اضررت مرارا في الفترة السابقة إلى تأجيل مواعيد المرضى بسبب عدم تمكني من العودة من دمشق إلى العيادة بسبب انقطاع مادة البانزين التي فرضت عليها مؤخرا الولايات المتحدة عقوبات اقتصادية..
في ظل هذه العقوبات الجائرة سوف نصمد كما صمدنا ضد داعش و سننتصر و كلما ازداد صغط الولايات المتحدة علينا كلما ازداد تضامننا والتفافنا حول السيد الرئيس لننتصر معا…
شكرا لك صديقي وسام ولصديقتك لنشركم الصورة الحقيقية لمعاناتنا

Translation of statement # 31 by YK

I am a dentist currently pursuing a ph.d. The sanctions are severely impacting me and my patients. For example the inability to make simple credit card transactions, impacts my ability to do my research and to collaborate with the global scientific medical community. I was forced to do some of my work in Lebanon. The sanctions are making it very difficult and extremely expensive for me to obtain the medical supplies needed for me to do my job as a dentist in Damascus. The combination of this and fuel sanctions have forced me to cancel and delay many patients’ appointments. In the shadow of these sanctions we will resist, as we resisted against Daesh (Islamic State) and we will be victorious. The more the USA increases its pressure on us the more we will be united around our president. Thanks to my friend Wissam and your (lady) friend (probably you Janice) for publishing the real picture of our struggle.

41. Kamal: My name is Kamal, I have seen another side of the sanctions which have been going on for more than 30 years.

I used to work for a European Airline in Damascus airport, was shocked by the amount of defective Syrian aircrafts sitting in the airport while the Syrian airline was operating with only two aircrafts at that time, they were using those grounded aircrafts for spare parts for the remaining two. when I asked the technicians why can’t we repair and use those aircrafts, they told me that America is not giving us spare parts as part of the sanctions!

USA also doesn’t allow Europe to give parts to Syria.

The sad part is that on one occasion, our aircraft (the European airline I was working for) was grounded in Syria and needed a part, the Syrians gave them that without hesitation, I saw that with my own eyes.

What America is doing is actually putting innocent civilian lives in danger.

Sorry for the long draft

42. Ali 

امريكا تتركنا بحالنا ونحنا بالف خير من الله امريكا هي الشيطان الاكبر والسعوديه بلد الكفر والعهر (اطهر ارض وانجس شعب)

43. From a Syrian American. Samira  : I’m a pharmacist who saw many people suffering from gland disease because of sanction on Syrians there was no any possibility to diagnose it it was not allowed for Syrians to buy the radioactive tablets used for diagnosis .

Now as American from Syrian  origin I’ll not vote for any official in the USA government .

Congress senate or president who will impose or support sanctions on Syrians .

Not only me many of my friends Syrians and Americans too

44. Vicken  We have been effected by this embargo so badly and still we are ..

Every thing is running by oil and gas and when they desapere from your daily life , you have that feeling Life Stops ..

45. Maggy   It is so unhuman act to deal with people of any country or city or area as you are dealing with the Syrian people …I am from Aleppo and I live this dishumility every day while you all, are sitting in your homes ,driving your vehicles, living your ordinary life….your brothets or sisters in humanity, the Syrian people the Aleppo’s people are not living, they are dying step by step because of your cruality because of your enmity, because of your selfishness because of your greediness….its enough how much you tried to ruin Syria to ruin Aleppo you can ruin whatever you want you who are sitting in the top ….but be sure you will never be able to ruin the strong will of the Syrian people …the will to live to survive to struggle to kill the will of the Satan

46. Robert  Aleppo is dying…and Trump is happy.

Aleppo was the industrial capital of Syria, Turkey and allies tried to destroy it and stole all the heavy industry there…the western minded terrorists destroy many of the city’s buildings and the infrastructure, they destroy the old Aleppo’s civilization….All that couldn’t break the people’s will…and now the american sanctions try it again….I’m sure that no one can bend this people’s will who did endure an 8 years random war.

Sanctions on Syria means to make its people suffer…not more

47. From a Syrian American: Stepan: It is so unhuman act to deal with people of any country or city or area as you are dealing with the Syrian people …I am from Aleppo and I live this humility every day while you all ,are sitting in your homes ,driving your vehicles, living your ordinary life….your brothers or sisters in humanity ,the Syrian people the Aleppo’s people are not living ,they are dying step by step because of your cruelty because of your enmity, because of your selfishness because of your greediness….it’s enough how much you tried to ruin Syria to ruin Aleppo you can ruin whatever you want you who are sitting in the top ….but be sure you will never be able to ruin the strong will of the Syrian people …the will to live to survive to struggle to kill the will of the Satan

*

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 Mideast Discourse

During the past week, the situation significantly escalated in Libya, with Turkey expanding its military involvement in the conflict.

In late November, Turkey signed with the Government of National Accord (GNA), which controls only a small part of northern Libya, deals on security cooperation and maritime jurisdiction. By this move Ankara, the main backer of the GNA and pro-GNA militants, tried to legalize its economic zone claims in the eastern Mediterranean and thus legalize its controversial drilling activities in the region. At the same time, Turkey sees its involvement in the Libyan conflict as a tool of expansion of its own influence in the entire region.

The Turkish military already deployed Bayraktar TB2 combat drones to the self-proclaimed Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, and is reportedly preparing to deploy troops in Libya. Turkish intelligence and advisers already operate in the war-torn country. So, the security deal with the GNA is just a formal move to legalize and expand the military presence.

The Turkish actions caused a strong negative reaction from its regional competitors like Greece, Egypt and the UAE.

On December 12, the Libyan National Army (LNA), backed by the UAE, Egypt and to some extent by Russia, resumed its advance on the GNA-held city of Tripoli. The LNA led by Field Marshal Khalifa Haftar controls most of Libya and so far has demonstrated itself as the only force that can restore the Libyan territorial integrity and statehood. It describes the Tripoli advance as an anti-terrorism operation because of the GNA’s open links with radical militant groups, including those affiliated with al-Qaeda.

Currently, LNA forces are storming the southern suburbs of Tripoli. If Ankara sends troops to support the existence of the GNA and secure its recent legal gains, the situation in Libya will escalate rapidly. Therefore, Turkey, Egypt and the UAE will find themselves in a state of the indirect military conflict in Northern Africa.

*

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

Leslie Gore’s 1963 hit song ‘You Don’t Own Me’ started off with the line “You don’t own me, I’m not just one of your toys”. So it is with the overwhelming number of our population who, despite NOT knowing it, are owned by this Amerikan empire. Sadly, they have always been owned and manipulated by the  many tentacles that make up this Octopus. Prolific journalist Ed Curtin recently did a piece on the history of 20th Century US propaganda beginning with the wizard of it all, a man who actually influenced Nazi Germany’s (believe it or not) ‘Propaganda Minister’ Joseph Goebbels. That would be none other than Edward Bernays, who the predatory corporate world labeled as the ‘Creator of modern advertising’. Bernays sold wars as easily as he could sell soap!

So, there you have it. First off, we have an economic system predicated on not only ‘Dog eat dog’ but ‘Dog DEVOUR dog’. With governments, local, state and federal, who provide the sharks in this (so called) ‘Free Market’ with plenty of legal leeway, the sky is truly the limit! When the empire instituted the Taft Hartley Act in 1947, they made sure that massive strikes would have to wait until the 80 day ‘Cooling off period’ issued by the president was over. Plus, the act also outlawed what was known as ‘The Closed Shop’ whereupon anyone then  hired as an employee had to join the union that represented that company’s workers. In essence, the ending of this Closed Shop requirement made it more difficult for unions to have the ‘bargaining power’ of a mass of members. This is not the time for me to elaborate how polarized this economic system has become. Anyone who works for someone else must realize that the Boss makes out better each and every day over his or her worker. Feudalism, folks, is right around the corner.

There is an epidemic nationwide of people who many refer to as ‘Car poor’. This means that they are driving new vehicles that cost them, going by 2018 researched numbers, an average of $ 523 a month. With used car loans for people with low credit scores at well over three times the prime rate of 4.75%, one can imagine how much their monthly charges are. Factoring out certain car buyers who do so out of ‘super egos’, most of us need that car to get us to work, to shop and to get our kids wherever they need to be. Not all of us live in cities like NYC, Boston and Chicago that have rail mass transit. Suburban and rural Amerikans rely on their car and truck daily.

Home ownership and rentals have seen what happens when home prices go up. For a prospective buyer, the higher prices can just squeeze out many who just cannot afford either the down payment or the monthly mortgage costs. For those who have no choice but to rent  there is either a bigger problem. When  home prices rise, the landlords (oh how I despise that term) just raise the rents. When the home prices fall, well, the prices stay the same. So, the owner has the edge over the tenant. Why? Well, usually ‘Demand’ always is much more than the  ‘Supply’. On top of that this writer has already, in previous  columns, told my story of the many Land Lords I have had. Not once did I ever have a Land Lord who kept the residence in tip top condition and did the needed repairs… on time! Once upon a time there was this thing called ‘Rent Control’  AKA ‘Rent Stabilization’ where the tenants had some protection from predatory Land Lords. No more gang. Only those situations where the apartments have been ‘Grandfathered’ does such rent control still exist.

Driving in my neighborhood the other day I was behind a car that had a ‘Retired Navy Veteran’ on the license plate. The driver looked to be my age, that of a baby boomer. So, he was referring to having served perhaps during the Vietnam (so called) War era. Well, the truth is that the only time a person should be proud to carry such a label is if he or she served during the ONLY time in modern history that we were at war: WW2. In all the other instances no one should be proud to say they served in our military. Instead, the veteran should speak up and say that they served in one of our phony wars that served no purpose except for the liars and hypocrites that created them! To see the myriad of such license plates and baseball caps that advertise being in those phony wars serves no purpose but to give legitimacy to those actions by our government. When I see a man or woman wearing something that states that they are part of ‘Veterans for Peace’ I can admire that effort. All this hogwash of people carrying license plates such as ‘Proud Parent of a Marine’ only gives fuel for this obscene militarism we have to endure as citizens. It is bad enough that you cannot tune into a sporting event without the giant flag draped across the field or arena, and the honor guard and the solemn crowd with hands over hearts during the National Anthem. Are we back in totalitarian Nazi Germany or Stalin’s Soviet Union?

A friend told me last night that figures came out that around 40% of Amerikan workers earn less than the poverty level of $ 19,000 a year. How many of those people most likely have to reach that figure by working more than one job as well? Forget about having good benefits with jobs that pay that little. Yet, the embedded mainstream media portrays our economy as being vibrant, with the Stock Market setting new records. For whom? Not I… and you? Yes folks, this empire does own us, and the Two Party/One Party scammers make sure we stay that way!

Have a merry Christmas… Bah Humbug!!

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a contributing editor for The Greanville Post. He is also frequently posted on Global Research, Nation of Change, World News Trust and Off Guardian sites. He is the son and grandson of Brooklyn NYC longshoremen and a graduate of Brooklyn College, class of 1974. Since the 2000 election debacle Philip has written over 300 columns on the Military Industrial Empire and other facets of life in an upside down America. He is also host of the ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid‘ radio show, co produced by Chuck Gregory. Philip can be reached at [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image: A woman living in the New York City subway. LIberation News photo.

The concatenation of violence in Nigeria from 1966 to 1970, a train of events which involved communal fighting, army mutinies and a civil war, is correctly viewed as a period during which the ethnic Igbos of the country’s south east bore the overwhelming brunt of the suffering. They died at the hands of rampaging mobs of their fellow citizens, as well as through the munitions employed by the Federal armed forces. They were also the victims of mass starvation. This suffering was of course a focus of Western news reporting of the conflict and of the machinery of propaganda employed by the secessionist state of Biafra.

Today, their plight is still referred to by pro-secessionist Igbo activists, as well as by the wider community of Igbos through the commemoration of events such as the Asaba Massacre of October 1967. But there is another often neglected side to the story, that is, of those Nigerian civilians, including non-Igbo minority communities, who were co-opted into the Biafran project and who suffered at the hands of Biafran troops and paramilitary organisations. The reasons for this neglect is multifaceted, but it is one which is documented and in need of acknowledgement if Nigeria is to come to terms with the terrible human rights abuses of that dark chapter in its history.

The enduring image of the Nigerian Civil War for many around the world was perhaps the sight of naked Kwashiorkor-ridden children wracked by the pain of starvation. They were Igbo children caught up in a war in which the secessionist state of Biafra had been quickly encircled and an air and sea blockade instituted by the Federal Military Government. The brutality of the conflict was encapsulated by the filming of a British television company of the execution of a captured Biafran man by an officer of the Federal army who had promised to spare his life. That incident provided a living, breathing image to go along with the reports of atrocities which had preceded the civil war and which were apparently continuing.

But the story of innocents suffering was not a totally one-sided one. A forgotten aspect of the civil war concerns the human rights abuses perpetrated by the Igbo-dominated Biafran side against minority groups within what had been the former Eastern Region of Nigeria, as well as against other Nigerian ethnic groups in the Mid-Western State when it was temporarily occupied by Biafran forces.

A missing aspect of the narrative concerns the ill-treatment meted out to minority groups within secessionist Biafra such as the Efik, Ijaw, Ogoja and Ibibio. It would be remiss not to remind that these groups were targeted along with Igbos in the northern part of the country during the explosions of communal violence in May 1966, as well as between September and October of that year. But they would later suffer persecution and human rights abuses at the hands of the largely Igbo Biafran Army.

Much of this stemmed from real and imagined sympathy on the part of members of these communities for the Federal cause. The minority communities of the old Eastern Region had after all campaigned for the creation of more states; something which the Nigerian Head of State, Lt. Colonel Yakubu Gowon had done in May 1967.  And while some non-Igbo officers such as Lt. Colonel Phillip Effiong, an Ibibio, served in the Biafran armed forces, others such as Colonel George Kurobo had defected to the Federal side.

An example of abuses against Biafran minorities concerns that of the Ikun people, who were suspected of collaboration. This led to detentions, looting and raping by Biafran troops in Ikunland. Many males were rounded up and ‘disappeared’, while others were shot to death.

Map produced in the Friday February 16th 1968 edition of the Canadian newspaper, the Windsor Star 

The Ikun are minuscule in numbers and the Biafran felt particularly threatened by the larger ethnic groups from Calabar, Ogoja and Rivers provinces where the pre-war agitation for states of their own to be carved out of the Eastern Region had been particularly strong. Many communities within these areas received the attention of the Biafran security apparatus. They were subjected to constant surveillance and some were imprisoned and subjected to torture. They were also frequently subjected to accusations of being ‘saboteurs’. And when the Federal armies encroached further into Biafran-held territory, the fear of minority fifth-columnists led to the wholesale eviction of communities such as the Kalabaris from their homelands. They were relocated to Igbo towns and cities to live in refugee camps.

Another example of this anti-minority sentiment was reflected by the activities of the Biafran Organisation of Freedom Fighters (BOFF), a paramilitary organisation created to protect Biafran communities, but which used operations to turn on minority groups.

One of the most publicised war crimes committed by the Biafrans occurred when Federal troops landed in Calabar in October 1967. About 167 civilians in detention were lined up and executed by Biafran soldiers. The Nigerian Consulate in New York published details of this atrocity as an informational advertisement in the New York Times as part of the propaganda war with the Biafrans, whose own propaganda machinery at home, and operating internationally under the auspices of the Geneva-based Markpress public relations firm, always had the edge over the Federal side.

The propaganda war also included several false claims made by the Biafran side about massacres said to have been perpetrated by the Federal army including one in Urua Inyang. This was noted in the December 6th 1968 edition of the Ottawa Citizen. That same article, one syndicated by the Toronto Star, also recorded the direct testimony of a Red Cross worker in the Calabar sector of the war in which he stated that Biafran soldiers shot civilians when retreating. This was an often repeated modus operandi.

Biafran Army atrocities in another theatre of war, namely that of the Mid-Western part of the country, also needs recounting. For it was here that the infamous massacre by Federal troops of civilians in the Igbo-town of Asaba took place. The Asaba Massacre, which occurred between October 5 and 7 in 1967, is seen as a continuum of the anti-Igbo pogroms of 1966. Other opinion contextualises it in relation to the ill-treatment meted out to non-Igbo communities in the Mid-West State during its occupation by Biafran forces.

During the Biafran invasion in August of 1967, some soldiers had paused to kill northerners who lived in the Hausa Quarter of Asaba; this in apparent revenge for the aforementioned anti-Igbo attacks in the Northern Region. And in other parts of the temporarily conquered Mid-West, non-Igbos were subjected to torture, imprisonment and death on suspicion of having sympathy for the Federal cause. Rape, extortion and seizure of property were common. The conduct of Biafran troops, who were styled as a liberation army, was marked by acts of indiscipline particularly in the urban centres of Benin, Sapele and Warri. In Warri, the men of the 18th Battalion went on looting sprees, searching for anything that they could convert into cash.

The Biafran side had taken the Mid-West’s neutral position, or at least, its refusal to support the Eastern Region’s secession as an effectively anti-Igbo stance. The relationship between the Igbo military administrators and the non-Igbo Mid-West populace was from the outset an antagonistic one. For instance, one E.K. Iseru, a lawyer of Rivers origin who was based in Warri would testify at a tribunal hearing that he was once stripped naked and detained for three days without food because he was on record as having agitated for the creation of Rivers State. When he protested about his hunger, one of his captors retorted that “there is no food for Hausa friends.”

When the Biafran occupiers began to lose ground, their paranoia increased. Each set back on the battlefield was blamed on saboteurs, and in the desperate circumstances of continual retreat, the policies of the Biafrans turned to draconian, inhumane solutions. The murder of non-Igbos intensified. In Abudu, over 300 bodies were found in the Ossiomo River and on 20 September 1967, many non-Igbos were slaughtered at Boji-Boji Agbor. And at Asaba, Ibusa and Agbor non-Igbos were taken into custody by Biafran soldiers and transported in two lorries to a rubber plantation along the Uromi-Agbor Road where they were put to death.

In the tit-for-tat atmosphere of war, it is perhaps no surprise that an estimated 200 Igbos lost their lives when the Federal takeover of Benin City began on September 21st. Later, mobs in places such as Warri and Sapele would turn on the Igbos. Many Igbos, including the erstwhile administrator, Major Albert Okonkwo who had declared the Mid-West to be the “autonomous independent sovereign republic of Benin”, fled eastwards for their lives.

That the suffering of non-Igbo minorities became something of a forgotten history is not in question. It is also not unique. Most people are likely more familiar with the Jewish Shoah of the mid-20th century than they are with the Armenian genocide earlier on in that century. Fewer still are aware that the first genocide of the 20th century took place in South West Africa (present day Namibia) where Kaiser-era German colonists sought the extermination of the Herero and the Nama peoples.

Nigeria is of course not the only nation to have lingering wounds over a civil war as recent events in both the United States and Spain remind. Much of the discourse remains venomous and resolutely uncomprehending of an understanding of the position of both sides in the war. Many prefer to take a particularistic view with a tendency on the part of Biafran diehards to deny the occurrence of these events and insist on the primacy of Igbo victimhood.

It is an extremely unsatisfactory state of affairs that is part and parcel of an often banal, yet poisonous, tribally-motivated discourse. This only serves to polarise attitudes and perpetuate enmities from one generation to the other.

When referring to the toxic exercise of apportioning ethnic responsibility for the murderous revolution in the Russian empire in 1917 and the ensuing bloody civil war, the Russian Nobel Laureate Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn once spoke of the need to avoid “scorekeeping” and comparisons of moral responsibility. He said, “Every people must answer morally for all of its past – including that past that is shameful. Answer by what means? Where in all this did we go wrong? And could it happen again?” These words speak to the spirit in which Nigerians ought to engage in when examining their past. The fact that minorities of the former Eastern region suffered brutal ill-treatment at the hands of both Federal and secessionist forces gives their plight an added poignancy. History owes it to them that their suffering also be acknowledged.

Anything else would be an abrogation of our basic humanity.

*

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.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. This article was originally published on his blog, Adeyinka Makinde.

India’s participation in “Israel’s” Trans-Arabian Corridor for connecting the Eastern Mediterranean and Afro-Asian (“Indian”) Ocean will render New Delhi’s North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) with Iran, Azerbaijan, and Russia economically redundant, consequently pushing Russia closer to Pakistan as Moscow seeks to ensure the viability of its southern connectivity vision through N-CPEC+ instead.

The Islas Malvinas, or more commonly known as the Falkland Islands, archipelago was invaded by the United Kingdom in 1833 and its occupation has continued to date. Argentina’s claim for sovereignty through diplomatic means has been a state policy since the failed liberation attempt through military means in 1982. Although it lost intensity during the Mauricio Macri government, President Alberto Fernández of the leftist Justicialist Party, reinforced in October his commitment to “renew the claim of sovereignty” of the 750 islands of the archipelago. In a patriotic tone, the then presidential candidate criticized the relations Macri had with the United Kingdom during a debate that took place on October 13.

“In these years the government has been very busy doing business with the United Kingdom and has forgotten sovereignty [over] the Falklands. Over 700 soldiers have died there. In memory of them all I will make things different,” Fernández said during the first Argentine presidential debate.

Fernández will re-establish a Secretariat for the ​​Malvinas, demonstrating that he is taking the issue against the British very seriously. During his swearing in speech before the National Congress on December 10, the new president informed that he will create a Secretariat, with the participation of “all political forces,” the southern province of Tierra del Fuego that is closest to the Malvinas, representatives of the academic world and former fighters of the 1982 war, to concentrate on the reclamation of the occupied archipelago.

Fernández included the claim by the Falkland Islands in his speech when he assumed the presidency and said “there is no more place for colonialism in the 21st century.”

“We know that for this task it does not reach the mandate of a Government, but a medium and long-term State policy, so I will convene a Congress where all political forces participate,” he announced.

Fernández decision to re-establish the Malvinas Secretariat and to convene a Council on the subject restores confidence and firmness in Argentina’s demand against the British after complete servitude by Macri. The importance the new president has given to Argentina’s demand for sovereignty over the islands is a good sign and it is the first time a new president has spoken with such depth to the Malvinas issue when they first take office.

Fernández’s stance demonstrates that the Malvinas do not belong to any president, they are a state matter in which it is necessary to work as a state policy for not only the present, but also looking to the future. The establishment of the Secretariat is aimed to positively re-establish consensus on the basic of and essential demand for sovereignty, leaving the differing approaches in Argentina to the cause and the 1982 war conflict in the past with the aim of looking only towards the future.

It must be remembered that a new Sao Paulo-Malvinas flight opened on Argentine National Sovereignty Day on November 20, a massive slap in the face to the Argentinian veterans from the 1982 war, who did not hesitate to go out protest. LATAM inaugurated the flight which has a stop in the Argentine city of Córdoba. War veterans protested in front of the Foreign Ministry in Buenos Aires against what they described as treachery by Macri. Fernández has an opportunity to gain even more popular support by forcing the cancellation of flights by LATAM to the Malvinas and by ensuring the islands have no lifeline except with their colonial masters in London approximately 13,000 kilometers away.

Conservative Boris Johnson won the British election on December 12, which put the South American islanders on alert. The possibility of the definitive implementation of Brexit will harm the local economy, whose production has the European Union as one of its main markets. Brexit is a favorable situation for Argentina because in the view of the European Union, the Malvinas are an extracontinental territory, something that will complicate the local economy, just as what will happen with British-occupied Gibraltar on the Iberian Peninsula and areas in Cyprus.

In this context Argentina must start seeking new alliances with European countries and condemn the maintenance of a British colony on the complete opposite side of the Atlantic and with total impunity. With Spain wanting the return of Gibraltar and Cyprus wanting the return of Akrotiri and Dhekelia, Argentina can very easily find new allies in the European Union willing to cooperate efforts to reclaim sovereignty over territory occupied by the British. Brexit therefore not only threatens the breakup of the United Kingdom with a push for Scottish independence and Irish unification, but it could potentially see the return of the Malvinas to Argentina.

*

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

The Boeing executives and marketeers responsible for over-ruling Boeing engineers on the 737 MAX are still in charge of this very troubled aerospace company. Boeing CEO Dennis Muilenburg and the rubber-stamp Board of Directors, with two trophy ambassadors, are still running Boeing – thirteen months after the deadly 737 MAX crash in Indonesia and nine months after the deadly 737 MAX crash in Ethiopia that together took 346 lives. Boeing said in October that it would appoint a board member with deep air safety experience, but it has not happened yet. (Muilenburg is the only board member with an aeronautical engineering background)

Boeing has displayed an egregious pattern of mismanagement. The company is in trouble from contractors, the Department of Defense, and NASA. California Representative John Garamendi said Boeing had “serious quality issues” with the KC-46 aerial tanker used by the military and accused the company of “pushing profits over quality and safety.” According to NASA’s Inspector General Paul Martin, NASA “essentially paid Boeing higher prices to address a schedule slippage caused by Boeing’s 13-month delay.”

First-rate former Boeing engineers, including John Barnett and Ed Pierson, are exposing the reckless conditions at the Boeing 737 and 787 Dreamliner plants in Washington state and South Carolina.

Boeing managers and directors are still on the job and paying themselves handsomely. These reckless marketeers are able to get away with this because Congress and the White House have disabled the FAA and turned it from a safety watchdog into an industry lapdog, leaving Boeing free to self-certify its planes.

With intensifying investigation by the House Committee on Transportation & Infrastructure, under the chairmanship of Congressman Peter DeFazio, a stunning internal FAA risk assessment turned up. After the October 29, 2018 Lion Air Flight 610 was hijacked by powerful MCAS software which took control of the aircraft from its pilots. A December 2018 FAA memo concluded that there would be 15 catastrophic crashes globally over the life of the 737 MAX fleet – ranging 30 to 45 years. That would mean the deaths of at least 2900 human beings.

Dr. Alan Diehl, an aerospace engineer with extensive experience at the FAA, at the Department of Defense, and in private business, told the Wall Street Journal that this prediction “would be an unacceptable number in the modern aviation-safety world.” The FAA analysis, surfacing very late in the wake of the two planes going down due to Boeing’s criminal negligence, was conditioned on the 737 MAX not flying until there are design and software corrections.

Chairman DeFazio noted other design problems with the Boeing 737 MAX, including rudder vulnerabilities.  Boeing leadership has displayed all sorts of derelictions,  including refusing to adequately inform pilots about the problems with the 737 MAX, producing faulty training manuals, and refusing to insist on full simulator training. Not only that, but the 787 Dreamliner has been found to have inadequate protection in case of lightning strikes (another Boeing bosses over-ruling of their own engineer’s warnings). Boeing also laid off hundreds of quality control inspectors in its factories, preferring to rely on machines.

The next step for Dickson would be to ask FAA Deputy Administrator Daniel Elwell and Associate Administrator for Safety Ali Bahrami to resign. Elwell and Bahrami turned their backs on airline passenger safety, let Boeing dictate its own safety decisions, and kept the public and Congress in the dark. There is no way the FAA can recover its responsibilities so long as Elwell and Ali Bahrami are still in positions of any responsibility.

Bahrami admitted he wasn’t even aware of his own agency’s risk assessment of the Boeing 737 MAX, noted above.

Meanwhile, the families of the deceased continue to advocate that the Boeing 737 MAX be required to undergo full certification with full pilot simulator training. In their grief, these wonderful family members are fighting daily for the future safety of tens of millions of airline passengers.

Please see flyersrights.org for updates and your participation. You can find their comprehensive report here.

And see a Democracy Now! Interview on Boeing’s misdeeds.

Common Dreams: Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.

*

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

Ralph Nader is a consumer advocate, lawyer, and author. His latest books include: To the Ramparts: How Bush and Obama Paved the Way for the Trump Presidency, and Why It Isn’t Too Late to Reverse Course, How the Rats Re-Formed the Congress, Breaking Through Power: It’s easier than we think, and Animal Envy: A Fable

Some 18,000 homes in Jerusalem are under the threat of demolition by the Israeli occupation authorities, the city’s deputy governor announced yesterday.

Abdullah Siam told The Voice of Palestine that the Israeli demolition activities were being carried under the pretext of the homes’ “illegal construction.”

“The demolition of the Palestinian homes in occupied Jerusalem comes in the context of Israel’s punitive measures, forced displacement, ethnic cleansing, and the Judaization of the occupied Jerusalem,” Siam pointed out.

The Israeli occupation has been demolishing Palestinian homes and structures in the occupied Jerusalem in an effort to expand settlements and force Palestinians from their homes and lands.

*

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.

On Wednesday, House members impeached Trump on two counts as expected, politicized voting almost entirely along party lines — 230 – 197 for alleged abuse of power, 229 – 198 for alleged obstruction of Congress.

No Republicans supported the scam, choreographed for political reasons, seeking to delegitimize and weaken Trump ahead of November 2020 elections, a scheme more likely to fail than succeed.

Four Dems broke ranks. Tulsi Gabbard voted “present” on both articles of impeachment, calling proceedings a “partisan endeavor,” adding:

“I could not in good conscience vote against impeachment because I believe President Trump is guilty of wrongdoing.”

“I could also not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our countries.”

Three other Dem House members did not vote. They represent districts Trump carried in 2016.

Notably, 20 GOP House members not running for re-election next year voted against the sham impeachment. Some broke with Trump and party leaders on other issues.

Two articles of impeachment introduced last week were approved by majority vote along party lines:

Article I: Abuse of power, falsely claiming Trump sought foreign interference from Ukraine in the US 2020 presidential election.

Ukrainian President Zelensky debunked the accusation, publicly saying there was no Trump blackmail threat, no quid pro quo, no conspiracy, nothing discussed about withholding US aid for political reasons.

Article II: Obstruction of Congress, falsely claimed he “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment,” adding:

“(W)ithout lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House…”

Trump’s unwillingness to participate in the sham process did not rise to the level of obstructing Congress.

Nor did urging current and former regime members not to cooperate with Dems because proceedings lacked legitimacy.

Some did anyway, showing no official presidential order barred their participation.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the impeachment process was unfair, saying:

Dems “refused GOP witness requests in the Intelligence Committee, denied the GOP a hearing day in the Judiciary Committee, and rushed the impeachment debate and vote.”

“They claim impeachment is a serious, solemn moment but then sprinted to judgment to meet the political needs of swing-district members who want(ed) (proceedings) over fast.”

Impeachment charges excluded mention of specific criminal behavior.

Ahead of the Wednesday vote, Law Professor Jonathan Turley said: “You could impeach every living president” by the standards Dems used to impeach Trump.

Asked how this will affect future presidents, he said it’s “going to have a significant impact (because) this sets the standard quite low for impeachment.”

A new Gallop poll released Wednesday, conducted from Dec. 2 – 15, showed Trump’s approval rating at 45%, up from 39% when the impeachment inquiry began — one point below his highest 46% number since taking office.

The poll also found that 51% of respondents oppose impeachment, 46% supporting it.

Only 5% of Republican respondents support impeachment compared to 85% of Dems.

The latest Quinnipiac University, PBS/NPR/Marist, and USA Today/Suffolk University polls also show a slim anti-impeachment majority.

Polls by Fox News and CNN show independents evenly divided on the issue.

Dems pinned false hopes on Robert Mueller’s Russiagate witch-hunt probe. Its failure led to Act II — Ukrainegate, proving no more successful.

Everything thrown at Trump for political reasons so far backfired. Even hugely one-sided anti-Trump media reports failed to  weaken and make him vulnerable to removal from office by impeachment.

No legal justification exists to impeach Trump — no “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” in two articles of impeachment as required under the Constitution’s Article II, Section 4.

No evidence proves he colluded improperly or illegally with Ukraine, as Dems falsely claim — wanting him removed from office for illegitimate reasons.

Articles of impeachment against him ignored his high crimes of war and against humanity, along with grievously breaching the public trust — because the vast majority of congressional members share guilt.

On Wednesday, Politico reported that Pelosi “threatens to delay a Senate impeachment trial,” adding:

“Some legal scholars have suggested she could consider refusing to transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate” because the GOP-controlled body will reject weak charges against Trump.

Pelosi so far said nothing about sending articles of impeachment to the Senate. According to senior Dems, she’ll likely delay transmittal at least until early January.

Dems must next adopt a second resolution, naming impeachment managers to send the process to the Senate.

The body’s Majority Leader Mitch McConnell sides with Trump, saying he won’t “leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to ‘guilty,’ ” separately saying: “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process.”

“The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate.”

According to two GOP senators, whip John Cornyn and another speaking anonymously, McConnell will move to acquit Trump instead of mobilizing Republicans to dismiss articles of impeachment alone.

A super-majority of 67 votes is needed to convict. No GOP House support for impeachment indicates at least overwhelming Senate opposition by Republican members.

In November 2020, voters will have final say. Both parties, Trump, and his Dem opponent, will try using the impeachment issue to their advantage.

Based on where things stand now, neither side has an advantage.

A slight majority against impeachment and Trump’s higher approval rating than when the inquiry began may aid his chance for reelection if he retains this edge.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Palácio do Planalto, Flick

Mass incarceration in the US is a national disgrace, a crime against humanity, including countless numbers of political prisoners — pesecuted behind bars for their beliefs and activism, for resisting the dirty system, judged guilty by accusation.

Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning are best known, Assange imprisoned by Britain at the Trump regime’s request, extradition to the US to follow for truth-telling journalism.

Or perhaps he’ll perish behind bars because of appalling mistreatment, slowly killing him, including by denying him essential treatment for health issues, letting him deteriorate instead.

Numerous human rights workers, activists for justice, academics, and medical professionals called for upholding his rights — including Doctors For Assange on Monday.

By open letter to Australian authorities, they highlighted a “medical emergency” affecting him gravely, saying:

He “risk(s) death due to (appalling) conditions of his detention in a UK prison.”

Their November 22 open letter to Britain’s home secretary got worldwide attention.

“(H)aving received no response from the UK Government, we call upon you to intervene as a matter of urgency. As Australian (officials), you have an undeniable legal obligation to protect your citizen against the abuse of his fundamental human rights, stemming from US efforts to extradite Mr Assange for journalism and publishing that exposed US war crimes.”

He requires urgent medical treatment in “an appropriate hospital setting,” what’s unavailable to him under virtual gulag prison conditions.

Without proper care needed immediately, he may “die in a UK prison.”

“(T)he United Nations Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (earlier) concluded” that conditions under which he’s held “constitute(s) torture.”

“Medical experts have repeatedly advised the UK Government of potentially catastrophic consequences should it fail to facilitate adequate medical care for Mr Assange.”

After interviewing Assange in London’s Belmarsh prison, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Professor Nils Melzer condemned his “collective persecution,” adding:

Besides his deteriorating physical condition, he shows “symptoms typical for prolonged exposure to psychological torture, including extreme stress, chronic anxiety and intense psychological trauma.”

Britain in cahoots with the Trump regime is killing him slowly. US hardliners likely want him dead to avoid a public trial that’ll highlight fraudulent charges against him.

“Should Mr Assange die in a British prison, people will want to know” why Australian authorities didn’t intervene for the rights of one of their citizens, the letter said.

“(A)s doctors, (we) feel ethically compelled to hold governments to account on medical grounds speaks volumes about the gravity of the medical, ethical and human rights travesties that are taking place.”

“It is an extremely serious matter for an Australian citizen’s survival to be endangered by a foreign government obstructing his human right to health.”

“It is an even more serious matter for that citizen’s own government to refuse to intervene, against historical precedent and numerous converging lines of medical advice.”

“We urge you to negotiate Julian Assange’s safe passage from Belmarsh Prison to an appropriate hospital setting in Australia before it is too late.”

Worldwide pleas like the above for Assange fell on deaf ears in Britain, Australia, and the West overall, this letter likely to be no more effective than earlier efforts on Assange’s behalf.

Chelsea Manning was indefinitely detained for invoking her constitutional right to remain silent.

She courageously refuses to give grand jury testimony, potentially harmful to Assange. She won’t aid the Trump regime’s intent to crucify him for doing the right thing.

Earlier, dozens of US, UK, Australian and Canadian academics, human rights activists and lawyers signed an open letter on behalf of Assange and Manning, saying:

“Over the past decade, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks have revealed human rights abuses and a string of instances of corporate, government and intelligence agency corruption.”

“As scholars and citizens concerned with the protection of whistleblowers and a free press, with the ability to hold government to account for such abuses, we call for the immediate release of Julian Assange and Chelsea Manning from prison.”

“We reiterate the concerns of the United Nations special rapporteurs regarding the ongoing mistreatment of Mr Assange and Ms Manning by the US and UK authorities, and affirm the statement of the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention that ‘the right of Mr Assange to personal liberty should be restored.’ ”

Slow-torture is killing Assange in Britain. From prison on December 17, Manning tweeted:

“celebrating yet another birthday in jail 🎂 thanks to all of you for your wonderful letters (and dank memes) ✉️ always thinking of y’all”

Perhaps the above was tweeted for her, along with her opposition to the unconstitutional grand jury process, remarks published on November 20, saying:

“I am not alone in objecting to the grand jury as a dangerous relic that has evolved in ways that increase its power without increasing its protections,” adding:

“I refuse to participate in a process that has clearly transformed into something that violates the spirit, if not the letter of the law.”

Independent jurists know that the grand jury system is “an unbridled arm of the police and prosecution” — intended to get indictments by fair or foul means.

“Today’s grand juries do not safeguard…fundamental (constitutional) rights and are easily subject to abuse,” Manning correctly explained.

“The grand jury subpoena, combined with compulsory immunity, gives unrestrained powers to US prosecutors to oppress activists and their communities.”

“Although, generally, people have no obligation to cooperate with law enforcement investigations, in the context of a grand jury subpoena, people who refuse to talk about their first amendment beliefs and associations can be locked away, or fined, as sanctions for their principled refusal.”

The US grand jury system is a modern-day version of centuries earlier UK Star Chamber court proceedings, convened to convict, not acquit.

The US national security state enforces judicial unfairness, grand juries a tool that facilitates it.

A former New York Court of Appeals chief judge earlier said prosectors control the grand jury process. Their manipulative practices can “indict a ham sandwich.”

The Supreme Court earlier ruled that federal grand jury prosecutors need not adhere to customary trial rules and procedures. Nor must they reveal exculpatory evidence.

Instead of protecting the public from oppressive government, they function as a “sword” against fundamental constitutional rights, doing whatever it takes to get indictments.

Rife with abusive practices, the grand jury process is an unconstitutional system that should have been restructured or abolished long ago.

It’s a secret tribunal, individuals forced to answer questions without counsel protecting their rights.

No judge is present during proceedings to assure fairness. Prosecutors alone decide what evidence grand jurors see, concealing what they wish at their discretion.

Witnesses risk unwitting self-incrimination, even when guilty of no crimes. They’re denied their constitutional right to remain silent.

Earlier Manning said she’d rather “starve to death” than give testimony potentially able to be used against Assange.

She’s fined $1,000 a day each day she remains silent, amassing an unrepayable debt, facing further incarceration for what the ACLU calls the “debt to prison pipeline” if she’s released for what she’s detained for now.

Manning, Assange, and countless other US political prisoners face what police state viciousness is all about — the rule of law abandoned in pursuit of its interests.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Featured image is from Massoud Nayeri

When is a war crime not a war crime? When, according to British officials, that war crime has been given a makeover as a “charitable act”. 

The British state is being asked to account for its financial and moral support for a UK organisation accused of complicity in the ethnic cleansing of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians from their homeland. So far, it appears determined to evade answering those questions.

The target of the campaign is the Jewish National Fund UK (JNF UK), which describes itself as “Britain’s oldest Israel charity”. Noting its role in “building Israel for over a century”, the organisation boasts: “Every penny raised by JNF UK is sent to a project in Israel.”

In fact, donations to JNF UK were used to buy some of the 250 million trees planted across Israel since 1948, the year when 750,000 Palestinians were forced out at gunpoint from their homes by the new Israeli army. Those expulsions were an event Palestinians call their Nakba, or “catastrophe”.

Afterwards, the Israeli army laid waste to many hundreds of Palestinian villages, turning them into rubble. Forests planted over the villages were then promoted as efforts to “make the desert bloom”.

Subsidised by taxpayers

In fact, the trees were intended primarily to block Palestinian refugees from ever being able to return to their villages and rebuild their homes. As a result, millions of Palestinians today languish in refugee camps across the Middle East, evicted from their homeland with the help of the forests.

JNF UK raised the funds for a parent organisation in Israel, the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael Jewish National Fund (KKL-JNF), which enforced the expulsions by using the donations to plant the forests. The Israeli state’s ethnic cleansing of the native Palestinian population was effectively disguised as a form of environmentalism.

Britain and other Western states appear to have accepted that barely concealed deception. They have long treated their local JNF fundraising arms as charities. JNF UK received charitable status in 1939, nearly a decade before Israel was created as a Jewish state on the ruins of Palestinians’ homeland.

Campaigners with Stop the JNF protest outside the offices of the UK attorney-general on 29 November (Courtesy of Stop the JNF)

The forests are still managed with money raised through tax-deductible donations in Britain and elsewhere. Since 1990, donations to JNF UK have been eligible for Gift Aid, meaning that the British government tops up donations by adding its own 25 percent contribution.

In effect, the ethnic cleansing of Palestinian villages has been subsidised by the British public.

Backing from MPs

Britain’s continuing sanction of these crimes – and others – is being belatedly given scrutiny by human rights activists in Britain.

A campaign launched in 2010 called Stop the JNF – backed by various Palestinian solidarity organisations – has aimed to shame British officials into ending JNF UK’s charitable status.

The campaign gained parliamentary support a year later, when 68 MPs signed an early-day motion condemning the JNF’s activities and calling for its charitable status to be revoked. The motion was sponsored by Jeremy Corbyn, then a backbencher but now leader of the Labour Party, and attracted cross-party support, though no Conservative MPs backed it.

Nonetheless, the campaign has faced institutional resistance every step of the way. Over the past six years, appeals to the Charity Commission, a department of the British government, to intervene and remove JNF UK from its list of registered charities have been repeatedly rebuffed.

Rather than seeking explanations from JNF UK, British officials have largely ignored the evidence they have been presented with.

Trees ‘a weapon of war’

The campaign has highlighted one specific and egregious example of JNF UK’s work. The organisation raised donations to create a large recreation area west of Jerusalem called British Park, which includes forests, over three Palestinian villages that were destroyed by the Israeli army after 1948. A sign at the entrance reads: “Gift of the Jewish National Fund in Great Britain.”

Many of those who donated to the project, often British Jews encouraged to drop pennies into the JNF’s iconic fundraising “blue boxes”, had no idea how their money was being used.

The Stop the JNF campaign included testimony from Kholoud al-Ajarma, whose family was expelled from the village of Ajjur during the Nakba. Today, the family lives in the overcrowded Aida refugee camp, next to Bethlehem in the occupied West Bank.

KKL-JNF planted trees at British Park on land to which Ajarma’s family, and many others, still have the title deeds. In doing so, the group violated the protected status of such lands in international law.

In her submission, Ajarma wrote: “It was British pounds that helped destroy my village. The Jewish National Fund is not merely planting trees. These trees have been used as a weapon of war, a weapon of colonisation.”

Israeli scholar Uri Davis has observed that the establishment of British Park “ought to be classified as an act, and as a policy, of complicity with war crimes”.

4,000 protest letters

The Charity Commission’s barrister, Iain Steele, conceded in a submission that it was possible the JNF had violated the Ajarma family’s rights by creating British Park on their land. Nonetheless, the Charity Commission has on two occasions refused to consider revoking JNF UK’s charitable status. Rather than addressing the merits of Stop the JNF’s arguments, the Charity Commission has evasively claimed that the campaigners, even the Ajarma family, are not affected by whether the JNF is registered as a charity.

In June, a commission official even wrote to the campaign with an astounding defence that appears to strip the term “charitable” of all meaning. He wrote: “In simple terms the test for charitable status is a test of what an organisation was set up to do, not what it does in practice.”

The commission’s apparent reasoning is that, so long as the JNF includes fine-sounding words in its mission statement, what it does in practice as a “charity” does not matter.

In April, Stop the JNF appealed the commission’s decision not to revoke JNF UK’s charitable status to the First-tier Tribunal. The judge, however, told them that neither Ajarma nor the campaign itself had a legal right to be heard. He concluded instead that only the attorney-general could overrule the Charity Commission’s decision. In October, the attorney-general rejected the campaigners’ claims without investigating them.

In an attempt to revive the case, Stop the JNF has submitted more than 4,000 letters of protest to the attorney-general, calling on him to reassess the organisation’s continuing charitable status.

A parallel call was made to the advocate-general of Scotland, which has a separate legal system.

‘Intense political controversy’

The JNF did not respond to questions sent by Middle East Eye about its role in planting the forests, its charitable status and other criticisms of its involvement with Israel.

The establishment’s apparent unwillingness to confront JNF UK’s historical record is perhaps not surprising. The JNF was one of the key organisations that helped to realise a British government promise made in the 1917 Balfour Declaration to help create a “Jewish home” in what was then Palestine.

Two years later, Lord Balfour declared that the colonisation of Palestine by Zionist Jews from Europe was “of far profounder import than the desires and prejudices of the 700,000 [Palestinian] Arabs who now inhabit that ancient land”. Little, it seems, has changed in official British attitudes since.

Steele, the Charity Commission’s barrister, successfully urged the First-tier Tribunal not to get involved, arguing that it would be “drawn into matters of intense political controversy, for no obvious benefit to anyone”.

Surely, Ajarma and many millions more Palestinians would strenuously dispute that assessment. They would have much to gain should Britain finally demonstrate a willingness to confront its continuing role in aiding and comforting groups such as the JNF, accused of complicity in crimes against international law in historic Palestine.

As Stop the JNF organisers wrote in their own letter to the attorney-general: “These people [Palestinian refugees such as the Ajarma family] are not defined by the JNF as recipients of their charity, but they have human and legal rights which the actions of this charity unacceptably violate.”

Reminiscent of dark regimes

The campaign has not only focused on JNF UK’s historic role in dispossessing Palestinians. It points out that the JNF is still actively contributing to Israel’s own grossly discriminatory and racist policies – another reason it should be barred from being considered a charity.

JNF UK’s accounts from 2016 show that it has funded the OR Movement, an Israeli organisation that assists in the development of Jewish-only communities in Israel and the occupied territories.

One such Jewish community, Hiran, is being established on the ruins of homes that belonged to Bedouin familes. They were recently forced out of their village of Umm al-Hiran – a move the legal rights group Adalah has described as “reminiscent of the darkest of regimes such as apartheid-era South Africa”.

On its website, JNF-KKL congratulates “Friends of JNF UK” for supporting the establishment of nearby Hiran Forest. The JNF claims the forest will “help mitigate climate change” – once again disguising ethnic cleansing of Palestinians as a form of environmentalism.

Funding the Israeli army

JNF UK’s annual accounts in 2015 also revealed that it contributed money to the Israeli army under the title “Tzuk Eitan 9 Gaza war effort” – a reference to Israel’s attack on Gaza in late 2014, whose death toll included some 550 Palestinian children.

A United Nations commission of inquiry found evidence that Israel had committed war crimes by indiscriminately targeting civilians – a conclusion confirmed by the testimonies of Israeli soldiers to Breaking the Silence, an Israeli whistle-blowing group.

Equally troubling, an investigation last month by Haaretz reported that, under Israeli government pressure, the KKL-JNF has been secretly directing vast sums of money into buying and developing land in the occupied West Bank to aid Jewish settlers, again in violation of international law.

The funds were allegedly channeled to Himnuta Jerusalem, effectively the JNF’s subsidiary in the occupied territories, disguised as funds for projects in Jerusalem.

Veteran Israeli journalist Raviv Drucker observed that KKL-JNF was rapidly converting itself into a banking fund for the settlers. He added that its “coffers are bursting with billions of shekels [and] the settlers’ appetite for land is at a peak”.

Given the lack of transparency in KKL-JNF’s accounts, it is difficult to know precisely where the funds have come from. But as more than $70m has been spent by KKL-JNF over the past two years in the occupied West Bank, according to Haaretz, the funds likely include money raised by JNF UK.

In any case, research by Stop the JNF suggests JNF UK has no objections to making “charitable” donations to settlements in the West Bank. Its accounts record contributions to Sansana, a community of religious settlers close to Hebron.

Settlements are considered a war crime under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

No ‘duty’ towards equality

KKL-JNF is a major landowner in Israel. Under a special arrangement with the Israeli government, it owns 13 percent of Israel’s territory – often lands seized from Palestinian refugees. The arrangement includes a provision from 1961 that the primary aim of the JNF in Israel is to acquire property “for the purpose of settling Jews on such lands and properties”.

In 2004, KKL-JNF explained its role. It was “not a public body that works for the benefit of all citizens of the state. The loyalty of the JNF is given to the Jewish people and only to them is the JNF obligated. The JNF, as the owner of the JNF land, does not have a duty to practice equality towards all citizens of the state.”

In marketing and allocating lands only to Jews, the legal group Adalah has noted, the JNF in Israel intentionally rides roughshod over the rights of a fifth of the country’s population who are Palestinian by heritage.

In other words, the JNF is integral to an Israeli system that enforces an apartheid-style regime that prevents Israel’s Palestinian minority from accessing and benefiting from a substantial part of Israel’s territory.

Violating British law

This institutionalised discrimination has been made even more explicit since Israel last year passed the nation-state law, which declares: “The State views the development of Jewish settlement as a national value, and shall act to encourage and promote its establishment and strengthening.”

As the Stop the JNF campaign notes, British charities should abide by legal responsibilities enshrined in UK legislation, such as the 2010 Equality Act, which makes it illegal to discriminate based on “colour, nationality, ethnic or national origin”.

The JNF UK is clearly failing to abide by this core legal principle. It is operating in a foreign state where it has helped, over many decades, to fund activities that grossly violate both British law and international law. The evidence compiled by Stop the JNF indicates that JNF UK has itself been complicit in aiding the commission of war crimes, both in Israel and the occupied territories.

It has also given financial and moral succour to its parent organisation, which has crafted a system of apartheid that confers superior land rights on Jews over Israel’s Palestinian minority.

British taxpayers should not be subsidising institutionalised discrimination and crimes abroad – even more so when they are being dressed up as “charitable acts”.

*

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.

Jonathan Cook, a British journalist based in Nazareth since 2001, is the the author of three books on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. He is a past winner of the Martha Gellhorn Special Prize for Journalism. His website and blog can be found at: www.jonathan-cook.net. 

Featured image: Campaigners with Stop the JNF protest outside the offices of the UK attorney-general on 29 November (Courtesy of Stop the JNF)

Since the planting of limpet mines on oil tankers off the coast of the UAE in May, the subsequent downing of the US surveillance drone in the Persian Gulf and the brazen attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia on September 14, choreographed protests have erupted in Lebanon and Iraq since October.

Lebanese American journalist Rania Khalek has documented for The Gray Zone [1] the US-backed political forces are spearheading the “color revolution” in Lebanon, where Iran-backed resistance group Hezbollah is part of the coalition government.

Similarly, Iraq has been through the US occupation from 2003 to 2011 and is known to have US sympathizers in the Kurdish-held north and the Shi’ite-majority south of the country, where the US oil majors operate and dispense largesse among local chieftains of myriad clans and fraternities.

Unlike Lebanon and Iraq, though, Iran itself is not entirely immune to foreign-backed political demonstrations despite the fact that it does not have any imperialist collaborators on the ground, besides the fringe militant group Mujahideen-e-Khalq (MEK) funded by the US, France and Israel.

The proximate cause of the November 15 protests in Iran was steep rise in petrol prices by the Rouhani government, dubbed as “sabotage” by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei. The worst-hit region was Khuzestan province in southwest Iran which is home to large Sunni Arab minority known to have grievances against Tehran and susceptible to infiltration by imperialist stooges.

Regarding the recent escalation in the Persian Gulf, although the Houthi rebels based in Yemen claimed the responsibility for the September 14 complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia, and they have UAV-X drones having a range of 1,500 kilometers, Washington dismissed the possibility.

Instead, the United States accused Tehran of mounting the attack from Iran’s territory, which is unlikely because Iran would never leave behind smoking gun evidence implicating Tehran, as the strategically vital Persian Gulf is monitored round the clock by American satellites and surveillance aircraft. The most likely suspects were Iran-backed militias in Iraq because the complex attack involving drones and cruise missiles was staged from the north.

Quoting Iraqi intelligence officials, David Hearst reported [2] for the Middle East Eye a day after the September 14 attack that drones and missiles were launched by the Hashed al-Shabi militia from its bases in southern Iraq.

Although Washington concocted “credible intelligence” the attack was mounted directly from southwest Iran, what lends credence to the report the attack was staged from southern Iraq is the fact that several eye witnesses reported seeing drones traversing the Kuwaiti airspace, entering from north and hitting targets south in eastern Saudi Arabia.

Moreover, in the weeks preceding the attack, Washington had accused the Hashed al-Shabi militia of mounting another attack in eastern Saudi Arabia claimed by the Houthi rebels because the oil-rich Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia is nearer the Iraq border than it is to the Houthi stronghold in Saada, Yemen.

Furthermore, in the weeks before the attack, the Iran-backed militias blamed [3] the US and Israel in August for mounting airstrikes on their bases in Iraq targeting the missile storage facilities. The missiles were recently provided to the militias by Iran. It’s worth noting that 5,000 American troops and numerous aircraft are still deployed in Iraq, therefore the likely culprit targeting the Iran-backed militias in Iraq was the United States, not Israel.

Taking cover of the Israeli airstrikes, Washington has conducted several airstrikes of its own on targets in Syria and Iraq and blamed them on Israel, which frequently mounts air and missile strikes against Iranian operatives and Hezbollah militia in Syria and Lebanon, though Israel has never conducted an airstrike in Iraq because for that Israeli aircraft would have to violate Jordanian airspace.

Besides the airstrikes on the missile storage facilities of Iran-backed militias in Iraq, it is suspected that the US air force was also behind a recent airstrike at the newly built Imam Ali military base in eastern Syria at al-Bukamal-Qaim border crossing alleged to be hosting the Iranian Quds Force operatives.

In addition to planting limpet mines on the UAE’s oil tankers and shooting down the American Global Hawk surveillance drone, the September 14 attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility and the Khurais oil field was the third major attack in the Persian Gulf against the interests of Washington and its regional clients.

That the UAE had forewarning about imminent attacks is proved by the fact that weeks before the attacks, it recalled forces from Yemen battling the Houthi rebels and redeployed them to man the UAE’s territorial borders.

Nevertheless, a puerile prank like planting limpet mines on oil tankers can be overlooked but major provocations like downing a $200-million surveillance aircraft and mounting a drone and missile attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility that crippled its oil-processing functions for weeks can have serious repercussions.

The September 14 attack on the Abqaiq petroleum facility in eastern Saudi Arabia was an apocalypse for the global oil industry because it processes five million barrels crude oil per day, more than half of Saudi Arabia’s total oil production.

The subversive attack sent jitters across the global markets and the oil price surged 20%, the biggest spike witnessed in three decades since the First Gulf War when Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, though the oil price was eased within days after industrialized nations released their strategic oil reserves.

In order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf’s oil in the energy-starved industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data: Saudi Arabia has the world’s largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production is 10 million barrels; Iran and Iraq each has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million barrels per day each; while UAE and Kuwait each has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3 million barrels per day each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788 billion barrels, more than half of world’s 1477 billion barrels proven oil reserves.

Not surprisingly, 35,000 American troops have currently been deployed in the military bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of 1980, which states: “Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military force.”

It bears mentioning that alongside deploying several thousand American troops, additional aircraft squadrons and Patriot missile batteries in Saudi Arabia in the aftermath of the Abqaiq attack, several interventionist hawks in Washington invoked the Carter Doctrine as a ground for mounting retaliatory strikes against Iran.

The only saving grace of Iran is its military strength, geostrategic location in the Persian Gulf and the rhetoric of resistance against American imperialism appealing to the grassroots sentiments of the Middle East’s masses, who stand firmly united behind the revolutionary government, nevertheless Tehran has prudently avoided further escalating the conflict with Washington’s client regimes in the region following the choreographed demonstrations in Lebanon and Iraq since October.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a regular contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] US-backed parties have infiltrated Lebanon’s protests

[2] Iranian drones launched from Iraq carried out attacks on Saudi oil plants

[3] Iranian-backed militia blames US and Israel for attacks on bases in Iraq

The US-led coalition is selling oil looted at oilfields in southern Deir Ezzor to Turkey, Syrian President Bashar Assad said in an interview with China’s Phoenix Television. Assad said that “the Turkish regime plays a direct part in selling the oil, previously with Jabhat al-Nusra, later with ISIS and today with the Americans.” The President said that there are no prospects for the US presence in the country and if US troops remain, they will face a popular resistance and “pay the price”.

Despite Assad remarks, by now US forces had faced little difficulties with their presence in the oil-rich part of eastern Syria. No attacks on US troops by some local resistance or major security incidents of this kind took place during the last few months. However, this may change if the situation in the region escalates.

Over the past week, the Syrian Army has expanded its military presence in northeastern Syria, especially along the M4 highway. The only security incident between Syrian and US troops happened near the al-Qamishli airport, where a Syrian Army unit blocked a US military convoy and forced it to turn around. After this, the US military send reinforcements to the countryside of the city.

On December 15, Turkish President Recep Erdogan repeated his claims that Russia and the United States have not facilitated the complete withdrawal of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units, the core of the Syrian Democratic Forces, from the agreed safe zone area. He claimed that there are still “terrorists” in Manbij and “Turkey is full of resolve on fighting against terrorism”. Mimicking Assad, Erdogan said that the “terrorists”, the term used in Turkey to describe Kurdish armed groups, sell oil to the Assad government.

*

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