Trump just dramatically increased trade tensions between the US and China after publicly demanding that President Xi hold talks with him at the G20 otherwise he’ll immediately impose tariffs on $300 billion worth of imports, which is nothing less than economic blackmail and a serious form of psychological warfare on his counterpart. The concept of “face” is one of the most important characteristics of Chinese culture and under no circumstances should a person ever be seen as “losing” it, though Trump just put Xi in a dilemma whereby he’s bound to “lose face” regardless of whatever he does. It’ll be seen as capitulating to Trump’s blackmail if he holds talks with him at the G20, whereas declining to do so will carry with it an unprecedented economic punishment. Either way, Xi “loses face”, and the lose-lose position that he’s in is bound to exacerbate factional divisions within the Communist Party over the country’s approach to the “trade war“.

On one hand, there are those who think that China should cut a deal with the US before the tariffs become so severe that they trigger a large-scale supply chain rerouting that leads to long-term economic problems, though the paradox is that agreeing to Trump’s “Open Door” policy would shock the country’s economic system either way. On the other hand, some voices think that China should dig in its heels for a prolonged “trade war” and proactively take all necessary measures to soften the blow of the US’ de-facto sanctions and secure the many links of the global supply chain within their country. These so-called “hardliners” (from the American perspective) will probably gain more influence over Xi as a result of Trump’s economic blackmail against him and his impending “loss of face”, though somewhat counterintuitively, that might be exactly what the US hopes will happen if one accepts the theory that Trump never wanted to reach a deal with China to begin with but was instead looking for a pretext to implement his promised policy of “economic nationalism”.

Either way, the Chinese are now on the strategic defensive in more ways than one since Trump’s psychological warfare on Xi is a global humiliation for such a proud Great Power. The American leader was thought to have crossed the Rubicon last month when he insulted the country’s negotiating team by accusing them of double-dealing after they supposedly changed their mind at the very last minute right when they were supposed to have formalized the trade agreement that they were trying to clinch for months already, one which would have probably been lopsided in America’s favor. In hindsight, it might have been a ploy by the Chinese to go along with these talks for so long before suddenly reconsidering their position in a bid to get the US to balance out the terms in its desperation to seal the deal ahead of the 2020 elections, but that would have been a fundamental misreading of Trump’s intent should it have been the case. As it stands, whatever the Chinese do will play into Trump’s hands, unless of course they have a ace up their sleeves that they’ve yet to play.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) 19th summit is scheduled to be held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan, on 13-14 June 2019. It is a Eurasian political, economic, and security alliance, the creation of which was announced on 15 June 2001 in Shanghai, China by the leaders of China, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan; but its Charter, formally establishing the organization, was signed in June 2002 and entered into force on 19 September 2003. The original five nations, with the exclusion of Uzbekistan, were previously members of the Shanghai Five group, founded on 26 April 1996. Since then, the organization has expanded its membership to eight countries when India and Pakistan joined SCO as full members on 9 June 2017 at a summit in Astana, Kazakhstan.  There are 4 observer states Afghanistan, Belarus, Iran, and Mongolia. While 6 countries are dialogue partners: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Cambodia, Nepal, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. It is well understood that the organization may expand in the future extending full membership to other countries too.

The Heads of State Council (HSC) is the supreme decision-making body in the SCO, it meets once a year and adopts decisions and guidelines on all important matters of the organization. This summit will be 19th in its series and will be held in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan on 13-14 June 2019.

All heads of states (Presidents/ Prime ministers) are expected to attend the subject summit. Pakistan Prime Minister Imran Khan will be attending this year’s summit. All preparations are in place for his trip. He is also scheduled to meet President Putin and President Xi on sideline meetings and expected to discuss broad spectrum on all issues by lateral basis especially the dynamic geopolitics of the region and mutual cooperation in all dimensions. He might grab the chance to meet Prime Minister Modi too.

In fact, Pakistan plays a pivotal role in Eurasia and serves as gateway to the Arabian Ocean – Hot Waters. It is an all-weather, shortest, and most economical trade route. It might change the trade pattern for the whole world. Pakistan’s deep-sea Gwadar seaport will be the hub of all future commercial activities.

Pakistan enjoys historical, cultural and religious links with most of the central Asian states. China is time tested reliable friend, Russia is also a country of shared destiny. Russia and Pakistan are suffering western coercion and sanctions.

SCO is a platform to discuss all relevant issues and promote cooperation and harmony. With the emerging geopolitics of the region, SCO compels all of the member states to formulate a joint strategy to counter the growing trend of coercion, threats, use of force and military build-ups. US-Iran Tension, Sino-US tension, Afghan Issues, Indo-Pacific Alliance and anti-BRI sentiments, all will be top of agenda and may be discussed in depth.

While all heads of states meet, it is expected to come up with the solutions to maintain the stability of the region, peace, and development. This region inhabits almost half of the world’s population. Stability of this region means the stability of the whole world.

This region is rich in natural and human resources. There exists a huge potential for this region to overcome poverty and gain prosperity. There is a dire need to promote cooperation, mutual understanding, harmony, and stability.

The expectations are high and it is time to take extraordinary measures to overcome the existential challenges in this region. Trust, “if there is a will, there is a way”.

*

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

Prof. Engr. Zamir Ahmed Awan, Sinologist (ex-Diplomate), Non-Resident Fellow of CCG (Center for China and Globalization), National University of Sciences and Technology (NUST), Islamabad, Pakistan.

There has been an on-going tectonic shift in the West since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods agreement in 1971. This accelerated when the USSR ended and has resulted in the ‘neoliberal globalization’ we see today. 

At the same time, there has been an unprecedented campaign to re-engineer social consensus in the West. Part of this strategy, involves getting populations in Western countries to fixate on ‘global warming’, ‘gender equity’ and ‘anti-racism’: by focusing on identity politics and climate change, the devastating effects and injustices brought about by globalized capitalism and associated militarism largely remain unchallenged by the masses and stay firmly in the background.

This is the argument presented by Denis Rancourt, researcher at Ontario Civil Liberties Association, in a new report. Rancourt is a former full professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada and author of ‘Geo-economics and geo-politics drive successive eras of predatory globalization and social engineering: Historical emergence of climate change, gender equity, and anti-racism as state doctrines’ (April 2019).

Image result for Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire

In the report, Rancourt references Michael Hudson’s 1972 book ‘Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire’ to help explain the key role of maintaining dollar hegemony and the importance of the petrodollar to US global dominance. Aside from the significance of oil, Rancourt argues that the US has an existential interest to ensure that opioid drugs are traded in US dollars, another major global commodity. This explains the US occupation of Afghanistan. He also pinpoints the importance of US agribusiness and the arms industry in helping to secure US geostrategic goals.  

Since the fall of the USSR in 1991, Rancourt says that US war campaigns have, among other things, protected the US dollar from abandonment, destroyed nations seeking sovereignty from US dominance, secured the opium trade, increased control over oil and have frustrated Eurasian integration. In addition, we have seen certain countries face a bombardment of sanctions and hostility in an attempt to destroy energy-producing centres that the US does not control, not least Russia.

He also outlines the impacts within Western countries too, including: the systematic relative loss of middle-class economic status, the rise of urban homelessness, the decimation of the industrial working class, corporate megamergers, rising inequality, the dismantling of welfare, financial speculation, stagnant wages, debt, deregulation and privatisation. In addition, the increased leniency in food and drug regulation has led to the dramatic increase in the use of the herbicide glyphosate, which has been concurrent with upsurges of many diseases and chronic ailments. 

In the face of this devastation, Western nations have had to secure ongoing consent among their own populations. To help explain how this has been achieved, Rancourt focuses on gender equity, anti-racism and global warming as state doctrines that have been used to divert attention from the machinations of US empire (and also to prevent class consciousness taking hold). I recently asked Denis Rancourt about this aspect of his report.   

***

Colin Todhunter: Can you say a bit about yourself and how you came to produce this report? What is it meant to achieve? 

Denis Rancourt:  I’m a former physics professor, environmental scientist and a civil rights advocate. I currently work as a researcher for the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (ocla.ca). During a conversation about civil rights issues I had with the executive director of OCLA, we identified several important societal and economic phenomena that seemed to be related to the early 1990s. So, I eventually settled in to do some ‘heavy lifting’, research wise.

While there is no lack of hired intellectuals and experts to wrongly guide our perception, my research demonstrates a link between surges in large-scale suppression and exploitation of national populations with the acceleration of an aggressive, exploitative globalization.

CT: In your report, you’ve described the consequences of the abandonment of Bretton Woods and the dissolution of the USSR in terms of dollar hegemony, US militarism and the devastating impacts of ‘neoliberal globalisation’ both for nation states and for ordinary people.

DR: There is little doubt that Russian and Chinese analysts have a solid understanding of what I have outlined in my report. For instance, foreshadowing Trump’s trade war, the People’s Liberation Army Major-General Qiao Liang’s April 2015 speech to the Chinese Communist Party’s Central Committee and government office, included the following:

“Since that day [dissolution of Bretton Woods], a true financial empire has emerged, the US dollar’s hegemony has been established, and we have entered a true paper currency era. There is no precious metal behind the US dollar. The government’s credit is the sole support for the US dollar. The US makes a profit from the whole world. This means that the Americans can obtain material wealth from the world by printing a piece of green paper. […] If we [now] acknowledge that there is a US dollar index cycle [punctuated by engineered crises, including war] and the Americans use this cycle to harvest from other countries, then we can conclude that it was time for the Americans to harvest China…” 

CT: You discuss the need for states to ensure consent: the need to pacify, hypnotize and align populations for continued globalization; more precisely, the need to divert attention from the structural violence of economic policies and the actual violence of militarism. Can you say something about how the issue of global warming relates to this?

DR:  Irrespective of whether the so-called ‘climate crisis’ is real, exaggerated or fabricated, it is clear, from the data in my report, that the ethos of global warming was engineered on a global scale and benefits the exploiters of the carbon-economy and, more indirectly, the state.

For example, one of the studies that I review shows that a many-fold increase in mainstream media reporting about global warming suddenly occurred in the mid-2000s, in all the leading news media, at the same time that the financiers and their acolytes such as Al Gore decided to make and manage a global carbon economy. This media campaign has been sustained ever since and the global warming ethos has been institutionalized.

Carbon sequestration schemes have devastated local communities on every occupied continent. If anything, carbon schemes − from wind farms to biofuel harvesting to industrial battery production to solar-cell array installations to mining uranium to mega hydro-dam construction and so on – have accelerated habitat destruction. 

Meanwhile, economic and military warfare rages, glyphosate is dumped into the ecosphere at unprecedented rates (poured on GM herbicide-resistant cash crops), active genocides are in progress (Yemen), the US is unilaterally withdrawing from nuclear treaties and forcing an arms race with next generation death machines and US-held extortionary loans are serviced by land-use transformation on the scale of nations; while our educated children have nervous breakdowns trying to get governments to “act” on “climate”. 

In the early-1990s, a world conference on climate environmentalism was an express response to the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This was part of a global propaganda project intended to mask the new wave of accelerated predatory globalism that was unleashed now that the USSR was definitively out of the way. 

CT: What are your thoughts on Greta Thunberg and the movement surrounding her? 

DR:  It is sad and pathetic. The movement is a testament to the success of the global propaganda project that I describe in my report. The movement is also an indicator of the degree to which totalitarianism has taken hold in Western societies; wherein individuals, associations and institutions lose their ability for independent thought to steer society away from the designs of an occupying elite. Individuals (and their parents) become morality police in the service of this ‘environmentalism’.

CT: You also talk about the emergence of gender-equity (third wave feminism) and anti-racism as state doctrines. Can you say something about this? 

DR: In my report, I use historical institutional records and societal data to demonstrate that a triad of ‘state religions’ was globally engendered and emerged on cue following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This triad consists of climate alarmism, exaggerated tunnel-vision focus on gender equity and a campaign of anti-racism focussed on engineering thoughts, language and attitudes.

These state ideologies were conceived and propelled by UN efforts and the resulting signed protocols. Western academia enthusiastically took up and institutionalized the program. Mainstream media religiously promoted the newly minted ethos. Political parties largely applied increased quotas of gender and race elected representatives. 

These processes and ideas served to sooth, massage and occupy the Western mind, especially among the upper-middle, professional and managerial classes and the elite classes of economically occupied territories but did nothing to alleviate the most violent and globally widespread forms of actual racism and misogyny as a result of predatory globalization and militarism. 

Ironically, the global attacks on human dignity, human health and the environment were in proportion to the systematic and sometimes shrill calls for gender equity, anti-racism and climate ‘action’. The entire edifice of these ‘state religions’ leaves no room for required conflicts of class and expressly undermines any questioning of the mechanisms and consequences of globalization. 

CT: Can you say something about the Gilets Jaunes (Yellow Vests), Brexit and the Trump electoral phenomenon. 

DR: Combine aggressive globalization, constant financial predation, gutting of the Western working and middle classes and a glib discourse of climate change, anti-racism and gender equity and something has to give. French geographer Christophe Guilluy predicted the reactions in some detail, and it is not difficult to understand. It is no accident that the revolting working- and middle-classes are critical of the narratives of climate crisis, anti-racism and gender equity; and that their voices are cast by the mainstream media as racist, misogynist and ignorant of science.

It seems that any class which opposes its own destruction is accused of being populated by racist and ignorant folks that can’t see that salvation lies in a carbon-managed and globalized world. It becomes imperative, therefore, to shut down all the venues where such an ‘ignorant lot’ could communicate their views, attempt to organize and thereby threaten the prevailing social order. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

“Just as surely history is the product of those forces which seek to dominate in the name of glory or profit, equally is history the product of the forces of those who rebel” – Michael Manley, 1978

As a critical social science scholar, I reject the positivist view that reality is objective and in order for knowledge to be considered legitimate, it must be substantiated only through statistical data and citing “authorities”. I acknowledge that I have biases. My ontological and epistemological standpoint is primarily shaped by my personal experiences – whether through interactions with others, observations, listening for diverse views, reading extensively and being in a position of vulnerability.

I grew up in rural Jamaica and was raised by my grandparents. My mother was a college drop out and I have never met my father. In the small community of Barbary Hill, I witnessed and experienced abject poverty, deplorable roads, limited access to water, no scope for stable and quality forms of employment, teenage pregnancy, gang violence and hovering above all of these deficiencies is people’s quest to survive in a socially and economically depressed environment.

Majority of the household heads including mine are women. Their faces are punctuated by severe hardships but they never expressed complaint as they found various means to make a living and to take care of their families. Even when the bodies of the women were tired, they were forced to carry the burden of their cross and the cross of others because this is a “natural” expectation of them. The ability to balance multiple roles up to the point of extreme exhaustion.

As a young woman and a researcher, my life is punctuated by navigating multiple sources of exploitation through resistance in what I call a “Babylon” (capitalist) system. I was told that no one in Jamaica from my community would ever be selected for any grand opportunity because Jamaica is Kingston, the capital. I resisted. I went ahead at the age of ten and I won my first public speaking competition. I remember when a teacher told a group of students in my grade nine class in high school that no matter what authority does, authority will always be right and will never stand punishment. I resisted.

I ran for the Student’s Council and I helped to make students more aware of their rights and I fought to end the grade streaming system. I remember when I had almost quarter million in debts to pay for both tuition and rent in my undergraduate years in Jamaica and I was working in a low paying job. I resisted. I left the job. I was punished by not receiving my outstanding compensation but I left with dignity because I realize the true value of my labour. I will never be compensated by a group of people who are only interested in profit making. Recently, I have decided to re-define feminine beauty on my own terms in which I decided to cut my hair extremely low. My hair sends a political message that I am in the process unlearning to learn another side of a story that I am willing to discover. It also suggests that I am a rebel that is re-born –  radical and strategic in my challenge to the status quo.

Thus, before education can be used as tool for social transformation and before a researcher can create an alternative discourse and representations of people on the margins, the researcher must first establish her personal philosophy. When I say that my personal is always political, I mean that it is a political choice to use my personal experiences as a set of philosophies to guide the way in which I speak, write, engage and my deliberate use of data collection methods that are not imposed from the top-down. When I say that my personal is always political, I mean that I am able to acknowledge situations in which I possess power and privilege but I am also cognizant of the fact that I become one with the subjects (women workers) who I wish to study because of a common nationality, gender, race and social class.

It is no longer ‘I’ but ‘we’. When I say that my personal is always political, I mean that I have become more aware that it is not necessarily my boss that is my enemy but a rather a broader system that thrives on extraction of ideas and labour. When I say that my personal is always political, I mean that I have become more aware that while I am situated in a country that has a long contentious history of violent encounters and subjugation of marginalized peoples, my decision and the decision of women to resist is also a part of that history that is usually omitted. This is because the political agenda is one that is white, hegemonic and patriarchal.

My first experience with workers was when I had worked as a research assistant in Jamaica.  Island wide focus group discussions according to clusters and electronic questionnaires were conducted in order to investigate perceptions and attitudes towards work and management in Jamaica’s public and private sectors. To organize the focus group discussions according to clusters was an extremely challenging task because many names on the list were no longer working in a specific department, they have transferred to another cluster, have retired or have died. When I did daily calls, many workers expressed skepticism in their tone because they thought that if they shared information about their feelings towards management, they would risk losing their jobs. Others were excited to be selected for participation and they are others who flatly rejected the idea even though there is a confidentiality and informed consent paper to be signed prior to the focus group discussion.

My most memorable experience was the first focus group discussion among workers in a well renowned public sector company in Jamaica. As the note taker, I observed the way in which the workers had entered the hotel room. The pace of their walk was extremely slow almost as if they were walking on hot bricks. This suggests anxiety and distrust towards the new environment. While they expressed warm greetings, they never displayed sharp eye contact with the facilitator or me in the beginning. I realized that they were taking time to be settled mentally and to decipher who we are and if we could be trusted before they demonstrated a full sense of comfort, support and trust. Within the introductory remarks, the participants were reminded about the confidentiality protocol and that us, as researcher will protect their identity and that this is a safe space for sharing their thoughts and feelings about work and management. The faces of the workers immediately became more radiant with smiles and deep gasps of relief. One lady in particular, began to clap her hand in approval by responding, “Well, I am ready and I can’t wait to share!”. The focus group discussions were guided by a semi-structured interview style of questions.

The first question, in my opinion, was the most potent of all questions. This is not only because it sets the context for the meta-perspective on the attitudes and perceptions of workers towards work and management but because the responses helped me to connect more with the experiences of the worker. Each participant was assigned the name of a fruit for confidentiality purposes and they were asked, “what images come to your mind when you think of your workplace?”

An outspoken participant whose fruit name was Star Apple said:

The image that comes to my mind when I think about my work place is a burial ground because as a young person, you come in with so many high aspirations, bright ideas and good potential but management buries that. Management is concerned about how well you can follow what they want you do and not what you can add”.

Another worker whose fruit name is Pineapple added,

Yes, that is so true. I see the work place as a plantation. You work extremely hard with little or no compensation. You will go above and beyond to do what you need to and management treats you like shit. I remember when we were short of staff one week and we had to adjust by taking on extra duties. I lift heavy weight materials and worked over time. I did not receive additional compensation. One day, it was raining and I called the office for an umbrella and no one answered the phone. No umbrella. No lunch and no extra compensation and when I fell ill, all my supervisor did was shout loudly at me to work harder”.

The first two responses left an indelible mark in my mind and in fact, I was able to connect these practical issues to conceptual issues because at the time, I was doing a free elective course in Management Studies called Organizational Behaviour at the University of the West Indies, Mona. I was introduced to the first and only case study on Jamaican workers’ attitudes of de-motivation in the labour force. It is called ‘Why Workers Wont Work’ by Kenneth Carter. Carter (1997) debated that the Jamaican workplace is similar to the plantation model in which there was a rigid three tiered bureaucratic structure. Workers are de-motivated and dissatisfied because management are like slave drivers.

They always expect more productivity and profit without any serious interest in motivating, coaching and helping to upgrade the skills, talents and knowledge of workers. Workers express their dissatisfaction by regular absenteeism to slow down productivity or they express these feelings in other covert ways.  Hence, it is no surprise that the images that came to the mind of the participants in this research were the “burial ground and the plantation”. This knowledge was not used in the particular research project for the company. However, for current purposes, I have decided to incorporate historical knowledge on workers in order to connect the consistent patterns of the past to issues in contemporary development such as export processing zones in Jamaica. The bodies of women were sites of violence, subjugation, exploitation and colonial oppression and today they are sites of new forms of imperial encounters but also resistance (Belen and Bose, 1990). This is one of the major postulations that will be made in my thesis to argue the ways in which women workers resist exploitation and to delve deeper into the methods and the reasons the methods were chosen. Although they are many scholars who have done academic work the colonial division of labour and its connection to the new international division of labour and global division of labour, I think my work will have a meaningful and novel impact because of how I am able to weave context-specific experiences into the complex, conceptual issues of the main idea.

Earlier this year, I wrote in my thesis proposal that the researcher should develop a close connection with her participants and I was asked to expound. This is exactly what I mean. It means more than internalizing and interpreting what was said, how it was said and who said it. It means that my identity became that of a worker (Hernandez-Kelly, 1983).

 

*

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.

Tina Renier is currently pursuing a Masters in International Development at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax, Canada. Her area of specialization is labour and development.   

Sources

Belen, E. and Bose, A. (1990).  From Structural Sub-ordination to Empowerment: Women and Development in Third World contexts. Gender and Society, 8 (3). pp. 299-320.

Carter, K. (1997).Why Workers Won’t Work: The Workers in a Developing Economy: Case Study of Jamaica. London and Basingtoke: MacMillan Education Limited.

Hernandez-Kelly, P. (1983). For We are sold, I and My people: Women and Industry in Mexico’s Frontier.Albany, New York: United States of America. Sony Press.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on I Grew Up in Rural Jamaica. I Witnessed Abject Poverty

With the likes of John Bolton and Elliot Abrams directing US foreign policy, the US government has abandoned all pretense of “plausible denial” for its illegal regime-change initiatives. The “humanitarian” bombs may not be falling but, make no mistake, the US is waging a full-bore war against the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.

Back in 1998, Venezuela had had nearly a half a century of two-party rule. A duopoly, not unlike the Republican and Democratic parties in the US, alternated in power imposing a neoliberal order. Poor and working people experienced deteriorating conditions of austerity regardless of which party was in power.

Then third-party candidate Hugo Chávez was elected president. He initiated what has become known as the Bolivarian Revolution, which has inspired the peoples of the world while engendering the enmity of both the US imperialists and the Venezuelan elites.

This article explores the contributions, shortcomings, and lessons of the Bolivarian Revolution’s two decades, in the context of the US regime-change efforts from its inception to current attempts by the US to install the unelected Juan Guaidó as Venezuela’s president.

  1. Forging a new national identity based on a people’s history. History, it is said, is written by the victors. The historical narrative typically reflects the class that enslaved the Africans, dispossessed the Indigenous, and exploited the workers. There are exceptions. In the US, we have the legacy of Howard Zinn’s People’s History of the United States.

In Venezuela, Chávez revised his country’s history and thereby wrought a sea change of national consciousness. Prior to Chávez, Venezuela was arguably the most pro-US country in South America. Miami was looked to for cultural affirmation; baseball was the national pastime.

Chávez took special inspiration from the leader of the South American struggle against Spanish colonialism and named his project after Simón Bolívar, known as the “Liberator.” Bolívar was not merely a national leader, but a true internationalist. The Bolivarian project is about the integration of nations based on mutual respect and sovereignty. Bolívar presciently declared in 1829: “The United States appears to be destined by Providence to plague Latin America with misery in the name of liberty.”

This new Venezuelan national identity and consciousness, based on their history told from the bottom up, may prove to be the most lasting legacy of the Bolivarian Revolution.

  1. Inclusive society. Fundamental to the Bolivarian project has been the inclusion of the formerly dispossessed: especially women, people of color, and youth.

As professor of Latin American history at NYU Greg Grandin observed, this inclusiveness has awakened “a deep fear of the primal hatred, racism, and fury of the opposition, which for now is directed at the agents of Maduro’s state but really springs from Chávez’s expansion of the public sphere to include Venezuela’s poor.”

For example, when an opposition demonstration came upon an Afro-descendent street peddler, he was presumed to be a chavista because he was dark-skinned and poor. The opposition demonstrators poured gasoline over him and set him on fire. Then the horrific image was posted on social media.

A less gruesome example occurred at the Venezuelan Embassy in Washington, DC. North American activists in solidarity with the Bolivarian government protected the embassy in accordance with international law from being usurped by representatives of US-backed Juan Guaidó for 36 days. Before the protectors were evicted by the US Secret Service on May 16, counter-protesting opposition expatriate Venezuelans would wave bananas at African American solidarity activists, chanting “go back to the zoo.” Such is the racist loathing that fuels the Venezuelan opposition.

  1. Special option for poor and working people. Why should a state of all the people have a special option for those who are poor and working? Because these are the people who most need the social welfare services of the state. Billionaires don’t need government schools, hospitals, and housing, but the masses of Venezuelan people do.

The Bolivarian project had halved poverty and cut extreme poverty by two-thirds, while providing free health care and education. On May 27, the United Nations cited Venezuela as one of the top countries for guaranteeing the right to housing, recognizing the over 2.5 million public housing units built.

  1. Democracy promotion. The role of a state aspiring to be socialist is not simply to provide social welfare, but to empower the people.

The Bolivarian project has experimented in what is called “protagonistic democracy”: cooperatives, citizens councils, and communes. Some succeeded; others did not.  One of the first priorities was to eradicate illiteracy. The Bolivarian state has promoted community radio stations, low-cost computers, internet cafés for senior citizens, and other venues for popular expression. Venezuela now has one of the highest rates of higher education attendance in the world. These are not the hallmarks of a dictatorship.

  1. 21st century socialism. More than even Bernie Sanders, the Bolivarian Revolution put socialism on the agenda for the 21st For this we owe the Venezuelans a debt of gratitude, not for providing us with a playbook to be copied, but for demonstrating that the creation of a better world is principally a process.

This was not the primary transgression placing Venezuela in the crosshairs of US imperialism. Promoting socialism may be regarded as blasphemy, but the original sin is the following.

  1. Multi-polar world and regional integration. The greatest challenge to the Empire, to the world’s sole superpower, is a multi-polar world based on regional integration. In 1999, Chávez helped strengthen OPEC (Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries). In 2004, he helped initiate ALBA (Alliance for Our Peoples of America), followed by PetroCaribe in 2005, UNASUR (Union of South American Nations) in 2008, and CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States) in 2011. Venezuela has consistently demonstrated solidarity with the Palestinian struggle and other oppressed peoples.

When the small fish organize, the big fish gets nasty. Above all, this is why the world’s hegemon has targeted Venezuela.

The traumatic transition from Chávez to Maduro

Chávez, suffering from cancer, died on March 5, 2013. The reaction in Venezuela was polarized. The elites danced in the street. The majority, composed mainly of poor and working people, were traumatized.

The bully to the north, smelling blood, saw an opportunity. The US had conspired to overthrow the Bolivarian Revolution from the beginning, backing a short-lived coup in 2002 followed by a boss’s strike. With the passing of Chávez, the imperialist offensive doubled down.

A snap election was called according to the Venezuelan Constitution for April 14 to replace the deceased president. Chávez, anticipating his demise, had designated Nicolás Maduro as his successor. Although polls had shown Maduro with a 10% lead going into the election campaign, he won with a narrow 1.5% margin.

I was in Caracas as an election observer when Maduro won. My observation of the election was like that of former US President Jimmy Carter, who had declared a year before that of the 92 elections the Carter Center had observed, “The election process in Venezuela is the best in the world.”

Within minutes of the announcement of Maduro’s victory, the main opposition candidate, Henrique Capriles, came on TV to denounce the election as fraudulent and call on the people to “show their rage.” Thus began the opposition’s violent offensive, the guarimbas, to achieve by violence what they could not achieve in democratic elections.

The opposition charges of fraud were investigated by Venezuela’s National Electoral Council (CNE) and found groundless, based on a 100% audit of the electronic vote backed up with paper receipts. Capriles still maintained the charge of fraud, and the US became the sole nation to refuse to recognize the Maduro presidency. The opposition violence continued, taking over 40 lives.

Upon assuming the presidency, Maduro inherited existing problems of crime, inefficiency, corruption, inflation, and a dysfunctional currency exchange system. These were problems that existed during the Chávez period and even prior to that. These problems persist in varying degrees to the present, despite concerted programs to address them.

President Maduro has had his feet held to the fire by the imperialists from the get-go. Far from having a respite, shortly into his presidency, Venezuela was hit with petroleum prices plummeting from a high of nearly $125/barrel to a low of close to $25/barrel. Despite efforts to diversify the economy, Venezuela remains dependent on oil exports for most of its foreign exchange, which is used to fund the social programs.

US regime-change war intensifies

The US regime-change war continues to intensify with increasingly harsh sanctions. These unilateral measures are illegal under the charters of the United Nations and the Organization of American States, because they constitute collective punishment. Trump’s security advisor, John Bolton, elucidates: “It’s like in Star Wars, when Darth Vader grips someone. That’s what we’re doing economically with the (Venezuelan) regime.”

In 2013, the US waited until after the presidential election in Venezuela to declare it fraudulent. Taking no chances, the US declared the 2018 election fraudulent four months before it was held. Joining Trump in this rush to pre-judgement were eleven Democratic senators including Bernie Sanders.

The charges of fraud were based on three issues: setting the date of the election, disqualifying opposition parties, and barring opposition candidates. Maduro had continually called for dialogue with the opposition to set the election date. But each time a date was mutually agreed upon, the opposition backed out after their US handlers intervened. As for the disqualified parties, they had lost their ballot status because they had boycotted past elections. They then refused to reapply for ballot status, because their intention was not to participate in the electoral process.

Opposition candidates, namely Leopoldo López and Henrique Capriles, were barred from running, because they had committed criminal acts that warranted their exclusion. López clearly incited violence that resulted in deaths and would have received far harsher treatment had he committed such acts in the US. Capriles was convicted of economic fraud, “administrative irregularities,” during his tenure as a state governor. While the courts found Capriles guilty, this action against a political opponent damaged the Maduro government’s international image.

Overall, the charges of fraud by the radical right opposition were mainly pretenses to delegitimize the upcoming election. However, several moderate opposition candidates did run, defying the US demand that the election be boycotted.

Henri Falcón was the leading opposition candidate to run in 2018, championing a neoliberal platform of privatization, austerity for workers, and subservience to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The US, which would ordinarily gleefully embrace such a platform, instead threatened Falcón with sanctions for breaking the election boycott.

The explanation for this seemingly anomalous behavior by the US government is that the stakes in Venezuela are much higher than just the presidency. The regime-change project is to exterminate the Bolivarian Revolution, reverse its social gains, and return Venezuela to a subservient client state where the world’s largest oil reserves would be freely exploited by US corporations.

Orwellian world of US foreign policy

As CEO of the capitalist world order (that is what is meant by exercising “American world leadership”), then US President Obama declared in 2015 that Venezuela constituted an imminent and extraordinary threat to US national security. He didn’t mean a military or even an economic threat. That would have been preposterous. What Obama was implicitly confirming is that Venezuela poses a “threat of a good example.” Venezuela is at the top of US imperialism’s hit list because of the good things, not for its faults.

President Trump has intensified Obama’s regime-change policies aimed at Venezuela. Condemning the Bolivarian Revolution, Trump opined: “Socialism is not about justice, it’s not about equality, it’s not about lifting up the poor.” Might he have been really thinking of capitalism? His national security advisor John Bolton tweeted that removing the democratically elected President Maduro by violent coup and installing the US-anointed and unelected Guaidó is protecting the Venezuelan constitution.

On the other side of the aisle, Senator Sanders accused Chávez of being a “dead communist dictator.” Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez described the US regime-change war as a contest of “authoritarian regime versus democracy,” with the questionable presumption that the US is the democracy.

In the Orwellian terminology of US politicians and corporate media, a fraudulent election is one where the people vote their choice. A dictator is the democratically elected choice of the people. And the so-called dictator is an authoritarian if he resists rather than surrenders to the bullying power.

Surrender does not appear to be on the agenda for the Bolivarian Revolution, with US asset Guaidó forced to negotiate in Norway after his failed coup attempts. Despite the suffocating sanctions and threats of military action, the poor and working people in Venezuela who are most adversely affected by the US war against them remain the strongest supporters of their elected government.

Make Orwell fiction again!

*

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

Roger Harris is a member of the TRANSCEND Network and theimmediate past president of the Task Force on the Americas, a 33-year-old human rights organization in solidarity with the social justice movements of Latin America and the Caribbean. He is active with the Campaign to End US-Canadian Sanctions against Venezuela.

All images in this article are from TMS

Global Warming Morphs into the Solar Minimum

June 11th, 2019 by Renee Parsons

Since Climate Change (CC) has been a constant of life on Gaia with the evolution of photosynthesis 3.2 billion years ago and has more complexities than this one essay can address; ergo, this article will explore CO2’s historic contribution to global warming (GW) as well as explore the relationship of Solar Minimum (SM) to Earth’s climate.

Even before the UN-initiated Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) formed in 1988, the common assumption was that carbon dioxide was the key greenhouse gas and that its increases were the driving force solely responsible for rising climate temperatures.  At that time, anthropogenic (human caused) GW was declared to be the existential crisis of our time, that the science was settled and that we, as a civilization, were running out of time.

And yet, in the intervening years, uncertainty remained about GW’s real time impacts which may be rooted in the fact that many of IPCC’s essential climate forecasts of consequence have not materialized as predicted.  Even as the staid Economist magazine recently noted

Over the past fifteen years, air temperatures at the Earth’s surface have been flat while greenhouse gas emissions have continued to soar.”

Before the IPCC formed, NOAA’s Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii registered co2 levels at under 350 ppm (parts per million) with the explicit warning that if co2 exceeded that number, Mother Earth was in Big Trouble – and there would be no turning back for humanity.  Those alarm bells continue today as co2 levels have risen to 414 ppm as temperatures peaked in 1998.

From the outset, the IPCC controlled the debate by limiting its charter  “to understanding the scientificbasis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”   

In other words, before any of the science had been done, the IPCC’s assumption was that man-made activity was responsible and that Nature was not an active participantin a process within its own sphere of interest.   As an interdisciplinary topic of multiple diversity, the IPCC is not an authority on all the disciplines of science within the CC domain.   

While there is no dispute among scientists that the Sun and its cyclical output is the true external force driving Earth’s energy and climate system as part of a Sun-centered Universe, the IPCC’s exclusion of the Sun from its consideration can only be seen as a deliberate thwarting of a basic fundamental law of  science, a process which assures a free inquiry based on reason and evidence.  It is the Sun which all planets of the solar system orbit around, that has the strongest gravitational pull in the solar system, is the heaviest of all celestial bodies and its sunspots in relation to Earth’s temperatures has been known since Galileo began drawing sunspots in 1613.  Yet the IPCC which touts a ‘scientific view of climate change’ would have us believe the Sun is irrelevant and immaterial to the IPCC’s world view and Earth’s climate; hardly a blip on their radar.

In the GW debate, co2 is dismissed as a colorless, odorless pollutant that gets little credit as a critical component for its contribution to life on the planet as photosynthesis does not happen without co2.  A constant presence in Earth’s atmosphere since the production of oxygen, all living organisms depend on co2 for its existence. As a net contributor to agriculture, plants absorb co2 as they release oxygen into the atmosphere that we two- and four-leggeds depend on for sustenance and oxygen as necessities for survival on Earth.   There are scientists who believe that Earth has been in a co2 ‘famine’ while others applaud Earth’s higher co2 levels in the last three decades as a regreening of the planet.

While “An Inconvenient Truth” (2006) and “An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power” (2016) stage managed the climate question as a thoroughly politicized ‘settled science’ with former veep Al Gore declaring the drama a ‘moral’ issue, there is no room for any preference that does not depend on a rigorous, skeptical, independent investigation based on evidentiary facts rather than the partisan politics of emotion and subjective opinion.  Given the prevalence of weather in our daily lives, it would seem elementary for engaged citizens and budding paleoclimatologists to understand Earth’s ancient climate history and atmosphere in order to gain an informed perspective on Earth’s current and future climate.

As a complicated non-linear system, climate is a variable composition of rhythmic spontaneity with erratic and even chaotic fluctuations making weather predictions near-impossible.  Climate is an average of weather systems over an established long term period while individual weather events indicative of a short term trend are not accurate forecasts of CC.  While ice core readings provide information, they do not show causation of GW but only measure the ratio between co2 and rising temperatures. It is up to scientists to interpret the results.  And that’s where this narrative takes, like ancient weather and climate patterns, an unpredictable turn.

It might be called an inconvenient truth that ‘skeptic’ scientists have known for the last twenty years that the Vostok ice core samples refute co2’s role as a negative and even question its contribution as the major greenhouse gas.  It is no secret to many climate professionals that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor with co2 at 3.6%.

Located at the center of the Antarctica ice sheet, the Vostok Research Center is a collaborative effort where Russian and French scientists collected undisturbed ice core data in the 1990’s to measure the historic presence of carbon dioxide levels.  The Vostok samples provided the first irrefutable evidence of Earth’s climate history for 420,000 year including the existence of four previous glacial and interglacial periods.  Those samples ultimately challenged the earlier premise of co2’s predominant role and that carbon dioxide was not the climate culprit once thought.  It is fair to add that IPCC related scientists believe Vostok to be ‘outliers’ in the GW debate.

The single most significant revelation of the ice core studies has been that GW could not be solely attributed to co2 since carbon dioxide increases occurred after temperature increases and that an extensive ‘lag’ time exists between the two.  Logic and clear thinking demands that cause (co2) precedes the effect (increased temps) is in direct contradiction to the assertion that carbon dioxide has been responsible for pushing higher global temperatures.  Just as today’s 414 ppm precedes current temps which remain within the range of normal variability.

Numerous peer-reviewed studies confirmed that co2 lags behind temperature increases, originally by as much as 800 years. That figure was later increased to 8,000 years and by 2017 the lag time between co2 and temperature had been identified as 14,000 years.  As if a puzzlement from the Quantum world, it is accepted that CO2and temperatures are correlated as they rise and fall together, yet are separated by a lag time of thousands of year.

What is obscure from public awareness in the GW shuffle is that geologic records have identified CC as a naturally occurring cycle with glacial periods of 100,000 year intervals that are interrupted by brief, warming interglacial periods lasting 15,000-20,000 years. Those interglacial periods act as a temperate respite from what is the world’s natural normal Ice Age environment. Within those glacial and interglacial periods are cyclical subsets of global cooling and warming just as today’s interglacial warm period began at the end of the Pleistocene Ice Age about 12,000 years ago.   Since climate is not a constant, check these recent examples of Earth’s climate subsets:

  • 200 BC – 600 AD – Roman warming cycle
  • 440 – 950                  Dark Ages cool cycle
  • 950 – 1300                Medieval warming cycle
  • 1300 – 1850              Renaissance Little Ice Age
  • 1850 – Present          Modern warming cycle

In addition, climate records have shown that peak co2 temperatures from the past are relative to today’s co2 level without the addition of a fossil fuel contribution.  For instance, just as today’s measurement at 414 ppm contains a ‘base’ co2 level of approximately 300 ppm as recorded in the 19th century, any co2 accumulation over 300 ppm would be considered anthropogenic (man-made) and be portrayed as “historic” or ‘alarmingly high’ and yet remain statistically insignificant compared to historic co2 norms.

During the last 600 million years, only the Carboniferous period and today’s Holocene Epoch  each witnessed co2 levels at less than 400 ppm.  During the Early Carboniferous Period, co2 was at 1500 ppm with average temperatures comparable to 20 C; 68 F before diving to 350 ppm during the Mid Carboniferous period with a reduced temperature of 12 C;54F.   In other words, current man-made contributions to co2 are less than what has been determined to be significant.

Contrary to the IPCC’s stated goal, NASA recognizes that “All weather on Earth, from the surface of the planet into space, begins with the Sun” and that weather experienced on Earth’s surface is “influenced by the small changes the Sun undergoes during its solar cycle.”

A Solar Minimum (SM) is a periodic 11 year solar cycle normally manifesting a weak magnetic field with increased radiation and cosmic rays while exhibiting decreased sunspot activity that, in turn, decreases planetary temperatures.  Today’s solar cycle is referred to as the Grand Minimum which, according to NOAA, predicts reductions from the typical 140 – 220 sunspots per solar cycle to 95 – 130 sunspots.

As the Sun is entering “one of the deepest Solar Minima of the Space Age,” a NASA scientist predicted a SM that could ”set a Space Age record for cold” but has recently clarified his statement as it applies only to the Thermosphere.  In October, 2018, NOAA predicted “Winter Outlook favors Warmer Temperature for much of the US,” as above-normal precipitation and record freezing temperatures were experienced throughout the country.

As of this writing, with the Sun noticeably intense, Earth has experienced 23 consecutive days without sunspots for a 2019 total of 96 spotless days at 60%.  In 2018, 221 days were spotless at 61%.   Spaceweather.com monitors sunspot (in)activity.

With the usual IPCC and Non-IPCC split, the SM is expected to be at its lowest by 2020 with a peak between 2023 and 2026 as it exhibits counterintuitive erratic weather anomalies including cooler temps due to increased cloud cover, higher temps due to solar sunspot-free brilliance, potential electrical events,  heavy rain and flooding and drought, a shorter growing season, impacts on agriculture and food production systems or it may all be a walk in the park with shirt sleeves in January.

While there is clearly an important climate shift occurring even as the role of co2 and human activity as responsible entities remains problematic, the elimination of co2 and its methane sidekick would be exceedingly beneficial for a healthy planet.  It is time to allow scientists to be scientists without political agendas or bureaucratic interference as the Sun and Mother Earth continue in their orbit as they have for eons of millennia.

As Earth’s evolutionary climate cycles observe the Universal law of the natural world, the Zero Point Field, which produces an inexhaustible source of ‘free’ energy that Nikola Tesla spoke of, is the means by which inter stellar vehicles travel through time/space.  The challenge for ingenious, motivated Earthlings is to harness and extract the ZPF proclaiming a new planetary age of technological innovation with no rapacious industry, no pollution, no shortages, no gas guzzlers and no 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.

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 for Friends of the Earth and staff member of the US House of Representatives in Washington DC. She can be found on Twitter @reneedove31.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Global Warming Morphs into the Solar Minimum

The Danger of Armed Drones: Targeted Killings

June 10th, 2019 by Drone Wars UK

The use of armed drones is presented as a ‘risk-free’ solution to security problems. Through using remotely-controlled aircraft to take out bad guys far away from our shores, we are told, we are keeping the public as well as our armed forces safe. The reality, however, is that drones are liable to increase insecurity, not reduce it.

Lowering the threshold for the use of force

Politicians know that the public do not like to see young men and women sent overseas to fight in wars which often have remote and unclear aims.  Potential TV footage of grieving families awaiting funeral corteges has been a definite restraint on political leaders weighing up the option of military intervention. Take away that potential political cost, however, by using unmanned systems, and it makes it much easier – perhaps too easy –  for politicians to opt for a quick, short-term ‘fix’ of ‘taking out the bad guys’ rather than engaging in the often difficult and long-term work of solving the root causes of conflicts through diplomatic and political means.

Transferring the risk and cost of war from soldiers to civilians

Keeping ‘our boys’ safe through using remotely-controlled drones to launch air strikes comes at a price. Without ‘boots on the ground’ air strikes are inherently more dangerous for civilians on the ground. Despite claims of the defence industry and advocates of drone warfare, it is simply not possible to know precisely what is happening on the ground from thousands of miles away.  While the UK claims, for example, that only one civilian was killed in the thousands of British air and drone strikes in Iraq and Syria, journalist and casualty recording organisations have reported thousands of deaths in Coalition airstrikes.

It is also hard not to connect the awful terrorist attacks that have taken place here in the UK and in Europe to these military interventions. While the public as well as senior military and security officials understand that there is a clear link between military intervention and terror attacks at home, politicians continue to baulk at the connection. The reality though, as Air Marshall Greg Bagwell argued told us

“When you have an asymmetric advantage, enemies seek to find a way around it, and that is what terrorism is.  There is a danger that you shift the way an enemy target you and looks for vulnerabilities, and that is where we find ourselves.”

Expanding the use of ‘targeted killing’

Perhaps the most controversial aspect of armed drones has been their use by the United States, Israel and the UK for targeted killing.  Legal scholars define targeted killing as the deliberate, premeditated killing of selected individuals by a state who are not in their custody.  Where International Humanitarian Law (the Laws of War) applies, targeted killing of combatants may be legal. Outside of IHL situations, International Human Rights Law applies and lethal force may only be used when absolutely necessary to save human life that is in imminent danger.  This does not appear to be the case for many of the drone targeted killing that have been carried out, for example, by the US in Pakistan and Yemen.

While some argue that it is the policy of targeted killing that is wrong, not the weapon used to carry out it out, it is very difficult to imagine that the wholesale expansion of targeted killing would have occurred without the technology.  In the UK, campaigners have long been calling on the government to set out its policy on the use of armed drones outside a situation of armed conflict, something the government has so far refused to do.

Enabling video-game warfare

Separate, but connected to the idea that drones lower the threshold for using lethal forces is the notion, as Philip Alston the former Special Rapporteur on extra judicial killing, put it of the ‘PlayStation mentality’.  Alston and others suggest that the vast physical distance between those operating armed drones and the target makes that act of killing much easier. The physical distance induces a kind of psychological ‘distancing’.

There are strong objections to this notion, particular by those involved. Drone pilots, it is argued, are highly trained professionals that are able to distinguish between a video games and real life. Furthermore, it is widely reported that some drone pilots are suffering from post-traumatic stress from having to see the results of their strikes, hardly an indication of detachment.  On the other hand, there is some evidence for a ‘PlayStation’ mentality. In 2010 an Afghan convoy of vehicles was hit by an US airstrike involving drones in which 23 civilians were killed. A subsequent USAF investigation found that the Predator crew wanted to attack and “ignored or downplayed” evidence suggesting the convoy was not a hostile target.  Elsewhere, in Dr Peter Lee’s recent book, Reaper Force, containing detailed interviews with British RAF Reaper crews, several talked about missions where they became fixated on a target and were ready to strike despite the presence of civilians. Only direct intervention from others meant the strikes did not take place.

Seducing us with the myth of ‘precision’

Drones permit, we are told, pin-point accurate air strikes that kill the target while leaving the innocent untouched. Drone advocates seduce us with the notion that we can achieve control over the chaos of war through technology.  The reality is that there is no such thing as a guaranteed accurate airstrike  While laser-guided weapons are without doubt much more accurate than they were even 20 or 30 years ago, the myth of guaranteed precision is just that, a myth.  Even under test conditions, only 50% of weapons are expected to hit within their ‘circular error of probability’. Once the blast radius of weapons is taken into account and indeed how such systems can be affected by things such as the weather, it is clear that ‘precision’ cannot by any means be assured.

Politicians and defence officials too have been seduced by the myth of precision war and are opening up areas that would previously been out of bounds – due to the presence of civilians – to air strikes.  Perhaps most telling, internal military data which counters the prevailing narrative that drones are better than traditional piloted aircraft is simply classified.

Ushering in permanent war

Perhaps the most dangerous aspect of the rise of remote, drone warfare is that it is ushering in a state of permanent/forever war.  With no (or very few) troops deployed on the ground and when air strikes can be carried out with impunity by drone operators who then commute home at the end of the day, there is little public or political pressure to bring interventions to an end.

Drones are enabling states to carry out attacks with seemingly little reference to international law norms. US law professor Rosa Brooks argued in a disturbing article in Foreign Policy that ‘there’s no such thing as peacetime’ anymore. “Since 9/11,” she writes “it has become virtually impossible to draw a clear distinction between war and not-war.” Rather than challenging the erosion of the boundaries between crucially distinct legal frameworks, Brooks argues that we must simply accept that “the Forever War is here to stay.” To do otherwise she maintains is “largely a waste of time and energy. “Wartime is the only time we have” she insists.

The slide towards forever war must be rejected and resisted. It is incumbent on us all, citizen, politician, military officer, to work towards global peace and security, not permanent warfare.

*

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

All images in this article are from Drone Wars

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

This Outlaw Power: America’s Intent is to Dominate China, Russia and the World

By Christopher Black, June 10, 2019

On May 30th the US Department of Defense released its strategy paper for the Indo-Pacific region in which, after several pages of lies about its role in the world as savior and benefactor, set out America’s intentions to dominate China and Russia. It is another item of evidence that the United States government and its allies are conspiring to commit crimes against peace by planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression against those nations.

Haiti, the Silent Chaos!

By Joël Léon, June 10, 2019

June 9th 2019, more than 1 million people were on the street asking peacefully “Kote Kob Petwokaribe a” (where is the Petrocaribe money). Police forces step in killing 7 people and injuring 147, 70 were arrested. The chaos is continuing!

European Customers Are “Abandoning” UK Firms as Manufacturing Figures Sink

By Jack Peat, June 10, 2019

Signs that European customers are “abandoning” UK firms are starting to show after British manufacturing recorded the steepest downturn in almost three years.

Trump’s Justice Department Preparing “Additional Indictment” Against Assange. Currently Facing 18 Spurious Charges

By Stephen Lendman, June 10, 2019

Arresting and imprisoning him in the UK was all about holding him for extradition to the US — his mistreatment an assault on fundamental speech, media and academic freedoms, Britain and hardliners in Washington want eliminated.

Sudan: Chaos Unleashed. Color Revolution

By Andrew Korybko, June 10, 2019

The ongoing events in Sudan are a perfect example of the uncontrollable chaos that can be unleashed in society following a Color Revolution, with it now becoming almost impossible to predict how the latest crisis will be resolved, if ever.

What “Everyone Knows” About D-Day

By Prof Susan Babbitt, June 10, 2019

Gould knocks out one peg of that ideology: an idea of reason.  Evolution has no final purpose, Gould argued. It aims for no ideal. Yet if you wind back the tape of evolution to any point, the next steps are constrained by myriad causal factors.[ii] Gould used the word “contingency”. It means dependence.

Prime Minister of Poland Signs Global Appeal to Stop 5G Telecommunications Transmission

By Julian Rose, June 10, 2019

In what is surely an unprecedented and  groundbreaking action, the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, has personally backed an International Appeal to stop the controversial roll-out of 5G electro magnetic microwave telecommunication transmissions.

The Downing of Malaysian Airlines MH17: Mahathir Opens a “Ukraine Political Pandora’s Box”

By F. William Engdahl, June 10, 2019

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sent shock waves in a public speech where he dismissed a Dutch “official” report blaming Russia for the downing of Malaysia Air Flight 17 in July, 2014, weeks after a CIA-led coup toppled the elected President of Ukraine.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: America’s Intent is to Dominate China, Russia and the World

A parable for US times. So busy with bombs, wars, sanctions, walls, that humans are relegated to the 15th century. – Felicity Arbuthnot

Despite hundreds of millions of dollars flowing through Los Angeles to stem the rising tide of homelessness, a resurgence of medieval diseases has the city – and neighboring states – on edge. Typhoid fever and typhus, borne by fleas, body lice, and feces, are turning the once glitzy and glamorous city into a third-world worthy environment. Yes, Typhoid Mary is back, in a sense, living on the streets and wreaking havoc on unsuspecting people in the Golden State.

These diseases, along with an uptick in tuberculosis, hepatitis A, and staph, are easily and rapidly spread and have wide-reaching consequences. They’re highly contagious and can infect anyone through casual contact.

An LAPD officer was recently diagnosed with typhoid, and several other city employees are exhibiting the classic symptoms of high fever, muscle pain, and weakness. Left untreated, the disease can be fatal – and let’s face it: The malady wiped out entire populations during the Dark Ages and took a heavy toll on American Civil War soldiers and early American settlers. Some historians blame the malaise for obliterating the Jamestown settlement.

Where The Heck Did They Come From?

Los Angeles Homeless Services Authority recently released a report showing 59,000 people living on the streets in Los Angeles County – a 12% increase since 2018 – with 36,300 of them within the city limits of Los Angeles. The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), reports that “California accounted for 30% of all people experiencing homelessness as individuals” throughout the United States.

The progress of these once eradicated and near eradicated diseases is so alarming that the politicians who once spent copious amounts of time covering up the warts and putrid pustules in their liberally run cities and state are now showing disbelief and disgust. California Governor Gavin Newsom (D) broke his silence during his state of the state speech in February:

“Our homeless crisis is increasingly becoming a public-health crisis. Typhus, a medieval disease. In California. In 2019.”

Los Angeles Mayor Gil Garcetti (D), who many believed would be a 2020 presidential contender, calls the crisis, “the biggest heartbreak for me and my city.” Garcetti campaigned extensively for the initiative known as Proposition HHH, which designated $1.2 billion over the next ten years to build homeless housing. But now residents are howling about the pricey plan’s abject failure. One local L.A. news outlet polled residents and found that “Forty-five percent said it’s failing, with 18 percent saying it’s a complete failure.”

Voters passed Propositions 47 (2014) and 57 (2016), downgrading theft and drug offenses to misdemeanors and redefining many felonies from violent to nonviolent to release a horde of inmates – some addicted to drugs and suffering from now untreated mental illness. And they wonder why there are so many people on the streets living, sleeping, and breathing surrounded by urine-soaked sidewalks and piles of human feces? And, of course, they don’t have to show symptoms to carry and transfer these diseases – simple casual contact from a carrier will do just fine.

Asymptomatic Mary Mallon was presumed to have infected over 50 people between 1907 and 1915, yet never experienced a day of sickness. She died under quarantine – from complications of a stroke, not typhoid. Her body was cremated and her ashes interred, but her legacy as Typhoid Mary lives on.

What’s The Plan?

Garcetti is doubling down on his homeless housing project, but his highest hurdle is his choice for building sites. It seems no Angeleno wants drugs, typhus, and hepatitis bubbling and festering on their own block. A short story made long, aside from Proposition HHH, there is no solid plan to curb the worsening rotting of Los Angeles.

There is a long-held belief that two American presidents succumbed to Typhoid. The ninth Commander in Chief, William Henry Harrison, is remembered to have died of pneumonia after only 31 days in office, but recent studies suggest he likely died from typhoid. Number 12, President Zachary Taylor, was most likely felled from the disease as well – due to the unsanitary conditions in the Swamp in the mid-19th century. Ironically, the only thing that seems to have changed in Washington, D.C. is that the deadly infections are in the heart and soul and not the body of the toadies on the Hill.

Here we are in the throes of the 21st century with running water, inoculations for just about every known malady of the last millennia, and welfare programs to heal the poorest of our citizens. Yet Los Angeles remains a hot, malodorous, infectious mess – and it could be spreading toward a city near you.

*

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.

National Columnist at LibertyNation.com. Sarah Cowgill has been a writer in the political and corporate worlds for over 25 years. As a sought-after speech writer, her clients included CEOs, U.S. Senators, Congressmen, Governors, and even a Vice President. She’s worked as Contributing Editor at Scottsdale Life, a news reporter for the Journal and Courier, and guest opinion political writer for numerous publications nationwide. A born storyteller, Sarah has published a full-length book and is currently finishing a quirky, sarcastic, second novel.

On June 4th the Chinese government issued a travel alert for Chinese tourists thinking of visiting the United States, a day after it issued a similar advisory to Chinese students thinking of studying in the US over concerns for their safety and security. Chinese in the US are reporting harassment and interrogations by US immigration authorities and many now have the impression they are not welcome in the US.

The Global Times, speaking on behalf of the government stated,

The Chinese people find it difficult to accept the fact that they are being taken as thieves. The US boasts too much superiority and has been indulged by the world. Due to its short history, it lacks understanding of and respect for the rules of countries and laws of the market. The Americans of the early generations accumulated prosperity and prestige for the US, while the current US administration behaves like a wastrel generation by ruining the world’s respect for the US.”

It seems to me they are being generous to the US since the “early prosperity” of the US was built on the backs of slave labour, extermination of the indigenous peoples and theft of their lands, colonization and exploitation of other countries, including China, and two hundred years of continual warfare to secure the resources and markets of first the western hemisphere, then the world. Their “prestige” comes out of the barrel of a gun. The US economic and military aggression against those nations that refuse to obey American demands to serve their interests ever increases and never abates. A few days ago Mike Pompeo stated, with feigned innocence, that the US was willing to talk to Iran “without preconditions” when the real conditions Iran faces include an almost total embargo of its trade and threats of immediate attack by US forces, including nuclear attack. The Iranians quickly rejected this hypocrisy.

In the Balkans the US and its NATO war machine have again stirred up problems in Serbia where, in the NATO occupied province of Kosovo-Metohija, Serbs and Russians were detained and beaten up by Albanian security forces designed to put further pressure on Serbia to fall into the NATO camp so that the NATO machine will have complete control of the Balkans to complete the encirclement of Russia. The war goes on in Syria, goes on in Ukraine, goes on in Afghanistan. The terrible situation of the Palestinians becomes even worse as the US plans the final solution for them-their disappearance as a people to be absorbed as citizens of other states, while Israel continues its aggressive expansion and acts as agent of the US bully in the region; the threats against Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea continue.

But the principle preoccupation of the US is still China and Russia. On May 30th the US Department of Defense released its strategy paper for the Indo-Pacific region in which, after several pages of lies about its role in the world as savior and benefactor, set out America’s intentions to dominate China and Russia. It is another item of evidence that the United States government and its allies are conspiring to commit crimes against peace by planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression against those nations. These designs by the American leadership reflect not only the desire of the owners of capital in the US to dominate the world. They also reflect the Americans’ preoccupation with themselves as “exceptional” people, as the “exceptional” nation, above all others, answerable to none, which has been a characteristic of their culture since its foundation.

The aggressive objectives of the successive American governments were and are not accidents or mistakes arising out of immediate political circumstances but are a deliberate and necessary part of American foreign policy. From its inception the American political leadership has claimed to unite the American people with a consciousness of their mission and destiny to dominate the world. War is seen as inevitable or highly probable to accomplish these objectives where intimidation and bribery fail.

To accomplish its objectives the United States has done all it can to disrupt the world order established after World War Two when world nations joined together for world peace in the United Nations Charter in 1946. Within 3 years the US set up the NATO military alliance to threaten the Soviet Union, soon waged wars across south east Asia and overthrew governments the world over. The rise to power of President Trump has resulted in the United States withdrawing from a series of treaties designed to reduce the threat of war and of nuclear armaments, or promote free trade, in order to free the United States from its obligations under the treaties involved to allow it to pursue its objectives using any means necessary. They have rejected international law and diplomacy in interstate relationships and now rely on threats and violence.

The Indo-Pacific Strategy Report, of June 1, 2019 begins with the claim that,

“Inter-state strategic competition, defined by geopolitical rivalry between free and repressive world order visions, is the primary concern for U.S. national security. In particular, the People’s Republic of China, under the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party, seeks to reorder the region to its advantage by leveraging military modernization, influence operations, and predatory economics to coerce other nations.”

Time and again the Report ascribes to China the actual behavior of the United States for is it not the United States that has sought to reorder the world since it became a world power; has it not used all these methods and more to coerce other nations? The world knows it. Yet once again their sense of being exceptional makes them blind to their stupefying arrogance and hypocrisy.

The Report then warns that,

“We will not accept policies or actions that threaten or undermine the rules-based international order – an order that benefits all nations. We are committed to defending and enhancing these shared values”.

What they mean by “rules based international order” is not the order of international law as accepted by the world governments in the United Nations Charter and other international agreements but a US imposed international order, – an order that does not yet exist except in the fantasies of these gangsters-but which they never stop trying to impose on the world, an order of militarism, fear, and tyranny for the rest of the world.

The balance of the Report sets out their strategy of building up a “networked region” that is, a US controlled system of vassal states to prepare for war with China by prepositioning ammunition, equipment, logistics supplies, transportation networks, intelligence sharing and rapid deployment of forces to threaten China. The vassal states; Japan, South Korea, Australia New Zealand, Canada, Indonesia, The Philippines, Thailand, Singapore, Taiwan, are all patted on the head for assisting the United States and promised they will be rewarded with peace and prosperity so long as they accept their subservient role to the saintly United States. Other southeast Asia nations are referred to as potential “partners” for the future as they try to brag that they have Vietnam, India, Malaysia, Bangladesh, Laos and Cambodia on their side when all they have are courtesy arrangements and cooperation on a low level that all nations have with each other. Their vision of their influence is greater than the reality.

But the three targets remain the same for according to the Report, China is a “Revisionist Power, ”Russia is a “Revitalized Malign Actor,” while the DPRK, keeps its status as a “Rogue State,” all of which the Americans claim are intent on challenging their fictional “rules based order.” There then follows, in each case, paragraph after paragraph of distortions of the facts about the nature and behavior of these three nations so that one feels compelled to break into laughter when reading these ludicrous labels that seem to come from a very bad 1950’s Hollywood film script.

But finally, after all the verbiage, they get down to it and set out their real objectives by referencing the US Defense Strategy of 2018 which sets out the four pillars of their hegemonic designs:

1. Defend the Homeland;

This is a curious phrase we have been seeing the past number of years in American parlance, this concept of ‘homeland,” but in contradistinction to what is never stated. Well, the to the rest of the world, of course, which they now consider their lands as well, their outlands, and so the need for a phrase to identify the US as the “homeland”. What could more display their colonial mindset than the use of this phrase?

2. Remain the preeminent military power in the world;

This is a threat to the world, to humankind, and can only be maintained by the pauperization of its own people.

3. Ensure the balances of power in key regions remain in our favour;

Meaning that they intend to keep playing one nation off against another and create chaos where necessary, to play both sides against the middle, whatever it takes so that the United States maintains the ruling hand,

4. Advance an international order that is most conducive to our security and prosperity

And here we have their principle objective, meaning that, despite all the rhetoric about shared values, shared goals and friendships with its vassal allies, the world is meant to enrich and serve the United States.

To make sure the world knows of their power and what they are willing to do with it the Report states,

“In the region, US INDOPACOM currently has more than 2,000 aircraft; 200 ships and submarines; and more than 370,000 Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Airmen, DoD civilians, and contractors assigned within its area of responsibility. The largest concentration of forces in the region are in Japan and the ROK. A sizable contingent of forces (more than 5,000 on a day-to-day basis) are also based in the U.S. territory of Guam, which serves as a strategic hub supporting crucial operations and logistics for all U.S. forces operating in the Indo-Pacific region. Other allies and partners that routinely host U.S. forces on a smaller scale include the Philippines, Australia, Singapore, and the United Kingdom through the island of Diego Garcia”. Other bases are planned in Australia and New Guinea.

In describing its relations and military cooperation with its vassal allies it places special emphasis on Taiwan and uses language that in direct terms violates the One China Policy of China, which the US pays lip service to. It is tantamount to a declaration that Taiwan is a US protectorate instead of an integral part of China.

They state,

“The objective of our defense engagement with Taiwan is to ensure that Taiwan remains secure, confident, free from coercion, and able to peacefully and productively engage the mainland on its own terms.”

So when US, Australian, French, or British naval forces claim they are traversing the Straight of Taiwan as an exercise in “freedom of navigation” we know that what they are really doing is using force to divide China, to treat it as if it were still the weak China of the 19th century when American gunboats until as late as 1949 ran up and down the Yangtze River as if they owned it; to slap it in the face, to dare it with insults.

The situation has become so tense that the Global Times on June 6,th in an op ed by Wei Jianguo, said,

China is able to withstand US maximum pressure, due to the country’s economic resilience, and Chinese people’s resolute determination. Suffering from a century of humiliation, the Chinese nation has been accustomed to such pressure, as shown in the War of Resistance against Japanese Aggression, as well as the Korean War or the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea. The unity of Chinese people is a vital reason for the country’s fundamental victory in history.”

The Peoples’ Daily stated, “America is the enemy of the world.”

Russia and China, in their defence, are intensifying their economic and military cooperation but the threat remains and is increasing. The answer may lie in the fact that the US strategy is ultimately self-defeating. The more they try to dominate the world, the more intense the resistance becomes. Even their alliances are coming apart at the seams as the thieves bicker about their share of the loot. But the question remains, what to do about this enemy of the world, this outlaw power.

*

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.

Christopher Black is an international criminal lawyer based in Toronto. He is known for a number of high-profile war crimes cases and recently published his novel “Beneath the Clouds. He writes essays on international law, politics and world events, especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.” He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on This Outlaw Power: America’s Intent is to Dominate China, Russia and the World
  • Tags: ,

In recent months a debate over whether a global insect apocalypse is underway has raged in the mainstream media and among researchers. To assess the range of scientific opinion, Mongabay interviewed 24 entomologists and other scientists working on six continents, in more than a dozen countries, to better determine what we know, what we don’t, and, most importantly, what we should do about it.

This is part two of a four-part exclusive series by Mongabay senior contributor Jeremy Hance. Read Part I, “A global look at a deepening crisis” here.

Tyson Wepprich, a postdoctoral research associate at Oregon State University, was only supposed to be looking at the presence or absence of butterfly species in Ohio. But news of insect decline, in blockbuster studies from Germany and Puerto Rico, changed his plans. His team is now also looking hard at overall abundance — and the early results aren’t good.

“The trends are similar to those in long-term European butterfly monitoring where abundance, summed across all species, is declining at around 2 percent per year,” he says of the team’s unpublished work, and “about twice as many species are declining rather than increasing.”

Wepprich’s ongoing research is just another sign that something may be seriously amiss with the world’s insects — something some entomologists have privately suspected, but which they are only now beginning to prove and publish about.

“I used to think of conservation as policies to save rare species from extinction,” Wepprich says, but adds he now believes conserving abundance must also be a part of any successful environmental strategy.

A “typical malaise [trap] catch in the good old days” before insect decline swept Western Europe, as described by researcher Hans de Kroon. Malaise traps are the typical traps used to capture insects over time. Image by the Entomological Society Krefeld.

Insects: A conservation black hole

Despite the fact that arthropods make up most of the species on Earth, and much of the planet’s biomass, they are significantly understudied compared to mammals, plants, birds, amphibians, reptiles, fish and much else.

The IUCN Red List, for example, has assessed just 8,131 insect species regarding their extinction risk, a mere 0.8 percent of known insect species (the Red List estimates around a million insect species have been described). By contrast, the list has assessed 100 percent of all known mammals and birds. Moreover, today, nearly 300 years after Carl Linnaeus devised the system of taxonomy, we’ve only identified a small fraction of all the insect species inhabiting our world.

Conservation of insects, even of well-known species, has also lagged well behind conservation of other taxonomic groups. This is likely due to a philanthropic reality: it has proven far easier to raise funds for tigers, panda bears and whales than for glacier fleas, oleander hawk moths, or exploding ants. There are, of course, some conservation groups that focus solely on insects, like the Xerxes Society in the U.S., or Buglife in the U.K. But they’re far smaller and less well funded than those focused on big charismatic mammals or birds popular with the public. Millions of people call themselves “birders”; far fewer claim to be “insecters.”

In truth, for most of modern conservation history, environmentalists haven’t really worried much about insect conservation; the assumption has long been that if you protect umbrella species (also known as keystone or flagship species) in a landscape, you’ll be conserving all else as well. But new research by entomologists is clearly showing that’s no longer the case.

Warning shot: Confirming EU insect decline

No insect groups on Earth have been more thoroughly studied than those in Europe, including in the U.K., where none other than Charles Darwin himself made considerable contributions to the field of entomology.

So it’s no surprise that the first news of a so-called insect apocalypse came from Western Europe in a groundbreaking, eye-opening, and stunning paper that exploded on the scene in October 2017. It found that flying insects in 63 protected areas in Germany had declined by 75 percent in just 25 years. The study was built on the meticulous records of amateur entomologists. To date, this is the strongest data we have on insect declines in temperate areas.

But German amateurs aren’t the only ones with good long-term records. The UK Butterfly Monitoring Scheme has been keeping annual tabs on butterflies for 43 years, and over that time two-thirds of the nations’ species have decreased. Meanwhile, a recent report on Scottish moths found that their abundance dropped by 46 percent in just 25 years. While these data points are useful and deeply concerning, they say nothing about the vast majority of less charismatic insects, or about insect abundance across ecosystems.

“We do not have much proper research [in Europe] for most taxa, except butterflies, bees and maybe Odonata [dragonflies and damselflies],” says Pedro Cardoso, a University of Helsinki ecology professor who studies insects.

But Axel Ssymank, an entomologist with the German Federal Agency for Nature Conservation, says he fears the collapse of insects in the EU, though far from conclusive to date, is likely to be confirmed. He notes that ongoing monitoring at several EU sites has resulted in similar findings to the Germany study: species that were abundant only 10 to 20 years ago are now “extremely rare or vanished.” Ssymank, who specializes in hoverflies, says he has seen drops of 80 percent in hoverfly abundance in lowland valleys.

“Obviously, not only the big insects, like some large butterflies, are heavily declining, but also the tiny ones, regardless of body size, but with an amazing variation between even closely related species,” he says.

The German research team responsible for the 2017 abundance study is continuing its work. Co-author Hans de Kroon, a plant ecologist with Radboud University in the Netherlands, says he and his colleagues are now interested not only in ongoing monitoring of the populations in the German reserves, but also in finding out how insect declines are impacting other species, particularly birds. They also plan to use DNA barcoding to get a better sense of how particular insect species are faring compared to others.

He adds that researchers in neighboring nations are uncovering similar findings to those first reported in Germany. Long-term data sets in his home country of the Netherlands, for example, show “the same declines of say 50, 60, and 70 percent decline over say a 30-year time span.”

A paper appearing in June in the journal Biological Conservation found an incredible 84 percent decline in butterflies in the Netherlands from 1890 to 2017; in reality, the authors write, “the loss is likely even higher.”

“The pattern is getting confirmed all the time, and it’s not so much of a surprise [now] because [the Germany study] really looked at a large number of sites over a big variety of different habitats,” de Kroon notes. “It’s very typical of a Western European landscape.”

He suggests that such declines will also be confirmed in North America, where climate and habitat are most similar to Western Europe.

“This is what seems to be going on.”

North American decline?

In North America, insect news has long been dominated by colony collapse disorder: the abandonment en masse of honeybee hives, a phenomenon that began to get attention in the early 2000s. Despite nearly two decades of research, the causes of hive failures are still not known, but likely suspects include parasites, disease, habitat loss and pesticides — or some combination of these. More recently, colony collapse concern has been exacerbated by fears of pollinator declines. But even in the U.S., research on pollinators, let alone the less charismatic insects that make up the wealth of abundance and diversity, lags far behind that done in Europe.

Neither the U.S. nor Canada have conducted an in-depth study similar to that done in Germany. One could point to recent research in Puerto Rico, considered part of North America, that found insect populations had utterly collapsed in a tropical rainforest. But given that the habitat in the study is so different from most of North America, it’s a more useful analogue for the Neotropics than North America.

“Unfortunately we do not yet have a clear understanding of how insect populations are changing in North America,” says Corrie Moreau, an entomologist who specializes in ants at Cornell University. “Although museum collections and previously published studies can inform us of past diversity and abundance, we need new sampling efforts to understand how insect populations look today.”

Research efforts may be ramping up in the mainland U.S., however, after scientists saw the work coming out of Germany and Puerto Rico.

“I know of groups that are starting to make plans for those kinds of [abundance] studies,” says says Michelle Trautwein, an expert on flies and assistant curator of entomology with the California Academy of Sciences.

So it’s likely that Tyson Wepprich’s work in Ohio is just one of hopefully many studies that will hit science journals in the next few years, meaning we may soon gain a much better sense of the scale of North American insect declines.

“From what I have seen from the Ohio monitoring, even common butterfly species are having trouble adapting to the many potential contributors to the changing environment,” Wepprich says.

While Wepprich only tracked butterflies, his work could complement research that looks at other insect families, or as was done in Germany and Puerto Rico, insect total biomass.

One disturbing new development: the insect declines now being detected in Europe and North America may even extend as far north as the Arctic tundra. Research published in 2017 in Ecography assessed a field site in super-remote Zackenberg, Greenland, and found “strong declines of insects of certain fly families and species,” according to Toke Høye, a co-author and researcher at Denmark’s Aarhus University. One discovery: flies in the Muscidae family dropped by 80 percent in just 20 years.

However, says Høye, those declines haven’t been detected across the board so far; Arctic research has shown declines in waste-eating insects but possible rises in herbivorous ones in Greenland.

He notes that the Arctic declines can only likely be explained by climate change, given that the research station in Zackenberg is too far from any human habitation to be impacted by human-caused habitat destruction or pesticide drift.

Clear-cut forest near Eugene, Oregon. The destruction of forests and other habitats, often due to the intensification of agriculture, has likely been hitting insects hard in the EU and North America, but more data is urgently needed. Image by Calibas via Wikimedia Commons (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Drivers of change

To the south, in both Europe and North America, most researchers say the likely primary drivers of most insect population declines so far are habitat loss and degradation, and pesticide use — not climate change.

“Climate change is so far very low on the list of causes,” says Ssymank, referring to European insects.

He notes that insects inhabiting high-altitude areas threatened by global warming (think the Alps) could be being heavily impacted, though that research is yet to be done.

Bradford Lister, who led the Puerto Rico insect abundance study and found climate change to be the primary driver of declines there, disagrees. He says researchers in temperate regions have “totally missed” looking at, and seeing, the impact of climate change on insect abundance.

“I think we have to start utilizing statistical techniques that will allow us to assess the impact of heat on temperate insects,” he says, adding, “We’ve been somewhat remiss in not fully examining the impacts of climate warming.”

In the end, the plunge in insect populations may be due to, and sustained by, a variety of causes, which may differ across regions — though the human fingerprint is assuredly always there.

“Unfortunately I suspect it is more a death by a million cuts that is leading to these dramatic losses,” Moreau concludes.

What we know, and don’t know

Preliminary research in Europe and, to a lesser extent, in North America points to a decline in the abundance of numerous insect species, seemingly across families and habitats. And what we know from Europe is that overall abundance, at least in countries like Germany and the Netherlands, has plunged precipitously in just a few decades — even in nature reserves.

“I think this [serious loss] fits into all the other alarm bells that have been ringing for us and society lately,” Trautwein says. “The potential drivers of [the insect decline] are things that are causing major issues for society and for ecosystems more generally: climate change, habitat destruction, pesticide usage … This is all added evidence that we need to start taking this [mass extinction crisis] seriously.”

Indeed, because everything in the web of life is connected, and because the slashing of one thread leads to the weakening of the whole, crashing insect abundance is almost certainly linked to other ecological degradations occurring on our planet.

“All of a sudden you start looking at nature in a different way because the things that have been changing could very well be changing as a result of this insect decline,” says de Kroon.

For example, insect decline may also explain losses among insect-eating birds, lizards and amphibians.

In the end, we are left with far more questions than answers. For example, how are insects faring on the rest of the planet, where research dollars are spread much more thinly, especially in the tropics of Africa, Asia and Latin America? It’s here that insect diversity stands unparalleled, with most species still unknown to science. But, to date, we have only a single major tropical study on just one protected area on a solitary island in the Caribbean, though we may soon have more.

“Things are in much, much more dire straits than I ever thought. I think the time has come to start using stronger terms,” concludes Lister. “When I saw [the headline] ‘Insect Apocalypse is Here’ [in the New York Times]… I thought, ‘Oh, my God, this isn’t good.’ You know how scientists don’t want to oversell or [use] hyperbole? But now, yes, that’s a good term — a catastrophic collapse is what I’ve been saying lately.”

This is part two of a four-part exclusive series by Mongabay senior contributor Jeremy Hance. Read Part I, “A global look at a deepening crisis” here.  

Mongabay articles are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International LicenseTo republish this report, see here.

*

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

Sources

Koltz, A. M., Schmidt, N. M., & Høye, T. T. (2018). Differential arthropod responses to warming are altering the structure of Arctic communities. Royal Society Open Science, 5(4), 171503. doi:10.1098/rsos.171503

Loboda, S., Savage, J., Buddle, C. M., Schmidt, N. M., & Høye, T. T. (2017). Declining diversity and abundance of High Arctic fly assemblages over two decades of rapid climate warming. Ecography,41(2), 265-277. doi:10.1111/ecog.02747

Bowden, J. J., Hansen, O. L., Olsen, K., Schmidt, N. M., & Høye, T. T. (2018). Drivers of inter-annual variation and long-term change in High-Arctic spider species abundances. Polar Biology,41(8), 1635-1649. doi:10.1007/s00300-018-2351-0

Høye, T. T., Post, E., Schmidt, N. M., Trøjelsgaard, K., & Forchhammer, M. C. (2013). Shorter flowering seasons and declining abundance of flower visitors in a warmer Arctic. Nature Climate Change, 3(8), 759-763. doi:10.1038/nclimate1909

Ollerton, J., Winfree, R., & Tarrant, S. (2011). How many flowering plants are pollinated by animals? Oikos, 120(3), 321-326. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0706.2010.18644.x

Bar-On, Y. M., Phillips, R., & Milo, R. (2018). The biomass distribution on Earth. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(25), 6506-6511. doi:10.1073/pnas.1711842115

Komonen, A., Halme, P., & Kotiaho, J. S. (2019). Alarmist by bad design: Strongly popularized unsubstantiated claims undermine credibility of conservation science. Rethinking Ecology, 4, 17-19. doi:10.3897/rethinkingecology.4.34440

Wagner, D. L. (2019). Global insect decline: Comments on Sánchez-Bayo and Wyckhuys (2019). Biological Conservation, 233, 332-333. doi:10.1016/j.biocon.2019.03.005

Cardoso, P., Branco, V. V., Chichorro, F., Fukushima, C. S., & Macías-Hernández, N. (2019). Can we really predict a catastrophic worldwide decline of entomofauna and its drivers? Global Ecology and Conservation, 20. doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2019.e00621

The deal that Trump struck with Mexico late last week in order to prevent the imposition of 5-25% tariffs on all of its exports to the US marketplace simultaneously advances his vision of “Fortress America” and softens the blow of China’s counter-sanctions by making Mexico his country’s “Lead From Behind” security partner in Central America’s “Northern Triangle” and getting it to agree to the large-scale purchase of agricultural products that the People’s Republic recently tariffed.

Trump came out on top in last week’s high-stakes tariff game with Mexico after clinching a deal with it just days prior to his promised imposition of 5% tariffs on all of its exports to the US marketplace, which would compound every month until November when they’d reach a 25% ceiling. The Mexican economy is completely dependent on the American one, especially after NAFTA enabled third parties to invest in the country as a backdoor to exporting their goods tariff-free to the US. There was no way that it could have survived the crushing effect of up to 25% tariffs, which would have inevitably led to the rapid large-scale exodus of untold billions of dollars from its economy as foreign investors rerouted their supply chains in response, hence why Mexico felt compelled to give in to Trump’s border security demands by “taking unprecedented steps to increase enforcement to curb irregular migration” along the Guatemalan border from Central America’s unstable “Northern Triangle”.

The official State Department statement also said that both parties “welcome the Comprehensive Development Plan launched by the Government of Mexico in concert with the Governments of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras” to “promote prosperity, good governance and security in Central America”. This aspect of the agreement can be understood as the US delegating Mexico as its “Lead From Behind” security partner for managing the three primary Central American states from which the majority of illegal immigrants have been arriving in recent years. In exchange for acting as the US’ border security vanguard by directly curtailing illegal immigration from the southern isthmus, as well as agreeing to house US asylum seekers on its territory until their cases have been adjudicated, the Mexican economy will be spared the “nuclear bomb” of Trump’s 5-25% tariffs on all its northern-destined exports. Put another way, Trump was able to masterfully leverage the US’ economic influence over Mexico in order to achieve a tangible security outcome.

In addition, Trump also tweeted that “Mexico has agreed to immediately begin buying large quantities of agricultural product from our great patriot farmers”, which will help one of his key constituencies ahead of next year’s heated 2020 elections after China’s counter-sanctions curtailed their exports to the world’s largest marketplace as a retaliatory escalation in the ongoing “trade war“. Taken together, it becomes evident that Trump’s deal with Mexico advances his “Fortress America” vision of restoring the US’ “sphere of influence” over the Western Hemisphere by having his southern neighbor take the lead in dealing with the unconventional threat of “Weapons of Mass Migration” under pane of crippling economic punishment, as well as representing a clever solution for softening the political-economic blow from China’s counter-sanctions against American farmers. In essence, Trump is pursuing US-led hemispheric autarky by relying on Mexico’s massive market (and possibly soon, the rest of Latin America’s and especially Brazil’s) to compensate for the loss of China’s.

This wouldn’t have been possible had it not been for the success of the Obama-era “Operation Condor 2.0” series of rolling regime changes across the region that pushed back the so-called “Pink Tide” and restored the US’ supremacy over the hemisphere, which in turn enabled Trump to weaponize access to the US consumer market through sanctions threats for political-economic purposes, a tactic that’s already become the hallmark of his presidency after being rigorously applied against the multipolar Great Powers of Russia, China, and Iran. The quickness with which Mexico capitulated to Trump’s border security demands speaks to the effectiveness of these interconnected efforts, as well as the systemic vulnerability of the rest of the hemisphere’s comparatively weaker southern states vis-a-vis their dependence on exports to the US, strongly suggesting that the Mexican precedent can simply be repackaged and reapplied as needed on a case-by-case basis as Trump puts the finishing touches on “Fortress America” in preparation for his drawn-out “trade war” with China.

*

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

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

Haiti, the Silent Chaos!

June 10th, 2019 by Joël Léon

Introductory Note on Somalia. Its Relevance to Haiti

One year of the war between Somalia and Ethiopia (1977-78) was enough to destroy an entire country and spread instability across the region.

After the 1991 coup that toppled general Mohamed Siad Barre from power,  conflict was inevitable. A long overdue civil war broke out, ignited by Ethiopia. The government financed many small groups of armed thugs to destabilize the populace, and Somalia abruptly stopped being a state, let alone a government. Somalia no longer fit the United Nations’ definition of a “Group of people which have acquired international recognition as an independent country and which have a population, a common language and a defined a distinct territory”.  In effect, the government and state of Somalia had ceased to exist. Therefore, it became impossible for the specialists of international law to approve Somalia as a state.

Somalia was run by 5 gangs that divided the country between warlords. The concept of a central government was replaced by a cadre of armed thugs. Every 25 miles, there was a warlord taking actions in the sole interest of his gang, which integrated into a bigger group.

The consequences didn’t take long to explode in the face of the world. In 1992, after the report of 300,000 deaths, the United Nations, supported by the US. government, had to take action to stop the madness. They created the “United Nations Operation in Somalia; UNOSOM I. The goal of this mission was to facilitate humanitarian aid and to make sure a cease-fire would endure.

Before that, the war-lords diverted  humanitarian aid, shelled it out to their partisans, and traded with neighboring countries for guns and ammunition. They used the aid to maintain a solid relationship between the local population and their cause. This created a favorable precondition for the warlords in the field when they declared UN soldiers “Persona Non-Grata” under heavy fire in Mogadishu.

The civil war killed more than 500,000 Somalians, more than 2 million refugees, 2 U.S. black-hawk helicopters went down, and the United States lost 18 soldiers.  Pakistan and India lost soldiers as well.

In 2018, Somalia remains on the brink.  Mogadishu, the capital, is still under heavy fire. On October 14th, 2018, “A bomb-laden truck in central Mogadishu killed at least 358 people.” Unfortunately, the Somali people are still living in distress and the United Nations is failing to bring peace and stability to the 15 million men, women, and children whose fate is tied to Somalia. Haiti, is also moving quickly into chaos to become the next Somalia of America. No one is taking notice.

***

“Somalisation”, The Destruction of Haiti

Whether you like or hate Jean Bertrand Aristide, he spared Haiti from the process of ‘somalisation’ that destroyed so many countries in Africa: Liberia, Chad, Libya, and Sudan, by agreeing to withdraw himself from power on February 29th, 2004. When Guy Philippe, former chief of police, [supported by the CIA] led an armed rebellion to overthrow him from power in 2003, it marked the beginning of the destruction of Haiti.

In the Wake of the 2010 Earthquake

Immediately after the earthquake that claimed more than 300,000  lives in 2010, another opportunity for ‘somalization’  presented itself. The country was in total disarray, the capital was 40 % destroyed, and more than 1 million people were displaced or lived under tents in very difficult conditions. The international community, specifically the United Nations and the United States, pushed the government toward organizing elections. In that chaotic situation, the least qualified presidential candidate, Michel Martelly, was handpicked and parachuted to power by the Clinton’s, Hillary and Bill.

It was well known that putting an inexperienced man such as Martelly in power would create high tensions. Today, here is the reality: a country is on the verge of a breakdown, both social and economic. Civil war is upon us.

Port-Au-Prince, the capital of Haiti, is similar to Mogadishu in 1991. Here is the configuration of the new “Wild Wild West,’’ in the heart of the Americas. The south side of the capital is run by 3 great warlords: Bougoy in “Gran Ravine,’’ “Baz Pilat” in the middle, and Arnel in the northwest of the city.

The north is under control of “Tijunior,’’ “Ti ougan,’’ “Barbecue” (a former cop), and  southwest by a young man called “Tije”.

A few weeks ago, one of the warlords, Arnel,  made an audacious move by creating another branch of his criminal organization in the department of “Artibonite,” in the north of the country. The plan is to expand his grip to a larger territory outside of the capital. At the beginning of the month the national police force tried to apprehend him, and that was a catastrophe. Arnel and his armed men kicked PNH out of the area, got inside of the headquarters of the police, vandalized it, stole everything then could, burned police cars, and demolished a local store for DIGICEL, the largest phone company in Haiti. Since then, an area that is inhabited by 155,272 people is under control of the warlord Arnel.

The parallel is obvious. The gangs are better equipped than the national police forces. They have the best weapons (M-16, Galil, Kalashnikov, T-65), many trucks and cars, and some of them are new. It’s not a secret to anybody that the government is providing guns, ammunition, and money to those armed groups. They openly admitted it. There is a radio station called “Radio Mega,’’ and Luco Desir, a very popular anchor who from time to time interviewed Arnel Joseph. He admitted that he got support from some officials of the government. On April 24th, a former prosecutor in the capital, Danton Leger, declared that the president of Haiti, Mr. Jovenel Moise, sent $100,000 to Arnel via an active senator, Gracia Delva.

The chairman of the commission of justice and security in the Senate, the senator Jean Renel Senatus, provided information to the press on May 23rd, 2019, that after an investigation by his commission, they found the phone number of senator Gracia Delva listed in Arnel’s Phone. And they spoke frequently, 24 times from February 7th to 17th. Of course, the senator denied it.

The capital of Haiti, Port-au-Prince is devoid of people after 6 at night. The population is being held hostage in their own homes. If there is an emergency in the middle of the night, no one will take the chance to drive to the hospital because the gangs take over each night.

An independent and well respected Haitian journalist from “Nouvelliste,’’ Robenson Geffrard, tweeted:

“the armed gang led by the warlord Arnel Joseph, wanted by the police, and the gang of “Savien,’’ are raping people. They intercepted a bus filled with missionaries at “L’estere” (an area in the department of “Artibonite”), and they raped all the women found in the bus.’’

On November 13th, 2018, a massacre took place in a slum area called “Lasaline.’’ RNDDH, a human rights organization, published an investigative report  which  said 70 people were killed, and many houses burned down. Videos were posted on social media showing animals eating  the bodies of people in “Lasaline”. The United Nations was forced to investigate the matter and corroborated the results of the human right organizations. The armed groups used guns and machetes to attack people and burned down their houses. Some of the attackers were dressed in national police uniforms.

Some people believe that gangs are a tool used by the government to intimidate and repress people. Specifically, the armed men create a situation of permanent tension in the main shantytowns of the country by constantly firing guns into the air. Sometimes, they kill inhabitants just to dissuade them from taking part in the electoral process. Those favoring the government are provided free transportation to the polls.

The population of Haiti is living in horrendous social and economic conditions. With less than $2 a day, no electricity, no clean water, no jobs, no health system; they are living with practically nothing. The corrupt government is making it worse for the people when they decide to use warlords to intimidate and kill them. Far away from the international press, the population is silently ingesting their misery. Because Haiti is not Venezuela, the American administration is currently supporting the process of “Somalization” of Haiti by vowing their support to a corrupt government that is terrorizing its own population. The chaos continues. The process of Somalization of Haiti is in rapid development.

On May 25th 2019, a group of armed men attacked a group of people in the streets of the capital around 8 at night. 8 people were reported killed and many injured. Yvenson Destine, journalist of radio zenith, went in the area the next day morning to acquire information about the carnage. He was assaulted by the same group of bandits, one person was killed, and the journalist was in hiding for many hours until police came. Here is the volatile reality of Haiti, where armed groups have control some parts of the capital.

June 9th 2019, more than 1 million people were on the street asking peacefully “Kote Kob Petwokaribe a” (where is the Petrocaribe money). Police forces step in killing 7 people and injuring 147, 70 were arrested. The chaos is continuing!

*

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

US Secretary for State Mike Pompeo has come under fire after a recording emerged of him saying he’d intervene to stop Labour Party leader Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister. In the recording first reported by the Washington Post, Pompeo suggests he won’t wait for Corbyn to be elected, rather he’ll attempt to stop it from being possible.

The off the record meeting was from when The Secretary for State met Jewish leaders to discuss Donald Trump’s proposed Peace Deal between Palestine and Israel.

Apart from appearing un-optimistic about the Peace Deal, he found time to comment on UK politics. When asked by an attendee;

if Corbyn “is elected, would you be willing to work with us to take on actions if life becomes very difficult for Jews in the U.K.?”

Pompeo gives a very clear response. Considering the allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 Presidential elections, the irony here is inescapable. The top US diplomat told those in attendance;

“It could be that Mr. Corbyn manages to run the gantlet and get elected. It’s possible. You should know, we won’t wait for him to do those things to begin to push back. We will do our level best,

“It’s too risky and too important and too hard once it’s already happened.”

This response received a voracious round of applause from those in the meeting.

These remarks raise serious questions about US interference in UK Politics. It has been alleged by many, that Russia played a part in the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union (EU). Now a top US official wants to influence a General Election or perhaps have Corbyn removed as Labour Party leader.

Corbyn’s Path to Power

For the Jeremy Corbyn to become Prime Minister, he would need his party to gain the most seats in Parliament and be able to hold a majority following a General Election.

The next election in the UK isn’t due until 2022. However, an early election can be called if the government of the time loses a “vote of no confidence” or, MPs vote by two-thirds to dissolve parliament early.

Given that the Conservative Party are electing a new leader who will become the next Prime Minister, it is possible that either of these scenarios could occur.

UK politics is however chaotic at the moment. Nigel Farage’s newly formed Brexit Party did well in the recent European Elections. The two main parties, Labour and the Conservatives are also both under fire for the Brexit stances. Given all that is going on, no party is guaranteed a majority raising the possibility of a Coalition Government.

Interference Irony

Donald Trump’s entire presidency has been overshadowed by allegations that Russia colluded with his campaign to help him win in 2016. The Mueller Report did find that there was no evidence of Russian collusion, with some caveats.

For Mike Pompeo to come out saying he’d attempt to block Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister is just rank hypocrisy.

A Labour spokesmen hit out at the revelation by saying;

“President Trump and his officials’ attempts to decide who will be Britain’s next prime minister are an entirely unacceptable interference in the UK’s democracy.”

The remarks about President Trump relate to comments he made during his State Visit to the United Kingdom last week. Mr Trump suggested that Nigel Farage should be involved in Brexit negotiations and, he endorsed Boris Johnson to become the next Prime Minister following Theresa May’s resignation telling the Sun Newspaper;

“I think Boris would do a very good job. I think he would be excellent,”

Antisemitism Claims

Mainstream Jewish organisations in the UK have be vocal in their opposition of Jeremy Corbyn. Since his election as Labour Leader in 2015, he has been dogged by attacks in the media accusing him and Labour of antisemitism.

Despite these attacks, his popularity has grown and Labour is now the largest political party by membership in Western Europe. In 2017 against all predictions Corbyn led Labour to get an increased vote share and also lost the Conservatives their majority in Parliament. This is what has led to deadlock in parliament as the Conservatives don’t have a majority to pass legislation.

MPs in his own party have called Corbyn himself an antisemite. Dame Margaret Hodge famously screamed it in his face in the corridors of the House of Commons in London. She was initially placed under investigation for this but it was later dropped as Mr Corbyn didn’t want to take action.

Under his leadership he has changed the process for dealing with claims of antisemitism. A body independent of the party leadership look into any claims and take action were appropriate. One of the main issues that seems to pass by most media commentators, is the fact that Labour can only take action against it’s members. Many of the complaints they receive turn out to involve non-party members.

Corbyn has spoken out on antisemitism and all forms of racism by stating they have no place in society. This is not enough for most of his critics. Only his removal for the top job will satisfy those unhappy with his leadership.

Many on the left of UK politics believe that the hostility towards Jeremy Corbyn stems from his support of Palestine. He has been clear that should he be elected, the UK will officially recognise Palestine as a country.

Mr Corbyn has frequently spoken out against the Israeli government’s treatment of Palestinians since he became a Member of Parliament in 1983. He has also defended Jewish groups throughout his time in parliament too.

There is a strong Lobby for Israel in UK politics. This is no secret and has played against Corbyn on many occasions. However, now the US Israeli lobby is getting involved, this ramps things up significantly. The United States has always been much closer to Israel and any threat to the status quo will be seen and treated as a threat.

Mike Pompeo has made this clear in his comments.

What Next for UK Politics

Over the next few months the UK political scene is going to change significantly. A new Prime Minister will take office seeing the Cabinet change in composition.

The UK is due to leave the European Union at the end of October, with or without a deal. This could see the economy take a hit bringing more uncertainty.

A General Election is a real possibility what with Parliament being in deadlock over Brexit. Any interference from US Politicians is not taken well in the UK. When then US President Barrack Obama commented that the UK would be at “the back of the queue” should they vote to leave the EU, he faced criticism from all sides.

Should Pompeo or any other politician attempt to sway people of influence the Labour Party I would expect a similar response. Whilst no fans of each other, UK political parties don’t like outside interference.

Pompeo’s remarks also may come back to haunt him should Jeremy Corbyn become Prime Minister. The US and UK share a lot on defence and intelligence so a strained relationship from the start may put pressure on this.

With President Trump’s long awaited Peace Deal for Israel and Palestine due to be announced soon, the US don’t want a spanner being thrown in the works by Jeremy Corbyn.

With the Trump administration, anything is possible.

*

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.

Alex Tiffin is a freelance journalist covering politics with a specific interest in welfare, disability & world events. I present facts so you can make informed decisions.

Featured image is from Gage Skidmore — CC BY-SA 2.0

Signs that European customers are “abandoning” UK firms are starting to show after British manufacturing recorded the steepest downturn in almost three years.

Following an early Brexit stockpiling boom at the start of the year May figures dipped significantly for UK manufacturers with new orders drying up.

Make UK – formerly known as the EEF – said the downturn shows investment plans have been “paralysed” by Brexit uncertainty in the second quarter of the year, warning that a ‘no deal’ would equate to “economic lunacy”.

The warnings have been sounded as the IHS Markit/CIPS UK Manufacturing Purchasing Managers’ Index (PMI) fell to 49.4 from 53.1 in April, its lowest level since July 2016 and worse than all forecasts in a Reuters poll of economists that had pointed to a fall to 52.0.

Make UK’s chief executive, Stephen Phipson, warned elements of the manufacturing industry would be pushed over the edge if the uncertainty continued.

He said:

“Earlier this year there was clear evidence that industry was on steroids as companies stockpiled.

“Underneath, however, there is now growing evidence of European companies abandoning UK supply chains, whilst Asian customers baulk at the unknown of what may exist as the UK leaves trade agreements which operate under EU rules.

“With this picture it would be the height of economic lunacy to take the UK out of the EU with no deal in place. The race to the bottom in the interests of party ideology has to stop otherwise there will be a heavy price to pay.”

*

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

Jack Peat is a business and economics journalist and the founder of The London Economic (TLE).He has contributed articles to The Sunday Telegraph, BBC News and writes for The Big Issue on a weekly basis.Jack read History at the University of Wales, Bangor and has a Masters in Journalism from the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne.

Featured image is from The London Economic

According to editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks Kristinn Hrafnsson“[The Trump administration]  is so desperate to build its case against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange that it is using a diagnosed sociopath, a convicted conman and sex criminal, who was exposed by the highest levels of the Icelandic government as an FBI informant and who was involved in an entrapment operation in 2011 against Julian Assange.”

Trump’s Justice Department is “preparing to file (an) additional indictment against Assange” on top of current phony charges, wanting him punished for the “crime” of truth-telling journalism the way it should be.

Despite guilty of no crimes, he currently faces 18 spurious charges, the Trump regime wanting him imprisoned longterm.

Arresting and imprisoning him in the UK was all about holding him for extradition to the US — his mistreatment an assault on fundamental speech, media and academic freedoms, Britain and hardliners in Washington want eliminated.

The Trump regime got Chelsea Manning indefinitely detained for refusing to help build a stronger case against Assange.

According to WikiLeaks, its hardliners intend using convicted felon/FBI informant Sigurdur Thordarson as a witness against him.

He’s already considered guilty by accusation multiple times over, conviction on multiple counts certain if subjected to US kangaroo court injustice — the way Chelsea Manning and other courageous whistleblowers were framed.

According to Dutch public broadcaster NOS, FBI agent Megan Brown in charge of Assange’s crucifixion went to Reykjavik, Iceland in early May with Eastern District of Virginia prosecutor Kellen Dwyer.

Aided by Icelandic police, they interrogated Thordarson. On May 27, he was flown to Washington for further interrogation, remaining until June 1.

According to WikiLeaks, he agreed to help build a case against Assange. He’s now free after earlier imprisonment on charges of embezzlement, fraud, and sex crimes against nine minors.

He “stole tens of thousands of dollars from WikiLeaks, and impersonated Julian Assange in order to carry out the embezzlement,” Hrafnsson explained, adding:

“As part of (his) criminal prosecution…in Iceland, he was examined by a forensic psychiatrist who diagnosed him as a sociopath.”

Because he lacks credibility as a convicted felon for his grand theft against WikiLeaks, impersonating Assange, along with involvement an FBI plot to entrap him, his identity and fellow agency informant Hector Monsegut will be concealed during UK extradition proceedings against Assange to begin in June 14.

Reportedly in 2011, eight or nine FBI agents and Eastern District of Virginia prosecutors were expelled by Icelandic authorities for unacceptable activities in the country against Assange.

Yet its authorities cooperated with the Trump regime to help frame him for the “crime” of journalism.

According to Sydney Morning Herald reporter Ryan Gallagher,

“Thordarson gave the FBI a large amount of data on WikiLeaks, including private chat message logs, photographs, and contact details of volunteers, activists, and journalists affiliated with the organization.”

Reportedly one or more other WikiLeaks staffers may be charged by Trump’s Justice Department. According to a US Attorney’s Office letter to former WikiLeaks spokesman Daniel Domscheit-Berg, he was offered immunity from prosecution in return for fully cooperating with the DOJ, the offer later withdrawn.

In response to 18 current charges against Assange, Law Professor Jack Goldsmith said the work of Assange and WikiLeaks is no different from other media.

Attorney Jacques Semmelman, specializing in extradition cases, said the following about Assange’s indictment and request for UK authorities to hand him over to the US for prosecution:

“It is a classic political offense. I have a difficult time seeing a British court departing so significantly from legal tradition and saying in this case they will make an exception,” adding:

“The political offense exception as it has existed for probably 150 years has consistently maintained that for espionage charges, they are not extraditable. That’s just a classic principle of international extradition law.”

Assange’s health is another issue. UN special rapporteur on torture Nils Melzer visited him at London’s high-security Belmarsh prison. Two medical experts in the effects of torture and other forms of abuse accompanied him.

After a thorough physical and psychological examination, they concluded that years of involuntary confinement in Ecuador’s London embassy, compounded by imprisonment at Belmarsh, took an enormous toll on his health.

Melzer stressed that he could die in prison, adding:

“This is not prosecution. This is persecution and it has to stop here and it has to stop now.”

Trump regime hardliners want him for a politicized show trial, guilt automatic before beginning, a warning to other investigative journalists that the same fate awaits them if they reveal information about US high crimes and other wrongdoing it wants suppressed.

*

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

Sudan: Chaos Unleashed. Color Revolution

June 10th, 2019 by Andrew Korybko

The ongoing events in Sudan are a perfect example of the uncontrollable chaos that can be unleashed in society following a Color Revolution, with it now becoming almost impossible to predict how the latest crisis will be resolved, if ever.

Disturbing Developments

“Revolutions devour their own children”, as the saying goes, and nowhere is that more evident than in contemporary Sudan in the two months following the military coup against former President Bashir.

The armed forces overthrew the long-serving leader after he reportedly intended to use violence against the protesters that were participating in an ever-intensifying Color Revolution, yet now those very same forces did what they supposedly prevented Bashir from doing and killed dozens of people camped out in the capital.

This led to the country’s suspension from the African Union and an urgent diplomatic intervention by Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy to mediate the crisis, yet the authorities soon thereafter arrested one of the protest organizers and also the head of the “Sudan People’s Liberation Movement-North” armed opposition group that met with him and therefore destroyed domestic and international trust in the Transitional Military Council (TMC). At this point, the entire situation is unpredictable as a result of the uncontrollably chaotic processes unleashed in society following the onset of the country’s Color Revolution earlier this year, and it’s anyone’s guess what happens next.

International Interests

Sudan’s stability is integral to the interests of several countries, some of which are interestingly rivals with one another. The GCC and its Egyptian ally are competing with Turkey for influence in the country, which is essentially an extension of the ongoing “GCC Cold War” between Qatar and the rest of its notional partners in the bloc over Doha’s patronage of the Ankara-allied Muslim Brotherhood that the remaining members of the organization and Cairo regard as terrorists. Bashir had previously allowed Turkey to rebuild the historic port of Suakin, which Egypt and the GCC consider to be part of a secret plot to set up a Turkish naval base in the Red Sea and has fueled speculation that they might have backed the early stages of the Color Revolution as part of a campaign of pressure to get him to reconsider this deal. Russia and China are also Sudan’s close partners, too, with the former seeing it as its point of entry into the rest of the continent and one of the three states pivotally comprising its “African Trilateral” while the latter needs the country for its envisaged bi-coastal “Sahelian-Saharan Silk Road“.

American Aims

The US is actually the only country that could theoretically gain from Sudan’s ongoing instability, which Bashir predicted a year and a half ago during his visit to Russia when he warned that America wants to divide his state into five parts. Just as the US sought to revise the Sykes-Picot status quo in the Mideast through its geopolitical re-engineering schemes brought about by the outcome of the theater-wide Color Revolutions popularly known as the “Arab Spring”, so too might it be seeking to do the same in Africa through its Syrian-like weaponization of chaos theory after this latest stage of what the author previously described as the “African Spring“. To put it simply, American strategists might have keenly predicted the broad course of events that would follow the onset of the Color Revolution in Sudan, with their country only having to indirectly and minimally intervene as needed in order to guide them in the direction of its grand strategic interests, which in this case might be the “Balkanization” of Sudan into five separate states, an outcome that goes against the interests of each of the aforementioned countries except the US.

A Return To Militancy?

The TMC seems aware of this plot and that might be why it arrested the SPLM-N’s leader, but the way in which it did so right after he met with PM Abiy makes it seem like he was set up and could possibly provoke the organization into resuming its militancy against the state before or after the unilateral three-month ceasefire that it declared expires in mid-July. That group and other armed ones probably saw an opportunity in Bashir’s overthrow to decentralize Sudan along the lines of a Bosnian-like “Identity Federation“, which is just a step away from the outright separatism that the US is speculatively supporting. With international pressure building and a return to militancy possibly being imminent, the TMC might have its hands full with a plethora of problems on top of the most pressing one of the ongoing Color Revolution that never went away after the coup. About that, the challenge with Color Revolutions is that they open up a Pandora’s Box of problems that are intended to be almost impossible for the state to properly deal with, thus leading to its systemic weakening and the creation of a self-sustaining cycle of unrest.

Color Revolution Pawns

The protesters are so concerned with ensuring an irreversible transition from military to civilian rule that they seem oblivious to the fact that their actions are putting the country’s existence in jeopardy, therefore making them function as indirect (if mostly unwitting) pawns of American foreign policy. That’s not to take away from their legitimate grievances, but just to point out how Color Revolutions masterfully exploit chaotic processes in pursuit of a third party’s grand strategic ends, even if the actual participants are largely unaware of it. Therein lays another problem because the government’s response to the worsening Color Revolution crisis will always be imperfect, with passivity being interpreted as weakness and thus inspiring more anti-state activity while too heavy-handed of an approach risks provoking armed militancy. The ideal solution would be to preempt the Color Revolution in the first place through a combination of proactive socio-economic development projects and solid intelligence efforts, though that ship has already proverbially sailed in Sudan’s case and there’s no going back to the pre-crisis status quo.

Concluding Thoughts

Sudan is in an ever-worsening state of crisis after the recent developments of the past week when the armed forces killed dozens of Color Revolutionaries, got the country suspended from the African Union in response, and arrested two key opposition figures shortly after PM Abiy’s mediation meeting with them. The scenario of state fragmentation is worryingly being furthered after these latest events, yet all the participants — the state, the anti-state forces (both peaceful and otherwise), and Sudan’s international partners — seem powerless to avert it given the uncontrollably chaotic processes that have already been unleashed in the country since the onset of the Color Revolution, which it should be acknowledged was made possible in the first place by the preexisting systemic shortcomings that were simply exacerbated by the US’ sanctions regime. There’s no telling what comes next, but the prognosis is far from positive and it seems likely that the worst-case scenario might become more probable than ever before, though there’s still a chance — however unlikely — that it can still be averted if free and fair elections are held as soon as possible but even that might not stop what could be an irreversible process by this point.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

The public sector “salary restraint” legislation expected by public sector union leaders was formally introduced on June 5th (Protecting a Sustainable Public Sector for Future Generations Act, 2019). I will get to the criticism in a moment. First, I have to acknowledge the Orwellian chutzpah of this government: without a climate change plan, it cheekily appropriates the language of “sustainability” and concern for “future generations.” They could have topped themselves by tipping their hat to the indigenous traditions they are also ignoring by adding “seven” in front of “generations.” Perhaps the next spending restraint bill can be more inclusive.

Titles aside, the bill is not about a sustainable anything, but first and foremost a shot across the bow of public sector unions (and especially the teachers’ unions, who will be in bargaining soon). The public service has been a target for governments of all denominations (remember Rae Days, everyone)? We can be certain that, if – as I hope – we are able to mobilize a staunch defence of collective bargaining rights, the government will try to drive a wedge between public sector “fat cats” and those hard working Ontarians in the private sector for whom this “government of the people” is working so hard.

Problem is: already, 75% of “the people” think that the government is on the wrong course. We have seen an impressive mobilization of the parents of autistic children against the government’s plans to change the funding support model for their children. There has been a sizeable demonstration in support of public healthcare in response to the serious threats of privatization lurking in the government’s healthcare bill. Now, they are openly challenging 1 million broader public sector workers to put up or shut up.

We Need to Put ’em Up

The issue here is not salary restraint. The bill caps total salary increases for workers and management at 1% per year for the three years following the signing of the next collective agreement. (It will not apply retroactively, but it will apply to agreements signed at any point in the future. Thus, if your agreement expires in two years time, it cannot include salary increases in excess of 1% per year for the next three years). No one in the broader public sector has achieved salary growth much in excess of this figure for over a decade. (An analysis of salary growth over the period 2013-2017 by the Ontario Confederation of Faculty Associations shows that nominal salaries have increased from a low of an average of .5% in 2013 to a high of 1.9% in 2017). I say ‘nominal’ because, once we factor in inflation, real salaries have shrunk. If inflation is roughly 2%, then a rate of “growth” less than 2% is actually a reduction of real wages.

“Well, so what,” a hard working citizen might respond. “A lot of you are fat cats, and your wages are not being cut, they are just being capped. Deal with it. If I have to suffer, so should you.”

Ok, on one level this response is fair enough, if it is targeted at the highest paid members of the broader public service (which would include tenured university faculty). However, in response, it is necessary to, first, remind everyone that the broader public service is not all tenured professors and deputy ministers. The majority of workers in the public sector are not raking it in, and they face the same rising costs and declining public services as everyone else.

Second, and more importantly, the threat this bill poses is as much or more political as it is economic. No one will die of starvation if their salaries are capped for three years. However, the collective power of workers to govern our work conditions (already nearly dead after forty years of neoliberal attacks on unions) will take another fateful step toward the grave unless we can turn this attack into fuel for a serious mobilization. Our goal has to be, in the short term, to block the passage of this bill. That short term goal has to be connected to a longer term strategy to protect public services as an actually existing alternative to priced commodities in consumer markets, adequately fund them, and ensure that Ford is back making decals in three years time (if not before).

It is true that collective bargaining is not workers’ control. Even before this bill, legal power is still overwhelmingly in the employer’s hands. Nevertheless, the principle is a step in the right direction. The principle that underlies collective bargaining is that work life should not be determined by market forces but by workers’ collective interests in safe, secure, meaningful, and socially valuable work.

As the OCUFA analysis shows, public sector workers do not have a vendetta against the public we serve. We have not bargained so as to fiscally destroy universities, hospitals, or government agencies. Still, we are not volunteers, we need to be paid, and we have a democratic right, (which, like all democratic rights, is the fruit of decades of struggle from below, not a gift from above), to bargain our conditions of work. The Bill claims that the right to collectively bargain is not compromised. But this is legalistic nonsense designed to ward off a Charter challenge (the Supreme Court has consistently affirmed the right to collective bargaining as a protected right under the Charter). The bill gives the Minister the right to void any collective agreement that contains salary increases above 1%. So, we can bargain anything we like, but if the Minister so decides, the agreement can be scrapped. Some right!

Defend Democratic Achievements

Some of us in the broader public sector enjoy something that approximates those conditions of work. We will not improve other workers’ conditions by allowing our historical gains to be undermined. Governments and their business allies know that driving a wedge between different groups of workers (or dividing the problem of work from the problems of democratic citizenship generally) serves to undermine our collective power, and paves the way for across the board attacks on democratic achievements, public services, and the institutional infrastructure we all depend upon for the satisfaction of our natural and social needs.

To be sure, cuts to welfare spending or hospitals are more dire and immediate threats to the satisfaction of the needs of the most vulnerable than capping public sector salaries at 1% for three years. However, politically, we have to resist the urge to divide struggles in this way (although, if it comes to a triage situation where choices have to be made, then, by all means, we have to choose to protect the most vulnerable). Political progress against attacks and for a well-funded infrastructure of robust public services is best made when we find common ground and fight together. Now is the time for those of us with a high degree of job security to put it to work, not to defend our right to make as much money as humanly possible, but to defend democratic achievements and insist upon better opportunities, better public services, and better life-protection for everyone, starting with the most vulnerable.

We do not need more words. We need action. And that has to start with the leadership of the major public sector unions (including university faculty associations) meeting as soon as possible to map out strategy and tactics. The Days of Action against Mike Harris had his Common Sense Revolutionaries on the run, before we let them off the hook. Let’s not make the same mistake twice.

*

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.

Jeff Noonan is Professor of Philosophy at the University of Windsor, and maintains a blog at www.jeffnoonan.org. He is the author of The Troubles with Democracy.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Neoliberal Economics and Workers Rights in Ontario: One Million More Reasons to Mobilize Against Ford
  • Tags: ,

The Most Crucial Pipeline of the Middle East?

June 10th, 2019 by Vanand Meliksetian

Contemporary Middle Eastern history is strongly influenced by energy politics. Besides providing revenue for the state’s coffers, oil is also a potent geopolitical tool in the hands of resource-rich countries. Recently, officials from Lebanon, Syria and Iraq have engaged in talks to restart the dysfunctional pipeline that once connected oilfields near Kirkuk in Iraq with the coastal city of Tripoli in Lebanon. Restarting the pipeline could have long-term political, economic, and strategic consequences for the involved states and the wider region.

The original infrastructure was constructed during the 30s of the previous century when two 12-inch pipes transported oil from Kirkuk to Haifa in British mandated Palestine and Tripoli in French-mandated Lebanon. The Tripoli line was supplemented by a 30-inch pipeline in the 50s which could transport approximately 400,000 barrels/day. The Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline was suspended by Syria during the Iraq-Iran war in an attempt to support Tehran in its struggle against Baghdad.

Paving the way

The current political climate, which has enabled cooperation between Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq, is the consequence of one country’s foreign policy. Since the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Iranian influence has grown considerably across the Middle East. Tehran’s support for proxies in neighboring countries has strongly influenced regional politics and made Saudi Arabia nervous of what it sees as “Persian encroachment”.

The Iranian support for Syria’s President Assad provided a lifeline to the regime during the country’s civil war. Tehran has invested significantly in maintaining the position of its ally in Damascus. In neighboring Iraq, the democratization process installed a Shia-dominated parliament which is supported by powerful paramilitary groups funded and organized by the Quds force, the branch of Iran’s Revolutionary Guard responsible for extraterritorial activities. Despite significant military and political gains, consolidation is required to cement the ties between Iran’s Arab partners, which would also benefit Tehran.

The art of the deal

While Iran’s participation in regional politics was necessary for creating the right environment for cooperation, Russia’s involvement has proven to be crucial. The Kremlin’s decision to participate in the Syrian civil war on the side of Assad’s forces was a pivotal moment in reestablishing control over territories essential for the Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline to commence operations. Moscow has also established good political relations with both Iraq and Lebanon to become a broker for facilitating an agreement.

The participation of Rosneft was very useful for Moscow’s efforts in the region. The Russian energy giant maintains good relations with the Iraqi government where it operates several oil fields and the Kirkuk-Ceyhan oil pipeline. Recently, Rosneft signed an agreement with the Lebanese government to operate the storage facility in Tripoli for the next twenty years. Therefore, Russian involvement was important for the Arab countries to consider refurbishing the outdated Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline.

Despite the modest capacity of the pipeline, reestablishing trade could have a long-term impact on regional politics. The new pipeline would be a physical link between the participating countries and will cement the political ties for decades due to interdependency regarding energy security and the economic interest of energy exports.

Uncertainties ahead

Despite the intention to reinvigorate the old Kirkuk-Tripoli pipeline, it remains unclear whether the project will see the light of day. Especially the situation in Syria creates a veil of uncertainty which makes construction and operation a problematic task. Although the Syrian government has reestablished control over Eastern Syria, IS remains a threat to stability with attacks being an almost daily occurrence. It is uncertain whether the depleted and exhausted Syrian army will be able to secure the pipeline while engaging the remaining rebel-held areas in Idlib.

Also, it can be expected that Washington won’t idly sit by while its rivals in Moscow and Tehran entrench themselves even further in the region. Therefore, for now at least, talks of reinvigorating the pipeline will continue behind closed doors until the security situation improves significantly.

*

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.

Vanand Meliksetian is an energy and utilities consultant who has worked with several major international energy companies. He has an LL.M. from VU Amsterdam University Law and Politics of International Security where he wrote his thesis on Russian-European energy relations. He specializes in international legal and political developments.

The Outer Space Treaty of 1967 enshrined the principle of outer space being preserved as a common heritage of humankind,yet “lacks any provisions that would regulate the methods of the settlement of eventual disputes, which usually appear in law-making treaties, such as the 1959 Antarctic Treaty”.Outer space is now an “increasingly congested and contested environment”.3  Delegates at the UN’s First Committee dealing with disarmament and international security determined that “prompt action [is] needed to address the safety and security of the Earth’s orbit, given growing numbers of satellites, the development of sophisticated defence systems and the ever-increasing amount of orbital congestion, which currently [includes] more than 500,000 pieces of debris”.“[R]adio frequencies and any associated orbits…are limited natural resources thatmust be used rationally, efficiently and economically … so that countries … may have equitable access to those orbits and frequencies.”5

“[A]s more countries integrate space into their national military capabilities and rely onspace-based information for national security, there is an increased chance that any interference with satellites could spark or escalate tensions and conflict in space or on Earth. This is made all the more difficult by the challenge of determining the exact cause of a satellite malfunction: whether it was due to a space weather event, impact by space debris, unintentional interference, or deliberate aggression.”6

“Some states are developing or have developed a range of [anti-satellite] ASAT capabilities,including ground- and space-based weapons, that could be used to deceive, disrupt, deny, degrade, or destroy elements of space systems. Developing and testing ASAT capabilities would likely undermine political and strategic stability, especially without clarity of intent. Further, testing or using debris-generating weapons could contaminate the orbital environment for decades to centuries, significantly affecting all space actors and severely undermining the long-term sustainability of space.”6

“[T]he weaponization of outer space for any purpose—whether offensive or defensive,against any space/celestial body or against an Earth-bound target—would effectively turn space objects into potential targets and turn outer space into a potential conflict zone.”7

Yet despite the risk of “mishaps, misperceptions and miscalculations”,there exists no “legally binding instrument dealing with … the prevention of an arms race in outer space”.8 Nor are there “legally binding rules to refrain from creating space debris”,yet such debris can collide, including with nuclear power sources in outer space, and generate “more debris, in a cycle popularly known as the ‘Kessler syndrome’”,10 which posits “an exponential growth of orbital debris as time progresses, with an ever-increasing risk for operational bodies in orbit. … With regular launch rates and no mitigation measures, the quantity of debris in orbit is likely set to grow exponentially.”11

In this legal void, “[m]assive constellations of … satellites in low-Earth orbit are being planned and manufactured that … will blanket the globe in low-latency, high-bandwidth capacity” in order to expand the reach of the global Internet to rural and remote areas and complement terrestrial 5G networks.12 

Permitting commercial entities from current spacefaring states to place tens of thousands of 5G satellites in the already congested—and contested—Earth orbits in the absence of a legally binding regime governing activities in outer space has grave implications for international peace and security. It denies equitable access to a finite resource and puts at risk social, economic, scientific and technological development; and existing satellite uses such as communications; navigation; disaster risk reduction and emergency response; greenhouse gas emission monitoring from space; air quality monitoring for aerosols and pollutants; monitoring of atmospheric processes; climate change, including essential climate variables monitoring; ozone loss monitoring; environmental protection; natural resource management; ecosystems management; biodiversity; forestry; hydrology; meteorology and severe weather forecasting; land use and land cover change monitoring; sea surface temperature and wind monitoring; seismic monitoring; environmental change; glacier mapping and studies; crop and soil monitoring; food security; irrigation; precision agriculture; groundwater detection; space weather; health impacts; security; law enforcement; mineral mapping; and urban development.13

*

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.

Claire Edwards, BA Hons, MA, worked for the United Nations as Editor and Trainer in Intercultural Writing from 1999 to 2017. Claire warned the Secretary-General about the dangers of 5G during a meeting with UN staff in May 2018, calling for a halt to its rollout at UN duty stations.  She part-authored, designed, administered the 30 language versions, and edited the entirety of the International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space (www.5gspaceappeal.org) and vigorously campaigned to promote it throughout 2019. In January 2020, she severed connection with the Appeal when its administrator, Arthur Firstenberg, joined forces with a third-party group, stop5ginternational, which brought itself into disrepute at its foundation by associating with the Club of Rome/Club of Budapest eugenicist movement. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

1. United Nations. Treaty Series. 610:8843. Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the Moon and other celestial bodies: Art. 1. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/treaties/introouterspacetreaty.html.

2. United Nations Audiovisual Library of International Law. Treaty on principles governing the activities of states in the exploration and use of outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, New York, 19 December 1966. Introductory note by Vladimír Kopal, Professor of International Law, West Bohemian University, Pilsen, Czech Republic; Chairman, Legal Subcommittee of the Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space (1999 to 2004 and 2008 to 2010). http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/tos/tos.html.

Accessed June 6, 2019.

3. Rose FA. Safeguarding the heavens: The United States and the future of norms of behavior in outer space. Brookings Institution. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/FP_20180614_safeguarding_the_heavens.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2019..

4. United Nations. Debating proposals on common principles to ensure outer space security, FirstCommittee delegates call for adoption of legally binding treaty. Press release GA/DIS/3557. October 2016.

www.un.org/press/en/2016/gadis3557.doc.htm. Accessed June 6, 2019.

5. United Nations. Official Records of the General Assembly, Seventy-first Session, Supplement No. 20.A/71/20;2016:annex. Guidelines for the long-term sustainability of outer space activities: Guideline 4. www.unoosa.org/oosa/documents-and-resolutions/search.jspx?view=&match=A%2F71%2F20. The Guidelines are voluntary and not legally binding. Accessed June 6, 2019.

6. Secure World Foundation. Space sustainability: A practical guide. 2014:14. https://swfound.org/media/121399/swf_space_sustainability-a_practical_guide_2014__1_.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2019.

7. Kozin VP. Militarization of outer space and its impacts on global security environment. Pakistan National University of Sciences and Technology, Global Think Tank Network; 2015. http://www.space4peace.org/articles/Militarization%20of%20Outer%20Space%20and%20its%20Impacts%20on%20Global%20Security.pdf. Accessed June 6, 2019.

8. United Nations. Report of the Group of Governmental Experts on Transparency and Confidence-Building Measures in Outer Space Activities. A/68/189. July 29, 2013:10.

www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=A/68/189. Accessed June 6, 2019.

9. United Nations. General Assembly resolution 47/68. December 14, 1992. Principles relevant to the use of nuclear power sources in outer space. http://www.unoosa.org/oosa/en/ourwork/spacelaw/principles/nps-principles.html. Accessed June 6, 2019.

10. Kessler DJ, Landry PM, Cour-Palais BG, Taylor RE. Aerospace: Collision avoidance in space: Proliferating payloads and space debris prompt action to prevent accidents. IEEE Spectrum. 1980;17(6):37-41.

11. United Nations. National research on space debris, safety of space objects with nuclear power sources on board and problems relating to their collision with space debris. A/AC.105/C.1/2017/CRP.12. January 27, 2017. http://www.unoosa.org/res/oosadoc/data/documents/2017/aac_105c_12017crp/aac_105c_12017crp_12_0_html/AC105_C1_2017_CRP12E.pdf. English Accessed June 6, 2019.

12. International Telecommunication Union; United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. Broadband Commission for Sustainable Development. Working Group on Technologies in Space and the Upper-Atmosphere. Identifying the potential of new communications technologies for sustainable development. September 2017. https://www.broadbandcommission.org/Documents/publications/WG-Technologies-in-Space-pdf.  Accessed June 6, 2019.

13. United Nations. Official Records of the General Assembly, Sixty-first Session, Supplement No. 20.A/73/20;2018. https://cms.unov.org/dcpms2/api/finaldocuments?Language=en&Symbol=A/73/20. Accessed June 6, 2019.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tens of Thousands of 5G Telecommunications Satellites. Escalating Tensions in a Contested and Congested Space Environment

What “Everyone Knows” About D-Day

June 10th, 2019 by Prof Susan Babbitt

Four days of coverage of D-Day on CBC radio and no one explains “free world”. After seventy-five years, everyone knows what it is.

Evolutionary biologist Steven Jay Gould said nothing is as dangerous as what “everyone knows” but no one remembers the arguments for. Che Guevara called out the US president, at an economics conference, for what “everyone knows” democracy is.[i] Guevara said the conference was political, not about economics.  JFK made no arguments.

But there were arguments and Che Guevara knew them. He refuted them, as Gould refuted scientific arguments for white supremacy. Today the arguments for “free world” are forgotten, even by some who study such things. Nothing is as dangerous as ideology not recognized as ideology.

Gould knocks out one peg of that ideology: an idea of reason.  Evolution has no final purpose, Gould argued. It aims for no ideal. Yet if you wind back the tape of evolution to any point, the next steps are constrained by myriad causal factors.[ii] Gould used the word “contingency”. It means dependence.

Marx had this view of reason, radically contingent upon circumstances and conditions. He got part of his view from Hegel, who saw reality structured organically and developmentally.[iii] Marx accepted Hegel’s vision but found Hegel’s explanation “mystical.” For Marx, it was just a fact that the world is structured dialectically, and so the best way to know it is in terms of organic tendencies and systems.

Einstein agreed. He criticized US schools for emphasizing end results: success. Students should feel their relationship to their work, knowing through their own bodies how engagement with the world creates them.  When we focus on end results, we focus on what is expected, not what is. We miss out. [iv]

In theory, the view is appealing. Connectedness is trendy. Walter Isaacson’s new biography of Leonardo da Vinci upholds such a view and then denies it, in practise. Isaacson doesn’t know that he does this.[v]

He doesn’t bother with philosophy. It is not a luxury, although it seems so, the way it is done, in rarified language, accessible to few. Gramsci said everyone is a philosopher. It is because we all, at some moments of reflection, rely on ideas like “freedom” or “human”. If you don’t think critically about such ideas, you’re a slave of convention, for instance, of the “free world”.

Isaacson tells us the Mona Lisa is “a distillation of accumulated wisdom about the outward manifestations of our inner lives and about the connections between ourselves and the outer world.”  It is, we learn, “Leonardo’s profound meditation on what it means to be human.” For him, it means contingency. It is what Leonardo lived: the intersection of mind and body. It is how he saw himself.

It is how Leonardo thought. It is not how Isaacson thinks. He insists, irritatingly, that we should be like Leonardo by asking questions, as if questioning is an act of will, something decided.  In fact, we ask questions when surprised by what is unexpected, and expectations are part of who we are. Asking questions, when it matters most, is a way of letting go of expectations.

It is a kind of renunciation. We must care. Leonardo asked questions not because it is good to ask questions but because he cared about what those questions explained: what it means to be human. Caring is an orientation. It is not something you do because your life coach tells you to.

And this is how the book ends: talking points for a life-coach. We get a list, for an entire chapter: We are to “retain a childlike sense of wonder”, “go down a rabbit hole”, “start with details”, “get distracted”, “procrastinate”, “make lists”, and on and on. A formula.

If we learn anything from Leonardo’s life, it is that the intersections his art expressed are not formulaic.  No formula. But why look for one? It is for control. We can’t trust relations.

Sensitivity to relations is insecure.  No straight lines in nature, Leonardo noted. He knew we are part of the unfolding of the universe, complex and mysterious, but beautiful for being so.  We are not discreet beings, the lie of the “free world”. We live well, and better, without complete control: because of contingency. Marx knew this too. So did Lenin and others not part of the “free world”.

Feminism, since the 80s, is the area of scholarship in North American universities most attentive to relations, most expressive of Marx’s dialectical vision (although he doesn’t get much credit). The ends-dependent view of reason is refuted by insistence on interdependence.

But the vision is elusive. The Apology, by radical feminist Eve Ensler, is an imagined letter from her father, dead 31 years, apologizing for abuse.  Why it is liberating for the abused to tell this story, so long after the fact, as if it is the father’s story, when in fact it is not? Why invent a story about oneself, conforming to one’s own expectations, as a “way to be free”?

We don’t get an answer. Perhaps “everyone knows”, and the arguments are forgotten. Interestingly, in 7,200 pages of notes, covering a remarkable range of scientific passions, Leonardo says little about himself.  Or so says Isaacson. In fact, it is all about himself. Leonardo knew human beings by intensely studying nature.  He knew himself that way.

We know ourselves, as human, through dependence, through solidarity. This is part of the argument against the forgotten arguments for the “free world”.  It is a more interesting vision, acknowledging the myriad causal relations constituting human community and through which we know that community, and ourselves.

As Patrick Mondiano describes in Sleep of Memory, such encounters might “drag you in their wake when they disappear”. But they’re real.

*

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] Punta del Este, Uruguay, 1961

[ii] Wonderful Life: The Burgess Shale and the Nature of History (Norton 1989)

[iii] A. Wood Karl Marx (Routledge 2004) 197ff

[iv] Ideas and opinions (Wings 1958)

[v] This book is reviewed at https://www.nyjournalofbooks.com/along with the two referenced below.

The 3rd International Conference “No to Military Bases & Wars” (1) takes place in a country where the legal situation allows to eliminate all military facilities of USA and NATO, namely by terminating the “Convention on the Presence of Foreign Forces in the Federal Republic of Germany” (in short: troop deployment treaty) and withdrawing from NATO, namely with a period of notice of only two years or one year (2)(3). In May 2019, the IPPNW accordingly demanded by an overwhelming majority at its general meeting in Stuttgart that the troop deployment treaty be terminated (4).

In April 2019, a Conference in Florence called for an “international NATO withdrawal front” is an initiative of the Italian No Guerra, No NATO Committee and the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)(5). 

In October 2018, a unanimous decision was taken in Frankfurt to make the demand to terminate the troop deployment treaty a central demand of the “Stop Air Base Ramstein” campaign (6). These are encouraging, groundbreaking steps.

With great expectations, the signatories – even if they cannot all be on site – are now looking forward to the results of the 3rd International Conference “No to Military Bases & Wars” at Ramstein. This conference offers the opportunity to reaffirm and further internationalise the groundbreaking steps taken by Stuttgart, Florence and Frankfurt. According to the conference programme, the aim is to discuss what we can do against the military bases. And proposals for further action are needed. Agreements are to be reached in this regard. We therefore propose that the following agreement be adopted.

The conference “No to Military Bases & Wars” states:

We support the demand of Florence for the formation of an “international NATO withdrawal front” and call on peace initiatives in all NATO countries to make this demand their own. According to the NATO Treaty, the withdrawal from NATO is possible with one year’s notice. We also support the demand made for Germany to terminate the troop deployment treaty with the consequence that all US and NATO military bases, including nuclear weapons, must disappear from Germany within only two years. We call on peace initiatives in other countries to clarify the legal situation in their country and on this basis to make demands with the appropriate objective – with the consequence that all these countries will be freed from US and NATO military bases.

Signers for the campaign “NATO Out – Out of NATO”:

Sebastian Bahlo (stellv. Vorsitzender des Deutschen Freidenker-Verbands),

Peter Betscher (Bundesverband Arbeiterfotografie, Vorstand),

Toni Brinkmann (Juristin, Mitglied des Bremer Friedensforums),

Anneliese Fikentscher (Vorsitzende des Bundesverbands Arbeiterfotografie),

Klaus Hartmann (Vorsitzender des Deutschen Freidenker-Verbands),

Senne Glanschneider (Bundesverband Arbeiterfotografie, Vorstand),

Samira Jouini (Deutscher Freidenker-Verband, Landesvorstand NRW),

Wolfgang Jung (LUFTPOST – Friedenspolitische Mitteilungen aus der US-Militärregion Kaiserslautern/Ramstein),

Jürgen Kelle, Düsseldorf (Rentner),

Dr. Ansgar Klein (Sprecher der Aachener Aktionsgemeinschaft “Frieden jetzt!”),

Helene Klein (Sprecherin der Würselener Initiative für den Frieden),

Ullrich Mies (Publizist/Autor),

Andreas Neumann (Bundesverband Arbeiterfotografie, Vorstand),

Klaus v. Raussendorff (Mitglied im Vorstand des Deutschen Freidenker-Verbands),

Wilhelm Schulze-Barantin (Deutscher Freidenker-Verband, Landesvorsitzender Hessen),

Ernesto Schwarz (Musiker, Mitglied des Deutschen Freidenkerverbandes),

Brigitte Streicher (Deutscher Freidenker-Verband, Landesvorsitzende NRW),

Fee Striefler (LUFTPOST – Friedenspolitische Mitteilungen aus der US-Militärregion Kaiserslautern/Ramstein),

Jürgen Suttner (Mitglied im Siegener Friedensbündnis ABFS und im Freidenkerverband),

Annette van Gessel (Lektorin),

Georg Maria Vormschlag (Bundesverband Arbeiterfotografie, Vorstand),

Christoph Vohland (Deutscher Freidenker-Verband, Landesvorstand NRW)

*

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

Notes

1 Dritte Internationale Konferenz “No to Military Bases & Wars”, Ramstein, 28.06.2019
https://www.ramstein-kampagne.eu/no-to-military-bases/

2 Im Zuge des “Vertrags über die abschließende Regelung in Bezug auf Deutschland” (2+4-Vertrag) vollzogener Notenwechsel zum Vertrag über den Aufenthalt ausländischer Streitkräfte in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland vom 25.9.1990 (Bundesgesetzblatt 1990, Teil II, S. 1390-1393)
http://www.arbeiterfotografie.com/galerie/kein-krieg/hintergrund/bgbl290042_99955.pdf

3 NATO-Vertrag, Artikel 13 (Kündigung)
http://www.abg-plus.de/abg2/ebuecher/abg_all/Artikel13K%C3%BC.htm

4 IPPNW-Beschluss zur Kündigung des Truppenstationierungsvertrags, Stuttgart, 03.-05.05.2019
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=25888 (NRhZ 704 vom 08.05.2019)
https://www.ippnw.de/commonFiles/pdfs/Verein/MV/Beschluesse_Jahrestreffen_2019.pdf

5 Abschlusserklärung des Komitees “NO GUERRA NO NATO/GLOBAL RESEARCH” “Für eine internationale NATO-Austrittsfront”, Florenz, 08.04.2019
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=25835 (NRhZ 702 vom 24.04.2019)
https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/deutsch.html
https://nowarnonato.blogspot.com/2019/04/english-declaration-of-florence-for.html

6 Beschluss der Kampagne “Stopp Air Base Ramstein” zur Kündigung des Truppenstationierungsvertrags, Frankfurt, 28.10.2018
http://www.nrhz.de/flyer/beitrag.php?id=25339 (NRhZ 680 vom 31.10.2018)

Somebody’s Watching You: The Surveillance of Self-Driving Cars

June 10th, 2019 by Luis F. Alvarez León

Picture the future, where driving is a thing of the past. You can hop in your car or one from a ride-share, buckle up and tell the car where you want to go. During your ride, you can check your email and look up a few things online through your dashboard. Meanwhile, your whereabouts and other details are being tracked remotely by companies. As self-driving cars develop further, autonomous vehicles will play a much larger role in the digital economy as car companies and others harness personalized customer information through geospatial and navigation technologies, combining it with existing financial consumer profiles, according to a study in Surveillance and Society.

“Self-driving cars will represent a new mode for surveillance. Through a self-driving car’s global positioning, system, navigational tools, and other data collection mechanisms, companies will be able to gain access to highly contextual data about passengers’ habits, routines, movements, and preferences,” explained Luis F. Alvarez León, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth. “This trove of personal, locational, and financial data can be leveraged and monetized by companies, by providing a data-stream for companies to target customers through personalized advertising and marketing,” he added.

Today’s cars are already spatial multimedia environments that are highly computerized but self-driving cars will take this to a whole new level. They will also enable passengers to spend more time engaging with media in a vehicle. As the study point outs, this new economy may challenge notions of traditional car ownership, transforming “the car into a bundle of services rather than just a product.” Automobile manufacturers may essentially become digital platforms for media companies, search engines, retailers, vendors, and other companies, aiming to offer services to passengers through a car’s infotainment system.

The growth of self-driving cars will require more extensive communication networks, which will benefit ride-sharing companies, automobile manufacturers and other companies entering this new information-centric space.

“Through autonomous cars, the automotive and technology industries are likely to become more integrated with synergies across geospatial, navigation, artificial intelligence, ride-hailing, automotive and other industries and technologies,” said Alvarez Léon.

As self-driving car technologies develop, privacy and security concerns loom as to how companies will use personal data, an area for which the limits and specific governance mechanisms have yet to be defined by federal regulations.

*

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.

Luis F. Alvarez León is available for comment at: [email protected]

Featured image is from TechRadar

Global Research Editor’s Note

The records of the Stop 5G Global Appeal indicate that Poland’s Kancelaria Prezesa Rady Ministrow (Chancellery of the Council of Ministers), which is chaired by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki has “signed” the appeal under the Category “Organizations”, scroll down to Poland.  (see screenshot below)

There has, however, been no official confirmation from the Polish government of this historic decision.

And there has been no coverage of the issue by the mainstream media.

The Prime Minister’s alleged endorsement of the Appeal is on behalf of the Chancellery of the Council of Ministers. Was this entry undertaken by the Chancellery of the Council of Ministers? Has this “entry” on the Stop 5G Appeal been verified. Did the Chancellery confirm?

There is no record of a decision pertaining to 5G on the home page of the Chancellery of the Council of Ministers. 

A recent report by the Polish media suggests that the Warsaw government (in the context of the dispute with China’s Huawei) intends to  approach the 5G issue in a coordinated fashion “across the EU” rather than at the level of individual EU member countries.

In December, according to PRNewswire (December 18, 2018),

“T-Mobile Polska launched [in December 2018] the first fully functional fifth generation mobile network in Poland – its coverage is currently available in the centre of Warsaw. T-Mobile commits itself to investing in and continuing development of the 5G network in the coming months and years, extending it to more locations and cities so it ultimately covers the entire country?

This initiative was approved by the Polish government. On December 7, 2018, representatives of T-Mobile Polska, Deutsche Telekom and the Digital Affairs Minister Marek Zagórski inaugurated the launch of Poland’s first fully functional 5G network.

Author Julian Rose (text below) concurs: the Prime Minister’s (alleged) endorsement of the Stop 5G Appeal is contradictory:

“.. That would be extraordinary because Morawiecki is due to lead his government in a major parliamentary act [mid June] in which the existing ‘accepted emissions/frequencies’ will be superceded by new 5G frequencies to enable the roll-out of 5G across the length and breadth of Poland”.

The project to be considered in the Polish parliament is no doubt pursuant to the TD-Polska, Deutsche Telecom, Ministry of Digital Affairs agreement signed in Warsaw on December 7, 2018

UPDATES: 

Global Research has requested clarification from the organizers of  The International Appeal to Stop 5G. Did they verify the matter, did they contact the Prime Minister’s office?

This is their response  (June 10, 21.30pm ET) which contradicts the Polish government’s commitment to 5G telecommunication as outlined in December 2018:

The International Appeal to Stop 5G on Earth and in Space welcomes the good sense of Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki in rejecting the fifth generation of wireless technology, 5G, by becoming a signatory to the Appeal.

 The Appeal is a scientific and legal document that comprehensively sets out the case against 5G, which poses an existential threat to life on Earth. The people of Poland will doubtless be greatly relieved to learn that the Prime Minister supports protecting the health and natural environment of the Polish people.

Prime Minister Morawiecki joins the ranks of the numerous other concerned lawmakers who have rejected 5G: the Swiss cantons of Vaud, Jura and Geneva, which adopted moratoria, and Neuchâtel, Bern, St Gallen and Schwyz, which are considering doing so. The Swiss and Netherlands governments, as well as the US state of New Hampshire, have demanded reports on the safety of 5G before going ahead. Lawmakers in Rome and Florence, and those of at least 21 US cities have already rejected 5G, while the Belgian Environment Minister prohibited the 5G pilot project in Brussels, declaring that citizens were not “guinea pigs”.

The 5G issue in Poland remains uncertain. What is the position of the Polish government?

It is important that people in Poland and more generally in the European Union forcefully oppose the introduction of 5G wireless technology.

 

Michel Chossudovsky. Global Research,  June 10, 2019

***

***

In what is surely an unprecedented and  groundbreaking action, the Prime Minister of Poland, Mateusz Morawiecki, has backed [in the name of the Chancellery of the Council of ministers] an International Appeal to stop the controversial roll-out of 5G electro magnetic microwave telecommunication transmissions.

5G, a new millimetre band frequency range being introduced by the telecommunications industry worldwide, has been identified by over 2,000 scientists and 1,400 medical doctors from all over the world, as presenting a direct threat to human health, as well as to animal, insect and plant life.

There have been no safety tests carried out to ensure its safety, in spite of the fact that 5G operates at between 10 and 100 times higher frequencies than current 3 and 4G cell phone tower transmitters.

The roll-out of 5G will involve the placement of millions of transmitter boxes at distances of no more than 10 to 12 houses apart in urban areas. Scientists have established that this will subject citizens living in urban areas to an unavoidable barrage of electromagnetic pollution.

A 2017 report by more than 230 scientists and doctors from 41 countries express serious concerns about steadily expanding exposure to Electro Magnet Frequencies (EMF). They state that even before the roll-out of 5G “Numerous recent scientific publications have shown that EMF affects living organisms at levels well below most national and international guidelines.” *

These effects include cancer risk, cellular stress, increase in harmful free radicals, genetic damages, structural and functional changes to the human reproductive system, learning and memory defects, neurological disorders and negative impacts on general well-being in humans. Damage goes well beyond humans, as there is mounting evidence of deleterious effects to both plants and animals.

In Poland, the public are being used as guinea pigs in a 5G experiment to test the efficacy of the technology. The following cities are being used in the trial: Warsaw, Lodz, Gliwice.

The same procedure is taking place all over Europe, North America and many other countries.

The World’s largest study ‘National Toxicology Program’ (NTP) revealed significant increases in the incidence of heart and brain cancer in animals exposed to EMF below the International Commission on Non Ironising Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines that are followed by most countries.

[Yet to be confirmed] The Prime Minister of Poland has taken a highly responsible step in signing the Global Appeal to Ban 5G in Earth and in Space.

He has opened the way for leaders in other countries to take the same step, thereby protecting their citizens from a potentially highly dangerous and untested technology whose repercussions for health and welfare are without precedent.

Julian Rose, June 10, 2019

*

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

Notes

*https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/the-appeal

**https://www.5gspaceappeal.org/signatories-organizations

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Prime Minister of Poland Signs Global Appeal to Stop 5G Telecommunications Transmission? Unconfirmed
  • Tags: , ,

Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad sent shock waves in a public speech where he dismissed a Dutch “official” report blaming Russia for the downing of Malaysia Air Flight 17 in July, 2014, weeks after a CIA-led coup toppled the elected President of Ukraine. Despite the downplaying in western mainstream media of the Malaysian leader’s comments, it is creating a major new potential embarrassment for ex-Vice President Joe Biden and his Ukraine collaborators such as Igor Kolomoisky, in their flimsy effort to blame Russia for their own misdeeds.

During a dialogue with the Japanese Foreign Correspondent Club May 30, Mahathir challenged the Dutch government to provide evidence for their claim that the civilian Malaysian FH17 jet that crashed in Ukraine was shot down by a Russian-made BUK missile fired from a Russian regiment based in Kursk. The Malaysian Prime Minister told the Japanese media,

“They are accusing Russia, but where is the evidence? We know the missile that brought down the plane is a Russian type missile, but it could also be made in Ukraine.”

The blunt-spoken Mahathir added,

“You need strong evidence to show it was fired by the Russians; it could be by the rebels in Ukraine, it could be Ukrainian government because they too have the same missile.”

He went on to demand that the Malaysian government be allowed to inspect the black box of the crashed plane, stating the obvious, that the plane belongs to Malaysia, with Malaysian pilot and there were Malaysians passengers:

“We may not have the expertise but we can buy the expertise. For some reasons, Malaysia was not allowed to check the black box to see what happened.”

He went on to state,

“We don’t know why we are excluded from the examination but from the very beginning, we see too much politics in it, and the idea was not to find out how this happened, but seems to be concentrated on trying to pin it to the Russians.“

The Malaysian Air MH17 was en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it was shot down over the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine on July 17, 2014. Only in May 2018 the Dutch-led Joint Investigation Team issued its report alleging that a BUK missile was used to shoot down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17, claiming that it originated from the 53rd Anti-aircraft Brigade of the Russian Federation, stationed in Kursk near the Ukraine border. The Dutch Joint Investigation Team (JIT) declared that it “has come to the conclusion that the BUK-TELAR that shot down MH17 came from 53rd Anti-aircraft Missile Brigade based in Kursk in Russia,” according to top Dutch investigator Wilbert Paulissen. Paulissen added, “We are convinced that our findings justify the conclusions…”

The Dutch-led group presented no concrete forensic proof, and Moscow has repeatedly denied involvement in an act that would make no military or political sense for them. In 2018 the Russian Defense Ministry provided evidence that the BUK missile which had exploded to destroy the Malaysian passenger jet had been manufactured in a Russian plant in 1986, and then shipped to the Ukraine. Its last recorded location was at a Ukrainian military base.

By recasting doubt on those Dutch JIT conclusions, Mahathir has potentially opened a can of deadly worms that could come to haunt the Ukrainian government at the time, especially Igor Kolomoisky, the billionaire Ukrainian financial backer of the newly elected Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. It potentially could also implicate then-Vice President Joe Biden and many others.

Open Questions

Independent investigators into the destruction of MH17 stress the fact that the Dutch-led JIT deliberately excluded Malaysia as well as Russia from their group, but included the CIA-backed coup regime in Ukraine, hardly an unbiased party. Further, all telephone taps the JIT has presented as proof of the guilt of the Russians came from the Ukrainian secret service SBU. Since the CIA-backed coup in Ukraine in 2014, the SBU has been involved in repeated fake accusations aimed at Russia, including faked murder of a journalist later revealed to be quite alive.

One of the central issues that the Dutch JIT group never addressed is why, at a time it was a known warzone, and commercial international flights were told to avoid the airspace in eastern Ukraine, the MH17 flight was reportedly ordered by Ukraine air traffic control authorities in Dnepropetrovsk to change course and to fly directly into the war zone. According to a Dutch site, Post Online, Eurocontrol, European Organisation for the Safety of Air Navigation, gave information to the Dutch Parliament about the status of Ukraine radar in 2016 informing that the Ukraine air traffic control organization UkSATSE failed to inform Eurocontrol in summer 2014 about the non-operational status of three radar systems in Eastern Ukraine, a grave violation of law. One of the three was taken in the wake of the CIA Ukraine coup in April by a masked band that destroyed the radar facility.

Further, in another breach, the Ukrainian UkSATSE refused to permit their air traffic controller atDnepropetrovsk, responsible for controlling flight MH17, to be questioned. According to Russian reports, the person “went on vacation” and never reappeared.

The Kolomoisky Factor

Notably, at the time of the MH17 downing, the Ukrainian governor of the Dnepropetrovsk Oblast or region, was Igor Kolomoisky. Kolomoisky, who is listed as the third richest man in Ukraine with an empire in oil, coal, metals and banking, was also reported to be directly linked via offshore entities to control of Burisma, the shady Ukrainian gas company that named the son of then-Vice President Joe Biden to its board.

Kolomoisky, who is notorious for hiring thugs and neo-nazis to beat up business and other opponents in Ukraine, reportedly secured the lucrative Burisma post for Hunter Biden, despite Biden’s lack of any experience in Ukraine or in oil and gas, in return for Joe Biden lifting Kolomoisky’s US visa travel ban. Joe Biden was the Obama Administration point person in charge of the 2014 CIA-orchestrated Maidan Square coup and toppling of the elected President Viktor Yanukovych.

Notably, the Mahathir remarks have drawn attention anew to the mysterious circumstances around the downing of Malaysian Air MH17 in 2014 and the potential role of Kolomoisky and others, in that. The role of corrupt Ukraine officials backed by the Obama Administration, is now under scrutiny.

Notably, the new President of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, is widely reported to be a protégé of Igor Kolomoisky. Zelensky became a national name as a comedian on a Ukraine TV station owned by Kolomoisky, and the latter reportedly provided funds and personnel to run the comedian’s victorious May 2019 election campaign in which he defeated incumbent Petro Poroshenko, a bitter foe of Kolomoisky. Following Zelensky’s election victory, Kolomoisky returned to Ukraine after exile in Switzerland following a bitter falling out with Petr Poroshenko in 2015.

All these pieces of a very murky geopolitical puzzle underscore the dirty role that Ukraine and the Obama administration have played in demonizing Russia as well as the Trump Administration. Most recently, it appears that the US Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his staff, relied on a Ukrainian businessman named Konstantin Kilimnik, who worked for Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, as the key figure supposedly linked to Russian intelligence, as a key figure to make the case of Russian collusion or interference in the 2016 US elections.

Far from a Putin agent, however, new evidence shows that Kilimnik, since at least 2013 was a confidential Ukrainian informant to the US State Department, according to US journalist John Solomon. Solomon cites FBI documents including State Department emails he has seen where Kilimnik is described as a “sensitive” intelligence source for the US State Department. The Mueller report left that embarrassing detail out for some reason. Kilimnik worked for Paul Manafort who before the 2014 Ukraine coup had served as a lobbyist for Ukrainian elected president Viktor Yanukovych and his Party of the Regions.

Their shadowy acts in Ukraine may soon come to haunt key figures in Ukraine such as Kolomoisky, as well as people like Joe Biden and family. From the true authorship of the downing of MH17, which Dutch and other investigators believe was linked to Kolomoisky actors, to the Ukraine business dealings of Hunter Biden to the true facts of the Mueller “Russiagate” probe, all could well prove to be a far more revealing investigation for the US Justice Department than the obviously biased Mueller probe has been. Increasingly it is looking like the Ukraine and not Russia is the more likely source for interference in the 2016 US election, and not in the way we have been told by the establishment media such as CNN.

*

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

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

He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO


seeds_2.jpg

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

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

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

 

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

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

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

On May 27th the president of Serbia Aleksandr Vucic urged to face the truth and to recognize that Serbia lost Kosovo. On May 28th units of the Kosovar police intruded into Serb districts in the north of Kosovo and arrested about two-dozen people, including Kosovo police officers of Serbian nationality and also one Russian employee of the UN Mission in Kosovo.

As a result Vucic was forced to put the Serbian army and police special forces on full alert. The crisis hasn’t yet gained further development. However we once again were shown that peace in the Balkans is extremely fragile and can explode into a new war at any moment.

A provocation in the conditions of capitulation

There is a logical question: why did the president of the self-proclaimed Kosovo Hashim Thaçi choose to organise this provocation precisely at the moment when the leadership of Serbia was the closest it has ever been to capitulation in relation to the Kosovo question.

After all, the actions of the Albanian police not only excited Serbian radicals, but gave them a fine argument against the capitulatory politics of the government. Aleksandr Vucic, who hasn’t received unambiguous support in relation to the Kosovo question neither from his own party nor from Serbian society, is forced to take a harder line. Moreover, if on this occasion everything ended in a military demonstration, next time bringing the army to full combat readiness may not be enough to calm Serbian society, and a military conflict will erupt despite the politicians’ lack of desire to kindle one.

However, when we speak about the lack of desire to start a war, we are speaking about Serbian politicians. In Belgrade pro-West politicians and also the moderate nationalists from the Serbian Progressive Party of Vucic, who distanced themselves in the past from the irreconcilable Serbian Radical Party of Vojislav Šešelj, still keep the country on the course towards integration into the EU.Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:fe874d97b1964ef48dcd50d9f50c03da.jpg

However, the illusoriness of prospects of accession to the European Union and the provocative actions of the Albanian authorities of Kosovo undermines the positions of conciliators, clearing the road for radicals to come to power.

Why does Hashim Thaçi need another conflict with Serbia? After all, Kosovo is under his control, and the West recognised the independence of the self-proclaimed state and, like the current Serbian authorities, seeks to solve the crisis, even at the price of maximum concessions, actually on Albanian conditions.

Hashim Thaçi knows very well that Vucic, since the moment he was inaugurated as the president of Serbia on June 1st 2017, started to implement the pro-European course, which stipulates Serbia’s recognition of Kosovo’s independence. Moreover, Thaçi, after a meeting with Vucic on July 3rd 2017, radiated optimism and said that he believes in the possibility of reconciliation between Serbs and Albanians “for the benefit of Kosovo, Serbia, and all the region”. Thaçi also knows very well that the internal political problems facing Vucic in connection with his intention to accept the conditions of Pristina for solving the Kosovo question.

Succeeding to gain a foothold before the West becomes completely weak

Let’s not multiply essence needlessly. If such an inveterate politician as Thaçi, obviously provokes a conflict, in conditions when, seemingly, he can achieve his objectives peacefully, it means that he needs a conflict. Otherwise he would not start to disrupt the peace initiative of Vucic, organising a terrorist raid of the Albanian police in the Serb regions of Kosovo. Even a child could calculate the consequences of such a step.

But if we came to the conclusion that Hashim Thaçi deliberately provokes the conflict, then the question “why does he do it?” still demands an answer.

I think that we will not be mistaken if we say that the general weakening of the West is the main reason for the provocative behaviour of the Albanian leaders of Kosovo. One should not forget that only thanks to the Americans, who unleashed military operations against Yugoslavia and involved their NATO allies in them, Kosovo was pulled away from the control of the Yugoslavian authorities.

And it is also Washington that organized the recognition by the West of the self-proclaimed independence of Kosovo. Therefore, the current Kosovo authorities can feel more or less assured only while standing behind the West.

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:37af7d430a254c5cbb7097f9499889f7.jpg

But if the West weakens, it may not have enough forces (or desire) to provide military-political cover for the Kosovar regime. In several years there can be a situation in which nobody will be able to prevent Serbia from performing an operation aimed at restoring the constitutional order in Kosovo.

Albania is not eager to fraternize with Kosovo criminals

Its inclusion into the structure of Albania could become one of the ways of retaining control over the region.

But neither the president of Albania Ilir Meta, nor the Prime Minister Edi Rama, nor the ruling Socialist Party of Albania are eager to introduce drug dealers, human traffickers, and war criminals like Hashim Thaçi or his Prime Minister Ramush Haradinaj into Albanian politics. And the Albanian democrats, who are in opposition to the government of socialists, do not at all seek a potential union with Kosovo radicals.

Not only and perhaps also not so much because persons who are too picturesque gathered in the Kosovar leadership, but because they are afraid that if Kosovo integrates into Albania, the leaders of militants will gain too much authority among voters, and in addition to this they will be able to use their (specific) methods of conducting a political fight and will simply force the current Albanian leaders out to the periphery of big-time politics, having secured the leading posts. Something similar occurred in the past in Armenia, where the so-called Karabakh clan (politicians who originate from the unrecognized Nagorno-Karabakh Republic) came to power in 1998 and held on until 2018.

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:098ddfe29aed4a10ba049d58a7b8c20f.jpg

In general Albania, which endured an internal political crisis while being on the verge of civil war in January-March 1997, and which managed to overcome it only thanks to the introduction of a UN military contingent into the country, obviously does not intend to receive, together with the integration of Kosovo, ambitious radical politicians who will lay claims to power not in Pristina any more, but in Tirana.

Thaçi hurries to finish the ethnic cleaning of Kosovo Serbs

If the Albanian scenario does not play out, Hashim Thaçi has only one opportunity to be prepared for that moment when the West will not able to ensure the security of the Kosovar regime. Taking into account the number of war crimes committed by its leaders, as soon as Serbia has an opportunity to deal with Kosovo without being afraid of the West’s intervention, a legitimate reason to return the Serbian army to the region will be found.

But if completely to force out of Kosovo the Serbs who now remain only in several areas, bordering with Serbia, in the north, then Belgrade formally will have nobody to defend. On the contrary, it will be possible to present the conflict to the international community as the genocide of the Albanian population of the region. After all, in order to return Serbs to Kosovo it will be necessary to expel the Albanians who occupied their homes.

Hashim Thaçi is in a hurry to finish the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, to turn the region into a monoethnic Albanian formation in order to prevent Serbia from laying down any claims to return in the long term.

In the present situation if Serbia tries to impede the actions of Pristina through armed force, Thaçi can count on the military support of the West. Serbia can resist the West only by leaning on Russia. But then, the Serbian euro-integrators who are in power will be forced to abandon their goal – the entry of Serbia into the European Union. I.e., aggravating the crisis over Kosovo is today unprofitable to the government in Belgrade, because even if the conflict is resolved, even in a way that is victorious for Serbia, it will lead to the reformatting of all the Serbian political landscape.

The moves are calculated, there is one, very essential “but”

As we see, Thaçi’s actions are rather well calculated and directed towards the creation of a situation whereby overthrowing the power of the Albanian radicals in Kosovo would become impossible. He risks a conflict with Serbia, which Kosovo will certainly lose if the Belgrade politicians risk to completely and unconditionally turn towards a union with Russia. But this risk is not so high as it seems at first sight, because Aleksandr Vucic firmly toes the European integration line, which a victorious conflict with Kosovo will ruin. Thaçi expects that in order to not lose euro-integration prospects, the Serbian leaders will close their eyes to the completion of the ethnic cleansing of the Serbs in Kosovo, and that his demarches, like bringing the army to combat readiness, will never pass into the practical plane.

Ollie's MacBook:Users:O-RICH:Downloads:8021d4991c3347b8baa03aaa815344f9.jpg

As a last resort he hopes to have the military support of the West, which cannot allow the liquidation of independent Kosovo – its own project – without a catastrophic loss of face.

The only non-calculated factor is Serbian society’s reaction to the provocations of Thaçi. It is rather strongly overheated by the fight between nationalists and euro-integrators, and the idea of a return match in Kosovo is nearly the most popular in the most different segments of the population. At some point the situation in Serbia can exit the control of politicians and then a military conflict will become unavoidable.

Moreover, the progressing weakening of the West leads to the same consequences. Not only are the traditional clients of Washington in Kosovo fussing, trying to strengthen their position while America can still cover them, but also the Serbian leaders gradually come to understand the hopelessness of European integration and reorientate towards Russia.

Thus, Moscow and Washington were already indirectly drawn into the Balkan crisis on different sides of the barricades.

At the same time, the US gradually loses control over their clients from Pristina, who start to act by the principle “the tail wags a dog”, trying to create situations in which America will be obliged to involve itself in an unnecessary-to-it confrontation in their interests.

Time plays on the side of Russia and Serbia, which after a while will be able to dominate in the Balkans without an unnecessary and dangerous military confrontation. That’s why Thaçi is in a hurry, provoking a crisis now, while he still has hope for a favourable outcome.

*

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 translated by Ollie Richardson and Angelina Siard of The Saker.

All images in this article are from The Saker

I had not intended to watch this program, a CBC special documentary hosted/narrated by Peter Mansbridge, the CBC’s retired chief correspondent and national news anchor.  However, as it came on during prime pre-dinner time viewing I thought that I should watch it in order to find out some of the current political spin within Canada’s establishment.

It was rather underwhelming but also informative, not for what it said, but for what it did not say.  A general summary of its main points covers three main ideas:  first it is great support for the military industrial complex; second, it promoted active militarism; finally it supported the concept that we have been at peace for 75 years.

The introduction was a whirlwind through World War II, its aftermath in setting up the Bretton Woods group, the Washington consensus to control global finances, and then on through a precise of today’s “threats”.  What was missing was context, and a whole lot of other information.

Along with U.S. right wing commentaries from Robert Kagan (husband of Victoria Nuland of Ukraine’s Maidan cookie fame) and the RAND organization, Max Hastings, a British “journalist” served as one of the prime speakers.  From Canada’s right wing think tank, the Munk School, Margaret MacMillan offered some anodyne platitudes relating to the overall topic.

Planned for a D-Day presentation, the documentary starts there, as one of the greatest battles of human history.  While Russia is given some credit for its participation in the war, it was not recognized as being the force that broke the German war machine, turning the tide at Stalingrad.  While Hitler was pictured as the evil icon, nothing was mentioned of the large support U.S. corporations gave to Germany in the prewar years for the development of industries useful for a military power – automobiles, trucks, armaments, planes, synthetic oil, all saw technology transfers from the U.S.  The ultimate goal was not German conquest, but the conquest of the Soviet Union.

A whirlwind through recent events followed.  Russia, “a declining power”, under Putin wanted to regain the glory of the Soviet empire, and demonstrated its new bravado when “invading Crimea”.  According to Hastings, Russia did not want to join the west in its liberal democracy achievements.  Except – in spite of the “shock doctrine” imposed by the Harvard boys during the Yeltsin years when the west did its best to divest Russia of its wealth, creating the very oligarchs now derided by the west – Russia did want to become a part of the western order, wanted to belong to NATO, had been promised that NATO would not move eastward after German reunification.  The west, led by the intransigence of the U.S. rebuffed all attempts to accept Russia as a trading partner wanting peace.

Then on to North Korea, where Kim Jong Un was chastised for having nuclear weapons.  Here the RAND boys indicated within their war games there was no scenario in which North Korea would not use their nuclear weapons for defending themselves, which is of course obvious and exactly why North Korea has nuclear weapons – to keep the U.S. out.  Because of that, North Korea is a “threat” to the U.S.

Finally China became the topic, and as if on cue from the U.S., it suddenly has become the largest “threat” to the U.S. and thus the west in general.  Of course for the western military establishment China should not be building bases in the South China Sea, and should not be claiming Taiwan as Chinese territory.  Mansbridge then goes on to say that “War is on China’s mind these days.”  Well, um, yeah, with the U.S. attempting to control the world through its military and its militarily supported corporations and financial institutions they should have war on their mind.  Two statistics are then cited, that China has the second largest military budget in the world and the largest budget in Asia.

The fast rise of China over the past several decades is viewed as a surprise, but anyone following China-U.S. trade would know it involved a willingness on the part of U.S. corporations to offer up technological information in order to get a grip on the Chinese market as well as to find cheap labour and resources.  In hindsight, it was not quite as fast as Germany’s rise from poverty with the assistance of U.S. corporations during the 1930s global depression.

What is not said is that the U.S. defense budget is about 3 times larger than China’s without including all the nuclear and security related monies with that.  Also not mentioned are the U.S.’ 800 or so military bases of all kinds scattered around the world, with most of them oriented towards containing China and Russia.  Nothing is mentioned of current U.S. interventions in the Middle East nor the even more current examples of the U.S. openly extolling the desire to get rid of other countries’ governments, regardless of international law.  Israel is mentioned in passing shortly after in the presentation of cyber warfare with the stuxnet virus, but no mention is made of its role in U.S. interventions in the Middle East nor its manipulations and meddling of the U.S. government in its domestic elections.

At this point Mansbridge introduced the idea of Russian election meddling, citing “cyber trolls” as the problem. And Russian “micro targeting” Ukrainian soldiers in order to find their field positions saying also they have “nothing on China” who watch their own people and spy on others.  Well golly….nothing the U.S. nor Canada does of course.

After the discourse on cyber war and artificial intelligence in war, none of it very informative, the discussion comes to “no one wants to end up at war” – except maybe John Bolton, Mike Pompeo, Mike Pence and millions of other evangelical rapture warriors.

Canada’s Chief of Defense Staff, Jonathan Vance is among those who would not be bothered by a good little war.  He strongly supports NATO as it stands for peace and stability – except for places like Yugoslavia, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Turkey, Ukraine.  Hastings returns with a call to educate everyone to be able to see the threat – in other words to see the need to keep the military industrial complex alive and well.

Mansbridge’s final platitude is about “an enduring peace” as he had witnessed during his lifetime. But what he “witnessed” is a lie, with the “peace” only being available to those countries that bowed down to U.S. demands and had something the U.S. wanted in the way of resources, mostly oil, but also many other agricultural and non-renewable resources.  Iran, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Honduras, Vietnam, Chile, Granada, Zaire/Congo, Brazil, Iraq, Syria, Libya, North Korea, Venezuela and many others did not find “peace” within the western liberal order but mostly destruction, hostility, and destructive sanctions.  It never was about freedom and democracy as witnessed by the absolutist monarchies of Saudi Arabia and the Arab gulf states along with the many covert operations overthrowing popularly elected governments, but about control of oil, and control of the power of U.S. financial institutions and corporations.

The Future of War is a window into the shallow rationalizations that keep the western world – the U.S., NATO, and other allies (notably Australia) – priming the pump for war.  Not a war caused by their own imperial efforts when losing control of their empire, but a war supposedly caused by the militarization and imperial desires of both China and Russia.  It is a shallow presentation suitable only for ignorant western audiences.

*

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

Jim Miles is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Future of War: Canadian Propaganda for More Military Spending

Selected Articles: Israel’s Attack on The USS Liberty

June 9th, 2019 by Global Research News

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

.

.

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

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

*     *     *

Israel’s Attack on The USS Liberty: An Act of War, A False Flag, A Gross Betrayal

By Craig McKee, June 09, 2019

It is one of the greatest lies that most Americans – in fact most people around the world – have never heard of. And it reveals much about the true relationship between the United States and one of its “closest allies,” the State of Israel.

USS Liberty 1967: Israel Murdered U.S. Sailors and Tried to Sink Their Ship … A Failed False Flag Attack Against the U.S.

By Washington’s Blog, June 08, 2019

After the attack was thought to have ended, three life rafts were lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded. The Israeli torpedo boats returned and machine-gunned these life rafts at close range.

An Israeli Double-Feature: 52nd Anniversary of Israel’s Attack on the USS Liberty

By Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, June 08, 2019

The White House, fearing the Israel Lobby, prevented the US Navy from going to the defense of the Liberty, thus sacrificing American lives, and further dishonored the US Navy by ordering Admiral McCain, father of the former US Senator John McCain, to orchestrate a cover-up.

New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders to Kill 294 Americans

By Aaron Nelson, June 08, 2019

Israel apologized to the United States and for several decades we’ve been led to believe that this could be the only explanation for why Israeli jets and torpedo boats would launch rockets, missiles and torpedoes at an American target for more than two hours.

History of World War II: America Was Providing Military Aid to the USSR, While Also Supporting Nazi Germany

By Evgeniy Spitsyn, June 07, 2019

Specifically, the USSR received 2,586,000 tons of aviation fuel, an amount equal to 37% of what was produced in the Soviet Union during the war, plus almost 410,000 automobiles, making up 45% of the Red Army’s vehicle fleet (not counting cars captured from the enemy).

The 75th Anniversary of the Allied D-Day Liberation of Nazi-Occupied Western Europe. A Civilizational Provocation, Russia was Not Invited

By Andrew Korybko, June 05, 2019

The decision not to invite President Putin to attend the 75th D-Day commemoration event was a civilizational provocation aimed at dividing the European Allies during World War II and reinforcing the historically revised notion that the Soviet Union was an “accidental ally” during the conflict.

History of World War II: Nazi Germany was Financed by the Federal Reserve and the Bank of England

By Yuri Rubtsov, July 13, 2018

The total amount of foreign investments in German industry during 1924-1929 amounted to almost 63 billion gold Marks (30 billion was accounted for by loans), and the payment of reparations — 10 billion Marks.

*

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

  • Posted in NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Israel’s Attack on The USS Liberty

Russian President Putin and Pakistani Prime Minister Khan will reportedly have their first-ever meeting later this week during the SCO Summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, but while the symbolism of this possible interaction shouldn’t be downplayed, observers also shouldn’t get their hopes up for unrealistic outcomes.

A Monumental Meeting

The Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership has rapidly developed in the span of only a few years to such a point that President Putin and Prime Minister Khan will reportedly have their first-ever meeting later this week during the SCO Summit in the Kyrgyz capital of Bishkek, which will certainly be a very symbolic interaction if it comes to pass. Pakistan’s Dunya News disclosed that the country’s Foreign Minister, Minister of External Affairs, and other officials will also attend the prospective meeting, suggesting that their Russian counterparts will probably be in attendance as well. In the run-up to this event, the prospects look very promising for taking Russian-Pakistani relations to the next level, though observers shouldn’t get their hopes up for unrealistic outcomes.

Tempering Expectations

First-time face-to-face meetings such as this upcoming one are usually a formality for both leaders to get to know one another after the quiet behind-the-scenes work of their diplomats and other members of their permanent bureaucracies (including military and intelligence officials) made the meeting possible in the first place. National leaders are so busy handling an ever-changing variety of affairs that they oftentimes don’t have the time to manage specific bilateral relations except in very special cases, such as Russia and Pakistan’s ties with their shared Chinese partner for example. It’s therefore unlikely that President Putin and Prime Minister Khan played much of a hands-on role in their countries’ bilateral ties up until this point.

Talking Business

That might soon change after their upcoming meeting, however, since it’s very possible that the top decision makers in these two Great Powers will discuss the most important big ticket items on their shared agenda. Russia signed a memorandum of understanding (MOU) with Pakistan last year to explore the possibility of building a $10 billion gas pipeline, and the influential Moscow-based Center for Analysis of Strategies and Technologies (CAST) estimated in their recently released book “Pakistan: Beyond Stereotypes” that the South Asian state could potentially buy upwards of $9 billion in military equipment from Russia in the future. On top of that, Russia and Pakistan have synchronized their approaches to the Afghan peace process and each of them now has extremely close political ties with the Taliban, especially after Islamabad facilitated Moscow’s hosting of the group several times over the past year.

Symbolism Before Substance

These three topics — the $10 billion energy MOU, the possibility of up to $9 billion in arms sales, and the Taliban-led Afghan peace process that they both support — are the most likely to be discussed during President Putin and Prime Minister Khan’s first-ever face-to-face meeting, but whatever they might agree upon in these respects will probably remain secret for now until something tangible such as an energy, arms, and/or peace deal comes out of their joint efforts. Therefore, observers can probably expect a lot of symbolism and extremely promising statements about the future of bilateral relations but little else at this point, except of course for Prime Minister Khan to invite President Putin to Pakistan like has been previously reported.

Context Is Everything

The geostrategic context in which that invitation might be presented increases the odds that it would be accepted, especially if the two leaders ultimately clinch a significant enough deal with one another to warrant President Putin’s time in becoming the first Russian leader to ever visit Pakistan. His country is engaged in a fast-moving “Return to South Asia“, after all, and Pakistan is veritably the global pivot state of the emerging Multipolar World Order, so there are already enough reasons as it is for him to accept the invitation and visit Russia’s new strategic partner, but the Indian factor looms large over their bilateral relations even though the intensification of ties between Moscow and Islamabad isn’t aimed against any third party.

India’s Failed Influence Operation

It shouldn’t be forgotten that India has many powerful agents of influence within the Russian government and its policymaking circles who have been in overdrive these past few months doing all that they can to scuttle the Russian-Pakistani Strategic Partnership and prevent President Putin from visiting the global pivot state, though to the Russian leader’s credit and that of his inner circle, they’ve remained impervious to these ever-hysterical efforts and have confidently continued pioneering a new era of relations with Islamabad. Still, there are serious sensitivities inherent to his possible visit to Pakistan, which is why he’d probably have to do it either immediately before or after visiting India during the same trip in order to keep up his country’s “balancing” act.

Bye-Bye To “Rusi-Hindi Bhai Bhai”?

The only possible scenario in which President Putin would visit Pakistan without making a stop in India right before or after is if New Delhi ditches Moscow like it recently did Tehran and pulls out of the S-400 deal under American pressure in order to avoid CAATSA sanctions. In exchange, India would receive THAAD missiles and even F-35s, with the second-mentioned item only being reported this weekend as an unexpected add-on designed to make Trump’s offer all the more enticing to Modi. The US and India are military-strategic partners nowadays and New Delhi can’t afford to be punished by Washington like Ankara is about to be if it wants the Pentagon’s support in “containing” China, so Modi is more than likely to bend under Trump’s pressure.

Concluding Thoughts

In any case and returning back to the topic at hand, the upcoming meeting between President Putin and Prime Minister Khan will open up a new era of relations between these two Great Powers and greatly increase the odds that the Russian leader will eventually make history by being the first one to visit Pakistan if he accepts the reported invitation to do so. Nevertheless, his prospective visit wouldn’t just be for the sake of it but to sign a significant energy, arms, and/or peace deal that would make it worth his while to take time out of his busy schedule to travel all the way out there. Even so, however, this first-ever face-to-face meeting is extremely important for the positive signals that it sends and the long-term strategic intent that it strongly implies.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

In December 2017, Turkey agreed to buy Russian S-400 air defense systems, categorized by military analysts as the world’s best, able to destroy multiple hostile aircraft, ballistic missiles, and other aerial targets up to 250 miles away at high and low altitudes.

China was Russia’s first foreign buyer, its military saying it “saw that the S-400 system by its capabilities today is unparalleled in the world in its armament class” — able to overcome heavy enemy fire and electronic countermeasures while effectively intercepting hostile aerial targets.

Nothing in the West matches it. On June 4, Turkish President Erdogan said it’s “out of the question” to back out of the deal, earlier saying purchase of Russian S-500s may follow when they’re available next year.

Turkish Foreign Minister Melvet Cavusoglu made similar remarks, stressing that

“(t)he deal with Russia on S-400s remains in force and these defensive systems will be delivered to Turkey” as planned, advance payment made in 2017.

On Thursday, acting Trump regime deputy assistant secretary of defense for European and NATO policy Andrew Winternitz lied, saying

“(t)he (S-400) radar system would provide Russia with military sensitive information on the F-35, which is our top-quality fifth-generation aircraft,” adding:

“From our perspective, there are no measures that can mitigate our concerns on this.”

Months earlier, State Department official Wes Mitchell warned Ankara of “consequences” if it buys Russian S-400s.

US war secretary Patrick Shanahan warned his Turkish counterpart Hulusi Akar by letter that Ankara “will not receive the F-35 if Turkey takes delivery of the S-400,” adding:

“Turkey’s procurement of the S-400 will hinder your nation’s ability to enhance or maintain cooperation with the United States and within NATO, lead to Turkish strategic and economic over-dependence on Russia, and undermine Turkey’s very capable defense industry and ambitious economic development goals.”

The Trump regime gave Turkey until end of July to pull out of the S-400 deal, pressing Erdogan to buy the inferior US Patriot missile system instead.

Ankara stressed that the S-400s won’t be integrated into NATO operability so will not not pose a threat to the alliance.

US opposition to the purchase is all about serving corporate America’s interests, along with opposing anything benefitting Russia’s economy.

If the Trump regime blocks Turkey’s purchase of F-35 warplanes and imposes other “consequences” on the country for buying S-400s, bilateral relations could be more ruptured than already, especially if sanctions are imposed.

While playing the Russia and US cards simultaneously, Erdogan increasingly shifted his allegiance East, away from the West, his chief advisor Yalcin Topcu earlier saying:

“It is time to reconsider our membership in NATO, an organization that shows its hostile attitude to its member in every way.”

Erdogan earlier threatened to remove US radar systems from Turkey if Washington fails to deliver F-35 warplanes contracted for.

Turkey’s military is second only to the US in troop strength. Pulling out of NATO would be a significant body blow to the alliance.

If unacceptable US demands and threats continue, it may be inevitable.

A Final Comment

According to Russia’s state defense company Rostec on Friday, deliveries of S-400s to Turkey will begin “within two months.”

Training Turkish personnel to operate them was completed. Installation appears set for late July or early August.

*

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 Sputnik/ Sergey Malgavko

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Threatens Turkey: Pull Out of S-400 Deal with Russia, Or Else. Ankara Intimates Pulling out of NATO
  • Tags: , , ,

That’s how former WTO head Pascal Lamy described the deal Trump forced Mexico to accept last week — using tariffs or their threat to pressure and bully other countries to bend to Washington’s will, Lamy adding:

“If there’s a rule of law, it’s because people believe it’s better than the law of the jungle. And many people don’t like the law of the jungle because some are strong, some are weak, and they don’t want the strong to always step on the weak.”

It’s how the US and its imperial partners operate on the world stage, exploiting and otherwise harming the great majority of people at home and abroad to benefit privileged interests exclusively.

After months of unresolved, US-initiated, trade war with China, Trump opened a new front against Mexico.

He threatened to impose 5% duties on Mexican imports effective June 10, rising to 15% on August 1, 20% on September 1, and 25% on October 1 over the flow of Central American asylum seekers, fleeing for their safety.

Mexican authorities bear no responsibility for what’s going on. International law protects the rights of refugees and asylum seekers. So does the 1980 US Refugee Act, a statutory basis for granting them asylum.

Unwanted aliens of the wrong race and ethnicity, along with Muslims from the wrong countries, are unwelcome in Trump’s America.

His immigration policy blocks them from entering the US — notably individuals fleeing repressive US-supported regimes in El Salvador, Honduras and Guatemala, three of the world’s most violent nations.

Muslims from countries on the US target list for regime change are also included in Trump’s travel ban — affecting nationals from Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen, as well as North Korea and Venezuela.

His immigration policy has nothing to do with US national security, everything to do with his hostility toward unwanted aliens.

Concessions reportedly agreed to by Mexico were offered months earlier in talks between then-Homeland Security secretary Kirstjen Nielsen and Mexican interior secretary Olga Sanchez.

According to the State Department, the deal concluded on Friday includes deployment of around 6,000 Mexican National Guard forces throughout the country, especially along its southern border, to stem the flow unwanted aliens and “tak(e) decisive action to dismantle human smuggling and trafficking organizations, (as well as) their illicit financial and transportation networks.”

Both countries share a 1,954 mile border. Whatever actions are taken on the US and Mexican sides may only slow, not stop the flow of people seeking asylum in America.

In May, US border control officers apprehended over 130,000 aliens crossing from Mexico, the highest number in over a decade.

Unwanted Central American aliens reaching US territory “will be rapidly returned to Mexico where they may await the adjudication of their asylum claims” under terms of the deal reached, according to the State Department.

If measures agreed on don’t work, both countries “will take further (tougher) actions.” Bilateral discussions on this issue will continue.

The Trump regime’s policy toward unwanted aliens has nothing to do with helping “citizens of the region…build better lives for themselves and their families at home,” as the State Department falsely claimed.

It has everything to do with continuing dirty regional business as usual, uncaring about the rights and welfare of its people — ruthlessly persecuted and exploited in nations where the largest outflows come from, their regimes fully supported by Washington.

On Friday, Trump tweeted:

“I am pleased to inform you that (the US) reached a signed agreement with Mexico. The Tariffs scheduled to be implemented by the US on Monday, against Mexico, are hereby indefinitely suspended.”

About 80% of Mexican exports go to the US, giving its authorities one-sided leverage to force its will on its southern neighbor.

Former Mexican President Porfirio Diaz (1830 – 1915) once lamented that his country shared a border with the US, saying:

“Poor Mexico, so far from God and so close to the United States!”

In the mid-19th century, the US stole half the country’s territory following war it initiated. The so-called Mexican Cession includes present-day California, Nevada, Utah, most of Arizona, about half of New Mexico, along with parts of Colorado and Wyoming.

According to Trump, Mexico agreed to buy “large quantities” of US agricultural products. The country already is a large buyer of US farm products.

Claiming the amount will be greater sounds like typical DJT hyperbole and exaggeration to appear he extracted more concessions than what came out of talks.

The State Department’s Friday communique about what Mexican and Trump regime officials agreed on made no mention of agricultural purchases from the US in it.

Separately, Friday’s Labor Department report showed only 75,000 jobs created in May, suggesting a slowing economy.

According to economist John Williams,

the “entire gain came about only because April payrolls were revised lower by 75,000 (-75,000), on top of downside revisions to March payrolls.”

Williams believes a “major new recession continues to unfold, with a deepening, broad economic contraction evident in key economic series.” He sees Fed easing by September.

Unresolved trade war with China is making a bad situation worse, Beijing unwilling to bend to unacceptable US demands.

Friday’s US/Mexico agreement could unravel if things don’t go as planned. The US-Mexico-Canada (trade) Agreement (USMCA) is in trouble.

The Dem-controlled House leadership reportedly rejects the deal unless Big Pharma giveaways are removed, assuring increasingly unaffordable high drug prices otherwise.

Voting on the agreement is stalled until this issue is resolved, Dems using it for political advantage ahead of 2020 elections.

They’re as amenable to high drug prices as Republicans. Trump’s earlier support for lowering them was all hype with no follow-through.

Stopping the flow of asylum seekers along the US/Mexico border is unlikely to be achieved.

If Trump retaliates later this year or in 2020, along with no resolution to his trade war with China, it’ll increase the chance for US recession before next year’s elections, perhaps making him a one-term president.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The foreign policy of the United States has never been rational and consistent. Its imperial ideology obfuscates the minds of its politicians who become blind to the consequences of their decisions. We have seen that clearly in their actions in Iraq, Libya, Syria and other countries. But when we look at the imperial performance of the United States in our Latin American countries, history becomes very long with interventions that invariably impose repressive rightwing governments.

We know that story very well. In fact in Venezuela we are living at this moment a brutal intervention in the form of unilateral coercive measures (sanctions) and an intensive media war that demand our resistance at a very high cost to all Venezuelans. The rulers of the United States intend to impose a “regime change” in Venezuela against any democratic rule of domestic and international law.

The Washington Post, which usually faithfully represents Washington’s policy, in its June 5 issue quotes the following words of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that were secretly recorded:

Our conundrum, which is to keep the opposition united, has proven devilishly difficult. The moment Maduro leaves, everybody’s going to raise their hands and [say], ‘Take me, I’m the next president of Venezuela.’ It would be forty-plus people who believe they’re the rightful heirs to Maduro. ” [1]

He also claimed that this division existed from the moment he was appointed director of the CIA in 2017.

That statement reveals a fact that seems to surprise the Washington Post but it does not surprise Venezuelans. We know very well the so-called “Venezuelan opposition” minority, which should rather be called “Venezuelan obstruction” to differentiate it from the legitimate opposition that participates democratically in the political process of Venezuela.

We know very well that the only thing that obstructionists have in common is ambition and individual greedy interests. But that is a weakness rather than a unifying force, and is in opposition to the needs and values ​​of the majority of Venezuelans.

Pompeo lacks the courage to acknowledge that the United States has been the direct and responsible promoters of the creation of that obstructionist force in Venezuela for its determination to “fish in troubled waters.” And that is precisely what has made them blind and has made them trust an obstructionist unknown person like Juan Guaidó believing that Venezuelans would be fooled.

But what is important about Pompeo’s statement is what he does not mention and stands out for its omission. That is, out of those “forty-plus people”, there are millions of Venezuelans who are united. They are united by values ​​that transcend individual interests. They are united by their belief that all patriotic Venezuelans are heirs of Liberator Simón Bolívar. They are united by the defense of their right to sovereignty and independence from all foreign and colonial forces. They are united by an historic revolutionary project that was taken up from Bolivarian ideals by Commander Hugo Chávez, it is maintained by the democratic leadership of President Nicolás Maduro, and is carried out by a revolutionary people with social conscience, aware of their constitutionally granted protagonist role.

The strength of Venezuela lies in the civic-military unity that supports its institutions and rejects treason. But this solidarity force of the majority of the Venezuelan people is ignored, unknown or inconceivable by the government of the United States and that is precisely the surprise element that will win the war against any attempt of imperial intervention in Venezuela.

*

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

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

Note

[1] https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/exclusive-pompeo-opens-up-about-venezuelas-opposition-says-keeping-it-united-has-proven-devilishly-difficult/2019/06/05/85385a33-8eae-4ba5-a9ac-6b7b8c3d5762_story.html

Featured image: President Nicolás Maduro, 2016. (Cancillería del Ecuador via Flickr)

The following is an excerpt from Dr. Rasmus’ May 2019 interview by American Herald Tribune reporter Mohsen Abdelmoumen

***

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: Why in your opinion can the capitalist system only generate crises?

Jack Rasmus: There are six major changes in the global capitalist economy since the 1970s that increase the potential fragility, instability, and the amplification and propagation rate of the fragility-instability events:

1. Greater Integration of the Former Colonial Elites into the Capitalist Global Economy as Partners

This began in the 1970s as global capitalism integrated the petro-economies, allowing them to nationalize oil and related resource production and share significantly in the revenues from that production—so long as it was understood those elites would recycle much of their income back to the capitalist core economies through direct purchases or the global banking system. In the 1980s, the US added Japan to this wealth recycling arrangement with the Plaza accords of 1986. Europe was to a lesser extent thus integrated as well via the Louvre agreements of that decade. In the 1990s it was Eastern Europe and to a lesser extent south Asia. In the 2000s it was China in part. The recycling benefited US capital greatly. US dominated institutions like the IMF and World Bank were put in service of helping facilitate the integration. The recycling was accompanied by a major acceleration of US foreign direct investment into the economies of the new partners. The dollars flowing back to the US in the form of US Treasury bonds and bills purchases allowed the US to run chronic massive budget deficits, caused by accelerating defense-war spending and simultaneous business-investor tax cutting in the amount of tens of trillions of dollars. The recycling allowed the US to build up its military into a global force on nearly all continents, with a budget of a $trillion a year, the most advanced technology, and more than 900 bases worldwide. Integration economically with the US enabled the US to more effectively wield a ‘carrot and stick’ policy within its global empire to ensure partners would adhere to its fundamental political interests in turn. But global financial and economic integration also means that crises that build and erupt in the US and/or within the key core partners of the US economic empire (aka Canada-Mexico, Japan, Europe), now more quickly spread across the integrated markets and economies. Integration increases the amplification magnitudes and propagation rates of crises.

2. Financial Restructuring of the Global Economy and the Relative Shift to Financial Asset Investing

I argued in some detail in ‘Systemic Fragility in the Global Economy’ that what has been underway since the early 1980s decade is a relative shift toward financial asset investing. This shift is structural and has not abated. In fact, technology is accelerating it. The opportunity for greater financial market profits is also a key driver. The financial asset investing shift, as I call it, has had the result of distorting real investment in plant, equipment, etc. The latter still goes on and may also grow during periods, but in relative terms it is slowing and even declining compared to financial asset investing. At the core of this is the explosion of free money provided by the central banks, made possible by the collapse of the Bretton Woods International monetary system in the 1970s.

Technology and new forms of what is money have also contributed, and increasingly so after 2000, to the explosion of credit enabled by money and near money forms. With excess credit comes excess debt—at all levels: government, banking, non-bank businesses, households, ‘external’, etc.

The magnitude of debt is not per se the problem. The failure to service that debt (i.e. pay interest and principal) is the problem, and that occurs when prices collapse (asset and goods and inputs prices). Price deflation occurs when financial asset bubbles implode. Assets are all substitutes for each other, and when one key asset collapses it has a contagion effect across others. So the price system is the transmission mechanism. This idea is quite counter to mainstream economics which purports the price system stabilizes the economy and markets via supply and demand. But that’s a myth. The price system is a destabilizer. And there isn’t just ‘one price system’, another mainstream error. There are three key price systems that are inter-related but behave differently. They are financial asset prices, goods & services prices, and in put prices (e.g. wages). The relative shift to financial asset investing tends to drive up financial asset prices into bubble range, that then bust and drag down goods and input prices in turn, causing the recession to deepen and recovery to occur slowly. But the financial asset shift and inflation has a further negative effect: it reduces productivity as real investment slows. That slows wages (price for labor) while causing greater unemployment or underemployment (especially the latter).

Financialization is measured not by the share of profits or jobs going to the banking sector. It is defined by the explosion of financial asset securities (especially derivatives), the new highly liquid markets worldwide created in which to trade those securities, and the new financial institutions that dominate that trade—i.e. what are called the shadow banking system. Around this securities, markets, and institutional new framework (that functions globally due to technology) a new global finance capital elite has emerged as the human ‘agents’ of this new global financial structure that I define as ‘financialization’. That global finance capital elite now manages more investible assets than do the traditional commercial banking system (which by the way is increasingly integrated with the shadow banking system). But the shadow banks are virtually unregulated and thus prone to engage in excess risky financial investing, which is behind the chronic shift to financial investing and the financial instability globally it is creating.

3. Global Restructuring of Labor Markets & Collapse of Unionized Labor

Not all of contemporary capitalism is of course financialized. There is still much non-financial production going on and, in the (non-financial) services sectors, actually growing. It’s just that it isn’t as profitable as financial investing and thus is getting relatively less money capital than it otherwise would for purposes of expansion. Financialization is diverting more money capital to itself relative to non-financial investing—i.e. a shift that is slowing productivity gains in the latter and, as a consequence, wages and raising underemployment as businesses cut costs in order to offset the slowing productivity and higher costs of investing in real assets.

We thus now see major transformations in labor markets worldwide that is resulting in lower wage income gains. The ‘global integration’ process in item #1 above is accompanied by the ‘offshoring’ of higher wage manufacturing and other sector jobs to the emerging markets, following the capital outflow from the capitalist core (US, Europe, Japan) to the periphery of EMEs (note: Emerging market economies). Simultaneously, businesses still producing in the core intensify their cost cutting to compete with producers in the EMEs. That means the rise of contingent labor (part time, temp, gig, etc.) which is paid less and paid fewer benefits. The rise of contingency and offshoring reduces union membership and in turn bargaining power. Whereas in the past unions recovered some of income lost during the recession and downturns during the business cycle upswing, this is no longer occurring as unionization has collapsed. The offshoring of jobs also increases worker insecurity and means less likely worker resistance to wage compression by strikes and collective bargaining. As unions decline their political influence also wanes, and with it the ability to achieve wage and benefit improvements via political action. Minimum wage legislation in particular suffers.

Labor market restructuring thus becomes a popular project of business elites and their politicians. It takes the form of job offshoring as the State increasingly subsidizes foreign direct investment. It takes the form of job creation that is now almost totally contingent in character in the advanced capitalist core of US-Japan-Europe (60%-80% of jobs created in Europe in recent decades have been contingent—part time, temp, etc.). As unions weaken economically, it means the restricting and limiting of what union labor may legally negotiate over. As unions weaken politically, it means slower legislated wage adjustments (min. wages) and cut backs in ‘social wages’ like pensions, national health insurance, etc. As union effectiveness weakens, they are attacked and removed by business action or abandoned by workers who see them ineffective in defending their interests. Business led political parties then propose national legislation to, in part, codify the changes and in part to drive them deeper.

Just as the financial restructuring of the capitalist economy leads to accelerating income and wealth accumulation by the financial elite and business class, the restructuring of labor markets had the effect of compressing and stagnation (or for some sectors of the working class even reducing) wage incomes. The former financial restructuring causes income and wealth inequality to accelerate even faster than the labor market restructuring causes wage, working class, incomes to stagnate and decline. Both restructurings result in accelerating income inequality that we see today. And with income inequality, wealth (i.e. assets) grows in turn. Conversely, more asset accumulation produces even more non-asset income inequality. So the two, income and wealth, inequality in favor of financial and business classes feed off each other to expand even further. Meanwhile wage income stagnates.

Thus de-unionization, wage compression, social benefits cut backs, job offshoring, decline of collective bargaining and strike activity, labor market ‘reform’ legislation, etc. are all the consequence (and objectives) of labor market restructuring. Labor market restructuring is largely for the benefit of those sectors of capital still mostly doing business in the domestic economy.

Financialization, subsidization by the State of foreign direct investment, and free trade agreements are largely for the benefit of the multinational corporate sector. Free trade agreements subsidize multinational corporations in two major ways: They are primarily about legalizing terms and conditions for US multinational corporate and banking penetration of other economies on favorable terms. Free trade deals also serve as a multinational corporation cost cutting aid, as corporations are able to bring back their goods and services and not pay the tariff (tax) to re-import back to the US. For example, 49% of the US’s more than $500 billion a year in goods trade deficit with China involves goods made by US corporations in China.

4. Destruction of Former Social Democratic Parties and Movements

Everywhere globally we see the collapse of social democratic parties that once dominated government. This has been true even in the ‘heartland’ of social democracy, in Europe, but also in USA, in South America, Israel, and select economies in Asia where ‘weak forms’ of social democracy previously participated. The rise of right wing ‘populism’ should be viewed as a direct result of the political vacuum created by the demise of social democracy. It is the consequence. So why have they declined? And how has this decline fueled the global integration, financial restructuring, restructuring of labor markets, the financial investing shift, and the accelerating income and wealth inequality? Those are key questions that remain largely unanswered still today among the so-called ‘left’ or ‘progressive’ movements everywhere. Some likely causes of the collapse of social democracy at the political level parallels include the destruction of their political base, the unions, and their significant loss of political influence. To some extent it has been the result of strategic errors by these parties, allowing themselves to become too closely associated with the neoliberal offensive that began circa 1980. But whatever the cause, their decline has opened the floodgates to legislative and other capitalist initiatives to restructure the capitalist financial system and capitalist labor markets globally along lines noted above. Capital has never been more powerful relative to labor than it is today. That’s why, in desperation, working classes vote in mere protest of conditions without being able to propose and promote solutions in their interest. Thus we get Brexits. Support for far right parties that promise to change the system and argue falsely the change will better the conditions of workers. That’s why we get Donald Trump. Bolsonaros and Macris in South America. Salvinis and Orbans in Europe. Dutertes in Asia. Etc. Working classes worldwide have been ‘de-organized’ both economically and politically. Into the vacuum step the far right movements, ideologues, and their parties, who take power often by default. The working classes are left with mere periodic protest votes and they vote for parties and movements that say they are going to ‘stick it to’ the capitalists that have created their declining working conditions and standard of living—even if they know little will come of that pledge.

5. Transformation of Mainstream Capitalist Political Parties

Political change has taken the form not only of the demise or rise of certain political movements and parties, but also the change in formerly ruling parties.In the US the Republican party has assumed the mantle of the far right populism. Its former challenger of the past decade, the Teaparty, has been integrated and transformed that party fundamentally.Its ideology, policy mix, and willingness to undermine democratic norms and even institutions has signified a basic change in the composition and strategy (and tactics) of the Republican party. A similar transformation to the ‘left of center’ is in the early stages with the US Democratic party.Not just in the US is this process occurring. In the UK the formerly dominant parties are in crisis and losing popular support.A ‘Brexit’ right wing populist party is emerging within the Conservative party, while the Labor party continues to lose support to nationalists and environmentalists in its ranks as well.At earlier stages a similar development is occurring in France and even Germany, where both the national front and AfD are growing support. And of course, Italy is well ahead in the rightward shift. The parties of the ‘center’ are collapsing in various stages everywhere.

These political party changes are the consequence of the intensifying income and wealth inequality, and the forces driving it associated with global capitalist economic integration, financial restructuring, and labor market restructuring.On the periphery of the political system are the demise of social democracy and rise of the populist right parties;but ‘in the middle’ as well the traditional capitalist parties are becoming fluid and experiencing internal instability.

6. Increasing Subsidization of Capital Incomes by Capitalist States

Capitalists have totally captured the direction of fiscal and monetary policy and have turned it to the benefit of their direct interests.In past periods, the primary mission of fiscal-monetary policy was to stabilize capitalist economies when recessions or goods inflation occurred. Fiscal-monetary policy was also employed in a manner that shared the benefits of such policy with working classes and other sectors. But 21st century capitalist fiscal-monetary policy (taxation, government spending, budget-national debt management, interest rates, inflation targeting, employment, etc.) has been transformed. Today the primary mission of such policy is to directly subsidize capital incomes, both in periods of economic contraction and in subsequent periods of recovery.Keeping interest rates low chronically allows constant cheap credit and the issuance of multi-trillions of dollars of corporate and household debt.Providing excess liquidity fuels financial asset market (stocks, bond, derivatives, etc.) bubbles that boom capital incomes from financial investing. Equally massive, multi-trillion dollar tax cuts for businesses, corporations and investors, bankers and shadow bankers, results in the US alone more than a $1 trillion a year annually in redistribution to shareholders from stock buybacks and dividend payouts (in 2018 rising to $1.4 trillion in US alone). Ever more funding is simultaneously provided for defense and war production.

The direct subsidization fuels the financial asset investing shift and in turn the financial asset bubbles, corporate and household excess debt, and generates the financial fragility and instability in the form of the next crisis. It also results in escalating government sector debt and rising debt servicing costs.

Thus all three major sectors of capitalist economy—business, households, government—keep loading up on debt and leverage. In the US, government debt (national and local, central bank and government agency) is well over $30 trillion. Another $20 trillion could easily be added by 2030. Corporate and business bond and loan debt may be as high as $20 trillion today.And household debt nearly $14 trillion and rising rapidly. The problem of debt is multiplied many fold across the global capitalist economy, with areas of high concentration of either corporate and/or government debt.The amount is easily more than $75 trillion. It is worth repeating, however, that the sheer magnitude of debt is not by itself the problem.The problem is when the incomes for servicing the debt cannot keep up.And that gap widens rapidly when financial asset prices, and other prices, rapidly collapse and contagion spread just as rapidly from the financial to the real economy. Price collapse, beginning with financial markets, is the critical chemical additive that makes the debt problem explode. And when that explosion takes place, the massive debt accumulation at government levels prevents traditional fiscal-monetary policy from playing an economic stabilization role. All it is then used for is to subsidize the losses incurred by owners of capital incomes.

On Reforms and Four Fundamental Challenges to Capitalism Today

Mohsen Abdelmoumen: You are a brilliant economist and a prolific author. Unlike most economists linked to the establishment who see nothing, you keep warning with very solid arguments and careful work that we are heading for another cycle of crises more serious than the previous ones. Is the capitalist system reformable or should we not seek an alternative as soon as possible?

Jack Rasmus: It depends what you mean by ‘reforms’. There are obviously minor reforms that, while important for protecting average folks income, their standard of living, protecting their basic rights and civil liberties, etc., don’t challenge or stop the fundamental drift of US and global capitalism, including its growing tendency toward crises that I noted above. These should be distinguished from structural ‘reforms’ that do attempt to fundamentally change the direction of 21st century global capitalism. These fundamental reforms are, of course, strongly resisted by capitalists and their political representatives. What then are these transformable ‘reforms’?

They would be changes that halt and roll back the financialization and the multiple forces now accelerating income and wealth economy, with emphasis on ‘roll back’ here.They would reverse the changes in the labor markets of recent decades, by prohibiting for example the excess hiring of part time, temp and otherwise ‘contingent’ labor. They would restore an even field for the recovery of unions and collective bargaining.

They would democratize the central banks and give them a new mission to serve not only the banks but the rest of society; central banks would become part of a broader public banking system and their decisions made by elected representatives accountable to all of society (my recent book provides proposals of legislation that would do this). The tax shift of recent decades that gave ever more income to businesses, investors and wealthy 1% would be reversed, perhaps via a financial transaction tax system and would make tax fraud and offshore tax sheltering a criminal offense with guaranteed jail time. And of course the massive $ trillion a year war budget would be significantly reduced by fundamental reforms. All these fundamental reforms challenge the trajectory and dynamics of 21st century capitalism. Capitalists and politicians would vigorously resist them. In that sense the system is not ‘reformable’. Minor reforms are sometimes allowed, and concessions granted especially in times of system crisis. But both kinds of reforms should be aggressively pursued.

There are four great challenges confronting 21st century US dominated global capitalism.It is questionable whether the system can overcome them. If it can’t it will be perceived by the general, non-capitalist populace that it is failing and no long can deliver on improving standards of living or even maintaining past levels of living standards. If that occurs, it’s a game changer. Here are the four great challenges it faces:

1. Will Capitalism be able to resolve the crisis of climate change in the next two decades.

If it can’t do that, the economic negative impacts of climate change by 2040 will have reached such a level that they will become economically unresolvable.Thesystem will be appropriately blamed for not resolving the problem. It remains to be seen if the private profit and capital expansion system of capitalism can co-exist with the climate crisis. Can profits be maintained and the climate crisis simultaneously resolved? We shall see, but I’m not optimistic the two can coexist.

2. Can the system control the coming huge negative impacts of technological change?

We’ve seen how technology has transformed financial and labor markets, to the great detriment of 80%-90% of the working classes. It has spawned new business models like Amazon, Uber, and others that have devastated jobs and wage incomes.In the US more than 50 million are already ‘contingent’ labor of some kind (in Europe and Japan even more) and it’s just the beginning. The real crisis will begin when next decade the technological effects of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning software have an even greater impact. A recent Mckinsey Consultant study predicts a minimum of 30% of all occupations and jobs will be replaced or reduced. How are these people going to earn a decent living, start families, afford housing, etc.? Some say a Guaranteed Basic Income will have to be the answer. I don’t see capitalists going along with that.It’s a ‘structural reform’ they’ll resist tooth and nail. What are the economic and political consequences of AI (note: Artificial Intelligence) if they allow it to happen and drive down living standards for hundreds of millions of workers worldwide? Here again I don’t see the capitalist system, as it pursues profits via AI, being able or willing to soften its massive negative effects on jobs, income and living standards.

3. Will They do anything about accelerating Income Inequality?

Capitalists and politicians talk about this but so far put forward no solutions to it.And the realization of ‘them vs. us’ is beginning to deepen in the consciousness of more workers. That resentment is fueling the right wing populism globally. It is also making the young workers, the millennials and next ‘generation Z’ coming, to turn against the system in droves. Polls in the US show a majority of under 30 year olds now reject the capitalist system as it is and prefer some kind of ‘socialism’. We shouldn’t make too much of this yet, but ‘socialism’ means to them ‘none of the above’ currently.

4. Can capitalists ‘manage’ the radical right populist surge underway?

They think they can but are losing in that effort thus far. They thought they could control Trump, but he is transforming the Republican party by driving out traditional capitalist representative from it and from their initial placement in his administration.He is terrorizing the opposition from within. It’s not unlike what’s going on elsewhere in Europe and South Asia countries where authoritarian right ideologues like Trump and his neocons are slowing changing the political rules of the game in their favor, at the expense of the traditionalists, sometimes called ‘globalists’. But it’s really about an internal internecine intra-capitalist class fight going on the US and elsewhere.A more aggressive and violent wing views the crisis of living standards as an opportunity to assert itself, take control of the institutions of government, transform the State apparatus and bureaucracy to serve it and not the traditionalists, and govern in a more direct way, even approaching a kind of dictatorship of its wing over the formal institutions of government and state. In short, I don’t see that the capitalists have had much success so far in containing this development, this shift toward a more radical right. There are of course some historical parallels here. It’s what Hitler was able to do in the early 1930s. There are numerous disturbing historical parallels between Trump and his movement and Hitler’s early strategies. Of course, the process was accelerating in Germany as the economic and social crisis was more intense and concentrated in a shorter time frame in the 1920s there. The crisis is not as intense yet in the US and the process of Trump’s take over of the political system is more drawn out and protracted. But there are similarities to the process nonetheless. The traditionalist capitalist wing and globalists are clearly ‘losing’ in the US. And if Trump should win another term in 2020, which he might if there’s no recession in the US in the interim, then this transformation of American democracy and American political institutions and culture will then become quite obvious. Meanwhile, we see a similar rightward drift and transformation of the capitalist political systems occurring in the UK, in central Europe, maybe even France soon, in the Philippines, in India, in Brazil-Argentina, in places in Africa and elsewhere. I think the traditionalists have no idea or strategy of how to stop 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on On Global Capitalist Crises: Systemic Changes and Challenges
  • Tags:

The great centrist European tradition of social democracy has been receiving a rattle for the last few decades.  The European Parliament elections were a reminder how much their appeal has diminished.  In Denmark, by way of contrast, they have established something of a bridgehead, defeating the centre-right coalition led by the Venstre party’s Lars Løkke Rasmussen in Wednesday’s election.  The Left parties won some 52.1% of the vote with 41% netted by right wing opponents.  Extreme parties such as Stram Kurs were kept out.

But the analysis from outside the country is typically skewed, seeing such a victory as a return to worn social democratic clothing with a grand spring clean.  The votes, seen in raw terms, do show a return to form for the left.  This ignores the actual change of political attire.  Danish voters did not return to any temple of the left and renew progressive vows.  The left, more to the point, has edged, in some cases leaped, to the right.

The response of the Danish Social Democrats in 2015 was not to convince voters about an existing vision for a future vote, but to ape that of the victors.  That year had seen the arrival of 21,000 migrants, causing disruption in the electoral mood.

“I know that many Danes are worried about the future,” claimed the newly elected leader of the party, Mette Frederiksen. “Worried about jobs, about open borders.  About whether we can find a balance in immigration policy.” 

In an interview with TV2, she opined that Denmark was not good at integrating refugee arrivals; nor was it “heroic or humane to bring so many people here that the problems become huge in our own country.”   

Frederiksen’s policy has been to play the devil, the humanitarian and the dissembler.  Social welfare has been returned to the centre of political discussions, but the issue of refugees and asylum seekers has also prominently, and negatively featured.  To TV2 on Monday, she spoke of her interest in implementing “an economic plan that benefits the fight against inequality and invests in welfare.”  The civic compact of the welfare state is to be renewed, but the outsiders, those desperate to be admitted to it, are to be kept at arm’s length. 

In the last four years, strict immigration laws passed by the Rasmussen government have received approval from the Social Democrats.  Frederiksen was doing everything to shrink the gulf with her opponents, not accentuate the difference.  To that end, her party, in 824 legislative votes since 2015, has voted with the government in over 90% of instances

Nasty measures sharpened for populist appeal have gotten the nod of approval: the banishment of rejected asylum seekers unable to return home and foreigners convicted of crimes to the island of Lindholm, known for hosting cattle and swine said to possess viral diseases worthy of studying; the grant of intrusive police powers enabling the confiscation of goods held by refugees deemed non-essential and worth more than 10,000 kroner; and fining those wearing garments covering faces in public places.    

In February, the Danish parliament passed the L 140 bill shifting the focus on immigration away from integration to that of repatriation, including those who do not have permanent status and UN quota refugees.  The Social Democrats went along with this “paradigm shift”, despite disagreeing with the reduction of the social welfare benefit known as the integrationsydelsen.  The crude note behind the bill was struck by their spokesperson for immigration Mattias Tesfaye: “People will be given the more honest message that their stay in Denmark is temporary.” 

Spokesperson for the Red-Green alliance Pelle Dragsted summed up the view in some disgust.

“The essence of this is about making life harder and more unpleasant for people who have come here to escape Assad’s barrel bombs and the sex slavery and terror of Islamic State.” 

The Social Democrats have also campaigned on shifting the focus from Denmark the processing state to countries, and regions, of origin, dubbing it a “Marshall plan for Africa”.  Go to the source of ruination, and improve it with structural and financial incentives.  We shall help more, goes the party’s policy, though “we cannot help all in Europe and Denmark.”    

Despite a collapse in the 2019 election (their number of 37 mandates shorn by 21), the Danish People’s Party (Dansk Folkeparti) supplies a text book example of how parties of the far right can terrify and convince their opponents into shifting ground.  When its candidates first started finding a voice in Denmark’s parliament in 1998, the focus was always on tightening immigration, with a conspicuous anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant bias.  The welfare state would take pride and place, but outsiders would be frowned upon.  

The DPP, in other words, sounded much like convinced Social Democrats incarnations, at least on social and economic policy.  They proved religious defenders against any increases in the legal retirement age, advocates for lower taxes for low wage earners and promoters of better labour conditions.  In 2001, 2011 and again in 2015, they made good their reputation of being kingmakers but would often to do with forces infected by economic rationalism.  

While disaffected Social Democratic voters would find a temporary home in the DPP, this was done at some cost.  Knowing this, Frederiksen was always careful to keep the DPP close, mindful of any future power arrangements. 

“In Denmark,” she claimed in 2017, “you are entitled to almost all benefits from day one.  It’s a difficult system when large numbers of people come into the country.”  

Frederiksen was also handed a pre-electoral gift by her opponent.  A day before the poll, Prime Minister Rasmussen was keen to shake off some of the more influential rightist groups that might have a say in a future government.  The New Right and Stram Kurs, for instance, were not going to be “realistic” partners in any conservative bloc.  “If there’s a blue majority tomorrow, I feel convinced that it would include parties that I will not accommodate.” 

Rasmussen saw the situation mirrored on the part of his Social Democrat opponents.  Should the progressives do well in the elections, Frederiksen would have to share with parties of the far left persuasion.  “The alternative is there will be no blue majority.  And then we have a situation in which a Social Democratic prime ministerial candidate must accommodate the far left.  Neither option is in Denmark’s interests.”  The desired route?  A partnership with the Social Democrats to push the extreme wings of both sides out.  The idea lacked wings, and never took off. 

The pooh-poohing of fellow conservative members so close to the vote did Rasmussen few favours.  Frederiksen found herself able to muster the numbers of a red bloc, though its shape is still forming.  The extreme voices of the Stram Kurs movement were kept out.  Denmark has confirmed its status as a political mutation parochial of the welfare state but sharply sceptical about refugees.  What this says about social democracy is also significant: to be relevant, argues Frederiksen, the movement must be able to “appeal to those who are most strongly affected by the challenges of the future and the changes in our society”.  If this demands dry tear ducts and a hardening of the heart towards outsiders, then so be it. To the victor go the dubious and tarnished spoils. 

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Danish Elections: Social Democracy with an “Inhumane Face”
  • Tags:

As international condemnation of the latest U.S. sanctions continues to grow, three cruise lines operating on the island began to withdraw and apologize to their guests for changes in itineraries, with some 800,000 passengers affected

***

As international condemnation of the unilateral sanctions imposed by the United States on Cuba June 5 continues to grow, the measures have already had an impact. Three of the four U.S. cruise lines operating on the island, began to withdraw and apologize to their guests for changes in itineraries. The largest cruise ship operator in the world, Carnival, well known for its customary stops in Cuban ports, informed clients that it was forced to cancel visits to Havana and apologized for “the unexpected change.”

Thus customers who were on board the Carnival Sensation, which departed two days before the ban and was set to travel to Havana, was obliged to continue on to Cozumel, Mexico. The company said it regretted the change and recognized Havana as a “unique destination,” offering “a full refund” to those who decided to cancel the trip.

According to Prensa Latina, Royal Caribbean Cruises said it would adjust departure itineraries planned for June 5 and 6, since “they will not stop in Cuba.”

The president of the International Association of Cruise Lines (CLIA), Adam Goldstein, said he was disappointed and reported that almost 800,000 passenger reservations currently scheduled, or in progress, will be impacted, with the Association’s member companies forced to eliminate all Cuban destinations on their itineraries immediately, since the new travel restrictions “make sea crossings to Cuba from the United States illegal”.

“For its part, the United States-Cuba Business Council, affiliated with the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, called for respecting freedom of travel, while the Engage Cuba coalition said that the sanctions represent an attack on a fundamental right of citizens and that Cubans should not be used” as political pawns.

“The executive director of the Center for Democracy in the Americas, Emily Mendrala, described the new measures as a step backward, “which will only undermine the commercial interests of the United States and further divide Cuban families.

“Meanwhile, U.S. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) announced that he will introduce the “Freedom for Americans to Travel to Cuba Act,” calling the latest sanctions “dumb,” and hypocritical, since Washington has serious differences with other countries and does not prohibit U.S. citizens from visiting them.

Leahy recalled that an overwhelming majority of the U.S. people oppose these prohibitions, saying,

“I urge all Senators to not let the same old, worn out, Cold War, isolationist, fear mongering, failed arguments about Cuba stand in the way of common sense.” Cubans chose a path 150 years ago. While others choose to hate and destroy, this people will continue to belong – with the truth on our side – to the band of those who “love and create” as José Martí would say.

*

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: The Cuban people demand an end to the economic, commercial, and financial blockade imposed by the United States. Source: Granma Archives

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Sanctions against Cuba. US Cruise Lines Begin to Withdraw. Sea Crossings to Cuba from the US are Declared “Illegal”
  • Tags: ,

Is Roméo Dallaire a genocide denier?

After a (question free) talk at Concordia University this week I followed the famous Canadian general out of the room to ask why he still supports ruthless dictator Paul Kagame. Kagame is the individual most responsible for the mass slaughter in Rwanda in mid-1994 since his forces invaded the country, engaged in a great deal of killing and blew up the presidential plane that unleashed the genocidal violence.

In 1996 Kagame’s forces invaded the Congo to overthrow the government in Kinshasa and when their installed president kicked them out they reinvaded in 1998, causing an eight country war that left millions dead. According to a 600-page report by the UN high commissioner for human rights, Rwanda was responsible for “crimes against humanity, war crimes, or even genocide” in the Congo.

With Dallaire refusing to answer my question I asked a Radio Canada journalist seeking to interview the former general to ask why he supports Kagame. The reporter was there to question Dallaire about the use of the term “genocide” in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls. Dallaire said he had “a problem” with the use of the word “genocide” to describe what happened to First Nations. “Is that an act of genocide? Is it?” he said.

“My definition of genocide, I read it very deliberately at the start of the Rwandan genocide, and it was a deliberate act of a government to exterminate deliberately, and by force and directly, an ethnicity or a group or an entity of human beings.”

Numerous media outlets picked up Dallaire’s comments. A La Presse headline read “Dallaire denounces the use of the term ‘genocide’” while Rebel Media’s The Ezra Levant Show reported on, “Rwandan genocide witness General Roméo Dallaire’s strong denouncement of Justin Trudeau’s agreement that the Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women findings indeed constitute a ‘genocide.’”

While Dallaire is opposed to labeling Canada’s dispossession of First Nations a genocide, he has repeatedly employed the term to describe rights violations in enemy states. In recent years he’s compared the situation of Darfur is in Sudan and Baha’i in Iran, as well as Syria and Libya, to Rwanda. If Western interventionists are targeting a nation Dallaire is happy to employ the “G” word or “R” comparison.

Interestingly, Dallaire’s criteria for a genocide — “a deliberate act of a government to exterminate deliberately” — better applies to indigenous people in Canada than to the Tutsi in Rwanda. Dispossessed of 99% of their land, Indigenous people have faced state-backed efforts to starve and sterilize them. They’ve also been made wards of the state, had their movement restricted and religious/cultural ceremonies banned. Residential schools and other so-called child welfare initiatives sought to eradicate their ways, or in the infamous formulation of the deputy superintendent of the Department of Indian Affairs from 1913 to 1932, Duncan Campbell Scott: “Our objective is to continue until there is not a single Indian in Canada that has not been absorbed into the body politic and there is no Indian question.”

Prior to confederation, British forces conquered today’s Nova Scotia through terror, putting the heads of Mi’kmaq soldiers on spikes and offering bounties to kill women and children. Founder of the Halifax fort, Lieutenant General Edward Cornwallis led the charge and by the mid-1760s the Mi’kmaq had been largely wiped out in Nova Scotia.

After British forces conquered Quebec General Jeffery Amherst’s forces gave indigenous chiefs in the Great Lakes region blankets and a handkerchief from a smallpox hospital. Commander of British forces in North America, Amherst wrote:

You will do well to try to inoculate the Indians by means of blankets as well as to try every other method that can serve to extirpate this execrable race.”

By the 1820s the Beothuk in Newfoundland were extinct. On the West Coast in 1862 colonial officials are accused of enabling the spread of smallpox among First Nations, which devastated the indigenous population.

Unlike the Tutsi in Rwanda, indigenous people in Canada didn’t end up in power after the “genocide”. Nor did Jews in Germany, the Herero in Namibia, Armenians in Turkey, Maya in Guatemala, etc. Rwanda is a peculiar case where the minority — 10% of the population — targeted for extermination ended up ruling after the bulk of the violence subsided.

That’s partly because the genocidal killings were not a long planned attempt to exterminate all Tutsi, which even the victors’ justice dispensed by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) effectively concluded. Instead, it was the outgrowth of a serious breakdown in social order that saw hundreds of thousands slaughtered by relatively disorganized local ‘militias’ fearful of the Kagame-led foreign invasion that eventually conquered Rwanda and drove a quarter of the population out of the country. Probably an equal — and possibly a greater — number of Hutu were killed.

Dallaire has propagated a wildly simplistic account of the tragedy that gripped Rwanda and Burundi in the mid-1990s. He has promoted the Kagame-inspired fairy tale used to justify a brutal dictatorship in Rwanda and its expansionism in the region (as well as Western liberal imperialism). According to the most outlandish aspect of this story, Hutu extremists murdered the Hutu presidents of Rwanda and Burundi and much of the Hutu-led Rwandan military command, weakening the Hutu government to its most frail point in three decades, and then decided to begin a long planned systematic extermination of Tutsi. In this depiction of Rwanda’s tragedy, the individual most responsible for unleashing the genocidal violence is the hero who ended “the Genocide”.

In his 2005 book Le Patron de Dallaire Parle (The Boss of Dallaire Speaks), Jacques-Roger Booh Booh, a former Cameroon foreign minister and overall head of mid-1990s UN mission in Rwanda, claims Dallaire had little interest in the violence unleashed by Kagame’s RPF despite reports of summary executions in areas controlled by them. Booh Booh says Dallaire turned a blind eye to RPF weapons coming across the border from Uganda and he believes the UN forces under Dallaire’s command may have even transported weapons directly to the RPF, “becoming an objective ally of one of the parties in the conflict.”

Dallaire’s criticism of the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls is consistent with his political interventions. He has long been a cheerleader for Canadian and Western domination of the world. As I detail in this article, the former general opposed calls to withdraw Canadian soldiers from Afghanistan, supported the overthrow of Haiti’s elected government in 2004 and bombing of Libya in 2011. He has also called for increased military spending and for Canada to join US ballistic missile “defence”. Now he appears to be denying a genocide perpetrated by a government he represented in the Senate and worked for in the military. Boil it all down and it simply becomes: ‘Our side is good and our enemies are bad.’

But, of course, this is what passes for foreign policy in Canada.

*

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

Escalating his policy to economically strangle Cuba, Donald Trump has imposed new restrictions on travel to Cuba by U.S. persons. The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) will no longer allow the popular “people-to-people” educational travel and they will deny licenses to cruise ships, the most common way people visit Cuba.

“While this further escalation of the Trump administration’s economic war on Cuba is very harmful to the people of Cuba and its private sector, it also directly impacts U.S. people,” Art Heitzer, chairperson of the National Lawyers Guild Cuba Subcommittee, told Truthout. “It will limit their freedom to travel, disrupting the lives and jobs of many Cuban-Americans in south Florida.”

Ironically, it is the voters in south Florida — many of them expatriated Cubans — whom Trump seeks to please with his shameful Cuba policy. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Florida) has long been angling for regime change in Cuba. The New York Times called Rubio “a virtual secretary of state for Latin America.” Early in his presidency, Trump told administration officials that his strategy on Cuba was to “Make Rubio happy.”

In an unprecedented move last month, Trump, egged on by Rubio, decided to allow potentially thousands of lawsuits that will depress tourism and investment in Cuba.

When announcing the administration’s new restrictions on travel to Cuba, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin said,

“This Administration has made a strategic decision to reverse the loosening of sanctions and other restrictions on the Cuban regime. These actions will help to keep U.S. dollars out of the hands of Cuban military, intelligence, and security services.”

But it is the Cuban people who will suffer from restrictions on tourism, which is critical to Cuba’s economy. This is an extension of the economic embargo the United States has maintained against Cuba since the Cuban Revolution. A secret State Department memo written in 1960 proposed making life so miserable for the Cuban people, they would overthrow the new Castro government. The memo advocated “a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” The economic blockade continues to hurt the Cuban people although it has failed in its goal to overthrow the Cuban government.

Mnuchin also claimed,

“Cuba continues to play a destabilizing role in the Western Hemisphere, providing a communist foothold in the region and propping up U.S. adversaries in places like Venezuela and Nicaragua by fomenting instability, undermining the rule of law, and suppressing democratic processes.”

In fact, it is the U.S. government that is fomenting instability in Latin America. Team Trump is trying to illegally change Venezuela’s regime. The U.S. government blames Cuba for their own failed attempts to overthrow the Nicolás Maduro government in Venezuela.

Trump threatened Cuba with “a full and complete” embargo if it didn’t “immediately” stop supporting the Maduro government. But Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez stated at a news conference, “This is vulgar calumny. Cuba does not have troops nor military forces nor does it participate in military or security operations of the sister Republic of Venezuela.” Rodriguez’s denial was confirmed by the CIA, which concluded that Cuba’s assistance is much less critical to Venezuela than U.S. officials had claimed, according to The New York Times.

Nevertheless, the Trump administration continues to escalate its economic warfare against Cuba. Now it has eliminated the people-to-people travel license, and prohibited cruise ships and private aircraft from traveling to Cuba, effective June 5, 2019.

New Rules End Person-to-Person Educational Travel License

Congress has established 12 categories of people who can lawfully travel to Cuba under a general license. They include the following:

  • Family visits;
  • Official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations;
  • Journalistic activity;
  • Professional research and professional meetings;
  • Educational activities;
  • Religious activities;
  • Public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions;
  • Support for the Cuban people;
  • Humanitarian projects;
  • Activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes;
  • Exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials;
  • Certain authorized export transactions.

Only Congress can omit or add to any of these 12 categories. But different presidential administrations redefine what is permitted under each category. Trump’s newly announced policy narrows the purview of one of these categories. Now “people-to-people” travel will not be licensed under the category of “educational activities.”

General licenses had been allowed for travel that facilitated “people-to-people” contact between U.S. and Cuban people. The Treasury Department defines a “people-to-people” license as “an authorization, subject to conditions, for persons subject to U.S. jurisdiction to engage in certain educational exchanges in Cuba on an individual basis or under the auspices of an organization that is a person subject to U.S. jurisdiction and sponsors such exchanges to promote people-to-people contact.”

Trump’s new policy “kills the people-to people category, which is the most common way for the average American to travel to Cuba,” according to Collin Laverty, head of Cuba Educational Travel, one of the biggest companies in the United States that handles travel to Cuba.

Passenger and Recreational Vessels and Private Aircraft Can’t Travel to Cuba

Under the new rules, passenger and recreational vessels (including cruises ships, fishing boats, sailboats and yachts) and private and corporate aircraft will no longer be licensed to visit Cuba. Most people who travel to Cuba arrive on cruise ships.

From January to April of 2019, 142,000 Americans stopped in Cuba while on cruises, compared to 114,000 who traveled by airplane. The ban on cruises will be “devastating to the travel industry and the Cuban people,” said Tom Popper, president of the travel company insightCuba. Cruise Lines International Association, a cruise industry group, estimates that the new prohibition will affect approximately 800,000 passenger bookings.

Private and corporate aircraft will not be permitted to travel from the U.S. to Cuba. But commercial flights will still be allowed.

The Trump regime has threatened more sanctions against Cuba. It is not clear whether they will impose additional travel restrictions.

*

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.

Copyright Truthout. Reprinted with permission

Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, deputy secretary general of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers and a member of the advisory board of Veterans for Peace. Her most recent book is Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral, and Geopolitical Issues. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s New Travel Restrictions Harm Both US and Cuban People
  • Tags: ,

It is one of the greatest lies that most Americans – in fact most people around the world – have never heard of. And it reveals much about the true relationship between the United States and one of its “closest allies,” the State of Israel.

This was an act of war — a false flag attack, a mass execution, a war crime, a gross betrayal, and the beginning of an exercise in deception and propaganda that continues to this day.

It was 50 years ago that Israel launched a shocking and brutal attack on an American intelligence ship, the USS Liberty, as it cruised in international waters near the Sinai Peninsula and the coast of Gaza. In the intervening years, the governments of the two countries — as well as the mainstream media — have maintained a grotesque and transparent cover-up in support of the lie that the incident was a simply a “tragic accident,” a case of “mistaken identity.”

But the survivors know that this was no accident.

Over a span of close to two hours on the afternoon of June 8, 1967, under clear blue skies, the Israeli military did all it could do to sink the Liberty and kill all 294 on board, three of those civilians. This did not succeed, but at the end of the attack, 34 crew members were dead and between 171 and 174 were injured (depending on which source you use). The ship had been positively identified by Israeli planes as an American ship as early as 6 a.m. that day, eight hours before the attack began.

The assault on the Liberty, which flew a large American flag (as confirmed by every surviving member of the crew) and clear identification on its hull as a non-combat ship, took place on the fourth day of Israel’s Six Day War against Egypt, Jordan, and Syria. The NSA spy ship looked like no other in the region as it carried all manner of sophisticated surveillance equipment.

The Liberty had been ordered into the Mediterranean Sea to monitor communications related to the Arab/Israeli conflict (although its precise mission remains classified). At 2 p.m., it was hit by a rocket attack launched from fighter jets travelling at high speed. The nightmare was just beginning.

The ship was hit with rockets, cannon fire, and even napalm. Eight sailors were killed in this initial assault. The Liberty was unable to contact the Sixth Fleet for help because its emergency frequency had been jammed and communications equipment badly damaged or destroyed. But sometime later, one brave crew member risked his life to make temporary repairs, and as a result, a distress signal was sent to two aircraft carriers in the region, the USS Saratoga and the USS America.

Planes were immediately dispatched to aid the Liberty. The pilots were authorized at that time to destroy the attacking planes and ships. But before they could arrive, new orders were given recalling them — even though the attack was still ongoing.

About 35 minutes into the attack, three Israeli ships reached the scene and began launching torpedoes. One hit the Liberty, killing another 26 crewmen and created a nearly 40-foot hole in the hull. In addition, a steady spray of machine gun fire targeted firefighters and rescue workers who were carrying stretchers with the wounded. The Israeli boats even fired upon life rafts that had been lowered into the water in an effort to save the most seriously hurt. An order to abandon ship had to be rescinded.

In 2005, the USS Liberty Veterans Association sent a report entitled, “A Report: War Crimes Committed Against U.S. Military Personnel, June 8, 1967,” to the Secretary of the Army. In that report, we learn how the attack came to an end while the Liberty was still afloat.

“Shortly after the Sixth Fleet transmission of the rules of engagement to its dispatched rescue aircraft, the Israeli torpedo boats suddenly broke off their attack and transmitted messages asking if USS Liberty required assistance. At the same time, an Israeli naval officer notified the US Naval Attaché at the American Embassy in Tel Aviv that Israeli forces had mistakenly attacked a United States Navy ship and apologized. The Naval Attaché notified the United States Sixth Fleet and the rescue aircraft were recalled before they arrived at the scene of the attack.” P.8

Most Americans are completely unaware of this act of war by one ally against another. The main reason for this is that the American media have almost completely suppressed any mention of the event. Statements by high-level military and civilian officials have received virtually no attention. Researcher Alison Weir, who has written extensively about the history of Palestine and Israel, wrote an article on the web site If Americans Knew about the media silence that is well worth reading:

“Whatever the reason, until American news media start being conscientious enough to get their reports on Israel right, Americans are going to continue being disastrously misinformed about one of the globe’s most destabilizing, tragic, and potentially calamitous areas of conflict.”

An article on Washington’s Blog from February 2015 sums up the evidence that the Israelis knew full well that they were attacking an American ship.

“Recently-declassified radio transcripts between the Israeli attack forces and ground control show that — at least 3 times — an Israeli fighter jet pilot identified the craft as American, and asked whether ground control was sure he should attack. Ground control repeatedly said, yes, attack the vessel.”

The article also explains how the aim of this for Israel was to make it look like Egypt had been responsible for the attack, potentially bringing the U.S. into the war.

An exception to the general media blackout of this subject is a 2007 article in the Baltimore Sun, which deals in some detail with the question of how the Israelis had to know they were attacking an American ship and how this has been confirmed by declassified government documents.

“[The documents] strengthen doubts about the U.S. National Security Agency’s position that it never intercepted the communications of the attacking Israeli pilots — communications, according to those who remember seeing them, that showed the Israelis knew they were attacking an American naval vessel.

“The documents also suggest that the U.S. government, anxious to spare Israel’s reputation and preserve its alliance with the U.S., closed the case with what even some of its participants now say was a hasty and seriously flawed investigation.”

Report findings changed in Washington

A U.S. Navy Court of Inquiry was ordered immediately after the attack but only given a week to assess what had happened. For 37 years, the senior legal counsel to the Inquiry, Capt. Ward Boston Jr., kept his feelings about that attack and the hasty investigation to himself. But after a book supporting the official cover-up was written by Jay Cristol called The Liberty Incident, Boston felt compelled to speak out.

He reveals that Admiral John S. McCain (father of former presidential candidate John McCain), who was Commander-in-Chief of U.S. Naval Forces in Europe, refused the request by Boston and the Inquiry’s president, Admiral Isaac C. Kidd, that they be allowed to travel to Israel to interview those who participated in the attack. A request that they be able to interview wounded crew members who could not physically attend the hearings was also denied.

In his statement, dated Jan. 9, 2004, Boston makes some incredible charges, including that the Inquiry’s final report was changed in Washington to absolve Israel:

“The evidence was clear. Both Admiral Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack, which killed 34 American sailors and injured 172 others, was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew.

I am certain that the Israeli pilots that undertook the attack, as well as their superiors, who had ordered the attack, were well aware that the ship was American.

“I am outraged at the efforts of the apologists for Israel in this country to claim that this attack was a case of “mistaken identity.”

“Admiral Kidd told me, after returning from Washington, D.C. that he had been ordered to sit down with two civilians from either the White House or the Defense Department, and rewrite portions of the court’s findings.

“Admiral Kidd also told me that he had been ordered to “put the lid” on everything having to do with the attack on USS Liberty. We were never to speak of it and we were to caution everyone else involved that they could never speak of it again.

“I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of that statement as I know that the Court of Inquiry transcript that has been released to the public is not the same one that I certified and sent off to Washington.

He concludes:

“Contrary to the misinformation presented by Cristol and others, it is important for the American people to know that it is clear that Israel is responsible for deliberately attacking an American ship and murdering American sailors, whose bereaved shipmates have lived with this egregious conclusion for many years.”

It must be noted that the incident has actually been condemned by some very high-profile people, including then Secretary of State Dean Rusk and Admiral Thomas H. Moorer, who was named chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff shortly after the Liberty attack.

In a diplomatic note from June 10, 1967, Rusk wrote to the Israeli ambassador:

The subsequent attack by Israeli torpedo boats, substantially after the vessel was or should have been identified by Israeli military forces, manifests the same reckless disregard for human life. . . . The U.S.S. Liberty was peacefully engaged, posed no threat whatsoever to the torpedo boats, and obviously carried no armament affording it a combat capability. It could and should have been scrutinized visually at close range before torpedoes were fired.”

Moorer, who passed away in 2004, published this statement in 1997:

“Israel knew perfectly well that the ship was American. After all, the Liberty’s American flag and markings were in full view in perfect visibility for the Israeli aircraft that overflew the ship eight times over a period of nearly eight hours prior to the attack. I am confident that Israel knew the Liberty could intercept radio messages from all parties and potential parties to the ongoing war, then in its fourth day, and that Israel was preparing to seize the Golan Heights from Syria despite President Johnson’s known opposition to such a move. I think they realized that if we learned in advance of their plan, there would be a tremendous amount of negotiating between Tel Aviv and Washington.

“And I believe Moshe Dayan concluded that he could prevent Washington from becoming aware of what Israel was up to by destroying the primary source of acquiring that information the USS Liberty. The result was a wanton sneak attack that left 34 American sailors dead and 171 seriously injured. What is so chilling and cold-blooded, of course, is that they could kill as many Americans as they did in confidence that Washington would cooperate in quelling any public outcry.”

A deliberate act of murder

Before his death, Moorer participated in the “Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Ship was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government,” a blue-ribbon commission formed to study the events of that day. Other members included General Raymond G. Davis, Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, and Ambassador James Akins (former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia).

Among the Commission’s most explosive findings were:

  • That there is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew;
  • That in attacking USS Liberty, Israel committed acts of murder against American servicemen and an act of war against the United States;
  • That fearing conflict with Israel, the White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of USS Liberty by recalling Sixth Fleet military rescue support while the ship was under attack;
  • That although Liberty was saved from almost certain destruction through the heroic efforts of the ship’s Captain, William L. McGonagle (MOH), and his brave crew, surviving crew members were later threatened with ’court-martial, imprisonment or worse’ if they exposed the truth; and were abandoned by their own government;
  • That due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;
  • That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crew member has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;
  • That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy’s 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;
  • That the truth about Israel’s attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace
  • That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel’s interests when they conflict with American interests.

The USS Liberty Veterans Association report mentioned earlier sums up the events from the perspective of the survivors. It tells a powerful story. From the report’s conclusion:

“The failure of the United States government to undertake a complete investigation of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty has resulted in grievous harm to the surviving victims, as well as to the families of all crew members.

Equally serious, this failure has resulted in an indelible stain upon the honor of the United States of America. It has sent a signal to America’s serving men and women that their welfare is always subordinate to the interests of a foreign state. The only conceivable reason for this failure is the political decision to put the interests of Israel ahead of those of American servicemen, employees, and veterans.” P.32

It also tells the story of how the veterans continue to be viciously attacked by Israel and its supporters. On page 20 of the report, we read of how the victims of the attack are still victimized to this day:

“As a result of the public relations campaign undertaken on behalf of Israel, the USS Liberty survivors have been vilified for their assertions that the attack was deliberate and for their ongoing quest for justice. They are characterized as “neo-Nazis”, “anti-Semites”, and “conspiracy theorists” for wanting nothing more than an honest, open investigation of the attack on their ship and themselves.”

While monetary compensation was paid to the survivors and the families of those killed, no one in the Israeli military has even been reprimanded for their part in the attack.

The Jewish Virtual Library web site has an article that sums up the growing questions that Israel carried out the attack with intent and premeditation. But just when you think you might be reading a fairly even-handed assessment of the evidence comes this:

“The picture that emerges is not one of crime at all, nor even of criminal negligence, but of a string of failed communications, human errors, unfortunate coincidences and equipment failures on both the American and Israeli sides – the kind of tragic, senseless mistake that is all too common in the thick of war.”

An Israeli court of inquiry into the Liberty attack amounted to nothing more than an official cover-up. The inquiry concluded that the ship had no flag at all identifying it, which was contradicted by everyone on board (the ship initially flew a 5 x 8 foot flag but that became damaged in the attack, it was replaced with a second much larger one. The inquiry also concluded that a report that a ship had been shelling Israeli positions in the Sinai Peninsula led to confusion and errors.

What have we learned?

I understand that many of you reading this article will feel you already understand the implications of this event. In addition to perhaps having read all about the USS Liberty, you may have educated yourselves about geopolitics, false flags, and how power is wielded within a fog of lies and propaganda. You may also know the history of Israel and Zionism and what has been done to the Palestinian people over the past seven decades.

But if you do understand all of this, you are part of a very small minority. Most have never heard of this terrible act of barbarity and therefore have no idea what its implications are. Nevertheless, there are some serious lessons we must all learn from this event (and I’m sure readers could contribute more):

  1. Israel is capable of attacking its allies, and especially the U.S., to further its Zionist agenda. One can’t help but think about 9/11 in this regard.
  2. Israel will lie to America to draw it into a war under false pretenses. It also has no problem blaming a third party like Egypt for an atrocity it did not commit.
  3. Israel wields sufficient power within American circles of power that the U.S. government is more concerned about not embarrassing Israel than it is about defending its own people.
  4. The American media will participate in a cover-up of an act of war against America rather than point the finger at Israel.
  5. Israel uses the same attacks against the Liberty survivors that governments and mainstream media use to marginalize “conspiracy theorists.”
  6. Israel will also play the “anti-Semitic” and “neo-Nazi” cards against American servicemen who were victimized in the attack and who are continuing to demand accountability.
  7. Even half a century later, the American government will continue to protect this lie and allow the victimization of the survivors to continue.

Israel cultivates the image of a country and a people who are victims, constantly under threat. But one thing that this horrifying event really makes clear is that Israel threatens anyone or any country — even supposed “friends” — that get in the way of its political objectives.

Some observers have claimed that the USS Liberty attack was a false flag intended to implicate Egypt and draw the U.S. into a war that it did not want to be part of. Certainly Israel’s determination to sink the ship and kill all aboard supports this idea. Others believe Israel was afraid the Americans would learn through the Liberty’s surveillance efforts that Israel was planning to initiate hostilities with Jordan or Syria, which it had been urged not to do by Lyndon Johnson. Perhaps both are true.

But whatever the specific goals, this dark moment in history clearly reveals much that we should be talking about today. And like 9/11, it is one of those events that shows us how our world really functions and how what we see on the TV news and in newspapers is more about hiding the truth than explaining it.

*

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

This article, posted originally on Truth and Shadows in June 2016, has been updated for the 50th anniversary of the attack on the U.S.S. Liberty (June 8, 2017).

The US Treasury Department has announced a hardening of measures against Venezuela’s oil industry.

In an amendment to the Venezuela sanctions published on Thursday, Washington stated that the existing licenses, which allow certain companies to continue dealing with Venezuela state oil company PDVSA for a given period, “do not authorize transactions or dealings related to the exportation or reexportation of diluents, directly or indirectly, to Venezuela.”

Venezuela relies on imports of diluents to blend its heavy crude into exportable grades, as well as produce gasoline and diesel for internal consumption.

Venezuela’s declining oil production was significantly worsened by the impact of US economic sanctions, with crude output dropping by 30 percent, from an average of 1.911 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2017 to 1.354 million in 2018, following the August 2017 financial sanctions imposed by the Treasury Department.

Output further fell in 2019 as a result of the late January US embargo as well as nationwide blackouts in March, falling to just 740 thousand bpd in March before rebounding slightly in April. Output in May has reportedly fallen 17 percent from April. Oil exports to the US fell from over 500 thousand bpd in January to zero in late May, as the three month winding down period from January’s measures came to an end.

Restrictions on diluent imports have led to recent gasoline shortages, with long queues witnessed at gas pumps, particularly in the west of the country. Imports of fuel and diluents reportedly fell to 137,500 bpd in May, from over 200,000 bpd in March and April. National demand is estimated at around 250,000 bpd.

Fuel shortages were also a factor during the March electricity crisis, as backup thermoelectric plants could not be brought online due to lack of diesel. An estimated one-fifth of the country’s thermoelectric capacity is currently operational.

Caracas scrambled to find new buyers in the wake of the US oil embargo, seeking to divert exports to India as well as swap crude for diluents or fuel in a bid to to circumvent US sanctions. However, US officials pressured companies into winding down their transactions with Venezuela, with reiterated threats of secondary sanctions.

A recent report from the Washington DC think-tank Center for Economic and Policy Research analyzed the impact of sanctions on Venezuela’s oil sector, with an estimated US $6 billion lost in the 12 months following the August 2017 financial sanctions. Authors Mark Weisbrot and Jeffrey Sachs estimate another $6.8 billion in lost export revenue this year should production remain at current levels. The report further argues that US sanctions have been responsible for 40,000 deaths since 2017.

*

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: Amuay refining complex in Falcon State. (Wikimedia Commons)

Der lange Arm der Bilderberg Gruppe

June 8th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

Zur diesjährigen Sitzung der Bilderberggruppe, die vom 30. Mai bis 2. Juni in Montreux in der Schweiz stattfand, waren drei Italiener eingeladen. Es waren mit Lili Gruber, der Moderatorin des Fernsehsenders La7, eine weitere Journalistin, der ständige Moderator der Bilderberg-Gruppe – Stefano Feltri, stellvertretender Direktor von Fatto Quotidiano unter der Leitung von Marco Travaglio. Der „dritte Mann“, den die Bilderberger auswählten, ist Matteo Renzi, Politiker der Partito Democratico und ehemaliger Präsident des Ministerrates.

Die Bilderberggruppe, die 1954 auf Initiative bestimmter US-amerikanischer und europäischer „bedeutender Bürger“ formell gegründet wurde, wurde in Wirklichkeit von der CIA und dem britischen Geheimdienst MI6 gegründet, um die NATO gegen die UdSSR zu unterstützen. Nach dem Kalten Krieg spielte sie weiterhin die gleiche Rolle bei der Unterstützung der Strategie der USA und der NATO.

Die Gäste dieser jährlichen Treffen sind fast ausschließlich Bürger Westeuropas und Nordamerikas. Sie umfassen etwa 130 Vertreter aus Politik, Wirtschaft, Militär, den großen Medien und Geheimdiensten, die formell in privater Funktion teilnehmen. Sie versammeln sich hinter verschlossenen Türen in luxuriösen Hotels, jedes Jahr in einem anderen Land, und werden durch drakonische militärische Sicherheitssysteme geschützt. Journalisten und Beobachtern ist der Zugang nicht gestattet, und es wird nie ein Kommuniqué veröffentlicht. Die Teilnehmer sind zum Schweigen verpflichtet – sie dürfen nicht einmal die Identität der Redner preisgeben, die ihnen Informationen gegeben haben (unter völliger Missachtung ihrer erklärten „Transparenz“). Wir wissen nur, dass sie in diesem Jahr vor allem über Russland und China, Rauminstallationen, eine stabile strategische Ordnung und die Zukunft des Kapitalismus gesprochen haben.

Die wichtigsten Präsenzen in diesem Jahr waren wie immer die der USA: Henry Kissinger, „historische Figur“ der Gruppe, gemeinsam mit dem Bankier David Rockefeller (Gründer des Bilderberger und der Trilateralen Kommission, er starb 2017); Mike Pompeo, Ex-CIA-Chef und derzeit Außenminister; General David Petraeus, Ex-CIA-Chef; Jared Kushner, Berater (und Schwiegersohn) von Präsident Trump für den Nahen Osten und enger Freund des israelischen Premierministers Benjamin Netanyahu. Anschließend folgte Jens Stoltenberg, Generalsekretär der NATO, der ein zweites Mandat für besondere Serviceleistungen für die USA erhielt.

Vier Tage lang haben diese Vertreter in geheimen multilateralen und bilateralen Treffen mit anderen mehr oder weniger bekannten Persönlichkeiten der Großmächte des Westens das Netz der Kontakte verstärkt und erweitert, das es ihnen ermöglicht, die Regierungspolitik und die Ausrichtung der öffentlichen Meinung zu beeinflussen.

Die Ergebnisse sind sichtbar. In Il Fatto Quotidiano verteidigt Stefano Feltri die Bilderberggruppe heftig und erklärt, dass diese Treffen im Geheimen abgehalten werden, um einen Kontext der  klaren  und offenen Debatte zu schaffen, der speziell nicht-institutionell ist, und greift die „zahlreichen Verschwörungstheoretiker“ an, die Legenden über die Bilderberggruppe und die Trilaterale Kommission verbreiten.

Er verzichtet jedoch darauf, die Tatsache zu erwähnen, dass unter diesen „zahlreichen Verschwörungstheoretikern“ Richter Ferdinando Imposimato stand, Ehrenpräsident des Obersten Kassationsgerichts (er starb 2018), der das Ergebnis der von ihm eingeleiteten Ermittlungen wie folgt beschrieb: „Die Bilderberggruppe ist teilweise für die Strategie der Spannungen und damit auch der Massaker verantwortlich“ – angefangen bei der Piazza Fontana, bei der die Bilderberggruppe mit der CIA und den italienischen Geheimdiensten, mit Gladio und den neofaschistischen Gruppen, mit der P2-Loge und den USA-Freimaurer-Logen in NATO-Basen zusammenarbeitete.

Sogar Matteo Renzi ist nun in diesen prestigeträchtigen Club aufgenommen worden. Mit Blick auf die Möglichkeit, dass sie ihn wegen seiner Talente als Analytiker eingeladen haben könnten, bleibt uns die Hypothese, dass diese mächtigen Männer und Frauen heimlich eine andere politische Operation in Italien vorbereiten. Feltri wird uns beschuldigen, dass wir uns den „zahlreichen Verschwörungstheoretikern“ angeschlossen haben.

Hier zu lesen: The Bilderberg Group – the ” élite ” of World Power, vom italienischen Soziologen und Ökonomen Domenico Moro (Übersetzung Marie-Ange Patrizio) Editions Delga, Paris 2015 (€ 19.-). Lesen Sie auch “Presentation au lecteur français” von Bernard Genet (Gastgeber von Comaguer).

Wir haben die offizielle Liste der Teilnehmer an der Sitzung der Bilderberggruppe 2019 wiedergegeben, allerdings mit unserer eigenen Definition ihrer Funktionen: ” Liste des participants à la reunion 2019 du Groupe de Bilderberg “, Voltaire Netzwerk, 1. Juni 2019.

Die Vorbereitung auf unerwartete politische Ereignisse ist eines der Merkmale der Bilderberggruppe. So lud die Gruppe 2014 Emmanuel Macron ein, der seinen Bruch mit François Hollande erklärte. Oder auch im Jahr 2016 der Bürgermeister von Le Havre, Edouard Philippe, der Emmanuel Macron seine Unterstützung erklärte. Die beiden Männer wurden Präsident und Premierminister der Französischen Republik.

Manlio Dinucci

 

Quelle: Il Manifesto (Italien)

Le lunghe mani del gruppo Bildenberg

Übersetzung: K.R.

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on Der lange Arm der Bilderberg Gruppe

The Russian military claimed that the U.S.’ guided-missile cruiser Chancellorsville suddenly changed course early Friday morning while on a patrol in the East China Sea and almost collided with the Admiral Vinogradov destroyer that was passing through these waters at the same time.

The U.S. denied this accusation and instead said that it was the Russian vessel that was behaving unprofessionally and putting the lives of everyone involved at risk, though it should be noted that this certainly wasn’t the first time that American forces have been accused of such recklessness.

Actually, there have been several such incidents every year since the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and consequent territorial dispute of Crimea which led to a revival of Cold War tensions between the two great powers, with most of these near-misses occurring in the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Syria.

This is the first time that such an event happened in the East China Sea between the two rivals and proves that the Pentagon’s Pacific bellicosity of recent years is finally starting to endanger Russia just as much it’s been endangering China this entire time.

The U.S.’ so-called “freedom of navigation patrols” pass through the South China Sea and seem designed to provoke a military response from Beijing, one which Washington could then expectedly exploit to advance its demonization campaign against China.

 File photo of the Admiral Vinogradov destroyer and the Admiral Nevelsky warship (L-R) of the Russian Navy, serving in the Russian Pacific Fleet, in a naval parade celebrating the Navy Day of Russia. /VCG Photo

Given what’s known about previous near-misses between the Chinese and American navies, one can assume that the U.S. was the party at fault in the latest incident with Russia because of its established pattern of aggressive behavior. Furthermore, it can’t be ruled out that the recent event might have been timed to coincide with the ongoing St. Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF).

At SPIEF, China and Russia are discussing ways to intensify their cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which represents the most realistic opportunity to transform international relations away from the fading American-centric unipolarity and towards the more equitable emerging multipolar world order.

The U.S. is very upset that Russia and China moved much closer to one another after EuroMaidan, which interestingly also coincided with the Pentagon’s provocative activity in the South China Sea. The Russian-Chinese partnership isn’t aimed against any third party, but many in the American strategic, political, and media communities are convinced that it’s secretly intended to undermine the U.S., hence the hysterical reaction that they’re having to it.

That said, there’s no denying that Russia and China see eye-to-eye on practically every global issue of significance, and they’ve just found another commonality between them when it comes to the U.S.’ reckless military action in the Pacific.

 Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin hold talks in Moscow, Russia, June 5, 2019. /Xinhua Photo

Russian forces are now endangered by this irresponsible activity just like their Chinese counterparts have been in recent years already, which could add a renewed impetus to these two great powers’ military cooperation with one another, especially in the naval sphere.

Not only that, but Russia is already paying more attention to the Pacific as part of the geopolitical re-balancing act that it’s been engaged in for half a decade already in reaction to the West’s sanctions against it, so it’s only natural for Moscow to take this latest incident very seriously and use it as the opportunity to cooperate even more closely with Beijing than ever before.

This conceivable outcome would add further credence to the theory that the U.S.’ aggression abroad is actually self-defeating and counterproductive because it ultimately lays the basis for equal and opposite reactions that eventually undermine its stated aims.

It’s enough to remember how the U.S.’ hybrid war aggression in Ukraine and conventional naval aggression in the South China Sea brought Russia and China closer together and fulfilled the nightmare scenario that the late former national security adviser and visionary geopolitical theorist Zbigniew Brzezinski warned about in his 1997 seminal work about “The Grand Chessboard.”

The solution as always would be for the U.S. to embrace win-win cooperation with all and reject the zero-sum schemes that got it to this point, but it doesn’t seem like it’s learned its lesson just yet, especially judging by the latest incident.

*

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 CGTN.

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

Featured image is from CGTN

Firs published by February 15, 2015 on Washington Blog and Global Research

Fifty two years, on June 8, 1967, Israel attacked the American naval vessel USS Liberty in international waters, and tried to sink it.

After checking the Liberty out for 8 hours – and making 9 overflights with Israeli jets, within 200 feet … close enough for the pilots and the sunbathing Liberty sailors on deck to waive at each other.

Yet the Israelis attacked it with Mirage fighter jets, torpedoes and napalm.  The USS Liberty suffered 70% casualties, with 34 killed and 174 wounded.

The Israeli attack spanned two hours … as long as the attack on Pearl Harbor. The air attack alone lasted approximately 25 minutes: consisting of more than 30 sorties by approximately 12 separate planes using napalm, cannon, and rockets which left 821 holes in the ship.  The Israelis fired 30mm cannons and rockets into the boat.

Following the attack by fighter jets, three Israeli motor torpedo boats torpedoed the ship, causing a 40 x 40 foot wide hole in her hull, and machine-gunning firefighters and stretcher-bearers attempting to save their ship and crew. More than 3,000 machine-gun bullet holes were later counted on the Liberty’s hull.

After the attack was thought to have ended, three life rafts were lowered into the water to rescue the most seriously wounded. The Israeli torpedo boats returned and machine-gunned these life rafts at close range. This was followed by the approach of two large Israeli Army assault helicopters filled with armed commandos carrying what appeared to be explosive satchels (they departed after hovering over the ship for several minutes, making no attempt to communicate).

The Israelis clearly knew it was an American ship, tried to sink it, and tried to frame the Egyptians for the attack, as shown by the following evidence:

(1) The Liberty was flying a huge, brand new American flag. The flag was 5-by-8 feet.  The weather conditions were ideal to ensure the flag’s easy observance and identification, because it was clear and sunny, with a wind-speed which make for a constant ripple in the flag.  After the flag was shot up by the jets, the Liberty’s crew replaced it with a 7-by-13 foot American flag, which flew during the entire duration of the attack.

(2) The Liberty had a unique profile and didn’t look like any other boat, since it had more and bigger antennas – including large, high-tech dishes and giant towers – than any other boat in the world (it was an NSA spy ship).

(3) The Liberty was marked with uniquely American numbering and colors in front.

(4) The Israeli pilots shot out the Liberty’s communications equipment first, and specifically jammed the ship’s emergency radio signal … unique to American naval vessels in the 6th Fleet. The ships from other fleets and other nations used different frequencies, which the Israelis did not jam.

(5) The Israelis used unmarked fighter jets and unmarked torpedo boats during the attack.

(6) Recently-declassified radio transcripts between the Israeli attack forces and ground control show that – at least 3 times – an Israeli fighter jet pilot identified the craft as American, and asked whether ground control was sure he should attack.  Ground control repeatedly said, yes, attack the vessel.

(7) The Israeli torpedo boats methodically destroyed all of the Liberty’s liferafts one by one (which is a war crime).

(8) The only reason the Israelis did not successfully sink the Liberty and kill all of its crewmen was that one sailor duck-taped together antennae – and took many bullet wounds in the process – which enabled an emergency SOS to get out from the Liberty to American 6th Fleet.

(9) The Israelis later claimed that they mistook the Liberty for an Egyptian vessel.  But the Egyptian ship – the El Quseir – was an unarmed 1920s-era horse carrier out of service in Alexandria, four times smaller than the Liberty, which bore virtually no resemblance to the Liberty.

(10) President Lyndon Johnson believed the attack was intentional and he leaked his opinion to Newsweek.

Other high-level Americans agreed:

“I was never satisfied with the Israeli explanation….  Through diplomatic channels we refused to accept their explanations.  I didn’t believe them then, and I don’t believe them to this day.  The attack was outrageous.”
–U.S. Secretary of State Dean Rusk

“The evidence was clear.  Both Adm. Kidd and I believed with certainty that this attack … was a deliberate effort to sink an American ship and murder its entire crew….  Not only did the Israelis attack the ship with napalm, gunfire, and missiles, Israeli torpedo boats machine-gunned three lifeboats that had been launched in an attempt by the crew to save the most seriously wounded — a war crime….”
–Affidavit of U.S. Navy Captain Ward Boston, the legal counsel for the official investigation into the Liberty attack

“There is compelling evidence that Israel’s attack was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill her entire crew.”
–Admiral Thomas Moorer, Chief of Naval Operations and later Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, 14 January 2004

“Israeli authorities subsequently apologized for the incident, but few in Washington could believe that the ship had not been identified as an American naval vessel…. I have yet to understand why it was felt necessary to attack this ship or who ordered the attack.”
–C.I.A. Chief Richard Helms

“Yet the ultimate lesson of the Liberty attack had far more effect on policy in Israel than in America.  Israel’s leaders concluded that nothing they might do would offend the Americans to the point of reprisal.  If America’s leaders did not have the courage to punish Israel for the blatant murder of American citizens, it seemed clear that their American friends would let them get away with almost anything.”
–George Ball, U.S. Undersecretary of State at the time, The Passionate Attachment

(Sources: Congressional record and videos shown below.)

Admiral Thomas H. Moorer – former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – chaired a non-governmental investigation into the attack on the USS Liberty in 2003. The committee – which included General of Marines Raymond G. Davis, Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, former Judge Advocate General of the Navy, and former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia James E. Akins – held Israel to be culpable and suggested several theories for Israel’s possible motives, including the desire to blame Egypt and bring the U.S. into the Six Day War.

Indeed, President Lyndon Johnson dispatched nuclear-armed fighter jets to drop nuclear bombs on Cairo, Egypt.  They were only recalled at the last minute, when Johnson realized that it was the Israelis – and not the Egyptians – who had fired on the Liberty.

An NSA report from 1981 found:

A persistent question relating to the Liberty incident is whether or not the Israeli forces which attacked the ship knew that it was American . . . not a few of the Liberty’s crewmen and [deleted but probably “NSA’s G Group”] staff are convinced that they did. Their belief derived from consideration of the long time the Israelis had the ship under surveillance prior to the attack, the visibility of the flag, and the intensity of the attack itself.

Speculation as to the Israeli motivation varied. Some believed that Israel expected thatthe complete destruction of the ship and killing of the personnel would lead the U.S. to blame the UAR [Egypt] for the incident and bring the U.S. into the war on the side of Israel . . . others felt that Israeli forces wanted the ship and men out of the way.

Allegedly:

Scouring the Liberty records in the LBJ Library in Texas, Ennes [an officer on the bridge of the Liberty] stumbled upon a smoking gun – a one-page memo of the minutes of the 303 Committee [the U.S. National Security Council group that reviewed sensitive intelligence operations] held in advance of the war in April 1967.   The Committee consisted of a handful of top level intelligence and government officials who examined black operations and devised plausible deniability for the executive branch in the event of public discovery of an attack.  The memo relates to a clandestine joint US-Israeli effort to blame Egypt for the sinking of the Liberty.

We haven’t yet located a copy of the alleged memo, and so we’re not sure we believe this explosive claim. But – given that Israel (1) used unmarked jets and ships, (2) destroyed the Liberty’s communication equipment and then jammed the Liberty’s emergency distress channel, and (3) destroyed all liferafts – the logical inference is that Israel intended to frame Egypt for the attack, and didn’t want the Liberty’s crew to be able to tell the world what really happened.

The following must-watch documentaries from the BBC, Al Jazeera and an independent producer provide first-hand interviews with the crew of the USS Liberty which prove that this was a failed false flag attack:

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on USS Liberty 1967: Israel Murdered U.S. Sailors and Tried to Sink Their Ship … A Failed False Flag Attack Against the U.S.

Why Do We Think We Own the Earth?

June 8th, 2019 by Lesley Docksey

We are now in climate crisis.  Almost every week another major scientific study hits the news, telling us we are losing this, destroying that and completely obliterating the other; whole ecological systems under threat while those with the power to take the hard decisions twiddle their thumbs and set ‘to-do’ dates that will be all too late to have any impact.  As a recent report notes: ‘Much scientific knowledge produced for climate policy-making is conservative and reticent.’  Policy makers do not want to face the inconvenient truth.

The trouble is that, even if we could somehow halt catastrophic climate change – now looking unattainable – we are also, by the way we live, destroying the ecological systems that keep us and all the earth alive, something equally catastrophic.  Plastic in the sea has nothing to do with climate change.  The loss of topsoil and soil degradation is mostly to do with industrial farming methods.  The destruction of forests is due to financial greed and while it will greatly exacerbate climate change, satisfying the desire for more money comes first.

People who think they ‘own’ the earth are those destroying it.  They are also often the ones who do not believe in climate change. Surely the rich will always have enough money to buy what they want.  But you can’t buy what you have destroyed.

Many people understand the word ‘environment’ as being something ‘green’ when it is simply a term for our surroundings.  Of course we should protect green/natural environments, but what we must really protect is the ecology of those areas.

Ecology is the way things work; it is how all life combines to support itself; it is true biodiversity, the balancing of living systems to the benefit of those systems. It is a whole thing, or it should be, but we keep destroying bits here, there and everywhere. Then wonder why the whole doesn’t seem to work any more.

We can’t pick and choose with Nature.  We can’t say ‘I want to protect that species because it’s useful, but exterminate this one because it gets in my way.’  We accept all of Nature, or we accept nothing.  And we should include ourselves in that, yet we prefer to stand outside – and rule.

How did we arrive at this state of an arrogant claim of ‘ownership’ of the earth?  Let us go back to the ‘beginning’ – Genesis, in particular Genesis 1, verses 27 and 28.

27. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

28. And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

This of course is the Authorised Version of the English Bible, also known as the King James Bible, published in 1611.  Probably the most printed book in the world, the writing, though now very old fashioned, is beautiful.  It has affected and added greatly to the English language.  No modern translations can equal its power.  More importantly, people rememberthe words and unfortunately it has done a far better job than subliminal advertising.

Consider those words ‘Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over…’  How many people over the last 4 centuries have been taught them, read them, heard them in church?  Missionaries have carried them across the world, spreading the underlying message: ‘We humans own the earth.’

The Authorised version has been updated and put into modern language many times, but out of 27 bibles in English, 23 still use the word ‘subdue’; 13 use the phrase ‘have dominion over’.  The alternatives for subdue and dominion are ‘govern’, ‘rule’, ‘rule over’, ‘reign over’, ‘be masters over…’, ‘be its master’ or bring the earth ‘under control’.  The more recent American bibles make the message clear.  The Contemporary English Version, published in 1995, says:

‘Have a lot of children!  Fill the earth with people and bring it under your control. Rule over the fish in the ocean, the birds in the sky, and every animal on the earth.’

Judaism, Christianity and Islam all use Genesis in their thinking, but this isn’t just about monotheistic religions.  Pretty well all religions put humanity first. That’s what they’re there for, to help us believe in ourselves as a species; to believe that some higher being or beings will look after us, the humans; put us, the humans, first.

It is easy to see how the West, propelled by men whose lives, regardless of their appalling acts, were based on the bible, has fulfilled the message.  Human population has been, for many years, expanding.  We do cover the earth and there are too few places left that are not under our control.  And our expanding population means an ever-growing demand that the earth must provide for us, even as we destroy the ability of the earth to provide what we need, let alone what we want.

In modern secular society people can be too wrapped up in consumerism to think about whether humans have the right to own the earth.  There is a lot of angry (and justified) discussion about how a very few people own most of the earth.  ‘How unfair!’ we cry.  But if we take that money, power and property away from the ultra rich, we will not give it to the earth where it belongs, but to ourselves, the common man.

It shows up in all shades of political thinking. Most political parties (barring the alt-right) will claim some desire to help protect the environment, by which they mean ‘manage’.  Take this example from a Socialist Party’s leaflet, with the headline ‘There is only one world’:

‘… the world’s natural and industrial resources must become the common heritage of all humanity so that they can be used to directly meet the needs of the world’s population…’

How did ancient man arrive at this attitude, this arrogance that became the rule so precisely displayed in Genesis?  It wasn’t always like this.

Hunter-gatherer societies, as described by anthropologist Douglas Fry, were small nomadic groups leading relatively stress-free lives, and they did not struggle to find the food they needed. Then farming took over, in what Jared Diamond called ‘the worst mistake’ in history.

If you grow your food you have to stay in one place in order to care for your crop – your crop, and therefore, perhaps, your land.  That one simple act changed how humans thought and lived.  It created tribes with chiefs; it created ‘territories’ and fights over land; it created civilisations with growing populations, armies and a land bled dry by overuse; civilisations that inevitably collapsed.

Growing food certainly meant more people could be fed but, as Diamond points out, ‘Forced to choose between limiting population or trying to increase food production, we chose the latter and ended up with starvation, warfare, and tyranny.’

The modern world believes it has a ‘right’ to the earth and all it contains, while native peoples believe they have obligations towards the earth that feeds them.  Being indigenous does not mean being perfect in the way humans treat their environment. Despite having an intimate relationship with their environment, and a deep sense of reverence for the earth, indigenous people still altered the land to enable the way they lived.

For the Algonquin peoples, living in the northeast states of America, ‘natural resources were not just passively foraged; they were actively managed, through such practices as regular burning to clear deadwood, produce pasture, and encourage the growth of nut trees and fresh browse.

Their sometime neighbours, sometime enemies, the Iroquois farmed as well as hunted, but ‘when cornfields lost their fertility or wood and game became scarce, every decade or so’, the people moved to another location.  Really?  Ten years to empty your environment?  There was room enough to do that then.  There isn’t now.

Time and again civilisations have collapsed, often for the reasons that possibly ended the Mayan culture:

overpopulation and overuse of the land, endemic warfare and drought.  The Chaco Canyon culture died, it seems, not just because of environmental stress, but of a rigid belief system: ‘the Puebloan people survived only by letting go of tradition’.

But now our civilisation is global and we are collapsing on a global scale.  This time we have nowhere to move and start again. Forget that dream of relocating to another planet.  We haven’t the time or resources left to go wholesale into space to live on another earth-like planet.  And if we haven’t learnt from our mistakes here, another planet would be trashed.

We humans are proud of our intelligence, our inventiveness, our technology.  That pride in ownership, that greed for more control, and that push to provide more and more goods for ever-eager consumers, using resources that become less and less, has led to the ruination of the planet and now, more than likely, to our own extinction.

Now universities are studying possible technical fixes, geo-engineering, in the hope that we can bring climate change under our ‘control’.  But the danger there is that if some of these fixes appear to work, then everyone will say ‘that’s alright then’, and carry on as before in our earth-damaging way.

In humanity’s desire to own the earth, there are several things we won’t own. We won’t own the waste we create.  We won’t own the carbon emissions emitted by other countries on our behalf.  We won’t own our mistakes, or the misery they create – and we won’t own our responsibilities.

We are losing the topsoil all across the earth.  Soon, the soil that grows our food (and the food of many other life forms that populate this little planet) will be dead.  This is too big for a technological ‘fix’.

Rivers are struggling.  Some will dry up as the glaciers that feed them melt. There will come a day when there are no more glaciers and the earth will lose its major source of fresh water. This is too big for a technological ‘fix’.

Left alone, rivers have clean water, are full of life and their regular flooding has benefits.  The Nile Delta, now endangered, once owed its reputation as ‘the bread basket of the world’ to its annual floods.  But the majority of the world’s great rivers are no longer free-flowing.  We have rerouted them, dammed them, constrained them, polluted them with antibiotics, herbicides, pesticides and poured human and animal sewage into them or drained them of their waters to irrigate ‘our’ land. We have done everything except to allow them to act naturally.  This is too big for a technological ‘fix’.

With a possible major sea level rise, the oceans, poisoned and stripped of most life, will take over land that the human race has claimed as its own.  This also is too big for a technological ‘fix’.

All life has its own form of intelligence which allows it to survive by fitting in to the whole ecological system.  The natural environment should be a thing of beauty, full of busy life, something that both inspires and calms.  It has become a bleak and empty place, where you return from a walk over the hills with a mental list of the things you haven’t seen – because our collective ego has killed them.

For far too long, humanity has regarded itself as ‘outside’ Nature.  We think we are exceptional.  Our ‘intelligence’ rarely produces long-lasting benefits to anything but ourselves.  God forbid that we should be just one form of life among many, with no more ability to survive than the rest of life.  How could we, being who we have become, face that loss of importance?  There is only one thing that makes humanity truly exceptional; our desire to own and control everything, partnered by our horrible ability to destroy what we try to control.

Can we learn from Chaco Canyon and the Pueblo people?  Is it too late to ditch our rigid world view, our superiority, our belief in our ‘right’ to own and control our world?  Can we, before our much-vaunted ‘civilisation’ crashes and we die, learn instead to live kindly with this earth?

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Why Do We Think We Own the Earth?

Tightening the Noose on Cuba

June 8th, 2019 by Dr. Chandra Muzaffar

On the 2nd of May 2019, the Trump Administration decided to enforce Title 111 of the Helms-Burton Act. Title 111 authorises US nationals with claims to confiscated properties in Cuba to file suits in US courts against persons that may be “trafficking “in that property.

Title 111 of the Helms-Burton Act has not been enforced before though the Act was enacted in 1996 through a move by two US legislators, a Republican Senator, Jesse Helms and a House of Representatives member, Dan Burton. It was signed into law by then US president, Bill Clinton. Since the Act allows the US president to suspend some of its provisions up to 6 months at a time, it was felt that implementing Title 111 was not necessary given that economic sanctions against Cuba aimed at throttling its economy were already all-encompassing.

But president Trump who is determined to increase pressure upon Cuba has decided to tighten the noose.  He is being egged on by some legislators from South Florida with its significant ‘Cuban exile electorate’ — an electorate that is staunch in its support of Trump — who are angry that some US companies are now trading with Cuba.  Besides, heightened harshness against Cuba is also aimed at curtailing oil shipments between Cuba and Venezuela at a time when hawks in the Trump Administration such as National Security Adviser John Bolton are pushing hard for regime change in Caracas.

Opposition to the enforcement of Title 111 has been swift from certain quarters. The Ambassador of the European Union (EU) to Cuba Alberto Navarro reiterated on 31st May 2019 the EU’s unanimous rejection of what he viewed as a clear violation of international law. In fact, the EU had voiced its opposition to the Helms-Burton Act in its entirety when it was first enacted in 1996. A number of Latin American countries are also incensed by the US decision. Even civil society groups in the US are against this unjust measure targeting Cuba.

However, it would be a mistake to see Title 111 by itself or as nothing more than a part of the Helms-Burton Act. It should be evaluated within the context of the decades old crippling sanctions against Cuba. Since 1961, the US has imposed wide-ranging economic sanctions against Cuba mainly because the island state following the 1959 Revolution chose its own path of development inspired by socialist ideals. The sanctions not only seek to repudiate Cuba’s ideological experiment but also attempt to force the small nation of 11 million people into a state of backwardness and under-development. Because the US has failed to achieve its goals, the imperial power has become even more hostile towards its tiny neighbour.

The world rejects the US sanctions against Cuba. Year in and year out the UN General Assembly has taken the side  of the  Cuban people as they continue to resist US sanctions with courage, dignity and pride.  The nations of the world are aware that what is at stake in the US punishment of Cuba is the sovereign right of a nation to determine its own destiny. Sovereignty is intimately linked to a nation’s independence. This is one of the main reasons why US sanctions are seen as a challenge to international law which seeks to preserve the sovereignty and independence of nation-states within the international order.

Equally important is the humanitarian implication of imposing sanctions. As shown by numerous examples of the impact of sanctions upon the people of a targeted nation, ordinary people invariably suffer immensely. Hundreds of thousands have been deprived of life’s essentials. Tens of thousands have died as a result of sanctions. One of the most catastrophic in recent times would be the 650,000 children who perished in Iraq as a consequence of the punitive sanctions imposed by the US in the nineties.

In dealing with US sanctions against Cuba we have to go beyond merely criticising or condemning them. The time has come to decide whether unilateral sanctions by any one nation or a group of nations against another nation or a group of nations should be tolerated at all. Shouldn’t we prohibit unilateral sanctions of this sort?  Shouldn’t the UN General Assembly adopt a binding resolution on the prohibition of unilateral sanctions against any nation or people?  Shouldn’t such a resolution be endowed with the force of law?

If sanctions are to be imposed at all upon a state, it should be endorsed by three-quarters of the members of the UN General Assembly and monitored by a special committee of the Assembly itself. A targeted state should be universally perceived as a rogue state of the worst kind.  When there are lucid rules on why and how sanctions should be imposed, the reign of self-serving sanctions associated with the arrogance of hegemonic power will come to an end.

*

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 Chandra Muzaffar is the President of the International Movement for a Just World (JUST), Malaysia. He is Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)

Internet Free Speech All but Dead

June 8th, 2019 by Philip Giraldi

The Internet was originally promoted as a completely free and uncensored mechanism for people everywhere to exchange views and communicate, but it has been observed by many users that that is not really true anymore. Both governments and the service providers have developed a taste for controlling the product, with President Barack Obama once considering a “kill switch“ that would turn off the Internet completely in the event of a “national emergency.”

President Donald Trump has also had a lot to say about fake news and is reported to be supporting limiting protections relating to the Internet. In May, a “net neutrality” bill that would have prevented service providers from manipulating Internet traffic passed in the House of Representatives, but it is reported to be “dead on arrival” in the Senate, so it will never be enacted.

Social networking sites have voluntarily employed technical fixes that restrict some content and have also hired “reviewers” who look for objectionable material and remove it. Pending European legislation, meanwhile, might require Internet search engines to eliminate access to many unacceptable old posts. YouTube has already been engaged in deleting existing old material and is working with biased “partners” like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) to set up guidelines to restrict future content. Many users of Facebook will have already undoubtedly noted that some contacts have been blocked temporarily (or even permanently) and denied access to the site.

Google now automatically disables or limits searches for material that it deems to be undesirable. If Google does not approve of something it will either not appear in search results or it will be very low on the list. And what does come up will likely favor content that derives from those who pay Google to promote their products or services. Information that originates with competitors will either be very low in the search results or even blocked. Google is consequently hardly an unbiased source of information.

Internet All But Dead

In May 2017 Facebook announced that it would be hiring 3,000 new censors, and my own experience of social networking censorship soon followed. I had posted an article entitled “Charlottesville Requiem” that I had written for a website. At the end of the first day, the site managers noticed that, while the article had clearly attracted a substantial Facebook readership, the “likes” for the piece were not showing up on the screen counter, i.e., were not being tabulated. It was also impossible to share the piece on Facebook, as the button to do so had been removed.

The “likes” on sites like Facebook, Yahoo! news comments, YouTube, and Google are important because they automatically determine how the piece is distributed throughout the site. If there are a lot of likes, the piece goes to the top when a search is made or when someone opens the page. Articles similarly can be sent to Coventry if they receive a lot of dislikes or negative marks, so the approvals or disapprovals can be very important in determining what kind of audience is reached or what a search will reveal.

In my case, after one day my page reverted to normal, the “likes” reappeared, and readers were again able to share the article. But it was clear that someone had been managing what I had posted, apparently because there had been disapproval of my content based on what must have been a political judgment.

A couple of days later, I learned of another example of a similar incident. The Ron Paul Institute (RPI) website posts much of its material on YouTube (owned by Google) on a site where there had been advertising that kicked back to RPI a small percentage of the money earned. Suddenly, without explanation, both the ads and rebate were eliminated after a “manual review” determined the content to be “unsuitable for all advertisers.” This was a judgment rendered apparently due to disapproval of what the institute does and says. The ability to comment on and link from the pieces was also turned off.

Dissident British former diplomat Craig Murray also noted in April 2018 the secretive manipulation of his articles that are posted on Facebook, observing that his “site’s visitor numbers [were] currently around one-third normal levels, stuck at around 20,000 unique visitors per day. The cause [was] not hard to find. Normally over half of our visitors arrive via Facebook. These last few days, virtually nothing has come from Facebook. What is especially pernicious is that Facebook deliberately imposes this censorship in a secretive way.

The primary mechanism when a block is imposed by Facebook is that my posts to Facebook are simply not sent into the timelines of the large majority of people who are friends or who follow. I am left to believe the post has been shared with them, but in fact it has only been shown to a tiny number. Then, if you are one of the few recipients and do see the post and share it, it will show to you on your timeline as shared, but in fact the vast majority of your own friends will also not receive it. Facebook is not doing what it is telling you it is doing—it shows you it is shared—and Facebook is deliberately concealing that fact from you. Twitter has a similar system known as ‘shadow banning.’ Again, it is secretive and the victim is not informed.”

More recently, pressure to censor Internet social networking and information sites has increased, coming both from government and from various interested constituencies. In late May, Facebook founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg met with French President Emmanuel Macron to discuss how to eliminate “hate speech” on the Internet.

The two men agreed that the United States Internet model, in spite of already being heavily manipulated, is too laissez faire, and expressed an interest in exploring the French system where it is considered acceptable to ban unacceptable points of view. Zuckerberg suggested that it might serve as a good model for the entire European Union. France is reportedly considering legislation that establishes a regulator with power to fine Internet companies up to 4% of their global revenue, which can in some cases be an enormous sum, if they do not curb hateful expressions.

So unelected, unnamed censors are operating all around the Internet to control the content, which I suppose should surprise no one, and the interference will only get worse as both governments and service providers are willing to do what it takes to eliminate views that they find unacceptable—which, curiously enough, leads one to consider how “Russiagate” came about and the current hysteria being generated in the conventional media and also online against both Venezuela and Iran. How much of the anger is essentially fake, being manipulated or even fabricated by large companies that earn mega billions of dollars by offering under false pretenses a heavily managed product that largely does what the government wants? Banning hate speech will be, unfortunately, only the first step in eliminating any and all criticisms of the status quo.

*

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

This article was originally published on American Free Press.

Philip Giraldi is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer and a columnist and television commentator. He is also the executive director of the Council for the National Interest. Other articles by Giraldi can be found on the website of the Unz Review. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from American Free Press

Two days ago the US celebrated the 75th anniversary of D-Day with accolades to the armed forces and thanks to surviving veterans.  The country stood strongly with the military.  But today two days later is the 52 anniversary of a day of shame when Washington turned its back on the US Navy.  It was June 8, 1967 when the USS Liberty, a surveillance ship stationed off the coast of Egypt was attacked by Israeli fighter aircraft and torpedo boats.  The Israelis were unable to sink the Liberty, but managed to kill 34 American sailors and wound 174. Seventy percent of the crew were casualties of the Israeli attack.

The White House, fearing the Israel Lobby, prevented the US Navy from going to the defense of the Liberty, thus sacrificing American lives, and further dishonored the US Navy by ordering Admiral McCain, father of the former US Senator John McCain, to orchestrate a cover-up.  The surving crew were threatened with court-martial and imprisonment if they spoke about the event.  It was 20 years before one of the surving officers wrote a book about the greatest act of shame the US government ever inflicted on the US military.  

In 2003, 36 years after the Israeli attack on the Liberty, Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, convened the Independent Commission of Inquiry into the Israeli Attack on USS Liberty, the Recall of Military Rescue Support Aircraft while the Liberty was Under Attack, and the Subsequent Cover-up by the United States Government. The Commission consisted of Adm. Moorer, Gen. Raymond Davis, former Assistant Commandant of the US Marine Corps, Rear Adm. Merlin Staring, former Judge Advocate General of the US Navy, and Amb. James Akins, former US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia.

You can read the report online, here for example. 

The report is devastating.  Among the report’s conclusions, these stand out:

“That due to the influence of Israel’s powerful supporters in the United States, the White House deliberately covered up the facts of this attack from the American people;

“That due to continuing pressure by the pro-Israel lobby in the United States, this attack remains the only serious naval incident that has never been thoroughly investigated by Congress; to this day, no surviving crewmember has been permitted to officially and publicly testify about the attack;

“That there has been an official cover-up without precedent in American naval history; the existence of such a cover-up is now supported by statements of Rear Admiral Merlin Staring, USN (Ret.), former Judge Advocate General of the Navy; and Captain Ward Boston, USN, (Ret.), the chief counsel to the Navy’s 1967 Court of Inquiry of Liberty attack;

“That the truth about Israel’s attack and subsequent White House cover-up continues to be officially concealed from the American people to the present day and is a national disgrace;

“That a danger to our national security exists whenever our elected officials are willing to subordinate American interests to those of any foreign nation, and specifically are unwilling to challenge Israel’s interests when they conflict with American interests; this policy, evidenced by the failure to defend USS Liberty and the subsequent official cover-up of the Israeli attack, endangers the safety of Americans and the security of the United States.”

After interviewing many of the survivors, Captain Ward Boston, who was assigned to cover up the attack and afterward repudiated the cover-up, and Bill Knutson, the executive officer of the USS America fighter squadron that was called back on orders from the White House, and lengthy discussions with Adm. Moorer, my former colleague at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, I have written about the Israeli attack on the Liberty a number of times.  Some of them are available in the archive on this website, for example, see this

All who discount the influence of Israel on the US government are ignorant fools.

Netanyahu Elevates Himself to Dictator

We hear every day that “Israel is the only democracy in the Middle East,” but is Israel a democracy or a dictatorship?  

In a democracy even the highest members of the government are accountable to law, but this isn’t the case with Netanyahu.  After a two-year investigation the Israeli attorney general announced his intention to indict prime minister Netanyahu on charges of bribery, fraud, and breach of trust. See this.

This is like Mueller indicting President Trump for colluding with Putin to steal the US presidential election.  All would be over for Trump, but not for Netanyahu.  Netanyahu simply removed the Israeli justice minister, Avichai Mandelblit, and appointed himself to the post, thus immunizing himself from prosecution.  See this.

As prime minister Netanyahu had already assigned himself the ministries of Defense, Health, and Education.  Now he is Justice minister as well.  How much of a government can be in the hands of one person before that person becomes a dictator?  Think about it this way:  If President Trump were also Secretary of Defense, Attorney General, Secretary of the Treasury, and Secretary of Homeland Security, would he be a president or a dictator?

Trump has none of these posts, but some Democrats accuse him of being a dictator.  What then does that make Netanyahu?

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

On June 6, joint forces of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (the former official branch of al-Qaeda in Syria), other al-Qaeda-linked groups and a coalition of Turkish-backed militants known as the National Front for Liberation launched a large-scale advance in northern Hama.

Militants attacked Syrian Army units in Jibeen and Tell Meleh forcing them to make a tactical retreat and shelled the government-held Christian town of Mahardah. It’s located 6km southeast of Tell Meleh.

The advance was named after Mu’tasim Bellah al-Madani, a prominent al-Qaeda member of Saudi origin. The army eliminated him in the same region in May.

The Syrian-Russian-Iranian alliance responded to this attack with a fresh round of airstrikes. At the same time, army units assisted by the National Defense Forces regrouped and launched a counter-attack. An intense fighting is ongoing.

The situation also remained tense north and northeast of Kafr Nabudah where army units and militants were engaged in fierce artillery duels.

An interesting fact is that photo and video evidence from the area showed vehicles, like Panthera F9 armored personnel carriers, and weapons supplied by Turkey. This fact confirms that, despite formal statements assuring its alleged commitment to the de-escalation zone agreement, Ankara de-facto supports terrorist in Idlib.

According to the de-escalation agreement reached in the framework of the Astana format between the opposition, Turkey, Iran, Syria and Russia, so-called moderate rebels should be separated from terrorist groups, which are excluded from the ceasefire. Then, terrorists have to surrender or they will be eliminated. This has never been done because Turkish-backed groups continued keeping close ties with Hayat Tahir al-Sham and other al-Qaeda linked groups.

The developing situation is another clear demonstration that the so-called moderate opposition, that allegedly opposes the terrorism, does not exist in the Idlib de-escalation zone. In this case, a military operation to defeat the terrorism and force constructive elements of Turkish-backed groups to accept a political solution of the conflict becomes more and more attractive option.

*

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.

We call upon Global Research readers to support South Front in its endeavors.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Al Qaeda Militants Use Turkish Weapons, Equipment in Hama Advance
  • Tags: , ,

Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft and one of the most powerful people in Russia, isn’t jumping on the Alt-Media bandwagon of speculating about America’s supposedly imminent demise but is instead warning that it might actually be about to enter a “golden age”, albeit one that could very easily lead to “energy colonialism” all across the world.

It’s been fashionable since the invention of the internet for people to speculate about America’s supposedly imminent demise, especially since the economic crisis of the last decade and the visible return of Great Power competition with Russia and China, but one of the most powerful people in Moscow isn’t jumping on the Alt-Media bandwagon but is instead bucking the trend of talking about this wishful thinking doom-and–gloom scenario. Igor Sechin, the CEO of Rosneft, actually thinks that America might be at the dawn of a “golden age’, albeit one that could very easily lead to “energy colonialism” all across the world. Speaking at the Saint Petersburg International Economic Forum (SPIEF), he warned that:

“America’s ‘Golden Age’ can turn into the age of energy colonialism for other participants of the market. Should global energy consumers become hostage to non-stop election campaign in the US? The reality of the current situation is that the US vastly uses energy as a political weapon. The imposition of sanctions or the threat of their implementation has a devastating impact on the ecosystem of the global energy market.”

A lot of strategic insight about the Kremlin’s true outlook on international affairs can be extrapolated from the above passage. Firstly, Russia recognizes that the US might be about to enter a “golden age” because of its new energy superpower status as the world’s top oil and natural gas producer, which directly threatens Russia’s national security because of its budgetary dependence on these exports. Unable to influence this trend, Russia can only resort to getting the US’ potential customers to question its geopolitical motives exactly as Washington did vis-a-vis Moscow since the turn of the century. Furthermore, Russia tacitly acknowledges that the US’ primary and secondary sanctions (and threats thereof) powerfully affect the global energy market.

All of this goes flies in the face of the conventional narrative propagated by the Alt-Media Community alleging that America is on the “cusp of collapse” and just a short time away from “bankruptcy”, yet those predictions have just been discredited by one of the most powerful men in Russia who basically argues that America’s upcoming energy-driven “Golden Age” might lead to it becoming a bigger bully than ever before. That’s a far cry away from what many people on the internet have been indoctrinated to expect, but his words are more credible that the many op-eds in Alt-Media precisely because of who he is and what he represents. Objectively speaking, Sechin’s statement should be taken much more seriously than the words of a little-known blogger.

Going forward, Russia seems to realize that it might not be able to compete with the US in this sphere if future technologies lower the cost of its rival’s LNG exports. On top of that, apart from a few exceptions such as Germany, the US has firm control over all aspects of its NATO vassals’ energy policies, making it even more difficult for it to counter the pressure being placed on it. Although Russia could redirect the bulk of its exports to China, India, and other rising Asian powers, it’ll still face fierce competition from the US and its GCC allies. Whichever way one looks at it, the prognosis is becoming progressively grimmer, and the odds of the US exploiting Russia’s severe systemic vulnerabilities in pursuit of a lopsided “New Detente” with it are increasing by the day.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

America is commemorating the 52nd anniversary of the Israeli attack on USS Liberty.

This article was first published on November 14, 2014

Fresh evidence presented in an exclusive Al Jazeera investigation into the Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed 34 Americans proves the incident was not a mistake. Since 1967 the ‘official story‘ has been that Israel simply misidentified the American ship as Egyptian for several hours. Israel apologized to the United States and for several decades we’ve been led to believe that this could be the only explanation for why Israeli jets and torpedo boats would launch rockets, missiles and torpedoes at an American target for more than two hours.

A new documentary called ‘The Day Israel Attacked America” airing on Al Jazeera was produced and directed by award winning British film maker Richard Belfield. Thanks to the audio evidence obtained by Belfield, it is finally possible to prove the survivors of the attack on the USS Liberty were right all along. The survivors have always been extremely confident that Israel’s intentions were to sink that ship and kill everyone on board so Egypt could be blamed for the tragedy. Why? To convince President Lyndon Johnson (and the American public) that we needed to declare war on Egypt. This is the definition of a ‘false flag‘. (can you say 9/11?)

It appears that once again, a conspiracy theory has turned out to be conspiracy fact. You can finally take off your tinfoil hats!

Earlier this year, I acquired a copy of the audiotape of the attack as it had unfolded, the real time conversations between Israeli Air Force pilots and their controllers back at base. It had never been broadcast before. I went to talk to Al Jazeera and after careful consideration, the network commissioned the film.” – Richard Belfield

Just sixteen minutes after Israel attacked America, the USS Liberty was confirmed by Israeli forces to be an American ship. These conversations can be heard in the documentary Al Jazeera has been airing on their station.

“To what state does she belong?” (Answer): “American”

Yet the attacks continued for an hour and a half!

Even five minutes before the first bombing you can hear Israeli Air Force pilots question whether the ship was American or not. You don’t have to be a genius to understand why these pilots would be extremely uncomfortable attacking a ship suspected to be American without being given direct orders to do so. I believe we can safely assume this attack wouldn’t have been carried out otherwise.

rsz_deathamerica“Is it an American ship?” “What do you mean American?” “No comment.”

Twenty minutes after a ground controller answered “American” when asked “to what state does she belong?” by Israeli Air Force pilots, the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty. A voice can clearly be heard which confirms that this target, thought to be American at that time, was to be destroyed.

“The torpedo is talking care of the ship now.”

As soon as the first torpedo hit the USS Liberty, Israeli torpedo boats circled the ship and started machine-gunning the American target for another 40 minutes. When the USS Liberty crew lowered their lifeboats into the water to evacuate their ship, the Israelis moved closer so they could gun down the Americans attempting to save their own lives.

More than ten years ago a journalist named Arieh O’Sullivan from the Jerusalem Post was allowed to listen to these same audiotapes. He published a transcript of the Israeli military transmissions he heard directing the attack on the USS Liberty. Sixteen minutes after the attack started, just as in the recording obtained by Al Jazeera, O’Sullivan’s transcript (translated from Hebrew to English) shows the same exchange.

“Kislev, what country?” (Answer): “Apparently American.”

That is where O’Sullivan’s transcript, published over ten years ago by the Jerusalem Post, ends. There is just one major problem with that… The attack continued for another hour and a half!

Navy Admiral Thomas Moorer, who has served this country as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Chief of Naval Operations, once lead an independent commission to investigate what really happened to the USS Liberty. The commission’s findings were made public in 2003. Here are a few of the shocking conclusions.

  • The attack, by a U.S. ally, was a deliberate attempt to destroy an American ship and kill its entire crew.
  • The attack included the machine-gunning of stretcher-bearers and life rafts .
  • The White House deliberately prevented the U.S. Navy from coming to the defense of the USS Liberty. This was the first time in naval history a rescue mission had been cancelled while an American ship was under attack.
  • Surviving crew members were later threatened with court-martial, imprisonment, or worse if they talked to anyone about what had happened to them; and were “abandoned by their own government 

John Crewdson, a Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, published in 2007 what former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has called the ‘most detailed and accurate account of the Israeli attack‘ for the Chicago Tribune and Baltimore Sun. You guessed it, Crewdson was fired by the Chicago Tribune just a year later after working there for 24 years. You should read his work.

Israeli messages intercepted on June 8, 1967, leave no doubt that sinking the USS Liberty was the mission assigned to the attacking Israeli warplanes and torpedo boats as the Six-Day War raged in the Middle East. Let me repeat: there is no doubt – none – that the mission of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) was to destroy the USS Liberty and kill its entire crew.” – former CIA analyst Ray McGovern.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Evidence Proves Israel Attacked USS Liberty With Orders to Kill 294 Americans

Journalists did not appreciate the implications for themselves of the contrived and false indictment of Julian Assange by a corrupt US government.  It was obvious to a few of us that the indictment by the US government, a government constrained by the First Amendment, of a foreign national for publishing leaked material, an action never before regarded as espionage or a crime, was the beginning of the end of any Western government ever again being held accountable by a free press.

Not that the Western World has a free press.  It has a collection of presstitutes that serve as a Ministry of Propaganda for the ruling oligarchies.

Still, in principle it was possible that governments could be held accountable.  But that possibility ended with Assange’s false indictment.

First of all, no honest government would have spent years trying to invent a way to indict a journalist for practicing journalism.

Second, no intelligent grand jurors with an ounce of integrity would have been putty in the hands of a corrupt US prosecutor and enable a prosecution that ensures the destruction of accountable government.

Third, it was obvious that once America led the way in shutting down the principle of a free press, governments of other “Western democracies” would follow as soon as they could.

And follow they did.  Assange’s indictment led to raids by the “Australian Gestapo” on the home of News Corp Australia journalist Annika Smethurst and on the headquarters of the Australian Broadcasting Corp. See this. 

The Australian government is angry about an investigative report about war crimes committed in Afghanistan by Australian participants in Washington’s war against the Taliban. What Australian troops are doing in Afghanistan remains an unexplained mystery. How much is the Australian government being paid by Washington for Australian mercenaries to die for the American Empire?

The police raids soon spread to other Australian journalists, including one whose sin was to report on “asylum seekers.”

Assange’s contrived and false indictment has also encouraged the French police to arrest journalists covering the ongoing “Yellow Vest” protests. The French government is desperate to blank out the protest against the American puppet government in Paris.

Even the San Francisco police, who tolerate massive homelessness on the streets and the associated crimes have been inspired by Assange’s indictment.  The front door of Journalist Bryan Carmody, who reported on the sudden death of a public defender, who apparently was in the way of successful police frameups, was broken down by police wielding sledgehammers.

Rather than knock on the door, the police break in. This not only costs the occupant large sums of money for repairs, but also serves to intimidate and to create a story that there was resistance that had to be overcome by breaking down the door.  This creates the necessary story for killing the occupants and the dog.

Listening to the fairy tales yesterday by Trump in Normandy about all the freedom Americans created by defeating Hitler, I wondered whose freedom he was talking about.  He was talking about the freedom of the oligarchs to rule without hindrance from the people or the First Amendment.

Not only journalists have lost First Amendment protection, but also citizens in encounters with police.  John Whitehead explains how a citizen’s exercise of constitutional rights is grounds for arrest. See this.

Communication monopolies such as Youtube, Twitter, and Google continue the censureship that teaches Americans to hold their tongues about an increasing array of subjects.  The same lesson is taught in schools and universities as speech codes gradually erase the First Amendment.  Each generation that is born is born into a country with less free speech.  As time passes, people will forget that once government and police could be held accountable.  Without free speech there is tyranny, and the road to tyranny is the road the United States and its Western vassals are on.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

Dr. Paul Craig Roberts is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Silent Crow News

The US was Soviet Russia’s junior partner in the battle to defeat Nazi Germany. History taught US students otherwise. So do US presidents, Trump no exception. 

In Colleville-sur-Mer, France, the Normandy American Cemetery, commemorating the 75th D-Day anniversary, launching the West’s long-delayed second front against Nazi forces while the main battle raged in the East, pitting millions of Soviet and German forces against each other, Trump pretended the US defeated the Nazi scourge the Red Army triumphed over.

Honoring about 10,000 lost lives on D-Day and its immediate aftermath, he ignored the catastrophic price paid by a generation of Soviet soldiers and civilians, 20 million or more lives lost.

A 1993 Russian Academy of Sciences study estimated 26.6 million. Some independent Russian researchers believe 40 million died – including combatants and civilians.

Millions more suffered serious injuries. Human misery endured can’t be quantified. Large parts of Russia were devastated.

Many years of rebuilding and recouping were required to return to normalcy. Americans can’t imagine what Russians endured.

The National WW II Museum indicates 407,000 US military deaths – around 671,000 others wounded.

War didn’t touch US soil. Americans old enough to remember recall minor inconveniences – including rationing of gasoline and other goods needed for the war effort.

Except for loved ones away at war, life was largely normal. Conflict raged out of sight and mind.

Annual commemorations of Victory Day in Moscow and elsewhere in Russia is special because of the unimaginable price paid by its people to achieve it.

In May 2015, on the 70th anniversary of what Russians call the Great Patriotic War triumph over Nazi Germany, Vladimir Putin commented on the hardships his family endured during the war.

Born in 1952 seven years after it ended, he said his “father did not like even to touch this topic,” adding he learned about the lessons of war from others sharing their memories.

During the war, his father sustained a severe leg injury but survived the conflict. His older brother died from diphtheria after being evacuated during the 872-day Nazi siege of Leningrad, one of the longest and most devastating in history.

Around double the number of  lives were lost from starvation, untreated diseases, and other war-related causes than the total US death toll in WW II — against Nazi Germany, its European allies, and imperial Japan, an estimated 800,000.

Putin’s mother was close to death from illness when his father returned home at war’s end. He helped nurse her back to health.

Many of his relatives perished during the war, he said, including five of his father’s six brothers, his mother losing relatives as well.

The war was a disaster for his family, he explained. Millions of other Russians suffered the same way.

A personal note: Aged-five when war began in September 1939, on or around the day I began kindergarten, aged-10 when it officially ended in the Pacific in September 1945, I remember years of war well from daily radio broadcasts my parents and I listened to, including commentaries from noted journalists of that era, a far cry from war reporting today.

I remember minimal inconveniences of the time, including rationing of gasoline and other goods. Production of autos, metal appliances and furniture, as well as other consumer products was halted in 1942 through war’s end so plants could produce tanks, artillery, aircraft, and other weapons of war.

Dog food no longer was sold in tin cans. Buying a tube of toothpaste required turning in the empty one for recycling.

Ration stamps were required to buy limited amounts of staples taken for granted today. My parents’ 1939 Dodge auto was minimally used because of scarce availability of gasoline diverted for the war effort.

As a young boy, I barely noticed the inconveniences. Daily life seemed normal to me. My dad served in France during WW I. Many of my older male relatives were in WW II, none killed or injured during the war.

My best friend lost his older brother. My next door neighbors were holocaust survivors. When war ended, there was hope for a new enduring era of world peace.

It lasted until Harry Truman’s aggression against North Korea from June 1950 – July 1953, ending with an uneasy armistice unchanged to this day, US hostility persisting toward a nation never attacking another preemptively or threatening any now.

Instead of defeating the scourge of fascism in WW II, its headquarters was relocated from Berlin and Tokyo to Washington — with branch offices in European capitals, Tel Aviv, and elsewhere.

Like his predecessors and other US officials, Trump pretended the war was “not (waged) for control and domination, but for liberty, democracy, and self-rule” — polar opposite reality.

He turned truth on its head, calling “America…a noble nation… that inspire(s) the entire world.”

“(D)efend(ing) our way of life” is all about waging endless wars of aggression against nations threatening no one, what he failed to explain.

The first world war to end all future ones and misnamed “good war” that followed were warmups for decades of endless wars to follow.

They’re raging today in multiple theaters, plans for new ones drawn to be launched when or if ordered, along with color revolutions and old-fashioned coups to forcefully transform other nations into US client states.

Self-styled American exceptionalism and moral superiority don’t exist. The so-called “indispensable nation” represents the greatest threat to world peace and humanity’s survival.

Is another Great Patriotic War inevitable, next time to be waged with thermo-nukes and other super-weapons?

If things turn out this way, crossing a Rubicon of no return, we’ll all be doomed. That’s where things are heading if history repeats.

Humans may become the first species ever to destroy itself… ?

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Reinvents The History of World War II, Honoring US Vets and Talking Peace While Waging War
  • Tags: , ,

“We are at a crossroads. And the roads we take from here will determine the very future of humanity. We have to wake up to the true objectives and actions of the Bilderberg Group and its parallel kin if we hope to retain the freedoms fought for by our grandfathers in World War II.”– Daniel Estulin, from the introduction of The True Story of the Bilderberg Group (2005) [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The most wealthy and powerful individuals on the planet have mutual concerns and in spite of rhetoric about competition in the marketplace, these ruling elites have class interests in common and meet together through secretive unaccountable non- governmental groups to decide the policies that will advance their aims, potentially at the expense of the bulk of humanity.

Some of these groupings go by names like the Trilateral Commission, the Group of 30, the Systemic Risk Council, The Council on Foreign Relations, and the Bilderberg Group.

Bilderberg, in particular has evoked considerable intrigue in recent years, especially since the publication of Daniel Estulin’s 2005 book: The True Story of the Bilderberg Group . Estulin’s account reveals a network of the world’s most powerful people, comprising heads of state, leaders of industry and finance, military brass, European royalty, and select media figures, mostly men from North America and Western Europe, who engage each other annually, in person and in secret, in remote locations around the globe. No media coverage is allowed, no meeting minutes released to the public. Nevertheless, the policy decisions fleshed out through these meetings are passed on to governments who align their policies with these global elites, regardless of their partisan political affiliation.

So for example, in 1991, then Arkansas governor and aspiring US Presidential candidate Bill Clinton attended that year’s Bilderberg conference where he connected with tycoon David Rockefeller and was told that the North American Free Trade Agreement was a Bilderberg priority. Within a year of his inauguration, Clinton signed on to NAFTA.

The first Bilderberg meeting took place in Oosterbeek Netherlands, where prominent elites supposedly debated the future of the world.

Estulin built his research on private disclosures from what he calls ‘conscientious objectors’ from inside as well as outside the group’s membership.

In Estulin’s estimation, the group today constitutes a shadow government threatening to supplant the sovereignty of nation-states with one powerful corporate controlled global government.

Over the past decade and a half, independent investigators have been making a point of stalking these conferences and approaching the known participants to glean some insights into their plans, With more light being shone on these public gatherings of elites, the Bilderberg group has started to disclose their supposed itinerary of topics and guests.

This year’s Bilderberg conference was held in Montreux Switzerland. The guest list included the likes of Henri Castries, ,Chairman of the Paris-based Institut Montaigne, Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of England, David Petraeus, retired US Army General and former CIA Director, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, Mark Rutte, Dutch Prime Minister and leader of the far-right People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy, Bruno LeMaire, France’s Minister of Finance, and Eric Schmidt, technical advisor for Alphabet Inc, the parent company of Google Inc. Jared Kushner, son-in-law of US President Donald Trump and US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo were also known to be participating although they were not mentioned in the Bilderberg official guest list.

Official topics for discussion at the 4 day conference included “The Future of Capitalism”, “Russia”, “China”, “Weaponizing Social Media”, “BREXIT”, “What’s Next for Europe”; “Ethics of Artificial Intelligence” and climate change.

On this week’s Global Research News Hour radio program we do our best to ascertain the agenda of these global elites based on interviews with two informed sources.

In the first half hour, we hear from Canadian independent journalist Dan Dicks about his attempts to cover the 67th annual Bilderberg summit during the May 30-June 2nd weekend. Dicks outlines how this year’s conference differed from previous conferences he has covered, and speculates on a connection between the recent demonetization of his youtube channel and a conversation he had with one of the Bilderberg participants.

In the second half hour, Professor Peter Phillips talks about his recent book, Giants: The Global Power Elite, which provides the names and mini-biographies of the individuals and companies that wield power over billions of people world-wide, and the various instruments they utilize to secure their control over the global financial and political landscape.

Dan Dicks is a Canadian independent journalist who has traveled to no fewer than nine Bilderberg conferences in the past thirteen years. His website and YOUTUBE channel is PressForTruth.ca

Professor Peter Phillips is a professor of sociology with Sonoma State University, California since 1994. He served as Director of Project Censored from 1996 to 2010. He is the author of the 2018 book Giants: The Global Power Elite. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

(Global Research News Hour Episode 263)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM out of the University of Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The Global Research News Hour now airs Fridays at 6pm PST, 8pm CST and 9pm EST on Alternative Current Radio (alternativecurrentradio.com)

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Radio Fanshawe: Fanshawe’s 106.9 The X (CIXX-FM) out of London, Ontario airs the Global Research News Hour Sundays at 6am with an encore at 3pm.

Los Angeles, California based Thepowerofvoices.com airs the Global Research News Hour every Monday from 6-7pm Pacific time.

Notes:

  1.  Daniel Estulin (2005) p.xxv. ‘The True Story of the Bilderberg Group’, published by TrineDay.

Boeing Obama a Gold Watch and 346 Dead

June 7th, 2019 by Corporate Crime Reporter

Democrats want to make Donald Trump the issue in 2020.

If they do, they will lose again, the way they lost in 2016.

Instead, the 2020 election should be about corporate power in all of its manifestations, its hold on the culture, our country and both major political parties.

Take the case of the two Boeing 737 Max 8 airplane crashes — the Lion Air crash off the coast of Jakarta, Indonesia in October 2018 that killed all 189 on board and the Ethiopian Airlines crash in March 2019 that killed all 157 on board.

During his time as President of the United States, Barack Obama promoted the sale of Boeing planes — including the 737 Max 8 planes — around the world.

In November 2011, in Bali, Indonesia, President Obama announced an agreement between Boeing and Lion Air.

“For the last several days I’ve been talking about how we have to make sure that we’ve got a presence in this region, that it can result directly in jobs at home,” Obama said. “And what we see here — a multibillion-dollar deal between Lion Air — one of the fastest-growing airlines not just in the region, but in the world — and Boeing is going to result in over 100,000 jobs back in the United States of America, over a long period of time.”

“This represents the largest deal, if I’m not mistaken, that Boeing has ever done.  We are looking at over 200 planes that are going to be sold.”

In September 2014, Obama met with the Prime Minister of Ethiopia at the White House.

“We’re strong trading partners,” Obama said. “And most recently, Boeing has done a deal with Ethiopia, which will result in jobs here in the United States.”

“I’m expecting a gold watch from Boeing at the end of my presidency because I know I’m on the list of top salesmen at Boeing,” Obama said at an export forum at the White House in September 2013.

Of course, Obama got more than just a gold watch from Boeing when he left the White House.

According to a report from Bloomberg, Boeing donated $10 million to the Obama presidential library and museum in Chicago. And earlier this year, Obama dropped in to speak to a Boeing leadership retreat at a swank resort in Scottsdale, Arizona. Obama gratefully waived his $400,000 speaking fee.

While pushing the sale of Boeing planes around the world, the Obama administration was at the same time fast tracking a dangerous deregulatory process at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) that effectively put the corporations in charge of the safety certification process — and that in effect put Boeing in charge of certifying it’s faulty MCAS software that led to the tragedies in Indonesia and Ethiopia.

The FAA certification system is known as the Organization Designation Authorization (ODA) program. Under that program, companies like Boeing can appoint their own representatives to act in the place of FAA inspectors.

In 2004, one of the unions representing FAA inspectors – Professional Aviation Safety Specialists (PASS) – criticized the proposed ODA program as “premature and reckless.”

“Allowing the aviation industry to self-regulate in this manner is nothing more than the blatant outsourcing of inspector functions and handing over inherently governmental oversight activities to non-governmental, for-profit entities,” PASS wrote in its 2004 comments to the FAA.

Would a more independent FAA have prevented the two recent Boeing crashes?

Yes, says Paul Hudson of Flyer’s Rights.

“The ODA program has allowed Boeing to effectively self certify the MCAS software as safe,” Hudson told Corporate Crime Reporter.

“Boeing’s CEO, whistleblowers and FAA now admit they failed to properly test, fully connect, or even disclose MCAS, much less its deadly defects and overpowering features — not to the FAA higher ups, not to airline pilots or not even to its own test pilots.”

“Air travel has gotten much safer due to both safety regulation and technical advancements,” Hudson said. “But profit seeking over safety at all costs is destroying both safety and profits.”

“Some Boeing safety inspectors have summed up the current culture as ‘safety is king but schedule is God,” Hudson said. “I asked Boeing in December after the Lion Air crash to ground the Max. Boeing refused.”

*

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 Zero Hedge

Many international observers have misinterpreted Trump’s termination of India’s membership in the “Generalized System of Preferences” and New Delhi’s decision to supposedly go forward with the S-400s despite CAATSA sanctions threats as the beginning of an Indo-American “trade war”, but both allied Great Powers are actually just playing games with one another in order to score better terms on the comprehensive trade deal that they’re presently negotiating.

All the talk about a seemingly impending Indo-American “trade war” is misplaced even though there are superficially convincing signs that this speculated economic conflict might have just begun. Many international observers point to Trump’s termination of India’s membership in the “Generalized System of Preferences” (GSP) and New Delhi’s decision to supposedly go forward with the S-400s despite CAATSA sanctions threats as heralding this scenario, though that’s a misinterpretation that overlooks these two Great Powers’ military-strategic alliance with one another in the “Indo-Pacific“. These considerations are much more important for India than economic ones because of the wild success that anti-Chinese fearmongering has had in shaping the views of its population and decision makers, and Prime Minister Modi is unlikely to do an about-face on the national security platforms that got him re-elected.

There’s close to little chance that India will sacrifice its military-strategic alliance with America for economic reasons when there doesn’t exist any viable alternative at all after New Delhi ruled out ever joining China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) as an act of protest over the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) that forms its key component.

As such, the back-and-forth economic “escalations” between the US and India seem designed to ensure that each of them can get a better deal from the other when it comes to the comprehensive trade deal that they’re presently negotiating, which will conceivably incorporate all dimensions of their economic relationship and form the main part of New Delhi’s promised “Big Bang” pro-business reforms that are expected to be rolled out during Modi’s second term in office.

Removing India from the GSP just increases the urgency with which New Delhi must strike a deal with the US, just as India’s desire to supposedly honor its S-400 contract with Russia signifies that Washington must urgently reveal the competitive points of its THAAD replacement deal apart from the fact that it would avoid the imposition of CAATSA sanctions. It’s difficult to imagine that the shared so-called “China threat” that has so closely united them on the military-strategic fronts could be overshadowed by a simmering economic dispute between these two allies, especially bearing in mind that India has no realistic alternative and needs the US marketplace much more than America needs India’s. Being as pro-business as he is and with his surrogates already hyping the world up to expect “Big Bang” pro-business reforms, Modi’s latest over-publicized tiff with Trump is really nothing more than a distraction from the larger deal that they’re negotiating behind the scenes.

*

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 Eurasia Future.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on It’s Not a US-India “Trade War”: Delhi and Washington Are Just Trying to Get a Better Trade Deal
  • Tags: , , ,

The Global War on Journalism

June 7th, 2019 by Mike Head

Australian Federal Police officers raided two separate news offices within 24 hours this week, in a chilling and blatant attack on the freedom of the press, aimed at intimidating journalists who report on government misconduct and war crimes.

On Wednesday, police spent more than eight hours trawling through nearly 10,000 files, including journalists’ notes, draft versions of stories, raw footage, meeting minutes and emails, at the Sydney headquarters of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation. A day earlier, police spent hours ransacking the home of a News Corp political editor, Annika Smethurst.

In both cases, the raids were triggered by the publication of leaks exposing key elements of Australia’s US-linked military-intelligence apparatus—war crimes committed by the Australian special forces in Afghanistan and plans to legalise internal mass surveillance by Australia’s electronic spy agency.

The raids have graphically confirmed the warnings issued by the World Socialist Web Site: the persecution and jailing of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is setting a precedent for the criminalisation of journalism.

By targeting journalists, as well as the individuals leaking the damning information, the Australian government is directly following the lead of the Trump administration’s charging of Assange, a journalist and publisher, with 17 counts under the US Espionage Act, for which he faces life imprisonment and possibly the death penalty.

“The arrest and prosecution of our publisher at the behest of the Trump administration is a watershed for the rest of the media—from seeking to prosecute whistleblowers, law enforcement is now being used to silence those who hold government to account,” WikiLeaks wrote on Twitter. “We have long warned that other prosecutions will follow.”

What is taking place in Australia is not the only verification of these warnings. In France, the government of Emmanuel Macron is moving to prosecute journalists from Disclose, who have exposed, in partnership with the Intercept, Radio France, Mediapart, Arte Info and Konbini, France’s complicity in Saudi Arabia’s illegal war in Yemen and the Macron government’s efforts to cover it up.

In the US itself, now that Assange is behind bars, through a conspiracy between the governments of Australia, Britain, the US and Ecuador, whisleblower Chelsea Manning has been re-imprisoned, indefinitely. She has refused to testify at a grand jury established to concoct evidence and bring further frame-up charges against the WikiLeaks publisher.

The only supposed “crime” committed by Assange and Manning has been to reveal to the people of the world the war crimes, spying, regime-change operations and mass murder carried out by the US and its allies, including Australia.

WikiLeaks continued,

“Like the WikiLeaks publications that Julian Assange is being persecuted for in the United States, the articles in question contained not only information detailing the overreach of intelligence agencies, but also evidence of war crimes including torture and unlawful killings which have so far been kept from the public.”

In fact, it is inconceivable that the Australian government would have instigated and pursued the investigation of the ABC and Murdoch media journalists without the agreement, if not urging, of Washington. Both the Special Air Service (SAS) and the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) surveillance agency are closely integrated into all the wars and war preparations of the US.

Thousands of internal ABC emails being gone through by the AFP [source: Twitter @TheLyonsDen]

The war crimes of the SAS—which include the killing of children and unarmed civilians, and the desecration of corpses—are an inseparable and inevitable aspect of the ongoing US-led invasion and occupation of Afghanistan.

The ASD is part of the US-led global “Five Eyes” surveillance network. As Edward Snowden’s leaks in 2013 revealed, the ASD collaborates with the US National Security Agency in exchanging information, including on Australian citizens. The Australian government’s proposed changes in 2018, exposed by the leaks to Smethurst, would have legalised these spying operations.

The timing of the Australian raids is not accidental. Although the alleged leaks occurred in 2017 and 2018, the search warrants were executed just after Australia’s May 18 election, which saw the return of the Liberal-National Coalition, and within weeks of the April 11 arrest of Assange.

In both cases, too, the precedent set by the Assange witch-hunt is being exploited to target journalists. The police are investigating alleged offences under section 79 of the Crimes Act. Dating back to World War I, this legislation outlaws not just “communicating,” but also “receiving,” information that “prejudices the security or defence” of Australia. If convicted, journalists could be jailed for up to seven years.

As the WSWS has warned, these developments are directly related to covering up, not just the past crimes of the US and its allies, but the even greater ones now being prepared as Washington threatens Iran, Syria and Venezuela, and escalates its economic war and military confrontation with China.

Successive Australian governments, both Liberal-National and Labor, have made Australia a testing ground for the militarisation of society and the suppression of political dissent. This has included basing US Marines in the strategic northern city of Darwin and imposing legislation permitting the police and intelligence agencies to access online “metadata,” crack open encryption systems and prosecute anyone accused of “foreign interference.”

Throughout all the corporate media coverage of the Australian raids, there has been not one mention of Assange and Manning. None of the journalists voicing, legitimately, alarm at the chilling impact on freedom of speech, has referred to the obvious connection.

The global crackdown on the freedom of the press after the charging of Assange throws into relief the utterly pernicious role of all those who have played a role in the persecution of the WikiLeaks founder.

The list is long. Nearly every major news outlet—including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Guardian—has taken part in a conspiracy to calumniate and defame Assange. Middle-class pseudo-left organisations such as the Democratic Socialists of America and the now-defunct International Socialist Organization have issued statements supporting Sweden’s vindictive persecution of Assange at the behest of the United States.

It is no surprise then, that neither the Times, the Post, nor the Guardian have issued a statement condemning the raids in Australia, while Jacobin, associated with the DSA, has not even bothered to report them.

The defence of the freedom of the press will not come from these quarters.

The global crackdown on the freedom of speech is targeted squarely at the working class: against its right to know the crimes and conspiracies of the ruling elites and the state apparatuses they control.

A free press and freedom of expression online are vital for the working class to organise the struggle against war, inequality, and all the other social scourges of capitalism. As they enter into struggles all over the world, workers must take up the demand to free Assange and Manning, and to oppose the prosecution of all journalists.

*

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: Australia’s Federal Police, top, enter the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, the national public broadcaster, during a raid on their offices in Sydney, Australia. (Credit: Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

New Study: United States Uses 85 Pesticides Outlawed in Other Countries

June 7th, 2019 by Center For Biological Diversity

The United States allows the use of 85 pesticides that have been banned or are being phased out in the European Union, China or Brazil, according to a peer-reviewed study published today by the academic journal Environmental Health.

In 2016 the United States used 322 million pounds of pesticides that are banned in the E.U., accounting for more than one-quarter of all agricultural pesticide use in this country, according to the study. U.S. applicators also used 40 million pounds of pesticides that are banned or being phased out in China and 26 million pounds of pesticides that are banned or being phased out in Brazil.

“It’s appalling the U.S. lags so far behind these major agricultural powers in banning harmful pesticides,” said Nathan Donley, a senior scientist with the Center for Biological Diversity and author of the study. “The fact that we’re still using hundreds of millions of pounds of poisons other nations have wisely rejected as too risky spotlights our dangerously lax approach to phasing out hazardous pesticides.”

The study compared the approval status of more than 500 pesticides used in outdoor applications in the world’s four largest agricultural economies: the United States, European Union, China and Brazil.

Banned Pesticide Use

Source: Center for Biological Diversity

Report Highlights

  • The U.S. EPA continues to allow use of 85 pesticides for outdoor agricultural applications that are banned or in the process of being completely phased out elsewhere, including 72 in the E.U., 17 in Brazil and 11 in China.
  • The United States has banned only four pesticides still approved for use in the E.U., Brazil or China.
  • Pesticides approved in the United States but banned or being phased out in at least two of the three other nations in the study include: 2,4-DB, bensulide, chloropicrin, dichlobenil, dicrotophos, EPTC, norflurazon, oxytetracycline, paraquat, phorate, streptomycin, terbufos and tribufos.
  • The majority of pesticides banned in at least 2 of the 3 nations studied have not appreciably decreased in the United States over the past 25 years and almost all have stayed constant or increased over the past 10 years. Many have been implicated in acute pesticide poisonings in the United States, and some have been further restricted by individual states.

The study concludes that deficiencies in the U.S. pesticide regulatory process are the likely cause of the country failing to ban or phase out pesticides that the E.U., China and Brazil have prohibited.

The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act gives the U.S. EPA significant discretion on which pesticides to cancel and makes the EPA-initiated, nonvoluntary cancellation process particularly onerous and politically fraught. This has, in effect, made pesticide cancellation in the United States largely a voluntary endeavor by the pesticide industry itself. As a result, pesticide cancellations in the U.S. are more often economic decisions rather than decisions made to protect human or environmental health.

“Bans are the most effective way to prevent exposures to highly hazardous pesticides and can spur the transition to safer alternatives,” said Donley. “A combination of weak laws and the EPA’s broken pesticide regulatory process has allowed the pesticide industry to dictate which pesticides stay in use. That process undermines the safety of agricultural workers and anyone who eats food and drinks water in this country.”

The U.S. EPA’s Pesticide Office has come under intense scrutiny in recent years as a result of numerous scandals, including:

  • Ignoring its own established protocols to conclude that glyphosate, the active ingredient in Roundup, does not cause cancer, a finding that’s at odds with the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer, EPA’s Office of Research and Development and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry;
  • Its refusal to protect endangered species from pesticides, even when it’s been demonstrated by other federal agencies that use of the chemicals could put certain species at risk of extinction;
  • The agency’s industry-motivated decision to overturn a long-overdue ban on chlorpyrifos despite compelling evidence that it harms the brains of children;
  • The recent approval of the largest ever expansion of medically-important antibiotics for use in plant agriculture, ignoring strong concerns about increased antibiotic resistance from the FDA, CDC and public health officials;
  • Having to change the instructions on the dicamba pesticide label twice after the drift-prone pesticide damageda reported 5 million acres of crops, trees and backyard gardens over the last two years.
  • It’s liberal use of an “emergency” exemption loophole that allows unapproved pesticides to be used for routine, foreseeable situations for many consecutive years.

*

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

Featured image is from CounterPunch

The US Department of Energy (DOE) recently renamed US liquefied natural gas (LNG) exports “freedom gas.” But freedom for who? For Europe which already has a cheap and reliable source of natural gas, but is being forced to switch over to more expensive US gas under the threat of sanctions? Certainly not.

Or freedom for Russia who supplies Europe with much of its natural gas to compete openly and fairly with the United States? Most definitely not.

Or is it freedom from competition for the US?  Yes, indeed.

It is often contradictory branding that heralds various chapters of US injustice at home (under the draconian “Patriot Act” for example) and abroad, such as during the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq carried out under the dubious name of “Operation Iraqi Freedom.”

Not the Onion

So discredited have US campaigns christened in the name of “freedom” become, that few scarcely believed the US was actually, seriously calling its natural gas exports “freedom gas.” However, it is not a headline torn from the pages of the satirical newspaper “The Onion,” but rather from the US DOE itself.

In an article from the DOE’s official website titled, “Department of Energy Authorizes Additional LNG Exports from Freeport LNG,” the DOE states (emphasis added):

“Increasing export capacity from the Freeport LNG project is critical to spreading freedom gas throughout the world by giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy. Further, more exports of U.S. LNG to the world means more U.S. jobs and more domestic economic growth and cleaner air here at home and around the globe,” said U.S. Under Secretary of Energy Mark W. Menezes, who highlighted the approval at the Clean Energy Ministerial in Vancouver, Canada. “There’s no doubt today’s announcement furthers this Administration’s commitment to promoting energy security and diversity worldwide.”

Aside from the almost comical reference to “freedom gas,” there is something else revealing about the DOE’s claims of  “giving America’s allies a diverse and affordable source of clean energy.”

This is in direct reference to Europe, and Europe’s current imports of Russian gas. Russian gas, delivered by pipelines to Europe will always be cheaper than US liquefied natural gas transported by sea to Europe. That is, unless the US, through the threat of sanctions not only against Russia, but against Washington’s own allies in Europe, can raise those costs to above the price of US exports.

Articles like Foreign Policy’s “U.S. Senate Threatens Sanctions Over Russian Pipeline,” make it clear just how far along the US is toward doing just that.

The article claims:

In the latest uptick of trans-Atlantic tensions, European ships involved in the construction of a controversial gas pipeline from Russia to Germany could be subject to U.S. sanctions under a new bipartisan bill that will be introduced in the U.S. Senate as early as Monday.

FP also claims:

The Trump administration has rebuked Germany for moving forward with the project, one of a raft of recent issues straining trans-Atlantic relations alongside Iran, climate change, and trade. Last July, U.S. President Donald Trump accused Berlin of being held “captive” to Russia due to its dependence on Moscow for energy, a charge German officials sharply dismissed.

Thus, Germany is not only being “rebuked” for making its own decisions regarding German economic and foreign policy, it is being threatened with US sanctions for not complying to US dictates. Calling LNG the US would seek to force nations like Germany to buy against their will “freedom gas” is an intentional insult added to economic injury Washington already seeks to inflict.

“Freedom Gas” a Smokescreen for Dictatorship  

Late last year, the US House of Representatives passed resolution 1035 – “Expressing opposition to the completion of Nord Stream II”

By passing this resolution, the United States presumed to dictate to all of Europe who they could and couldn’t do business with. And while the resolution was non-binding, it alluded to sanctions now already being put in motion.

It was clear that the resolution’s language regarding “European energy security through diversification of supplies” simply meant Washington would seek to force Europe to buy US gas over Russian gas.The very idea of Washington passing resolutions focused on “European energy security” in the first place is a full frontal assault on European sovereignty and “freedom.” Now that the resolution’s intentions are being transformed into policy – including sanctions targeting European companies – it has become an economic attack on Europe as well.

Worse still is the fact that to make US gas exports competitive, the US must resort to more than just sanctions. It must also commit to multiple conflicts hindering the delivery of Russian gas – such as in Ukraine where for 5 years now armed conflict has raged, threatening pipelines delivering Russian gas to Europe.

The US portrays Russia as a threat to European security and stability – despite the fact that Europe itself has voluntarily and jointly developed the infrastructure to bring Russian gas into Europe and jointly benefits from these imports. The US thus finds itself pushing childish gimmicks like “freedom gas” as a smokescreen for the fact that Washington – not Moscow – poses the greatest threat to European security, stability, and even prosperity.

Washington’s methods of targeting Russian hydrocarbons, or Chinese telecom technology, has revealed the US as an unreliable ally, an unreliable business partner, and lacking the means to compete in a free and fair global market. Its tactics of coercion over competition – if successful – will leave the world with inferior alternatives forced onto nations at extorted prices. The world faces a choice between “freedom gas” and actual freedom to decide what it buys and from whom it buys it from – one of the most basic freedoms of all and a freedom Washington seeks to deny 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.

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

Featured image is from NEO

In a June 1 interview with ABC Radio Adelaide, UN Special Rapporteur on Torture Nils Melzer warned that Julian Assange could die in prison if his persecution is not stopped immediately.

Last week, Melzer issued a scathing denunciation of Assange’s persecution, calling it “psychological torture.”

Reporter Philip Williams asked Melzer, “If your calls are ignored, do you fear that he could actually die in prison?” Melzer replied,

“Absolutely, yes. That’s a fear that I think is very real … the cumulative effects of that constant pressure, it will become unpredictable how this will end. What we see is that his health condition is currently deteriorating to the point that he cannot even appear at a court hearing. This is not prosecution; this is persecution and it has to stop here and it has to stop now.”

The full radio interview with Melzer can heard here. WikiLeaks publisher and journalist Julian Assange was sentenced to 50 weeks in jail on May 1 by a British court in a vindictive show trial on fabricated charges of “skipping bail.” Following his eviction from the Ecuadorian embassy on April 11, where Assange had sought asylum and was effectively detained for seven years, he was arrested by British authorities and is now held in Her Majesty’s Prison Belmarsh in southeast London.

Melzer’s comment about Assange’s dire condition follows a statement he issued on May 31 demanding an immediate end to the “collective persecution” by the United States and its allies.

The UN torture expert visited Assange in Belmarsh on May 9 along with a medical doctor and psychologist in order to evaluate the condition of the heroic journalist. Melzer issued his statement just one week after the US Justice Department announced 17 counts on charges of violating the Espionage Act—which carry up to 170 years in prison if convicted—and renewed the demand that the WikiLeaks publisher be extradited to the US for prosecution.

Melzer warned that the nine-year “persistent and progressively severe abuse” of Assange by US, British and Ecuadorian authorities and the threat of his being extradited to the US would pose “a real risk of serious violations of his human rights, including his freedom of expression, his right to a fair trial and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Speaking from Geneva during his interview with ABC Radio Adelaide, Melzer reiterated his warning that Assange cannot get a fair trial in the US “in light of the prevalent prejudice against him and the image of the public enemy that has been portrayed over there.”

In answering a question from Williams about the role of the Australian government in the unfolding attacks on Assange, Melzer said,

“The Australian government has been the glaring absentee in this case from my perspective. I would have expected Australia to take steps to protect their national … to protect him from this excessive persecution that he is experiencing currently.”

Assange is the target of an international campaign of vilification, persecution and silencing due to WikiLeaks’ exposure to the people of the world both the war crimes American imperialism and its allies.

Melzer’s warning points to the urgent need to organize a struggle to defend Assange. We urge all of our readers to take up this fight.

*

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 21st Century Wire

The neoliberal establishment is wringing its hands in the wake of European elections that proved a resounding victory for populist parties across the continent, casting around for someone to blame but utterly incapable of realizing their own interference has doomed them. Doubling down on the censorship, they are determined to provoke the catastrophe they need to make free speech history.

The NGO-industrial complex was operating at maximum capacity in the weeks leading up to the election, shutting down hundreds of Facebook pages deemed “fake” or “hate speech” in the hope of controlling the messages reaching voters before they made the terrible mistake of voting for a candidate who represents their interests.

Led by Avaaz, which claims to be a “global citizens’ movement monitoring election freedom and disinformation,” this well-heeled fifth column whipped the press into paranoid frenzies with reports like “Fakewatch,” which breathlessly documented 500 “suspicious” pages and groups it claims are “spreading massive disinformation.” The groups have little in common other than their alleged “link[s] to right-wing and anti-EU organizations,” a capital offense for the promoters of “democracy,” which can only be permitted where it doesn’t stray from the center-left path of most #Resistance.

“Far-right and anti-EU groups are weaponizing social media at scale to spread false and hateful content,” the study warns, gloating that after sharing its findings with Facebook, the platform shut down an “unprecedented” number of pages on the eve of the election (77 out of the 500, according to VentureBeat, which has credulously signal-boosted every utterance of Avaaz as if it is divine truth from the Oracle of Delphi). Avaaz’s reports frame the problem as an affliction of the right wing only, even though disinformation is second nature to political operatives at both ends of the spectrum (and, more importantly, in the sanctified center).

The Computational Propaganda Project, an Oxford-based research group, made no secret of its elitist leanings, declaiming, “On Facebook, while many more users interact with mainstream content overall, individual junk news stories can still hugely outperform even the best, most important, professionally produced stories,” as if users have no choice but to consume “professionally-produced” Oxford-approved material or wallow in junk content. And Facebook’s own statistics bear out the hypothesis that coordinated inauthentic behavior has surged – the site removed almost 3.4 billion “fake” accounts from October 2018 to March 2019, more than the number of actual users.

But Facebook is not simply targeting fake accounts for takedown. Last Sunday, as Europeans prepared to head out to the polls, Facebook froze the largest group used by the Yellow Vests to organize protests and share information, silencing its 350,000+ members at a critical moment in French politics. More than one group member, reduced to commenting on existing posts, pointed out that President Emmanuel Macron met with Facebook chief executive android Mark Zuckerberg three weeks earlier to discuss a first-of-its-kind collaboration in which French government officials are being given access to material censored from users’ newsfeeds, essentially permitting them direct control of what the French are allowed to see on social media. Facebook, then, is providing France with the same techno-fascist services it provides the US government: Facebook will take on the burden of actually censoring dissent, thus skirting any pesky free-speech laws that might otherwise trip up a government that attempted to do the same.

Avaaz focused on the Yellow Vests in its coverage of the French elections, complaining RT France was getting huge quantities of views compared to native French media – perhaps because native French media have been doing Macron’s bidding and attempting to minimize the protests. By framing RT as a perpetrator of “information warfare,” the NGO was making a deliberate effort to have it deplatformed under one of Macron’s controversial police-state laws passed in 2018, by which any outlet spreading so-called “false information” can be gagged for three months leading up to an election. Yet Macron’s own interior minister, Christophe Castaner, lied on Twitter when he claimed the Yellow Vests had attacked the Pitié-Salpêtrière hospital in Paris, and RT was the first outlet to publish the truth about the incident. Who is the disinfo agent?

When the election results came in, Avaaz and its political allies in the neoliberal center could only gape in disbelief. Surely they had wiped La Liga and the Front National (now National Rally) from social media, salting the earth in their wake? How had they won? And what happened in Germany, where Angela Merkel’s CDU performed worse than ever in European election history? Merkel could blame YouTube – 70 influential video stars put out a call to their followers to shun her coalition – but the creators also called for shunning the far-right AfD, so the platform couldn’t be demonized as a tool of the ever-present Nazi Threat. That didn’t stop her party from trying, of course – CDU party leader Annegret Kramp-Karrenbauer complained about online “propaganda” and promised to “tackle this discussion quite aggressively.”

The populist parties won in large part because of the establishment’s unseemly embrace of fascist tactics, from the UK’s totalitarian information warfare disguised as “protecting citizens” or France’s visceral police violence, maiming protesters as if for sport. Europeans voted out of disgust with an establishment so insecure in its control of the narrative that it has sought to annihilate all signs of dissent, dismissing euroskepticism as Russian astroturfing and xenophobia and plugging its ears to the legitimate grievances of its subjects. The National Rally may have beat Macron’s jackbooted thugs, who in the past two months have hauled half a dozen journalists in for questioning by intelligence agencies for publishing stories that embarrassed the regime, but nearly half of French voters refused to vote for anyone at all, according to an Ipsos poll, and Germany’s Greens mopped the floor with Merkel’s coalition among young voters.

The triumph of Nigel Farage’s Brexit party in the UK is the product of a populace wrestling with cognitive dissonance, forced to realize that the “constitutional monarchy” they believed they lived in isn’t so constitutional after all, having jettisoned its democratic mask to cling to the EU under the guise of good old British pragmatism. Even passionate Remainers are happy to see Theresa Maybe go, though it remains to be seen whether her successor will be any more inclined to honor the result of 2016’s referendum. Meanwhile, the Guardian’s embarrassing attempt to shame Farage over a handful of appearances on the Alex Jones show – the paper claimed any reference to “globalists” and “new world order” were dog-whistles for the dreaded “antisemitic conspiracy theories” – proves the establishment media will never regain narrative primacy as long as alternatives exist. Jones, for all his flaws (and they are legion), has a massive audience; the Guardian, despite being propped up by the UK government’s Operation Mockingbird-esque “Integrity Initiative” (and the award for most ironic name ever goes to…), does not.

With the vast American election-fraud apparatus scrambling to prepare itself for 2020, now enabled by Pentagon-funded, Unit-8200-approved Microsoft “election security” software from the makers of the wrongthink-babysitter browser plugin NewsGuard, the US ruling class seems to be poised to make the same mistake as its global peers. Facebook, working hand in hand with the Atlantic Council, has banned and shadowbanned legions of anti-neoliberal activists over the past year, selectively applying (and inventing) new rules in an effort to keep popular content-creators jumping through hoops instead of influencing the discourse. Facebook has been allowed its place of privilege because as a “private corporation” it is legally permitted to violate users’ free speech rights in ways the US government cannot. But if Facebook can’t deliver a victory for the “right guys” this time around, it will be punished. Indeed, a massive anti-trust probe appears to be in the offing, 14 years of Zuckerberg apologies notwithstanding.

The site learned back when it tried to roll out a “disputed” tag for “wrongthink” stories that people were actually more likely to click on those stories; it learned the lesson again when its hugely expensive Facebook Watch news show featuring Anderson Cooper flopped last year. Zuckerberg is on the record begging for government regulation; will Facebook and Twitter use the outcome of this round of elections as a springboard for further crackdowns?

YouTube already has – thousands of creators found their channels demonetized and riddled with takedown notices this week in what has been dubbed the #VoxAdpocalypse after a pathologically whiny Vox blogger became the face of the mass deplatforming, but the censorship appears to be more of a response to Macron’s Orwellian “Christchurch call” to censor “extremism” – that ill-defined conveniently-variable catch-all whose borders are perpetually expanding to engulf all inconvenient speech – aided and abetted by the ADL than Google taking pity on a thin-skinned professional victim.

A sinister coalition of MEPs, “civil society” groups, and the Transatlantic Commission on Election Integrity – a who’s who of war criminals, psychopaths, and oligarchs that includes Michael Chertoff, John “death squad” Negroponte, Victor Pinchuk, and Anders Fogh Rasmussen – has already demanded “parliamentary inquiries into the impact of the use and abuse of technology platforms on democracy and elections.” It’s no coincidence that several of these “election integrity” enthusiasts sit on the board of NewsGuard, which is currently trying to weasel into the EU’s internet regulatory framework by playing up the “disinformation” threat.

The blue-check intelligentsia has been trying for years to convince the hoi polloi that “conspiratorial” thinking is somehow detrimental to democracy. Former Obama labor secretary Robert Reich told Buzzfeed exactly that – “If we become a conspiracy society, we all carry around a degree of paranoia and that’s not healthy for democracy.” But this divorces cause from effect, as if “conspiracy theorists” have formulated their theories out of whole cloth – as if there isn’t evidence for these theories piled knee-deep, as if once-trusted institutions haven’t proven themselves time and again to be as trustworthy as tabloid tales of Elvis risen from the grave. If paranoia is unhealthy for democracy, how is a media incentivized to lie, misdirect and obfuscate any better?

The populist wave has been conflated with an uptick in “hate” in an attempt to delegitimize and demonize it. Outside of groups like the ADL, whose statistics are easily debunked, there is no credible evidence bigotry is on the rise, but as an actual Nazi once said, tell a big enough lie often enough, and it might as well be real. Beginning around 2012, the establishment media began relentlessly flogging the “white privilege” narrative in an effort to fan the flames of interracial conflict. Political science doctoral student Zach Goldberg performed an analysis of several terms using the LexisNexis database and found evidence of heavy narrative manipulation – “whiteness” was mentioned in four times as many news articles in 2017 as in 2012, “white privilege” was mentioned ten times as often in 2017 as in 2012, and “racism” was mentioned ten times as often in the New York Times alone in 2017 as in 2012. Yet even as the media has seemingly talked of nothing else, actual prejudice – by whites against non-whites, at least – has declined since 2008, according to a University of Pennsylvania study published last month, and the FBI’s own statistics show hate crimes against most minority groups are on the decline. Because few European governments separate “hate crimes” from “normal” crime statistics, information on bigotry in Europe often comes solely from NGOs and “civil society” groups that rely for their funding on the perception that Hate is on the march. Populists are capable of prejudice like anyone else, but it is their defining characteristic – a “prejudice” against oligarchy – that motivates the smears churned out by the media.

Protest votes like Trump and Brexit are cries for help from a disenfranchised populace. The European elections boasted the highest turnout in decades, and the ruling class ignores the results at its peril. When the election ritual no longer satisfies a population’s need to feel it is exerting its free will on society, we get public hexings of political figures, people reasoning black magic is more likely to solve their problems than voting. This is the same desperation that leads people like Arnav Gupta to set themselves on fire in front of the White House. Europeans have demonstrated unequivocally that they are sick of unaccountable dictatorship from Brussels, where EC President Jean-Claude Juncker, never one for sympathy with the little guy, sneers at the “populist, nationalists, stupid nationalists” who are “in love with their own countries.” They are sick of being displaced from their homes by a seemingly endless tide of migrants, just as those migrants themselves are displaced from their homes by a seemingly endless tide of American wars. Both groups are victimized by the IMF’s neoliberal austerity policies, epitomized by Juncker, who has done more than perhaps any one person to help Europe’s corporate “citizens” dodge taxes while nickel-and-diming the humans.

Instead of addressing these legitimate grievances, those in power on both sides of the Atlantic tighten the screws on online discourse – out of sight, out of mind. YouTube declares conspiracy theorizing a form of hate speech and plays whack-a-mole with a documentary confirming everyone’s long-standing suspicions that “save-the-migrants” NGOs are cashing in on the desperate human tide. Big Tech promises to work even more closely with Big Brother to crack down on dissident speech, tarring its victims as Nazis while hoping no one will point out such collusion is one of the defining characteristics of fascism.

These measures are guaranteed to further radicalize the discontent. Deleting social media accounts does not delete the people behind them, and France has already proven that starving a protest movement of media attention only makes it angrier. The ruling class may welcome their rage, aiming to use the inevitable outbreak of violence to choke off the last avenues of free expression, but once the guillotines come out, it isn’t the masses’ heads that will be rolling in the streets.

*

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.

Helen Buyniski‘s work has been published at RT, Global Research, Progressive Radio Network, and Veterans Today, among other outlets. A journalist and photographer based in New York City, Helen has a BA in Journalism from New School University and also studied at Columbia University and New York University. Find more of her work at http://www.helenofdestroy.com and http://medium.com/@helen.buyniski, or follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

Four Reasons the European Left Lost

June 7th, 2019 by Wolfgang Streeck

The setbacks for centrist parties in the European elections showed that the EU’s crisis is anything but over. Yet the Left’s lack of strategy and identity has hobbled its ability to provide an alternative.

***

Hardly any of the countless comments on the European election results even mention the radical, as distinguished from the social democratic, left. This is an expression of contempt, and it is well-deserved.Five years ago, the Left, under the clumsy label of GUE/NGL (Confederal Group of the European Left/Nordic Green Left), was led by none other than Alexis Tsipras. Later, as Greek prime minister, he became Angela Merkel’s favorite disciple in the art of treason.

With time and after collecting various splinter groups, the GUE/NGL cobbled together a total of fifty-two seats, a little less than 7 percent of the European Parliament’s 751 MEPs. Now, in 2019, it ended up with thirty-eight, a loss of more than a quarter.

The near-death experience of the European left — or more precisely, its representation in the European Parliament — came at a time when the old parties of the center-left and center-right suffered dramatic setbacks. Together, these latter won only 329 seats: 44 percent of the total. Their combined loss of seventy-five seats put an end to their Grand Coalition parliamentary majority and also coincided with a steep vote rise for various parties of a new, if not always entirely new, nationalist right (114 seats, an increase of thirty-six). There were similarly impressive gains for the Greens, who rose from fifty-two to seventy seats, making them almost twice as strong as the Left.

These are, then, times of rapidly shifting political allegiances. But when should the Left expect to make electoral progress among European workers and reformist sections of the middle class, if not now? There is an urgent need to explain the Left’s disastrous failure to do this. Four reasons come to mind — certainly, there are more.

Strategy

The first and most basic reason is the seemingly total absence of a realistic anticapitalist, or at least anti-neoliberal, left-wing political strategy related to the European Union.

There is not even a debate on the crucial issue of whether the European Union can at all be a vehicle for anticapitalist politics. Instead, there is a naïve or opportunistic acceptance — and it’s hard to say which is worse — of the feel-good “Europeanism” so popular among young people and so useful for both Green electioneering and European technocrats seeking legitimacy for their neoliberal regime.

In particular, on the Left, there’s no mention of the way in which the European Union’s de facto constitution limits the political space for any anticapitalist or even pro-labor program, with its safely enshrined free markets (the “four freedoms”), the de facto dictatorship of the European Court, and the balanced budget provisions under European Monetary Union, imposing austerity on countries and citizens.

In particular, any critical discussion of the European Union’s central social policy — the free movement of labor between the now economically extremely different member countries — is strictly avoided, combined with hints of sympathy for open borders generally, including those with the outside world. This does nothing but validate the image spread by the Greens and the center-left middle-class parties of Europe being mainly about young people traveling without border controls and not needing to change money.

Moreover, this goes in tandem with entirely illusory policy projects, for example a European minimum wage. Only after insistent questioning is it admitted that a European minimum wage would in fact have to be differentiated by country. Predictably, this proposal has found no support whatsoever either in the poor countries of the union, where people find it too good to be true, or in the rich countries, where workers in particular fear that somehow they are the ones who will have to foot the bill for the Left’s “European solidarity.”

Europeanism

Second, in most if not all countries, the Left found it irresistible to join the old and new center parties — Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, the Greens — in declaring the new nationalist right an imminent threat to democracy, which made voting “for Europe,” or even for “more Europe” the necessary defensive position. In fact, often enough, the Left raised the stakes by suggesting that the new right was in fact a very old right, and not voting for it was a contemporary version of the antifascist struggle of the interwar years.

This dangerously blurred the difference between legal opposition parties in a democracy, reprehensible as their speech and thought may be, and private armies aiming to replace a democratic state with a dictatorial one. Such historical confusion especially played into the hands of the Greens, in several ways.

Exaggerating the threat from the new right was certain to drive voters into the arms of liberal establishment parties who promised “stability” in hard times. If fascism was something to be defeated by voting for “more Europe,” there was no need to go as far as vote for the radical left; voting for the new darlings of the middle class would suffice. If democracy means parliaments without neo-nationalist “populists,” voting every five years for a “non-populist” party will do.

One should have thought that a Left worth its name and ambition should know that democracy may be under threat even if there are no “fascists” around at all, alleged or real.

This is because the center parties — on whose side the European left has fought its electoral phony war against rising fascism in Europe — are themselves doing quite enough to undermine democracy. They do precisely that as they submit their countries to a neoliberal political-economic order that imposes on them an untouchable free-trade regime, a gold standard-like monetary policy, austerity public finances, and a union-free labor market with an unlimited labor supply.

Defending democracy is always a good thing. But in joining the fight, the Left could at least have pointed out that democracy is not just mobilizing progressive voters for a powerless parliament. It also means provisions for local government autonomy, for collective bargaining and trade union representation, for workers’ voice on the shop floor and on the boards of large firms, for a public property regime conducive to high public investment, and a truly pluralist media. It appears unlikely that here the Greens could be reliable allies.

Climate

Third, the radical left had no idea how to handle the issue of climate change, whose prominence in recent months again played into the hands of the Greens. In this, the Left did not differ at all from the established center parties. It is easy to understand why it stumbled on this question.

Calls for higher taxes on gasoline or less consumption of cheap meat, or meat in general, are easier to live with, and sometimes to heed, for the middle class than for the lower and working class. Appeals to individual virtue may awaken the bad conscience of the environmentally woke but fail to reach those who feel a need to catch up in consumption with their betters.

Rather than chiming in when the Greens and their bourgeois elders sing their siren songs, what should matter from the Left’s point of view is that voluntary changes in lifestyles are vastly inadequate to stopping global warming or the long ongoing decline of biodiversity.

A Left that limits itself to reciting the Greens’ scare stories about an impending end to life on the planet drives many of its potential voters into denial, and from there into the arms of the New Right. To leave behind the white lies of green environmentalism, the Left needs a realistic program, not just to stop environmental change and deterioration — for this it may be too late — but also to help us cope with its effects.

This would require significant increases in public spending, to be funded at least in part by public debt beyond existing austerity debt limits, and by replacing private with public consumption in order to adapt social and economic life to a changed environment. A Green New Deal of this kind would create jobs in addition to raising taxes and would thereby on balance benefit rather than burden the working class.

Faux Federalism

Fourth and finally, although the writing had long been on the wall, the Left has badly underestimated what early socialists called the “national question” and its importance for its core constituency.

For working people, “Europe” is a far-away technocracy, a world outside of their life experience. This is not much different from the middle class. The latter, however, has learned, and prefers, to pretend that it knows who is doing what in Brussels, which in fact nobody outside of a narrow circle of specialists really does know.

Details, however, do not really matter for those for whom “Europe” has become a mood, a feeling, rather than a political institution; a symbol of a happy, hip “cosmopolitan” consumerist life, even if with a few environmentalist corrections. In their circles, “pro-Europeanism” is essential for admission to an urban social milieu to which the leaders and activists of radical-left parties may belong, but only very few of their members and voters do.

For these latter, political and administrative centralization means a diminished voice for the little man and the little woman, who feel no affinity with and no need for a supranational identity. In fact, they feel disenfranchised as their nation-state is de-legitimized and disempowered in the name of “European” supranationalism. In the eyes of contemporary lifestyle internationalists, this makes the social heirs of traditional working-class internationalism instead appear as hopelessly culturally backward.

This is why, even if the parties representing these latter do conspicuously join in the middle class’s Europeanist enthusiasm, they cannot attract any sizable fraction of the neoliberal internationalist community. Nor, in their modernized guise, can they attract those who do not share in the consumerist optimism of the urban cosmopolitans, and instead find themselves on the receiving end.

The Left, like the Greens, tend to relegate political issues to a European level of democratic politics that doesn’t exist outside parties’ imagination and indeed won’t exist for any foreseeable future. “Europe,” and the European Parliament in particular, is a depository of pious hopes. This will, however, last only until it is finally discovered that the Europeanists have overplayed their hand and, busy with trying to re-educate their voters in the cosmopolitan spirit, forgotten the political toolkit that was waiting for them at the national level. Consider the German case, where the Die Linke majority forced Aufstehen leader Sahra Wagenknecht to resign from her post as parliamentary speaker.

A radical left in its right mind could contribute importantly to “Europe.” It would, however, have to take leave of the superficial “pro-Europeanism” of the old and new center parties. It would have to insist that “European solutions” cannot replace national-level action, if only because they tend to be unavailable or will come too late. It would also have to defend really existing democracy, i.e., nation-state democracy, against its “cosmopolitan” replacement with castle-in-the-sky supranational democracy.

This would mean pointing out that democracy begins at the bottom. That reconciliation with nature and among people does not fall from the sky of “Europe” and is not to be had for nothing. Shortly after their election, the members of the European Parliament will have become 751 like-minded lobbyists for supranational technocracy, dressed up as democratic representatives of a European people that does not yet exist. Social change for the better will not come from above, from them.

*

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

Wolfgang Streeck is a director at the Max Planck Institute for the Study of Societies in Cologne, Germany. His most recent book is Buying Time: The Delayed Crisis of Democratic Capitalism.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Four Reasons the European Left Lost