A Way Out of the Money Trap

March 6th, 2019 by Philip A Farruggio

Nomi Prins had spent many years working for Wall Street “predatory” firms like Goldman Sachs, Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers. She then became ‘born again progressive’ and tells it like it is. Recently, this writer read a fine piece of hers about the inequality of income and wealth in our nation. In it Nomi explains how the top one tenth of one percent (0.1) of Americans possess as much wealth as 90 percent of us. And, Prins reveals, 90 % of Americans owe 3/4 of the country’s household debt (mortgages, auto loans, student loans, credit card debt to name but a few items of debt). These debts are now at a record high $13.5 trillion! Here is a way out of this tragic unfairness:

  • The federal income tax rate is now at a high of 37% if a person earns in excess of $ 500,000 a year. Looking back, the top rates for the decades of 1950s, 60s and 70s never dipped below 70%. Under Reagan and his gang the top rate was slashed to 50% in 1981. So, look how great the super rich have it now! It is time to Surtax the Super Rich and leave the 99+ % of us as is. Let’s shout for a FLAT SURTAX OF 50% for any income of over one million dollars a year. This would only affect the millionaires. Anyone  earning up to one million would be taxed as is now. Once they go over that amount, half of their earnings of over one million goes to the treasury, and half they keep… tax free. How many working stiffs would be satisfied with that deal? Since 99+ % of us would not be in that basket, why not stimulate the economy with all those billions for the common good?
  • Social Security contributions of 6.2 % per worker and employer currently cap at $132,000 in earnings per year. By eliminating that ceiling the Social Security fund would really be in the black forever. Plus, there could be real and generous annual ‘Cost of living’ increases in how much retirees can receive. How many hard working stiffs who rely on that monthly check would really appreciate the added dollars to live more decently?
  • Implement Robert Reich’s idea for a Payroll Tax forgiveness plan. Why not make all contributions to the Payroll Tax forgiven up to the first $20k a year in earnings? If the employee and the employer can keep the 7.65% contribution, each would save over $1500 a year, tax free. Of course, this forgiveness plan should have a cap at 50 employees per business for the employer’s contribution, NOT the individual worker’s. This would really stimulate the economy, and cut down the use of ‘off the books’ employment. Why would a small business hire ‘off the books’ workers when by keeping all ‘on the books’ would be more viable? Do the math yourself. Having had personal experience as a partner in a small cafe, this writer can attest to how Mom and Pop businesses could use that financial aid. They could use that savings to pay their employees better and operate more successfully via increased advertising etc.

We hardly even see these super rich who hold that 1/10 of 1 % of our nation’s wealth. They don’t live anywhere near where we live. They don’t usually eat in the places we eat. Sadly, they say that in our country ‘Royalty is dead’ … well it isn’t and never was.

*

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

Philip A Farruggio is a son and grandson of Brooklyn, NYC longshoremen. He has been a free lance columnist since 2001, with over 400 of his work posted on sites like Global Research, Greanville Post, Off Guardian, Consortium News, Information Clearing House, Nation of Change, World News Trust, Op Ed News, Dissident Voice, Activist Post, Sleuth Journal, Truthout and many others. His blog can be read in full on World News Trust, whereupon he writes a great deal on the need to cut military spending drastically and send the savings back to save our cities. Philip has a internet interview show, ‘It’s the Empire… Stupid’ with producer Chuck Gregory, and can be reached at [email protected].

The Orientalism of Western Russophobia

March 6th, 2019 by Max Parry

Last year marked the 40th anniversary of the publication of Edward W. Said’s pioneering book, Orientalism, as well as fifteen years since the Palestinian-American intellectual’s passing. To bid farewell to such an important scholar shortly after the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, which Said fiercely criticized until his dying breath before succumbing to leukemia, made an already tremendous loss that much more impactful.

His seminal text forever reoriented political discourse by painstakingly examining the overlooked cultural imperialism of colonial history in the West’s construction of the so-called Orient. Said meticulously interrogated the Other-ing of the non-Western world in the humanities, arts, and anthropology down to its minutiae. As a result, the West was forced to confront not just its economic and political plunder but the long-established cultural biases filtering the lens through which it viewed the East which shaped its dominion over it.

His writings proved to be so influential that they laid the foundations for what is now known as post-colonial theory. This became an ironic category as the author himself would strongly reject any implication that the subjugation of developing countries is a thing of the past. How apropos that the Mandatory Palestine-born writer’s death came in the midst of the early stages of the ‘War on Terror’ that made clear Western imperialism is very much alive. Despite its history of ethnic cleansing, slavery, and war, the United States had distinguished itself from Britain and France in that it had never established its own major colonies within the Middle East, Asia or North Africa in the heart of the Orient. According to Said, it was now undergoing this venture as the world’s sole remaining superpower following the end of the Cold War with the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

Today’s political atmosphere makes the Bush era seem like eons ago. Thanks to the shameful rehabilitation of neoconservatism by centrist extremists, Americans fail to understand how Trumpism emerged from the pandora’s box of destructiveness of Bush policies that destabilized the Middle East and only increased international terrorism. Since then, another American enemy has been manufactured in the form of the Russian Federation and its President, Vladimir Putin, who drew the ire of the West after a resurgent Moscow under his leadership began to contain U.S. hegemony. This reached a crescendo during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election with the dubious accusations of election interference made by the same intelligence agencies that sold the pack of lies that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction. The establishment has even likened the alleged intrusion by Moscow to 9/11.

If a comparison between the 2001 attacks that killed nearly 3,000 Americans and the still unproven allegations of Russian meddling seems outrageous, it is precisely such an analogy that has been made by Russiagate’s own biggest proponents, from neoconservative columnist Max Boot to Hillary Clinton herself. Truthfully, it is the climate of hysteria and dumbing down of discourse to such rigid dichotomies following both events where a real similarity can be drawn. The ‘with us or against us’ chasm that followed 9/11 has reemerged in the ‘either/or’ post-election polarity of the Trump era whereby all debate within the Overton window is pigeonholed into a ‘pro vs. anti-Trump’ or ‘pro vs. anti-Russia’ false dilemma. It is even perpetrated by some on the far left, e.g. if one critiques corporate media or Russiagate, they are grouped as ‘pro-Trump’ or ‘pro-Putin’ no matter their political orientation. This dangerous atmosphere is feeding an unprecedented wave of censorship of dissenting voices across the spectrum.

Image result for orientalism edward said

In his final years, not only did Edward Said condemn the Bush administration but highlighted how corporate media was using bigoted tropes in its representations of Arabs and Muslims to justify U.S. foreign policy. Even though it has gone mostly undetected, the neo-McCarthyist frenzy following the election has produced a similar travesty of caricatures depicting Russia and Vladimir Putin. One such egregious example was a July 2018 article in the Wall Street Journal entitled “Russia’s Turn to Its Asian Past” featuring an illustration portraying Vladimir Putin as Genghis Khan. The racist image and headline suggested that Russia is somehow inherently autocratic because of its past occupation under the Mongol Empire during its conquest of Eastern Europe and the Kievan Rus state in the 13th century. In a conceptual revival of the Eurocentric trope of Asiatic or Oriental despotism, the hint is that past race-mixing is where Russia inherited this tyrannical trait. When the cover story appeared, there was virtually no outcry due to the post-election delirium and everyday fear-mongering about Russia that is now commonplace in the media.

The overlooked casual racism used to demonize Russia in the new Cold War’s propaganda doesn’t stop there. One of the main architects of Russiagate, former Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper, in an interviewwith NBC‘s Meet the Press on the reported meddling stated:

“And just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.”

Clapper, whose Office of the DNI published the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections”, has been widely praised and cited by corporate media as a trustworthy source despite his previous history of making intentionally false statements at a public hearing of the Senate Intelligence Committee denying that the National Security Agency (NSA) was unconstitutionally spying on U.S. citizens.

The disclosures of NSA activities by whistleblower Edward Snowden that shocked the world should have discredited Clapper’s status as a reliable figure, but not for mainstream media which has continuously colluded with the deep state during the entire Russia investigation. In fact, the scandal has been an opportunity to rehabilitate figures like the ex-spymaster complicit in past U.S. crimes from surveillance to torture. Shortly after the interview with NBC, Clapper repeated his prejudiced sentiments against Russians in a speech at the National Press Club in Australia:

But as far as our being intimate allies, trusting buds with the Russians that is just not going to happen. It is in their genes to be opposed, diametrically opposed, to the United States and to Western democracies.”

The post-election mass Trump derangement has not only enabled wild accusations of treason to be made without sufficient evidence to support them, but such uninhibited xenophobic remarks to go without notice or disapproval.

In fact, liberals have seemingly abandoned their supposed progressive credence across the board while suffering from their anti-Russia neurological disorder. In an exemplar of yellow journalism, outlets like NBC News published sensational articles alleging that because of the perceived ingratiation between Trump and Putin, there was an increase in Russian ‘birth tourism’ in the United States. More commonly known by the pejorative ‘anchor babies’, birth tourism is the false claim that many immigrants travel to countries for the purpose of having children in order to obtain citizenship. While there may be individual cases, the idea that it is an epidemic is a complete myth — the vast majority of immigration is motivated by labor demands and changes in political or socio-economic factors in their native countries, whether it is from the global south or Eastern Europe. Trump has been rightfully criticized for promoting this falsehood regarding undocumented immigrants and his executive orders targeting birthright citizenship, but it appears liberals are willing to unfairly apply this same fallacy toward Russians for political reasons.

In order to make sense of the current groupthink hysteria towards Moscow, it must be understood in its context as an extension of the ongoing doctoring of history regarding U.S.-Russia relations since the Cold War. Americans living within the empire are proselytized into a glorified and nationalist version of their entire background, beginning with merchants and explorers ‘discovering’ the continent and the whitewashing of indigenous genocide. This imaginary narrative includes the version of WWII taught in U.S. schools and the arms race with the Soviet Union that followed. The West presents an entirely Anglospheric perspective of the war starting with its very chronology. For example, it is said that the conflict ‘officially’ began with the September 1st, 1939 invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany. This mythology immediately frames the war from an Eurocentric viewpoint by separating the Sino-Japanese war that was already underway as the Pacific Ocean theater began long before the ‘surprise’ Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor in 1941 and U.S. entry into the conflict.

The truth is that nearly everything Americans are taught about U.S. participation in the war is either a mischaracterization or a lie, with its role in the Allied victory inflated exponentially. The widely held misconception that the 1944 Normandy landings in the Allied invasion of France was the decisive turning point in Europe is a fairy tale. The ‘D’ in D-Day does not stand for ‘decision’ as many Westerners assume, and when the Allied forces converged on Germany from East and West it was the Soviets who captured Berlin. Although Operation Overlord may have been the largest invasion transported by sea in history, the real watershed in the Great Patriotic War was the Soviet victory in the Battle of Stalingrad the previous year, the biggest defeat ever suffered by the German army. The U.S. only took on the Wehrmacht once it was exhausted by the Red Army which bore the real burden of overcoming Germany.

Just three years earlier, the British army had been completely vanquished by the Nazi armed forces. Omitted from Hollywood folklore like Christopher Nolan’s film Dunkirk is that the Germans were entirely capable of pressing on with an invasion of the British isles but abruptly halted their advance — what stopped them? Quite simply, Hitler’s fanatical desire to conquer the Soviet Union and eradicate communism which he regarded as a greater threat to the Third Reich than Western capitalism. It is not surprising that the Eastern Front became a higher priority considering that the ruling classes in Britain, France and the U.S. had previously financed the German rearmament in violation of the Treaty of Versailles.

The Germans did not hold the same hatred for the West that it reserved for the Russians. In fact, the Führer personally admired the U.S. so much for the extermination of its natives that he named his armored private train ‘Amerika’, a mobile version of the Wolf’s Lair. The Nuremberg race statutes were partly inspired by Jim Crow segregation laws in the U.S. and many of the defendants at the Nuremberg trials tried to excuse their atrocities by arguing the similarity between Nazi race theories and the eugenicist movement which actually originated in the United States. Auschwitz physician Josef Mengele was even previously employed as an assistant to the head of the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute of Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics institute that was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation.

Hitler also preferred an attack on the Soviets over an invasion of Britain because of the eugenics of Lebensraum. Nazi Germany, like Britain and France, was really an imperial settler colonialist state and Hitler viewed the Slav inhabitants of the USSR as ethnically inferior to the ‘master race.’ The Molotov-Ribbentrop pact had been a strategic move to buy time for the Soviets in preparation for a German onslaught, at the time the most powerful military power in the world.

Britain and France had rebuffed Stalin’s efforts to form an alliance in 1938, leaving the USSR no choice but to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany, knowing full well it was only a matter of time until Hitler would eventually embark on his Masterplan for the East. Operation Barbarossa in June 1941 broke the agreement and the German dictator ultimately sealed his own fate. Although the Soviets were victorious, the slaughter that proceeded it had no parallel in human history as 27 million citizens would lose their lives in the fight compared to less than half a million Americans. Even worse, the West has made a mockery of this sacrifice with their refusal to fully acknowledge the USSR’s contribution despite the fact that they did the vast majority of the fighting and dying while 80% of all German casualties were on the Eastern Front.

Meanwhile, the Cold War had already begun before the Second World War even ended. Whether or not Stalin was fully aware of either the U.S. capability or plans to use the atomic bomb against Japan is still a matter of debate, as U.S. President Harry S. Truman changed his story numerous times over the years. Nevertheless, their use is incorrectly attributed by the West to have brought the war’s end and very few Americans realize this tale was told entirely for political reasons. The purported rationale was to allegedly save the lives of American soldiers that would be lost in a future Allied invasion of Japan planned for the Autumn of 1945. Controlling the narrative became crucial in ‘justifying’ the use of such deadly weapons which held the secret motivation to begin an arms race with the Soviets.

Stalin and U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt had agreed at the Yalta Conference in February 1945 that the USSR would eventually break its neutrality treaty with Japan and enter the Pacific theater later in the year. That was until Roosevelt died of a massive cerebral hemorrhage just a few months later while American nuclear physicists were busy at work enriching uranium in Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Then, just a day prior to newly inaugurated President Truman’s meeting with Stalin at the Potsdam Conference in July, the U.S. army and Project Y successfully detonated a nuclear weapon for the first time with the Trinity test as part of the expensive Manhattan Project. After his face-to-face with Truman at Potsdam, whom everyone agrees at least hinted to Stalin of the new U.S. weaponry, the Soviet premier suspected the new U.S. leader would go back on the previous agreement at Yalta with Roosevelt that included compromises with the USSR in the Pacific.

The ugly truth is that the U.S. was well aware that the Japanese were willing to conditionally surrender on the basis of immunity for Emperor Hirohito. However, the U.S. secretly wanted to achieve an Allied victory ideally without Soviet participation so it could demonstrate its exclusive nuclear capability in order to dominate the post-war order. Japan didn’t relinquish following the first bombing of Hiroshima but the second, Nagasaki, three days later — both of which mostly impacted civilians, not its military. What else happened on August 9th, 1945? The Soviet Union declared war on Japan upon realizing that the U.S. was backtracking on its pledge with the underhanded use of ‘Fat Man and Little Boy’ that instantly killed more than 200,000 civilians. The timing gave the appearance that the bomb resulted in the surrender when it was the Soviet invasion of occupied Manchuria in the north against Japan’s military stronghold that was the real tipping point which led to an unconditional acceptance of defeat.

According to the Western narrative, the Cold War only began following Winston Churchill’s invitation to the U.S. by Truman after being surprisingly voted out of office in 1946. At Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, hegave a speech entitled “Sinews of Peace”, widely known as the Iron Curtain speech, where he condemned Soviet policies in Europe and popularized the moniker for the boundary dividing the continent after the war:

“From Stettin in the Baltic to Trieste in the Adriatic an “iron curtain” has descended across the continent. Behind that line lie all the capitals of the ancient states of Central and Eastern Europe. Warsaw, Berlin, Prague, Vienna, Budapest, Belgrade, Bucharest and Sofia; all these famous cities and the populations around them lie in what I must call the Soviet sphere, and all are subject, in one form or another, not only to Soviet influence but to a very high and in some cases increasing measure of control from Moscow.”

Although the term ‘iron curtain’ predates Cold War usage to describe various barriers political or otherwise, what is not commonly known is that Churchill likely appropriated the term from its originator, none other than the German Minister of Propaganda Joseph Goebbels himself, who used it in reference to the Soviet Union. In February 1945, he wrote in Das Reich newspaper:

“If the German people lay down their weapons, the Soviets, according to the agreement between Roosevelt, Churchill, and Stalin, would occupy all of East and Southeast Europe along with the greater part of the Reich. An iron curtain would fall over this enormous territory controlled by the Soviet Union, behind which nations would be slaughtered.”

The ‘Nazi megaphone’ himself may have gotten the term from the Wehrmacht propaganda publication Signal which in 1943 published an article entitled “Behind the Iron Curtain” that described:

“He who has listened in on the interrogation of a Soviet prisoner of war knows that once the dam is broken, a flood of words begins as he tries to make clear what he experienced behind the mysterious iron curtain, which more than ever separates the world from the Soviet Union.”

Is it any wonder that British newspaper The Guardian is now illustrating cartoons in its anti-Russia propaganda today that imitate Goebbels’ anti-Soviet posters during WWII?

Although Stalin was unaware of Churchill’s lifting of Nazi phraseology, he still detected the resemblance between Western and Third Reich policies toward the Soviet Union in the Fulton speech during an interview with Pravda:

“A point to be noted is that in this respect Mr. Churchill and his friends bear a striking resemblance to Hitler and his friends. Hitler began his work of unleashing war by proclaiming a race theory, declaring that only German-speaking people constituted a superior nation. Mr. Churchill sets out to unleash war with a race theory, asserting that only English-speaking nations are superior nations, who are called upon to decide the destinies of the entire world. The German race theory led Hitler and his friends to the conclusion that the Germans, as the only superior nation, should rule over other nations. The English race theory leads Mr. Churchill and his friends to the conclusion that the English-speaking nations, as the only superior nations, should rule over the rest of the nations of the world. Actually, Mr. Churchill, and his friends in Britain and the United States, present to the non-English speaking nations something in the nature of an ultimatum: “Accept our rule voluntarily, and then all will be well; otherwise war is inevitable.” But the nations shed their blood in the course of five years’ fierce war for the sake of the liberty and independence of their countries, and not in order to exchange the domination of the Hitlers for the domination of the Churchills. It is quite probable, accordingly, that the non-English-speaking nations, which constitute the vast majority of the population of the world, will not agree to submit to a new slavery.”

It is easy to see the parallels between Stalin’s explanation for the geopolitical tensions underlying the Cold War and Edward Said’s postcolonial theory. From a Marxist perspective, one of Said’s shortcomings was a reductionism in understanding empire to cultural supremacy, one of the reasons he unfortunately conflated Marxism with Orientalism as well. When it came to the Cold War, Said also demonstrated a lack of understanding of internationalism. He wrote:

“By the time of the Bandung Conference in 1955, the entire Orient had gained its independence from the Western empires and gained a new configuration of imperial powers, the United States and the Soviet Union. Unable to recognize “its” Orient in the new Third World, Orientalism now faced a challenging and politically armed Orient.”

Yet who foremost ‘armed’ the movements of national liberation? The USSR, including support for the Palestinians during most of its history. Nevertheless, Stalin’s description of the West’s prerogative for post-war hegemony based on the belief in its primacy has many overlaps with the idea that the Occident exercised patronizing dominance over the East. Today, even though the Berlin Wall has long since fallen and Eastern Europe is under free enterprise, the political establishment in the West is still clinging to this attitude and misunderstanding of Moscow to fulfill its need for an permanent global nemesis with a desire to eventually colonize Russia with foreign capital as it did under Boris Yeltsin.

Russia has historically possessed a unique and ambivalent identity located between the East and West, having been invaded by both European and Asian empires in previous centuries. Said included Russia in Orientalism in his analysis of European countries and their attitude toward the East, but did not note that Russia is in many respects the Orient within the Occident, as more than 75% of its territory as the largest nation in the world is actually located in Asia while three quarters of its population live on the European side. Russia may be partly European, but it is certainly not Western. Then again, Europe is not a continent unto itself but geographically connected to Asia with the arbitrary division between them based on cultural differences, not landmass, where Russia is an intermediate. Expansionism under Peter the Great may have brought Western European ‘cultural values’ and modernization to Russia, but the majority of its territory itself remains in Asia.

Even after the presumed end of the Cold War, Russia has been excluded from the European Union and instead joined the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), while developing strong ties with China. As recentlydisclosed documents from the National Security Archive prove, NATO has broken its promise to Mikhail Gorbachev during the George H.W. Bush administration that it not expand eastward following Germany’s enrollment. It has since added 13 countries since 1999, 10 of which were former Warsaw Pact states. Russia’s alliance with China has been solidified precisely because it is still not treated in the same regard as other European nations even after the adoption of a private sector economy. In order to justify its continued armament and avoid obsolescence, NATO has manufactured an adversarial relationship with Moscow.

Contrary to the widespread perception of his rhetoric, in terms of policy-making President Trump has been equally as hostile to Moscow as his predecessors, if not more so in light of the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF). What the usual suspects behind the attempted soft-coup against him fail to understand is that Trump’s tact toward Putin is more likely an inverted version of the ‘only Nixon could go to China’ strategy, an unexpected style of diplomacy based on the pragmatic objective of containing Beijing by dividing America’s two primary foes. The liberals still in denial about their election defeat continue to underestimate Trump, but the Chinese are not fooled. The architect behind Nixon’s détente with Mao, Henry Kissinger, is even believed to have encouraged Trump to ease tensions with Moscow in order to quarantine China and don’t think they haven’t noticed. Ultimately, the divide between Trump and his enemies in the establishment is really a disagreement over strategy in how to surround China and prevent the inevitable downfall of the U.S. empire.

The ongoing demonization of Moscow is ultimately about China as well. It was only a matter of time until the uncertain allegations of election interference were also leveled against Beijing without proof as a Joint Statement from the U.S. intelligence agencies recently showed.

Make no mistake — underneath the West’s Russophobia lies Sinophobia and as Washington’s real geopolitical challenger, China will in due course emerge as the preferred bogeyman. The bipartisan hawkishness has created an environment where rapprochement and diplomacy of any kind is seen as weakness and even a sign of treason, making the prospect of peace seemingly impossible. As China continues to grow, it will find itself more squarely in the crosshairs of imperialism, regardless of whether Trump’s strategy to renew relations with Moscow against Beijing is successful. Until then cooler heads at the highest levels of government must prevail as they thankfully did at the height of the first Cold War for the sake of peace between Russia, the U.S. and the entire world.

*

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

Featured image is from the author

Forward by Richard Galustian 

Carla Ortiz is one of the most unique people of our times, a real hero; a woman who is braver than the most seasoned war reporter. She has spent considerable time in the Syrian war zones where the fighting between the Syrian Army and Al Qaeda and its affiliates was at its most bloody and intense, especially in and around Aleppo.; a city where for centuries Christians, though dominant in the area nevertheless, lived as one community with Muslims.

Quoting from a Reuters article written in July 2017 mostly describing the world renowned famous Baron Hotel, located in West Aleppo, where some of the most famous people of the 20th Century including T.E.Lawrence and Agatha Christie, were frequent visitors.

Again quoting from the Reuters article

“In the upstairs room she (Christie) always stayed during her frequent stays to Aleppo stands the glass-topped wooden desk where she wrote part of Murder on the Orient Express.”

The excellent Reuters piece, written by Angus McDowall, gives background and texture of Syrian history describing a country that once was, while explaining the symbolic significance of that County’s most famous hotel.

“Founded by an Armenian family in 1911, The Baron played host to adventurers, writers, Kings, aviators, Bedouin chiefs and presidents, actors, etc until war forced it to close five years ago.

In its heyday,

“The Baron was part of a Syria that valued religious and ethnic diversity, openness to the outside world, culture and respect for the country’s great antiquities.” said Mrs. Mazloumian.

Roubina Tashjian Mazloumian, the 68 year old widow of Armen Mazloumian, the grandson of the hotel’s founder, who died in 2016 said further:

“Syria was the most comfortable, the most secular country in the Arab world,” adding “It was even embarrassing if people asked if you were a Christian or a Muslim.” such was the harmonious relationship that existed between Christian and Muslims communities, not just in Syria but throughput the Middle East in a world before Al Qaeda and ISIS.

“During the fighting, the hotel took in refugee families” till it finally closed for good.

The Baron symbolised what was great about this secular and beautiful Country. The building inevitably has sustained some war related damage but is still standing.

The below is an interview given by Carla Ortiz to THE SYRIA TIMES, but I particularly urge you to watch her films and videos on Syria most can be found on her Facebook page and/or on YouTube.

She is in the process of completing the editing of a new film which is much awaited by all those interested in Syria’s fate. It is expected for general release this Spring/Summer, 2019.

Richard C. Galustian, March 6, 2019

The below extract from one of her first films from Syrian front lines is a perfect introduction to readers (plus an article by her given to Global Research) of her outstanding work.

***

Carla Ortiz interviewed By Syria Times:

Syria is truly a country of love and peace

Over the past three years, she has fully dedicated her life to help end the war and lift sanctions on the Syrian people, and her big final plan is to release this year her film “Voice Of Syria” that has become the most beautiful journey of her life.

Carla Ortiz, the Bolivian actress and activist, who has made more than 10 trips to what she described as her second country [Syria] and has been on the ground in 80% of the country in ‘rebel’ and government areas, feels responsibility to pass the message that Syria is truly a country of love and peace.

“I have been coming to Syria my second country since the beginning of 2016. I have made several trips (more than 10). I have been on the ground in 80% of the country in ”rebel” and government areas.

This is why I know what Syrians want. I have been documenting for 3 years the “Voice of Syria” a documentary film that has become the most beautiful journey of my life. I have fallen in Love with Syria, with Syrians and their resilience. I never seen anything like that,” she told the Syria Times newspaper, hoping that her documentary film can be an instrument of peace and part of the reconstruction of Syria.

Ortiz has participated last October in a three-day activity held at Liberty University on peace talks and end of intervention in Syria.

“We had a beautiful intense 3 day back to back classes for students of foreign policy, law making and social studies with Senator Richard Black for US congress and Reuben Egolf from US Global Leadership Council. We gave them an overall on Syria we talked about the Assyrians and the original Christians in the Middle East. It was inspiring to see the American young Christians connect to the roots of Aramaic and the beginning of world civilization in Christianity and Islam,” she said.

The speakers in the activity explained the conflict in Syria and the war of 8 years along with the interest of all nations involved in the conflict. “The outcome was just incredible. They were really touched and you could honestly see the interest of the institution, professors and students to pursue conversations of peace and end of intervention in Syria. Some decided to start some new movements to support specific themes in Syria.”

Constructive dialogues

Another activity was held in Washington DC at the National Press Club with the participation of 30 journalists and it was something amazing, according to the actress, who told us what happened there.

“We were not allowed to present any audiovisual material. So it was an actual conversation. Many of them have worked in the Pentagon or Capitol Hill. Many of them understood the war very clearly. Others did not agree with all that was exposed, but it was an exchange of ideas and actions that can truly help inform better about Syria,” Ortiz clarified.

She underscored the need to talk to the people that are misinformed or the ones that have only one side of the story.

“If we don’t open constructive dialogues, we will never find real solutions….Syrians are doing a great job themselves but the international community must help lift the sanctions… All the journalists that night understood the urgency of this matter. So, I considered it a total success!”

Asked about the impression she got during her recent visit to Syria, Ortiz replied: “I am always amazed to see how fast Syrians rebuild their lives…I’ve been in Aleppo several times…. I went this November last and I had tears in my eyes of the emotion to see the Aleppians [Aleppo citizens] so stablished. Many businessmen are back investing in their country, people rebuilding the roads, opening stores, schools, restaurants and hotels are functioning again…The same goes to Damascus, Homs and other cities. But I have to say that I was mostly impressed with Aleppo because I was there in November 2016 during the battle and makes my heart warm to see so alive again.”

Add to that, she was impressed with the amount of Women soldiers volunteering.

“In several occasions when I was going to the frontlines, Syrian soldiers were the ones protecting me or any other journalist that was traveling along. What can I say about them? Many of them are the youth and people of Syria and they are sacrificing their lives to save their families from the result of this unjust war that left terror no one in the world would like to have at home,” Ortiz said.

She has taken paintings with her from Syria and she intends to make an exhibition soon.

“US Customs had detained my shipment for over a year. So, for things like this I need to have patience. We are also working with other projects to bring musicians and artists to Damascus and Palmyra. We, for instance, we had a gorgeous talk in Lericci Italy with Katharine Cooper, a South African Photographer and Syrian conductor Ms. Baghboudarian, the maestro of the National Orchestra in Damascus, about diplomacy and art. It was so special to talk to other artists. There were journalist from mainstream media and they had to listen to us.”

Here is the link:

Ortiz concluded by saying: “Just that I am proud of Syrians. I am seeing that reconciliation is happening. Very soon it will be 2 million people that have retuned home. It is beautiful to see my friends from all sides coming along to their beautiful Syria. It is only YOU Syrians that can rebuild your amazing country. So I say thank you to every Syrian I have ever cross paths with! you have given me the most incredible type of love I have ever received form the people! Thank you for feeding me and for protecting me as family! I love you.”

 See also:

Video: The War on Terror is a Fraud. “Syrians Do Not Wish to Live Beneath the Tyranny of Western-supported Terrorists”

By Mark Taliano and Carla Ortiz, May 24, 2018

*

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

Shortly before violent protests broke out in the oil-producing city of Basra in Iraq, British government representatives visited an oilfield partially operated by BP, and praised the company’s “impressive” social and environmental performance. Campaigners have criticised the visits for prioritising BP’s interests over those of local Iraqis.

According to documents seen by DeSmog, released in response to a Freedom of Information request from campaign group Culture Unstained, the British ambassador to Iraq, Jon Wilks, met with BP and Iraq’s Department for International Trade on 9 April 2018. The meeting took place at the Rumaila Oilfield, which is being developed by BP.

A summary of the event, sent to Wilks in the following week, states:

“Broadly on the oil and gas companies we visited it was impressive hearing about their social outreach and the work they are doing to employ and professionalise local Iraqis – including a focus on those who lived in close proximity to the oil fields. [REDACT]”

The work of British companies was clearly having an impact on Basrawis, particularly the gas capturing which was improving the air pollution and increasing electricity coverage. [REDACT]”

Following the visit, Ambassador Wilks himself tweeted that he had

“Toured the Rumeila [sic] oil field and saw for myself the huge commitment and success of BP, one of Iraq’s main oil operating partners. Some of the infrastructure dates back to the 1950s, but it is being upgraded even as production expands across the field.”

Unrest

The praise of BP’s work came at a time of severe discontent among local Iraqis.

Around three months after the ambassador’s visit, citizens of Basra took to the streets to protest lack of basic public services in the region, including polluted water, electricity shortages and unemployment. The unrest resulted in the deaths of several protesters.

While the government praised BP’s production expansion and social and environmental conduct, it appears not to have engaged with this nascent unrest: The Foreign Office denied holding any records relating directly to the protests.

In a response to DeSmog UK, the Foreign Office said:

The comments the Ambassador made were in relation to BP and the good work they are doing to provide jobs and training for Iraqis, and help local communities.”

We regularly engage with the Government of Iraq on the importance of addressing water, electricity, public services and job needs for the people of Basra.”

BP said it couldn’t respond as it wasn’t aware of the comments in question.

Serving Companies

In another email, the ambassador was told that the visit to British companies in Basra would be “an opportunity for us to understand their key concerns and demonstrate HMG [Her Majesty’s Government] support for these companies.”

BP is not the only oil company operating in the Basra region of Iraq. Lukoil and Exxon Mobil also operate major oilfields in the area, although Rumaila is the biggest.

In this region of Iraq, the wealth of the oil industry is in sharp contrast to the struggles of daily life in Basra. Protesters told media outlets at the time that they felt neglected as the money made by oil executives failed to trickle down into their own pockets, and higher paying jobs went to foreign workers.

Extreme health and energy-poverty conditions have worsened as the activities of BP and other companies have expanded and as oil production and exports increased,” according to Iraqi economist Kamil Mahdi, in a briefing including Culture Unstained.

It is not good enough for these companies to claim they are not directly responsible for the outcome,” he said.

A fact-finding mission by the Iraqi Civil Society Solidarity Initiative NGO found that the water in Basra was not safe for human consumption, due to the disposal of industrial and petrochemical waste, either from Iran or inside Basra.

Chris Garrard, co-director of Culture Unstained, criticised the Embassy’s friendly approach towards BP’s operations in Iraq.

They pretty much give the impression that they understand their role is there to service the interests of the oil companies … whereas ideally they should be taking a much more critical approach, and also seeking to understand what civil society groups on the ground feel about those companies,” he told DeSmog.

He also questioned the need for redactions that appear throughout the released documents, including those made to protect the commercial interests of BP.

In a letter accompanying the documents, the FCO justified the redactions on the grounds that:

Failure to protect such commercially sensitive information would limit the sources of information and interlocutors available to the FCO and limit the FCO’s ability to promote the British economy and lobby for the interests of British businesses overseas.”

*

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

Featured image: Fire at Rumaila oilfield. Credit: Wikimedia/Public Domain

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on BP’s Iraq Operations Praised by British Ambassador Prior to Fatal Basra Civil Unrest
  • Tags: , ,

Ministry of Defence refuses to answer MEE’s questions about what its personnel were doing and what they saw at height of torture scandal in US-run Baghdad prison

***

Britain’s defence ministry covertly deployed a team of interrogators to Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib prison at the height of the scandal over the torture and humiliation of inmates, a parliamentary oversight body has found.

The operation remained hidden for years until documentary evidence was discovered during an investigation into Britain’s involvement in the CIA’s rendition programme and the mistreatment of detainees.

The UK’s Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) last year produced a damning report which showed that British intelligence agencies had been involved in more than 50 rendition operations and that they had supplied questions to be put to detainees whom they knew or suspected were being mistreated on at least 560 occasions.

Despite the ISC’s discovery of the secret Abu Ghraib operation, the UK’s Ministry of Defence (MoD) is refusing to say what its interrogators were doing at the prison, what they reported and how the government responded.

Commenting to Middle East Eye in response to a list of questions raised in connection with this article, the MoD also inaccurately said that its interrogators were not based at the prison while it was under US control.

MEE asked the MoD for further clarification, pointing out that the prison had been under US control for several months by the time the British interrogators arrived, but did not receive any further response.

The questions from MEE that the MoD is refusing to answer include:

  • What were the interrogators doing at Abu Ghraib?

  • What did they report to their superiors about the conditions in which prisoners were being held and treated?

  • How did the MoD respond?

  • Were government ministers informed?

The refusals appear likely to fuel demands by British members of parliament (MPs) for a judge-led inquiry to be established to discover more about political responsibility for the human rights abuses that the ISC has unearthed.

Last week MEE reported that several senior MPs were keen to press the government for a new inquiry into rendition, but that they are waiting until the political chaos surrounding Brexit – the UK’s departure from the European Union – has died down.

Amnesty and Red Cross warnings

Three interrogators were deployed to Abu Ghraib from January to April 2004, at a time when the prison held 6,000 inmates. This was some time after the first signs that prisoners were being abused had come to light.

Seven months earlier, Amnesty International had warned publicly that prisoners were being shot by US troops while protesting against indefinite detention at Abu Ghraib, and three months earlier the International Committee of the Red Cross had witnessed the mistreatment of inmates during a visit to the prison.

No attempt appears to have been made to conceal the abuses from the visiting Red Cross inspectors. The organisation’s report – which was subsequently leaked – said that “during the visit, ICRC delegates directly witnessed and documented a variety of methods used to secure the cooperation of the persons deprived of their liberty with their interrogators”.

These included keeping prisoners naked in dark, bare cells for days at a time, forcing men to wear women’s underwear, tightly binding inmates’ wrists, issuing threats and insults, and sleep deprivation caused by loud music and bright lights.

“Some persons deprived of their liberty presented physical marks and psychological symptoms,” the report said.

This report was passed to the British government in February 2004, shortly after the MoD’s interrogators arrived at Abu Ghraib and two months before they were withdrawn.

The following month, 16 US soldiers were charged over their role in the abuses, and in April 2004 photographs that showed the abuse of prisoners appeared for the first time on CBS television in the US.

It is around this point that the British interrogators appear to have been withdrawn.

‘Exploiting detainees for intelligence’

The ISC found that Abu Ghraib was just one of several prison where British interrogators and MoD civilian staff were operating following 9/11 and the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

It found that the MoD deployed 28 people to the prison at Bagram airbase north of Kabul between December 2001 and July 2002.

This is a period when it is now known that many inmates were being tortured. The ISC found evidence that at least 11 of these UK personnel “were engaged in exploiting US detainees for intelligence”.

From March 2003 until late 2004, three MoD personnel were based at the US-run prison at Balad airfield north of Baghdad.

The committee found that they were withdrawn because of the “inadequate holding facilities for detainees”.

Visiting British special forces officers told journalists that they had complained that inmates at Balad were being held in dog kennels.

While the ISC discovered that the UK was deeply involved in human rights abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan, the committee’s members believe that the country’s intelligence agencies are currently anxious to avoid becoming mired in such crimes in the future.

Privately, however, a number of members of the committee have expressed concern that British military interrogators appear less concerned about their involvement in the abuse of detainees.

In 2017, a report by the UK parliament’s defence committee found that British military interrogators had abused their prisoners in Iraq as a consequence of the training they had received, which “may have placed them, unwittingly, at risk of breaking the Geneva Conventions in their work”.

Although the defence committee described this as “a failing of the highest order”, its report focused on a flawed criminal investigation into the abuses, rather than the training regime that resulted in those abuses being committed.

*

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

Featured image: This handout photo from SBS TV received 15 February, 2006 shows a hooded prisoner allegedly being tortured at Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail supposely during interrogation by US soldiers in Baghdad in 2004. Australian public broadcaster SBS 15 February released a handful of what it said were previously unpublished photographs of the abuse of prisoners in Iraq’s notorious Abu Ghraib jail by US soldiers. (AFP PHOTO/HO/SBS DATELINE)

Tax havens are locations around the world where wealthy individuals, criminals and terrorists, as well as governments and government agencies (such as the CIA), banks, corporations, hedge funds, international organizations (such as the Vatican) and crime syndicates (such as the Mafia), can stash their money so that they can avoid regulation and oversight and, very often, evade tax. According to Nicholas Shaxson: ‘Tax havens are now at the heart of the global economy.’

Which is why, as he explains it: ‘The term “tax haven” is a bit of a misnomer, because such places aren’t just about tax. What they sell is escape: from the laws, rules and taxes of jurisdictions elsewhere, usually with secrecy as their prime offering.’ See ‘The tax haven in the heart of Britain’. A tax haven (or ‘secrecy jurisdiction’) then is a ‘place that seeks to attract business by offering politically stable facilities to help people or entities get around the rules, laws and regulations of jurisdictions elsewhere’. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

Tax havens are a vitally important part of the global infrastructure of corruption and criminality – see ‘Giant Leak of Offshore Financial Records Exposes Global Array of Crime and Corruption’– that enables privileged individuals and their organizations to legally and illegally steal money from the rest of us, particularly those in developing countries, and to have the services of a vast network of accountants, bankers, lawyers and politicians (often from captured legislatures) to help them do it, and to ensure that they get away with it.

How many tax havens are there? Where are they? How much money do they have? Who uses them? Why? How do they work? Why does all this matter to us? And what can we do about them?

Tax Havens: how many and where are they?

Treasure Islands: Uncovering the Damage of Offshore Banking and Tax Havens

In his book Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World, author and financial journalist Nicholas Shaxson identified about sixty ‘secrecy jurisdictions’ or ‘offshore groups’ around the world which he divided into four categories, as follows.

The most important category, by far, is those tax havens that form the spider’s network of havens centred on the City of London. It has three main layers: there are two inner rings – Britain’s Crown Dependencies of Jersey, Guernsey (which includes the sub-havens of Sark, Alderney and Brecqhou) and the Isle of Man, and its overseas territories such as the Cayman Islands, Bermuda, the British Virgin Islands and Gibralter – which are substantially controlled by Britain. The third layer is an outer ring with a more diverse array of havens, like Hong Kong, Singapore, the Bahamas, Dubai and Ireland, which are outside Britain’s direct control but have strong historical and current links to that country and the City of London (which I will discuss below). This network controls almost one half of all international bank assets.

The second category of tax havens is those in Europe notably including Switzerland, Luxembourg – see ‘Explore the Documents: Luxembourg Leaks Database’–  the Netherlands, Belgium and Austria, as well as microstates such as Liechtenstein and Monaco. While ‘Geneva bankers had sheltered the secret money of European elites since at least the eighteenth century’, the European havens ‘got going’ during World War I as governments raised taxes sharply to pay for the war.

The third category of tax havens is that focused on the United States. It has three tiers as well. At the federal level, the US government offers a range of tax exemptions, secrecy provisions and laws designed to attract foreign money. This means, for example, that US banks can legally accept proceeds from a range of crimes as long as the crimes are committed overseas. The second tier involves individual US states such as Florida (where Central/South American elites do their banking and the countries adversely impacted are prevented by US secrecy provisions from accessing relevant data, and where much Mob and drugs money is hidden too), Delaware, Nevada and Wyoming, where even terrorist money is protected by secrecy provisions. The third tier of the US network is the overseas satellites such as the American Virgin Islands, the Marshall Islands, Liberia and Panama, with the latter, according to Jeffrey Robinson, being ‘one of the filthiest money laundering sinks in the world’. See The Sink: Terror, Crime and Dirty Money in the Offshore World.

As Shaxson notes: ‘offshore finance has quietly been at the heart of Neoconservative schemes to project US power around the globe for years. Few people have noticed.’

The fourth category of tax havens identified by Shaxson includes those that do not fit in the categories above, such as Somalia and Uganda.

The (incomplete) list of tax havens on the website ‘Tax Havens of the World’ will give you some idea of where these secrecy jurisdictions are located but there are important omissions in this list, notably including the City of London Corporation.

For a brief look at 15 tax havens (again, notably excluding some of the most important) and some of the corporations that use them, see ‘What Are the World’s Best Tax Havens?’

And for a highly instructive and utterly sobering video documentary on British Tax Havens, see ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’. This documentary will inform you, among many more important things, that the building housing Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, the UK tax office, is owned by an offshore company in Bermuda!

To summarize the central aspect of the development of tax havens following World War II: ‘The British Establishment – an old boys network of privileged elites – had carved out a lucrative vehicle for themselves in the offshore world after the demise of Empire. They transformed themselves from administrators of Empire to financial handlers for the global elite and multinational corporations.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Before concluding this section, it is worth emphasizing that, as Shaxson explains it, ‘the offshore world is not a bunch of independent states exercising their sovereign rights to set their laws and tax systems as they see fit. It is a set of networks of influence controlled by the world’s major powers, notably Britain and the United States. Each network is deeply interconnected with the others.’ He goes on: ‘The world’s most important tax havens are not exotic palm-fringed islands, as many people suppose, but some of the world’s most powerful countries.’ Shaxson quotes Marshall Langer, a prominent supporter of secrecy jurisdictions: ‘It does not surprise anyone when I tell them that the most important tax haven in the world is an island. They are surprised,  however, when I tell them that … the island is Manhattan. Moreover, the second most-important tax haven … is located on an island. It is called the City of London.’

The City of London Corporation

What is the City of London Corporation, also known as the ‘Square Mile’? It is ‘a 1.22-square-mile slab of prime central London real estate that stretches from the Thames at Victoria Embankment, clockwise up through Fleet Street, the Barbican Centre, then to Liverpool Street in the north-east, then back down to the Thames just west of the Tower of London.’ See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

According to Shaxson, the City of London Corporation, the ‘modern period’ of which dates from 1067 (yes, that is not a typing error), is ‘the local-government authority for the 1.2-square-mile slab of prime real estate in central London that is the City of London. The corporation is an ancient, semi-alien entity lodged inside the British nation state; a “prehistoric monster which had mysteriously survived into the modern world”, as a 19th-century would-be City reformer put it.’

Importantly, Shaxson explains, ‘the role of the City of London Corporation as a municipal authority is its least important attribute. This is a hugely resourced international offshore lobbying group pushing for international financial deregulation, tax-cutting and tax havenry around the world.’ Moreover, it is ‘the hub of a global network of tax havens sucking up offshore trillions from around the world and sending it, or the business of handling it, to London’. Notably, so powerful is the City of London that no sovereign or government of Britain in a thousand years has had the courage to seriously take it on and attempt to subject it to British government control. See ‘The tax haven in the heart of Britain’.

How much money is in Tax Havens?

So how much of the world’s wealth is stashed in tax havens around the globe? According to the Tax Justice Network in its 2012 report written by James S. Henry ‘The Price of Offshore Revisited: New Estimates for “Missing” Global Private Wealth, Income, Inequality, and Lost Taxes’: ‘A significant fraction of global private financial wealth – by our estimates, at least $21 to $32 trillion as of 2010 – has been invested virtually tax-free through the world’s still-expanding black hole of more than 80 “offshore” secrecy jurisdictions. We believe this range to be conservative…’ He goes on to emphasize that ‘this is just financial wealth. A big share of the real estate, yachts, racehorses, gold bricks – and many other things that count as non-financial wealth – are also owned via offshore structures where it is impossible to identify the owners’.

Henry also notes that given that Credit Suisse estimated global wealth in 2011 at $231 trillion, the amount of money in secrecy jurisdictions is conservatively estimated at 10% of global wealth.

But other figures do indeed suggest this estimate is low. Shaxson cites compelling evidence that ‘More than half of world trade passes, at least on paper, through tax havens. Over half of all banking assets and a third of foreign direct investment by multinational corporations, are routed offshore.’ Moreover, as long ago as 2008, the US Government Accountability Office reported that 83 of the 100 biggest corporations in the USA had subsidiaries in tax havens and the following year, using a broader definition, the Tax Justice Network discovered that ninety-nine of Europe’s hundred largest companies used offshore subsidiaries. And in each country, ‘the largest user by far was a bank’. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

In any case, the most recent estimate by the Tax Justice Network indicates ‘tax losses to profit shifting by multinational companies (a)pplying a methodology developed by researchers at the International Monetary Fund to an improved dataset… of around $500 billion a year’. See ‘New estimates reveal the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals’.

To reiterate then, on the understanding that these estimates are probably quite low, by 2010, between $US21 and $US32 trillion had been taken out of circulation so that it was beyond the laws, financial regulations and taxes that the rest of us cannot escape. But that figure has been added to by half a trillion dollars each year since, by moving more money into tax havens. And don’t forget: this figure does not include non-financial wealth. How many gold bricks, yachts, artworks and racehorses do you own and have stashed away somewhere free of scrutiny?

Who uses Tax Havens? And why?

As I mentioned above, tax havens are used by wealthy individuals (including businesspeople, sports and pop stars), criminals and terrorists, as well as governments (and their agencies), banks, corporations (such as Amazon and Google), international organizations and crime syndicates (such as the Medellin Cartel). While motives vary, in essence the lack of regulation and oversight, as well as tax evasion, are the reasons that individuals and organizations use them.

An individual might want to hide stolen wealth, to evade tax or cheat a divorced spouse out of their share of the family fortune. A bank, corporation, crime syndicate, international or terrorist organization might want to evade scrutiny of the source of their money and/or evade tax on windfall or even ongoing profits (legal and/or otherwise). A government might want to hide the ‘dirty money’ it uses to finance ‘black ops’ (that is, illegal and secret military violence such as that carried out by the CIA). But there are myriad explanations.

In John Christensen’s analysis of over 100 offshore clients of accounting firm Deloitte Touche he studied in Jersey, he found that the clients were engaging in insider trading, market rigging, failure to disclose conflicts of interest, weapons trading, illicit political donations, contract kickbacks, bribery, fraudulent invoicing, trade mispricing and tax evasion. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Most people have heard of the money stashed away by corrupt dictators like Suharto in Indonesia, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines and Mobuto Sese Seko of Zaire (now Democratic Republic of the Congo) each of whom stole from the people of their country. However, they could only do this with the help of western enablers and ongoing elite resistance to developing country attempts to create a more transparent and fairer process for collecting tax on cross-border financial flows. As a result, Alex Cobham of the Tax Justice Network observes, worldwide, developing nations lose in excess of $1trillion per year in ‘capital flight’ and tax evasion to wealthy countries. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

But these more public examples, while terrible, tend to obscure two important facts. The amount stolen from sub-Saharan Africans, for example, between 1970 and 2008 was at least five times the total amount of their foreign debt during that period – see ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’ – and, by highlighting these examples, attention is drawn away from even worse and ongoing examples of such criminality by those corrupt/criminal individuals and organizations (including banks, accountancy and legal firms, corporations, international organizations, crime syndicates and governments) committed to using outright theft, fraud, money laundering and other devices to steal wealth from ordinary people all over the world.

So, for example, if one follows the money trails of various lucrative financial operations, some technically legal but immoral and others simply illegal, apart from the world’s major corporations, one quickly comes across the names of the major (and well known) banks and financial institutions (such as the Bank of England, Barclays, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase…), the ‘big four’ accountancy firms (Deloitte, Ernst & Young (EY), KPMG and PricewaterhouseCoopers), and elite lawyers (such as those in London’s ‘Magic Circle’, like Clifford Chance, Mourant du Feu & Jeune, and Slaughter and May). See, for example, Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World‘New estimates reveal the extent of tax avoidance by multinationals’ and ‘Looting with Putin’.

Apparently, like major corporations and crime syndicates, few banks, accountancy firms and lawyers have ethics policies that require them to follow the law and to exercise ‘due diligence’ (check out a client before signing a contract) so that they can steer clear of handling illegal and immoral profits, especially if they are monstrous.

In fact, according to a US Senate report, ‘virtually every major bank in the world – especially the biggest in North America and Europe – holds accounts for offshore banks and/or banks in suspect jurisdictions’. See The Sink: Terror, Crime and Dirty Money in the Offshore World.

As Eva Joly MEP, vice-chair of the Panama Papers Committee of the European Parliament, succinctly puts it: ‘Ordinary people are paying taxes. Rich people are not.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

The Vatican

Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA, and the Mafia

But perhaps the example which best illustrates the moral depravity of those who use tax havens is the Vatican. In his carefully researched book Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia author Paul L. Williams recounts the efforts of the CIA, former Nazis, the Sicilian/American Mafia, the Vatican and even Freemasonry to resist an anticipated postwar invasion of western Europe by those ‘Godless communists’ in the Soviet Union by establishing ‘stay-behind units’ (clandestine military and paramilitary units) throughout the countries of Europe (Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal…) led by former Nazis and composed of ‘die-hard fascist fanatics’.

This alliance to fight the Cold War against the former Soviet Union and the rising tide of progressive governments in Europe and the rest of the world, particularly as the US war on Vietnam gathered pace, led, as Williams chillingly puts it, to ‘the toppling of governments, wholesale slaughter and financial devastation’ around the world. It was also, of course, the forerunner to its equivalent – Operation Condor – to resist, and destroy if possible, the spread of progressive movements, ranging from communism to liberation theology, throughout Central/South America.

With the CIA providing services, such as the transport of Mafia/Medellin cocaine to drug dealers in the US, its share of the drug profits (cycled through its own CIA-controlled banks including Bank of Credit and Commerce International but eventually involving many of the most prestigious banks in the US, as the money was passed to the Vatican Bank) were used to finance key aspects of Operations Gladio and Condor with weapons also supplied by the CIA from NATO arsenals. But there was plenty of Vatican money in these Operations too.

As an aside, so devastating was the fallout from the ongoing exposure of the many aspects of Vatican corruption that, by the beginning of the twenty-first century, Roman Catholic membership was falling by 400,000 per year in the USA alone but the trend was even stronger in Europe with ‘magnificent churches and cathedrals’ becoming museums visited solely by tourists, parishes being boarded up, seminaries and convents closed, and parochial schools consolidated. And this was before the ‘plague of pedophilia’ had fully hit further decimating the Church’s tattered reputation. To this day, the Vatican Bank remains ‘one of the world’s leading laundries for dirty money’. See Operation Gladio: The Unholy Alliance between the Vatican, the CIA and the Mafia.

How do Tax Havens work?

Each tax haven offers its own unique combination of services. After all, it is a tough market competing for the world’s wealth and so each jurisdiction has developed its own set of services designed to maximize its attractiveness to potential clients. In essence, this means that there is some ongoing ‘competition’ to reduce regulatory and oversight requirements so that each tax haven can attract clientele. This has become so extreme that basic requirements of banking for those who do it legally, such as proof of identity, are not required in the offshore world. In fact, even your true name can be withheld if you wish. It is easier to avoid any risk of embarrassment from exposure this way.

As a result, virtually any jurisdiction will open an account (or as many accounts as you want) in whatever names you specify. Then, usually employing a variety of devices, ranging from secret bank accounts, nominee directors (usually locals who play no part in the organization bar give it their name) and structures such as shell companies (that exist on paper and perhaps a wall plaque somewhere, but nothing else) and trusts (which, unlike the legitimate version, appear to separate responsibility and control from the benefits of ownership but actually do not), to processes such as transfer pricing (a technique by which companies ‘shift paper profits into low-tax countries and costs into high-tax countries’ to minimize – or eliminate – tax payments) and often employing a convoluted process that rapidly shifts monies through several jurisdictions so that it becomes ‘untraceable’ (because authorities must get permission to access each jurisdiction in turn in any effort to trace the money), profits are effectively hidden and any accountability to authorities of any kind utterly eliminated. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

For one simple example of such a strategy, employing a technique known as the ‘double Irish, Dutch sandwich’ (which is legal), see Google shifted $23bn to tax haven Bermuda in 2017, filing shows. But you can read other examples here: ‘The tech giants will never pay their fair share of taxes – unless we make them’ and ‘7 Corporate Giants Accused of Evading Billions in Taxes’.

Why does the existence of Tax Havens matter to us?

Well, the simple answer to this question is that just a fraction of the money hidden in tax havens would feed, clothe, house and provide clean water, medical care and educational opportunities to everyone on Earth. It would eliminate the 100,000 deaths by starvation-related diseases each day. It would eliminate poverty and homelessness. And, as one byproduct of having these material needs met, it would facilitate the emergence of an informed, engaged and empowered human population to tackle the vast range of environmental, climate and military threats that currently threaten biosphere collapse and imminent human extinction. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

As Professor Prem Sikka puts it more simply: Because of the penetration by financial services executives of the British state, including the Treasury ‘It deprives people of opportunities to have healthcare, education, security, justice and, ultimately, a fulfilling life.’ See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Fundamentally, then, tax havens and their secrecy are at the heart of those elite institutions and processes that functionally undermine democracy and give extraordinary power to certain anonymous individuals and their entities without accountability. See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Of course, the elites that control the tax haven networks are not about to let this change. Tax havens are simply too important as part of the global infrastructure for maintaining elite profit, power and privilege and for resisting grassroots efforts to bring peace, justice and ecological sanity to our world. And that is why they are protected by government legislation and legal systems, with an ‘army’ of accountants, auditors, bankers, businesspeople, lawyers and politicians ensuring that they remain protected.

So don’t forget: laws are designed to control and punish you, no matter how trivial your infringement: a parking fine, a littering offence, a petty theft. But if you have enough money, the law simply does not exist. And you can evade taxes legally and in the full knowledge that your vast profits (even from immorally-acquired wealth such as sex trafficking, gun-running, endangered species trafficking, conflict diamonds and drug trafficking) are ‘lawful’ and will escape regulation and oversight of any kind. See ‘The Rule of Law: Unjust and Violent’.

Let me give a personal example. I have been a war tax resister since 1983: I have a conscientious objection to paying taxes to the Australian government to deploy military forces in other countries to kill people in my name. So, instead of paying taxes to kill, for many years I donated the equivalent amount to organizations engaged in peace, development, environment and human rights work, and to ‘pay the rent’ for my use of indigenous land. As some of many outcomes to this conscientious and highly public resistance (garnering national media attention at times), in 1991 I was bankrupted, in 1992 I was convicted of contempt of court (for my conscientious refusal to cooperate with the bankruptcy trustee) and in 1993 my passport was seized. In 1999, I was advised that I will be ‘bankrupt forever’ because of my ongoing conscientious refusal to finance the killing.

In the same period, since 1983, trillions and trillions of dollars of tax have been illegally and secretly evaded as wealthy individuals and corporations, criminals and crime syndicates, international organizations and governments channel their incomes and profits through tax havens. Laws and legal systems throughout the world make this possible and, provided it is done correctly, it is quite straightforward to avoid any penalties for secretly evading payment of taxes or hiding money acquired through criminal activity. But the point, as you can see, is that tax evasion by wealthy individuals and corporations meant that many of these individuals and corporations didn’t pay taxes to kill people either. They just didn’t pay taxes at all.

O f course, their motive was personal gain, their way was legal, they incurred no penalty and, of course, they didn’t pay an equivalent amount to support peace and justice causes. More fundamentally, however, the trillions of dollars they took from the global economy were made by killing and exploiting people and the planet in a significant variety of other ways, ranging from sex trafficking, gun-running, conflict diamonds and trafficking in drugs and endangered species, to simply starving people to death at the rate of 100,000 people each day by managing the global economy, using tax havens as a primary tool, to extract maximum profit.

Richard Brooks documents how this legal exploitation occurs in another way in his book The Great Tax Robbery: How Britain Became a Tax Haven for Fat Cats and Big Business. The vast tax evasion by elites in Britain, including by diverting funds through tax havens, attracts just five prosecutions each year per £1 billion of evasion of direct taxes. In contrast, benefits fraud by those on unemployment and disability pensions attract 9,000 prosecutions each year per £1 billion of fraud. ‘So theft by the poor warrants the full force of the law’. But not theft by elites who write the law and largely control the political and legal processes in relation to it.

Hence, under the guise of ‘relationship taxing’ (that is, building a relationship between tax authorities and corporate executives and ‘tailoring’ tax payments to corporate wishes to the extent the law allows), corporations have long known that ‘If you don’t like the law… we’ll see what we can do’.

As is obvious from this example, attempts at government reform, including to defeat tax havens, in the direction of making elites financially and legally accountable, both nationally and internationally, for the responsibilities which the rest of us cannot escape, are invariably for show and, in any case, achieve zero of substance. For example, the attempt to ‘approve’ a blacklist of tax havens at the G20 gathering in 2009 was resisted by the Chinese premier on behalf of Chinese elites who, like other national elites keen to have political control but ‘judicial separation’ from their offshore centres, opposed the listing of notorious havens Hong Kong and Macau: see Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World. The global elite is clearly in control with national governments and international organizations powerlessly doing as instructed. So complete is this control, in fact, that Brooks notes that, in Britain, ‘Anti-tax avoidance laws had to be relaxed to accommodate companies’ tax avoidance schemes.’

Brooks concludes that ‘British taxation policy really had been so comprehensively captured by the world’s biggest corporations that screw-the-poor policies… could be written into the statute books at their whim, without a pang of conscience being felt anywhere in Whitehall.’ Clearly, however, his comment can be applied to virtually any government in the world.

So does it matter to you that these tax havens exist and do what they do?

What can be done about Tax Havens?

Authors such as Nicholas Shaxson and Richard Brooks suggest a raft of measures to correct the large number of ‘faults’ that facilitate the secrecy, protection from regulation and tax evasion that individuals, corporations, organizations, criminals and terrorists utilize in tax havens.

For Shaxson, these include financial reforms such as ‘blacklisting’ of tax havens so that their rogue state status is public knowledge;

  • greater transparency, for example, through government sharing of information about the local income and assets of each other’s citizens and by requiring multinational corporate activities in each country to be made visible (rather than hidden behind ‘international’ figures);
  • promoting the needs of developing countries which need their tax bases protected far more than they need aid or debt relief; confronting the British ‘spider’s web’ of tax havens by abolishing the City of London Corporation and submerging it into a unified and fully democratic London;
  • taxing an entire multinational ‘group’ as a single unit and then allocating the appropriate amounts of its income out to the different jurisdictions in which it was earned and allow it to be taxed as each jurisdiction decides;
  • onshore tax reform such as a land value tax (because land cannot be moved offshore and so tax on it must be paid locally), and by a direct distribution of mineral wealth in any country to each of its inhabitants (who can then be taxed);
  • tackling the ‘enablers’ – the accountants, lawyers, individual bankers, businesspeople – and not just the clients, so that they go to jail;
  • rethinking the meaning of ‘corporate responsibility’ (because corporations are given a wealth of capital in public infrastructure, an educated and healthy workforce… with which to work) so that corporations are transparent about their affairs and pay tax as part of their corporate responsibility;
  • re-evaluating the meaning of corruption – insiders abusing the common good in secrecy and getting away with it and so worsening inequality and entrenching vested interests and unaccountable power – so that we see, more clearly, all of the actors and their activities; and changing the culture that fawns over people who abuse the system for personal gain. See Treasure Islands: Tax Havens and the Men Who Stole the World.

And some progress appears to be occurring along lines he suggests. For example, a version of automatic information exchange (AIE), by which governments make sure that essential information is made available to other jurisdictions as a matter of routine, has been discussed by the OECD and, while full of loopholes – see ‘Loophole USA: the vortex-shaped hole in global financial transparency’ – some commitments have been made. For the list of commitments as at November 2018, see ‘AEOI commitments’.

However, the USA has not made this commitment and while Switzerland, for example, finds this objectionable – see ‘The U.S. hasn’t signed the AEoI Agreement: Reciprocity demanded’ – the reality is that it makes little difference. For example, ICO Services, which specializes in the formation of offshore companies and offshore banking, will assist you to get around the AEoI requirement. Their website advertises that ‘asset holders need to start looking for alternative jurisdictions for protecting their assets. There are some reputable jurisdictions that are still outside the AEoI  – e.g. Cyprus  –  but U.S. states of Delaware and some others shouldn’t be dismissed.’

But if you want a more established name to help you take advantage of a tax haven in the USA, you really can’t go past Rothschild & Co. So, to check out what they are offering: ‘Here Is Rothschild’s Primer How To Launder Money In U.S. Real Estate And Avoid “Blacklists”’.

Moreover, the AEoI agreement ‘outlaws’ bank secrecybut not trust secrecy(which dates from the Crusades) on which the British model is based – ‘The Trust lies at the core of the British secrecy model’ – so it does not address the cornerstone of British tax haven secrecy and explains why the British were happy to see the Cayman Islands commit to the AEoI. In short: the British government would be happy to kill off bank secrecy so that they can capture a larger market share (based on Trust secrecy). See ‘The Spider’s Web: Britain’s Second Empire’.

Separately from this initiative, in 2018 the UK parliament enacted a new law requiring its overseas territories – including notorious tax havens like Bermuda, the Cayman Islands and the British Virgin Islands – to start disclosing the owners of corporations they register by 2020. In theory: ‘This could shut down a huge amount of offshore tax evasion and other financial crimes because individuals from anywhere in the world, including the United States, have long been able to set up secret corporations in these tax havens to stash their money.’ See ‘New UK Law May Shut Down the Biggest Tax Havens – Aside from the U.S.’

However, while the report pointed out that the new law obviously does not impact the USA (or, of course, Switzerland or …) and the easy rerouting options available if these havens are effectively (or even actually) shut down, it failed to mention that this initiative does not in any way address the City of London Corporation so the impact of this initiative must be very limited unless it is followed by some pretty drastic initiatives in Westminster, Washington, Bern and elsewhere.

In summary, while one cannot disagree with any of Shaxson’s fine suggestions or be displeased that public pressure has led to some effort being made by the OECD and the UK parliament to address elements of the tax haven scourge, the reality is that the extent of the changes necessary are not going to happen without enormous grassroots pressure, strategically applied, and they are very unlikely to happen as reforms of the existing capitalist system.

This is simply because the global elite is solidly in control of the institutions and processes of global capitalism, including its compliant governments and international organizations, and will readily stymie any attempt at serious reform of tax havenry particularly given the number of major reforms needed and the number of nations in which these reforms must be enacted. To state two obvious examples: The City of London Corporation has not existed for 1,000 years because it has no defense. And the changes noted above have only made the US more attractive as a secrecy jurisdiction.

Meanwhile, with the aim of promoting ‘financial innovation’, Switzerland has recently made things easier for smaller financial technology companies thus making tax havenry more attractive to those who might not have otherwise considered it. See ‘Swiss watchdog to propose looser anti-money laundering rules for fintechs’.

So, given that most tax havens are protected by host government legislation and there is no international mechanism to control them, the tax haven industry generally is not under threat of being held to account in any significant way.

And, despite the more elaborate explanation offered above, there is a simple reason for this. Unofficially, of course, illegal money, laundered through tax havens, has become an essential and sometimes stabilizing element of the global financial system. See ‘Drug money saved banks in global crisis, claims UN advisor’.

So what can we do that will make a difference?

Given the deeply entrenched and long-standing nature of this problem, clearly it needs to be addressed at various levels.

Fundamentally, we can nurture our children so that we do not destroy their conscience. See ‘My Promise to Children’. Remember all of those corrupt/criminal accountants, bankers, businesspeople, priests and popes, lawyers and politicians that kept creeping up in the discussion above? The people who maintain the entire infrastructure that allows tax havens to exist and those who manage and profit from it too?

Do they care about you? Do they care about the people in Africa, Asia and Central/South America who starve as a result of the types of policies that allow tax havens to exist and function? Do they care about those driven into poverty and homelessness in modern industrial economies because vast sums are drained out of them and hidden in secrecy jurisdictions? Do they care about the people killed by the military and other violence from which they profit and then hide the proceeds to evade tax? Do they care about the Earth? Fundamentally, do they care about themselves?

Of course not! But this is only because they are extraordinarily psychologically damaged individuals. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’ with a more complete explanation in Why Violence? and Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice.

If we inflict enormous violence on a child throughout their childhood to compel their obedience, how can we expect them to grow up to lead a life of integrity based on their conscience, courage, compassion, empathy and love? Those who use tax havens are truly ‘poor little rich boys’ (and girls). See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’ and ‘Why Set Up a Shell Company in Panama? The Psychology Driving Illicit Financial Flows’.

Beyond tackling the problem at its source however, we can also tackle manifestations of the problem but not by lobbying elites – and their political agents: there are no votes in it, in any case – to control this depravity for which they are well rewarded.

For a start we can boycott all of the major private banks in favor of those smaller or member-owned banks that have a serious commitment to peace, justice and ecological sustainability, or we can seek out equivalent institutions like credit unions. We can also create public banks based on ethical principles. See ‘What are Public Banks and How Do They Operate? An Introduction’.

We can boycott large corporations – like Amazon, Apple, Gap, Google, Ikea, Microsoft and Starbucks – that use tax havens. None of these corporations is a monopoly: there are alternatives which can be investigated and employed, assuming we can’t go without some version of the product or service they offer. Whenever you can, find a locally-owned outlet that offers a local product or service.

We can boycott the Catholic Church. God does not ask that you morally or financially support a corrupt organization that doesn’t understand or represent morality and spirituality. Remember, it was Jesus who threw the moneychangers out of the temple.

If our conscience speaks loudly enough, we can decline employment by any organization that is unethical, such as those that use tax havens.

We can refuse to gamble, refuse to buy the services of a sex worker (who might even be illegally trafficked into the work), refuse to buy the products of endangered species – see, for example, ‘Killing Elephants “for Pet Food” Condemned’– and refuse to use illicit drugs. These products and services are virtually always offered by industries controlled by criminal organizations so by buying them you are only harming yourself and/or other people or species about whom you could choose to exercise a duty of care while also not contributing to the diversion of financial resources into tax havens.

We can encourage unions, with members who work for organizations using tax havens, to take a stand on the issue.

We can support existing organizations that work on the problem, preferably those that offer grassroots alternatives. The Tax Justice Network, an ‘activist think tank’, and its sister organization, the Global Alliance for Tax Justice, campaign for systemic change.

If we are genuinely ambitious, we can develop comprehensive nonviolent strategies to compel particular individuals and organizations to desist from using tax havens or even compel countries to close down tax havens. See Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. This can easily be part of a larger strategy to transform the global economy into one that satisfies human and ecological needs, particularly given the imminence of biosphere collapse, as noted above. See The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth.

If violence and exploitation in all of their guises concern you, consider signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

So here is a final question for you to consider: What might the world look like if all those trillions of dollars were being shared and spent where they are most needed?

*

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

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Elite Banking at Your Expense: How Secretive Tax Havens Are Used to Steal Your Money
  • Tags:

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.

*     *     *

Video: Israel Delivers More Strikes on Syria

By South Front, March 06, 2019

Late on March 3, battle tanks of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) shelled positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near Qars Nafal and Jubata al-Khashab in the province of Quneitra. Local sources said that the Israeli attack did not inflict casualties and revealed that these SAA positions remain empty most of the time.

Eight Venezuela Lies the US Government and the Mainstream Media Want You to Believe

By Makia Freeman, March 06, 2019

The US claims many nations and groups support its efforts to topple Maduro and install Guaido. In reality, these countries are basically vassal states or other nations controlled by the US that don’t want to upset the apple cart. Notice the strategy of the US: try to co-opt the United Nations HRC (Human Right Council) into following US coup efforts, and try to strong-arm groups like the OAS (Organization of American States) and the Lima Group into betraying their brother nation Venezuela.

Washington’s Escalation to Venezuela’s Oil

By Nino Pagliccia, March 06, 2019

A realistic successful military intervention can only take place if the Venezuelan high-ranking officers of the armed forces deserted in mass. This is not likely to happen. However, Venezuela cannot ignore those threats. The US has carried them out irresponsibly in other countries.

Will 5G Cell Phone Technology Lead to Population Reduction as Large Numbers of Men Become Sterile?

By Michael Snyder, March 06, 2019

What’s further disturbing about 5G radiation is how the human body responds to and processes it. Dr. Ben-Ishai from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered as part of a recent investigation that human skin acts as a type of receptor for 5G radiation, drawing it in like an antenna.

The Recolonization of Latin America and the War on Venezuela

By Prof. James Petras, March 06, 2019

US colonization of Latin America was based on direct US military, economic, cultural and political interventions with special emphasis on Central America, North America (Mexico) and the Caribbean. Washington resorted to military invasions, to impose favorite trade and investment advantages and appointed and trained local military forces to uphold colonial rule and to ensure submission to US regional and global supremacy.

Trump Breaks Another Promise: Troops Will Remain in Syria

By Kurt Nimmo, March 06, 2019

This illegality, this violation of international law and the UN Charter (the US signed this document in 1945 with the founding of the UN), represents a cornerstone of US foreign policy. The US has invaded 70 nations, engaged in genocide, economic warfare, and has fomented terror since the founding of the nation.

City of London: The Shocking Study No Mainstream Media Outlet Dared to Publish

By Robert Woodward, March 06, 2019

Each year, the banking and financial services industry in the City of London is sucking out of Britain’s economy the equivalent of 160 per cent of total government spending on all health care including the NHS, or 100 per cent on social protection, which includes that of all pension payments per year, or 700 per cent spent on public order and safety or 230 per cent of spending on education.

*

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

  • Posted in English, NO READ MORE LINK
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: The Recolonization of Latin America and the War on Venezuela

The news is not yet official, but is already being discussed – as from October, the Italian flag will be flying over Camp Darby. Are the United States about to close down the largest arsenal they have in the world outside of their homeland, and return to Italy the approximately 1,000 hectares of territory that they occupy between Pisa and Livorno?

Not at all. They are not in the process of closing down, but restructuring the base in order to be able to store even more weapons, and to increase the liaisons with the port of Livorno and Pisa airport.

In the restructuration, a small portion of the recreation area remained unused – 34 hectares, hardly more than 3 % of the total surface of the Camp. This is what the US Army Europe has decided to give back to Italy, more specifically to the Italian Minister for Defense, in order to use it more productively. So an agreement was drawn up planning for the transfer to this area of the Comando delle Forze Speciali dell’Esercito (COMFOSE) which is presently housed in the Caserne Gamerra in Pisa, headquarters of the Centre for Parachute Training. These are the Forces which are used more and more frequently for secret operations – they infiltrate foreign territory by night, note the targets to be hit, eliminate them with sudden actions by parachuting from planes or jumping from helicopters, then disappear without leaving a trace other than the dead and the destruction.

Italy, which had used these forces especially in Afghanistan, took a decisive step in their potentialisation when, in 2014, it made the COMFOSE operational – it now counts four regiments under a unified command – the 9th assault regiment Col. Moschin and the 185th Folgore regiment for the acquisition of targets, the 28th communications regiment Pavie and the 4th Rangers Parachute regiment.

During the inauguration ceremony in 2014, it was announced that the COMFOSE would maintain a “constant liaison with the US Army Special Operations Command”, the most important US command for special operations, composed of approximately 30,000 specialists employed particularly in the Middle East.

At Camp Darby – as was specified last year by Colonel Erik Berdy, commander of the US Army Italy – joint training operations were already under way with US and Italian soldiers. The transfer of COMFOSE to an area of Camp Darby, which legally belongs to Italy, will enable the complete integration of Italian and US special forces, and their use in secret operations under US command. All of this under cover of military secrecy.

It is therefore difficult not to think about the history of secret operations at Camp Darby – the investigations of judges Casson and Mastelloni revealed that since the 1960’s, Camp Darby has served as a base for the putchist network created by the CIA and by the SIFAR (Intelligence Service of the Italian Armed Forces) in the context of the secret Gladio plan. The USA/NATO bases – wrote Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary President of the Supreme Court of Cassation – supplied the explosives for the massacres of Piazza Fontana, Capaci and Via d’Amelio. In these bases “extreme right-wing terrorists, NATO officers, mafiosi, Italian politicians and Freemasons gathered together  on the eve of the attacks”.

And yet no-one, either in Parliament or the local collectives, worries about the implications of the transfer of Italian special forces, which, inside Camp Darby, will be under US command.

The municipalities of Pisa and Livorno, which passed respectively from Pd to the Lega and M5S, have continued to promote, with the region of Tuscany, “the integration of the US military base of Camp Darby with the surrounding community”.

A few days ago, it was decided to integrate the Web sites of the local administrations with those of Camp Darby. The Camp Darby network is expanding increasingly across the territory.

Source: PandoraTV

*

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

This article was originally published on Il Manifesto. Translated by Pete Kimberley.

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

Video: Israel Delivers More Strikes on Syria

March 6th, 2019 by South Front

Late on March 3, battle tanks of the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) shelled positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near Qars Nafal and Jubata al-Khashab in the province of Quneitra. Local sources said that the Israeli attack did not inflict casualties and revealed that these SAA positions remain empty most of the time.

Following the attack, multiple Israeli warplanes, helicopters and unmanned aerial vehicles were spotted flying over the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights.

A previous IDF strike in this area took place on February 11. Then, the attack targeted a Quneitra city hospital and an SAA positon near Jubata al-Khashab causing no casualties.

In comparison with IDF attacks on alleged Iranian infrastructure in the countryside of Damascus, the strikes in Quneitra province have a very small scale and almost no impact. Some Israeli sources claim that these attacks are a warning to Iranian forces, which may approach the contact line between the Israeli- and Syrian-controlled areas.

It is interesting to note that during a weekly cabinet meeting on March 3, Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu claimed that Israel and Russia would work through a joint group to remove all foreign forces from Syria. Additionally, Netanyahu claimed that his country “will not allow Iranian military entrenchment” and “will continue to militarily act against it”.

Last week, Netanyahu visited Moscow and held extensive talks on Syria with President Vladimir Putin. This was the first face-to-face meeting between the two leaders had since the downing of the Russian intelligence plane over Syria in September. According to some experts, this meeting is a sign that the Russian-Israeli relations may have been started improving since the IL-20 incident, which was caused by what the Russian military described as “hostile” Israeli actions. Despite this, it does not mean that Moscow and Tel Aviv have a full understanding on the all range of issues regarding the conflict.

While Tel Aviv sees the withdrawal of Iranian forces from Syria as a top priority, Moscow and Damascus consider the presence of Iranian personnel as a legal move because they are deployed under request from the Syrian government. Furthermore, Damascus and Teheran are being engaged in a deep military technological cooperation. On the other hand, Moscow, Teheran and Damascus are interested in the US withdrawal from the areas, which it occupied in northeastern Syria, something what Israel would not like to see. This means that the creation of the joint working group will not likely lead to the withdrawal of all or at least some foreign forces.

Nevertheless, the Israeli-Russian group may become a useful tool to de-escalate the situation between powers involved in the Syrian standoff and to start working on some compromise decision on the settlement of the conflict.

The US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) are finishing their operation against ISIS in the Euphrates Valley. Over the past few days, the US-led coalition has delivered multiple artillery and air strikes in the area. The ISIS-held pocket will soon be declared eliminated.

According to reports, during a recent “humanitarian pause” only, from 300 to 500 ISIS fighters and members of their families surrendered to the SDF. Separately, the SDF revealed that its administration had decided to release 283 ISIS-linked persons. The declared reason of this decision is that they have allegedly not participated in crimes of the terrorist group.

The number of ISIS-linked persons within the SDF-held area is growing. Without a proper security management, this may create conditions contributing to the growth of ISIS cells network in northeastern Syria.

*

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

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

Hands Off Venezuela! No Coup, No War, No Sanctions

March 6th, 2019 by Answer Coalition

Join us on March 9 for a march and rally against the Trump administration’s effort to engineer a coup in Venezuela and a new devastating war there. The aggressive policy against Venezuela repeats the ugly pattern of wars for regime change in the oil-rich countries of Iraq and Libya.

On March 3, John Bolton, the colonialist National Security Adviser who is leading the charge against Venezuela, told CNN:

“In this administration, we’re not afraid to use the word Monroe Doctrine. This is a country in our hemisphere.”

Bolton has made it clear that the objective of the imperialist offensive is overthrow not only the government of Venezuela, but also those of Cuba and Nicaragua. Trump has repeatedly stated that the “mistake” of Washington’s wars in the Middle East is that “we didn’t take the oil.” Venezuela has the largest proven oil reserves in the world.

It is time to stand up and with a clear voice say NO to the newest example of the “Monroe Doctrine,” which the U.S. government has used for over two centuries to repeatedly invade Latin America and Caribbean, control its politics and extract its resources.

The White House aims to overthrow the government of President Nicolás Maduro and replace him with Juan Guaidó. Guaidó is a U.S.-trained operative who was unknown to the vast majority of Venezuelans before he proclaimed himself president — at Vice President Mike Pence’s urging. Although Guaidó has the backing of Trump, the CIA, and the Republican and Democratic Party leaderships alike, huge numbers of Venezuelans have marched to reject this coup and defend their independence.

Join us on March 9 to say:

  • U.S. hands off Venezuela — U.S. Hands Off Latin America!
  • NO to the coup — the U.S. does not have the right to select other country’s leaders!
  • NO to the sanctions, oil embargo and economic war on Venezuela that aims to cause suffering for ordinary people in the country.
  • NO to intervention and war from the U.S. and their proxies in the region

The San Francisco action will be held in conjunction with the National March on Washington on March 16.

Initial Signers of the National March:

ANSWER Coalition

SF Labor Council

CodePink

Black Alliance for Peace

Alliance for Global Justice Popular Resistance

Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Haïti Liberté International Support Haiti Network

Popular Education Project

Abby Martin, journalist, The Empire Files

Dr. Jill Stein, 2016 Green Party presidential candidate

Dr. Jared Ball, Prof. of Communication Studies, Morgan State Univ., imixwhatilike

Medea Benjamin, CodePink

Cindy Sheehan, Cindy Sheehan’s Soapbox

Berthony Dupont, Director, Haïti Liberté

Mara Verheyden-Hilliard, constitutional rights attorney

Max Blumenthal, journalist

Ajamu Baraka, National Organizer, Black Alliance for Peace

Mike Prysner, Iraq War veteran, producer, The Empire files

Dr. George Ciccariello-Maher, author

Dr. Anthony Monteiro, Saturday Free School

Dr. Jodi Dean, Prof. of Political Science, Hobart & William Smith Colleges

Gloria La Riva, National Coordinator, Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Kim Ives, journalist

Anoa Changa, host, The Way With Anoa

Dan Cohen, journalist and filmmaker

Chuck Kaufman, National Co-Coordinator, Alliance for Global Justice

Eugene Puryear, Stop Police Terror Project

Jeanette Charles and Lucas Koerner, Venezuela Analysis

Margaret Flowers, Co-Coordinator, Popular Resistance

Kevin Zeese, Co-Coordinator, Popular Resistance

Dan Kovalik, author and human rights lawyer

Mahdi Bray, National Director, American Muslim Alliance (AMA)

Anakbayan (South Bay)

Serve the People San Jose

Democratic Socialists of America SF and East Bay

All African People’s Revolutionary Party

Students for Justice Palestine – San Jose

Alianza Hondureña US NorCal

Arab Resource Organizing Center

FMLN – NorCal

Third World Resistance

Green Party Santa Clara County

San Jose Peace and Justice Center

AIM-West

Cuba and Venezuela Solidarity Committee

Party for Socialism and Liberation (complete list of signers)

Venezuela lies abound. Both the USG (United States Government) and its lapdog MSM (Mainstream Media) have been going into overdrive, exaggerating or just plain lying about the state of affairs in Venezuela. Truth is always a casualty of war, and it’s also a casualty of pre-war, as the NWO prepares the ground for military intervention by demonization and propaganda. Here are 8 lies about Venezuela which are being used to justify yet another coup in a long, long history of US coups in foreign lands.

Venezuela Lies #1: The Venezuelan People Have No Food and the Shelves Are Bare

In these videos (here and here) on the ground in Caracas, Max Blumenthal exposed one of the lies about Venezuela that is constantly repeated, i.e. that the people have no food and the supermarket shelves are bare.

Venezuela Lies #2: The US Only Wants to Send Aid

If by “aid” you mean “weapons and barbed wire for radical opposition forces,” then yes, the US only wants to send aid. However, if by “aid” you mean actual medicine, then no. This VenezuelaAnalysis report quotes a NYT reporter and USAID itself. They either don’t have medicine as part of the inventory or state outright that there was no medicine:

“According to New York Times reporter Anatoly Kurmanaev, the trucks that the opposition tried to force across the border contained “no medicine” at all, with reports that a “small” amount of medicine was being stockpiled in Cucuta not confirmed by USAID. Initial inventories from USAID made no mention of medicine, listing only basic food and personal hygiene products amongst the “aid”.”

The Venezuelan Government is accepting aid from Russia and other countries it can trust, just not the US, since US “aid” may just “accidentally” happen to contain weapons for anti-Maduro agitators (or, as the Spanish say, compradores). Hmm, wonder how those arms got in the food truck?

As I covered in the article NGOs: Choice Tool of Subversion for the New World Order, NGOs have become a weaponized tool of soft power through which the NWO expands its empire – meddling, destabilizing, toppling and installing, all the while using the NGO as a humanitarian pretext. USAID is just another in a long-line of NGOs loyal to the US Government and NWO, willing to put a nice PR happy face on their agenda of subversion.

Venezuela Lies #3: Juan Guaido Has Legitimacy in Declaring Himself President

As I covered in my previous article Is This the Most Blatant US Coup Ever?, Juan Guaido is a US-CIA stooge through and through. He’s an agent-provocateur “opposition leader” who has been carefully groomed to play his role in the coup. His claim to be interim president of Venezuela under Article 233 of the Venezuelan Constitution is, legally, utter nonsense, since Maduro has not abandoned the presidency and Maduro held free, open and fair elections as adjudged by outside independent parties.

Venezuela Lies #4: Many Countries Support Guaido

The US claims many nations and groups support its efforts to topple Maduro and install Guaido. In reality, these countries are basically vassal states or other nations controlled by the US that don’t want to upset the apple cart. Notice the strategy of the US: try to co-opt the United Nations HRC (Human Right Council) into following US coup efforts, and try to strong-arm groups like the OAS (Organization of American States) and the Lima Group into betraying their brother nation Venezuela.

The US tried this same trick with the Syrian War by creating and controlling a group called “Friends of Syria.” Here is what Venezuela’s Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary Ambassador Jorge Valero said:

“the self-proclaimed “Lima Group” is a cartel made up of satellite governments of the imperial government to break Latin American and Caribbean unity, and, due to the failure of using the Ministry of the Colonies, which is the OAS to isolate Venezuela in this organization. The empire and its minions couldn’t approve Article 20 of Inter-American Democratic Charter of the Permanent Council of the OAS and resort to the United Nations Security Council, where they also failed. The creation of puppet governments by the US is not new.”

Venezuela Lies #5: The US Cares about the Venezuelan People (Just Like It Cares about the Iraqi, Libyan, Syrian and Iranian People)

The NWO uses the US to bring all nations into its fold, but it like to do so with the veneer of democracy so as to gain more public support and engender less resistance. Subversion, NGO soft power and covert operations are more palatable than overt control and boot-in-the-face oppression. In this vein, the USG likes to pretend it truly cares and has deep compassion for the people of nations like Iraq, Libya, Syria, Iran, Venezuela and any other place it plans to subvert, invade or bomb … even though it has never professed such care in the past and will probably never again profess it in the future once its new puppet leader is installed.

Just look at the kind of lies, hypocrisy and nonsense Pence and a “deeply concerned” Pompeo tweeted about Iran when the USG set it sights on igniting a coup there in 2018:

Venezuela Lies #6: Venezuela is Only in the Condition It is Because of Chavez, Maduro and Socialism (They’re the Bad Guys)

Nothing is black and white. It is possible to look at the unfolding Venezuelan crisis and acknowledge that Maduro has mismanaged things while at the same time seeing the gross foreign interference he and his government have been subjected to. As I covered in other articles such as Venezuelan Economic Crisis: The Real Cause is Not Socialism, US-NWO foreign meddling is by far the biggest factor here. For instance, did you know that Bank of England has effectively stolen USD$1.2 billion from Venezuela by toeing the NWO line and blocking Venezuela from accessing it? Did you know that the US has effectively stolen USD$11 billion from Venezuela by freezing its US accounts? How is a small nation supposed to function as normal when such massive amounts are stolen from it?

Venezuela Lies #7: Yes, the US Has Toppled Governments Worldwide, But “This Time It’s Different”

Once you study enough history, you begin to see the lies of tyrants and empires. The lie remains the same. The US wants Venezuela’s gold and mineral reserves. It’s only 5 days from the US, whereas the Middle East is around 20 days from the US and in a very volatile part of the world. There is also the strategic acquisition of the mineral coltan. They also want to teach the successive government to Hugo Chavez a lesson after he thumbed his nose at the US-NWO Empire. This isn’t any different from other subversions and invasions. It fits the pattern exactly.

Venezuela Lies #8: It’s a “Grassroots Uprising” against a “Brutal Dictator”

This entire coup has been planned, orchestrated and executed from Washington. Period. There is no “grassroots uprising.” Ever wondered why Assad and Maduro are “brutal dictators” but bin Salman, El Sisi and other US-CIA stooges are not? It’s all about branding the enemy, marketing foreign interference and controlling perception. Today’s friend is tomorrow’s enemy and vice versa. Al-Qaeda is bad and now Al-Qaeda is good. Were we fighting Eastasia or was it Eurasia?

Who is the brutal dictator? Who is imposing economic warfare and deprivation, starvation and misery by sanction? Who is fomenting regime change on innocent nations? Who is funding and supporting terrorists to topple any government they don’t like?

Final Thoughts: The US vs. Russia/China Proxy War Continues

Both Russia and China have invested a lot in Venezuela, including actual investments in their oil, military assistance and financial loans. They are not about to let the US get away with this – even if Venezuela is in the USA’s backyard, geographically speaking. The Monroe Doctrine, which started out in the 1800s as a policy by which the US would protect fellow American nations from European invasion, has now been turned on its head. Raving warmonger John Bolton recently mentioned the term as yet another excuse for the US to dominate whomever it wants on the 2 American continents. However, despite all the Venezuela lies emanating from Washington DC and the MSM, Venezuela is going to be a tough nut to crack, and many American and Westerners are already aware of the propaganda being used to foment war.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Freedom Articles.

Makia Freeman is the editor of alternative media / independent news site The Freedom Articles and senior researcher at ToolsForFreedom.com, writing on many aspects of truth and freedom, from exposing aspects of the worldwide conspiracy to suggesting solutions for how humanity can create a new system of peace and abundance. Makia is on Steemit and FB.

Sources

https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/14355

https://venezuelanalysis.com/news/14316

NGOs: Choice Tool of Subversion for the New World Order

Is This the Most Blatant US Coup Ever?

The Saker interviews Jorge Valero, Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

Venezuelan Economic Crisis: The Real Cause is Not Socialism

Featured image is from TFA

Washington’s Escalation to Venezuela’s Oil

March 6th, 2019 by Nino Pagliccia

If we listen to Washington’s threats to Venezuela there is always a military component to everything they do to undermine the legitimate Maduro government.  “All options are on the table”, is the repeated slogan that is now also heard from the self-appointed “president”, Juan Guaidó, as if he were referring to another country and not his own.

A realistic successful military intervention can only take place if the Venezuelan high-ranking officers of the armed forces deserted in mass. This is not likely to happen. However, Venezuela cannot ignore those threats. The US has carried them out irresponsibly in other countries.

The provocation with “humanitarian aid” on February 23 was a pathetic attempt to break the loyalty of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (FANB) as well as to test the reaction of the Venezuelan people, particularly on the Venezuelan border with Colombia. In fact, the main stage was Colombia and not Brazil. That’s where Guaidó, Ivan Duque and Elliot Abrams congregated for the “aid” show and the photo op of the trio holding hands as if they were rooting for a baseball team.

Marco Rubio, in the meantime, kept tweeting about how many army people were deserting to the Guaidó “team”. Not too many did. The official number identified publicly as deserters by the Venezuelan government has been 116. So, at this point Guaidó’s army is very thin. But as a former “guarimbero” (rioter) he is more comfortable among his fellow “guarimberos”. In fact, there were a few at hand at the border in Colombia doing their favorite thing, preparing and throwing Molotov cocktails. Eventually they managed to burn down the trucks of “aid”.

When the hope of a mutiny of the armed forces ended, plan B was to use the so-called “humanitarian aid” as a grandstand stunt against “the brutal regime of Nicolas Maduro”. And they turned it into the false flag of burned trucks of “aid” in Colombian territory falsely attributed to the Venezuelan forces.

In fact, video evidence shows guarimberos, reportedly Venezuelans, setting the “aid” trucks on fire when it became obvious that they would not be allowed into Venezuela. But more interestingly, videos of the burned trucks showed a different cargo: material such as metal cables, gas masks, nails and other tools that could be used in violent actions. No food and no medical supplies.

The alleged aid was never intended to be delivered to the general population.

Overall this has to be seen as another failure of the escalating attempt of regime change in Venezuela. What was supposed to be the High Noon stand off on February 23 had amounted to nothing much.

So what’s the next step in this escalation ladder by the US?

The immediate reaction we have seen so far, has been one more declaration from the so-called Lima Group – whose number went from 14 to 10 countries – where the most outrageous feature is that they included what I call a fabricated entity called “Venezuela” that has nothing to do with the legitimate Venezuela recognized at the United Nations. US Vice President Mike Pence’s call on all “Lima Group” members to freeze the assets of Venezuela’s oil company PDVSA and restrict visas for Venezuelan officials did not happen.

Washington, on the other hand, has issued sanctions on the governors of four Venezuelan States: Ramon Carrizalez, the governor of the Venezuelan state of Apure, who had previously served as vice president of Venezuela; Jorge Garcia Carneiro, the governor of the state of Vargas, who previously served as the head of the Venezuelan Army and minister of defense; Rafael Lacava, governor of the state of Carabobo; and Omar Prieto, the governor of the state of Zulia. Additional sanctions on six Venezuelan military personnel were announced later.

In terms of escalation ladder it is important to keep in mind what is at the end of that ladder for the US: There is the world’s largest estimated oil reserves located in the Orinoco Belt, which runs along the Orinoco River from the Central State of Guárico all the way into the Atlantic. That is a huge prize!

I am reminded of a brilliant explanation that Hugo Chavez gave in 2008 when he warned of a possible attempt to split Venezuela if the opposition seized five crucial Western States: Zulia, Táchira, Mérida, Barinas and Apure.

When Chavez highlighted these states on a map they took the shape of Media Luna, as he named it – that is Half Moon in Spanish. He warned that Venezuela had to be watchful of those states. At the time Brazil was not a concern; Lula was president.

I believe Chavez’s warning is still valid today. Three of the five states border with Colombia: Zulia, Táchira and Apure. And I don’t think that the latest US sanctions on the governors of two of those states, Zulia and Apure, is a coincidence.

Zulia is the historical oil producing state, and Apure is the strategic gateway to the Orinoco Oil Belt. The Governor of Táchira was spared maybe because she happens to be an opposition party governor.

At this point logic suggests to rule out a US military option assuming that Washington is listening to most of the Latin American countries that have warned against any military intervention. That would be the biggest mistake the US could make. But they have made similar mistakes before. On the other hand, the president of the Constituent National Assembly of Venezuela, Diosdado Cabello, has warned not to believe the exclusion of “use of force” in the “Lima Group” declaration, and asked “to be alert.”

Caracas is quite prepared to fight back if necessary and so far it is outsmarting Washington’s attempts to create bogus information for public consumption. What could have been another stand off between the two countries with the announced return of Juan Guaidó to Venezuela, fizzled out when he was not arrested at the port of entry. Guaidó had grandiosely announced that he gave instructions to mobilize nationally and internationally in case of his arrest. Only a few foreign diplomats “mobilized” to receive him at the airport.

For the time being the US will continue climbing the escalation ladder towards Venezuela’s oil through more Hybrid War tricks, like infowar and false flags. The immediate goal is to convince more governments to see Washington’s point of view.

*

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.

A seriously important and highly credible study was published five months ago last October. It was completely ignored by all of the mainstream media. Not one took the opportunity to publish the stunning revelations for fear of what might happen if they did. The report has unpalatable political consequences for the government – in fact, both Labour and Tory are implicated by the exposure of this colossal crime.

On the 5th October the 2018 SPERI report was published. The Sheffield Political Economy Research Institute made some stunning statements. Its first paragraph stated that –

(this report) suggests that the total cost of lost growth potential for the UK caused by ‘too much finance’ between 1995 and 2015 is in the region of £4,500 billion. This total figure amounts to roughly 2.5 years of the average GDP across the period.

To put that statement in context we need to deconstruct it a little. We are talking £4.5 trillion over two decades. That’s £225 billion a year.

Each year, the banking and financial services industry in the City of London is sucking out of Britain’s economy the equivalent of 160 per cent of total government spending on all health care including the NHS, or 100 per cent on social protection, which includes that of all pension payments per year, or 700 per cent spent on public order and safety or 230 per cent of spending on education.

To go further, this sum of money represents the equivalent of £67,500 of wealth losses to every person in the country.

The SPERI report breaks it down into current losses and losses incurred as a result of the 2008 banking led financial crisis. The report says that it –

provides the first-ever numerical estimate for the scale of damage caused by the UK’s finance sector growing beyond a useful size. Of the £4,500 billion loss in economic output, £2,700 billion is accounted for by the misallocation of resources where resources, skills and investments are diverted away from more productive non-financial activities into finance. The other £1,800 billion arises from the 2008 banking crisis.

News reports galore tell us that the financial crisis cost Britains economy about £500 billion. Some say more, some less. Not one, anywhere, has stated that in the first decade it cost the economy £1.8 trillion. And it’s not over yet.

Interestingly, Britain’s national debt is almost exactly £1.8 trillion. That’s about 86 per cent of total GDP and just servicing that debt in interest payments now amounts to around £48billion, which is roughly 4% of GDP or 8% of UK government tax income.

The Professorial Fellow in Political Economy in SPERI is Professor Andrew Baker. He said of the findings:

For the UK, the numbers are powerful and hint at a deep underlying problem of misallocation, and ‘crowding out.’  UK economic strategy in a post-Brexit world needs to make addressing this the central challenge, recognising that where finance is concerned, more can sometimes be less, and less could be more.”

The evidence in this report also provides support for the idea that the UK suffers from a form of ‘finance curse’ – a development of financial over-dependence involving a crowding out of other sectors, such as manufacturing, and a skewing of social relations, geography and politics. In reality, the banking sector has been allowed by a lack of government restraint to act as a source of wealth generation, in other words, extraction, for the peole who keep them in power.

The Tory party are by far the most guilty albeit that Tony Blair’s government did nothing to abate what should really be called out for what it is –  crimes against that nation-state. This is theft, it is fraud.

Evidence of the weakness of government is no more apparent than in the current PM Theresa May. The government’s decision to pull its financial services bill is at best revealing about who calls the shots in parliament. At worst, it indicates corruption at the highest level. And there is no doubting who is calling the shots. The people who largely fund the Tories in the first place – The City of London.

A Guardian article published just yesterday tells us all we need to know about pulling of this financial services bill in its first paragraph.

“Rather than accept a small step forward for tax fairness, a move backed by a cross-party coalition, ministers dropped one of six key pieces of legislation required to pass by the end of March as part of a no-deal Brexit safety net. It is a sign of Theresa May’s weakness in office that the bill could not pass in the form the government wanted and a clear demonstration that big finance continues to call the tune in the upper reaches of the Conservative party.”

Here, we have evidence that even Brexit is being manipulated for the sake of the City of London.

We have written endlessly at TruePublica on the matter of Britain’s laundromat – the money laundering centre of the world. The editor here, various journalists and contributors along with Global Justice to the Tax Justice Network have been screaming for financial regulation because the banking industry is seriously damaging Britain, its prospects and place in the world. The head of the National Crime Agency warns year after year of the economic and political threats that industrial-scale financial crime presents to Britain.

And yet, over the last 40 years or so, Britain’s economy and its failing tax system have been completely reconfigured to serve the interests of the rich who have off-shored their wealth to ring-fence it away from contributing to the country of its extraction. No-one though, it seems, is prepared to fully challenge the sheer power of the City of London. The non-publication of the SPERI report by the mainstream media, that lays bare the realities of this monumental crime is surely evidence of that.

Transparency International is just one of a long list of organisations that continues to provide cover. Its annual Corruption Perceptions Index calculates Britain has a score of 80 out of 100 and therefore one of the least corrupt countries in the world. In fact, the 11th least corrupt. I have challenged this ranking time and time again as Britain is one of the leading money launderers for terror finance, human and other trafficking, drugs, weapons and all manner of heinous crimes anywhere on the planet. I even met TI in London but all they were interested in was uncovering my sources of information.

The square mile makes up its own rules, its own laws and even has its own police force. It is, as we wrote back in 2016 the epicentre of the global crime scene. Many do not know the power of the City of London. Most people do not know just how Britain’s democratic principles are challenged when it comes to its global financial operations.

A (City of London) ‘watchman’ sits at the high table of parliament and is its official lobbyist sitting in the seat of power right next to the Speaker of the House who is “charged with maintaining and enhancing the City’s status and ensuring that its established rights are safeguarded.” The job is to maintain order and seek out political dissent that might arise against the City.

The Square Mile is a hub that facilitates London bankers, accountants and lawyers to create a tax-free way for the richest people on the planet to hide their assets under UK management but without proper regulatory oversight. Britain has consistently resisted almost all reform proposals from the EU and used its powers of veto to ensure the status quo continues.  Britain’s crown dependencies and territories are now the go-to bankers where almost a third of all global offshore financial services are provided to non-residents.

In 2012 it was known that about $32 trillion was stuffed away in off-shore centres around the world. Global GDP in 2018 was just over $80 trillion – it gives some sort of perspective into the scale of it all.

This report and one by the Tax Justice Network also calculates that financial crime and the costs imposed by hosting an oversized financial sector are more than two times greater for the UK than the US. It is of no wonder America wants to do a trade deal with Britain – it would provide additional facilities for its own financial crimes.

A Bank of England report makes it quite clear what the banking industry is doing with its money. Only 3.5 per cent of all business lending by UK banks in 2017 went to Britain’s manufacturing sector, while 60 per cent of all lending went to financial intermediation, ie financial intermediaries who channel funds between lenders and borrowers.

Asked to comment of the STERI report, John Christensen, a director at the Tax Justice Network said:

“This new evidence overturns the entrenched orthodoxy that what is good for the City of London must be good for the rest of Britain. For decades City interests have been inflicting a finance curse on the UK economy, inflating the exchange rate, slowing growth of the productive sectors, and lobbying governments into deregulating financial services, which led directly to the 2008 banking crisis. UK productivity has fallen dramatically behind most EU member states, and excess household and corporate debt is holding back growth.“

And as many have said, ourselves included, if Brexit was a cry for help from those being left behind, then nothing will change. It was supposed to end the political and financial class’s power and malfeasance. There is now a strong suspicion that Brexit, far from answering that call, will indeed be boosted by the forthcoming relaxation of regulations. Brexit will only make it worse for everyone – except the very, very few who actually hold the strings of power in the first place, which clearly isn’t Theresa May or her paralysed and incompetent government.

*

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

Featured image is from TP

I know that the title of this article is controversial, but the scientific research that has been done in this area inevitably leads us to some conclusions that are inescapable.  Our current cell phone technology produces electromagnetic radiation that damages male fertility, and the radiation produced by the new 5G technology will be much more powerful and therefore much more dangerous.  But most people don’t know about this.  Instead, most people are greatly looking forward to the rollout of 5G technology because it will be up to 100 times faster than our current 4G technology, and who wouldn’t want that? 

The big cell phone companies will be spending hundreds of billions of dollars to install hundreds of thousands of new 5G antennas, and every single one of those antennas will be constantly emitting very powerful electromagnetic radiation.  Since we can’t see the radiation, to many people the threat does not seem real, but the truth is that if you live in a major urban area you are constantly being bombarded by it.  And once the new 5G network is completely rolled out, you would literally have to live in the middle of nowhere to get away from it completely.

5G is a quantum leap from 4G, but because the smaller 5G waves do not travel as well, a lot more antennas will be required

In order to achieve faster speeds, 5G relies on millimeter waves, which are even smaller than microwaves and operate at a higher frequency. These smaller waves are more easily absorbed by buildings, trees and other things (like people), so more towers will be needed in order to maintain connectivity. The industry has created specialized “small cell” stations and new, larger base stations to accommodate the demands of 5G tech. Even so, it’s expected that a small cell will need to be installed every 250 meters in cities for 5G to work properly. There will be one on every street corner.

In addition, 5G technology is “ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity”

5G cell towers are more dangerous than other cell towers for two main reasons. First, compared to earlier versions, 5G is ultra high frequency and ultra high intensity. 1G, 2G, 3G and 4G use between 1 to 5 gigahertz frequency. 5G uses between 24 to 90 gigahertz frequency. Within the RF Radiation portion of the electromagnetic spectrum, the higher the frequency the more dangerous it is to living organisms.

So basically the radiation that we will constantly be absorbing will be much, much, much more powerful than before, and the sources emitting the radiation will be much closer to us.

Are you starting to get the picture?

If that wasn’t bad enough, an investigation conducted at a university in Israel discovered that the surface of the human body actually draws 5G radiation in “like an antenna”

What’s further disturbing about 5G radiation is how the human body responds to and processes it. Dr. Ben-Ishai from The Hebrew University of Jerusalem discovered as part of a recent investigation that human skin acts as a type of receptor for 5G radiation, drawing it in like an antenna.

This kind of technology, which is in many of our homes, actually interacts with human skin and eyes,” writes Arjun Walia for Collective Evolution about the study.

“… human sweat ducts act like a number of helical antennas when exposed to these wavelengths that are put out by the devices that employ 5G technology,” he adds.

But because we cannot detect this radiation with our five senses, most people will never even understand what is happening to them.

Okay, now let’s talk about fertility.

Several early studies found that our current cell phone technology has a negative affect on male fertility

A 2005 mouse study found “a significant genotoxic [DNA-damaging] effect on…spermatozoa.”

A 2007 rat study found “significantly higher incidence of sperm cell death,” suggesting “that carrying cellphones near reproductive organs could negatively affect male fertility.” And a 2009 rat study found that the radiation from cellphones “negatively affects semen quality and may impair male fertility.”

And about a decade ago, a study that looked at men that were being treated at an infertility clinic concluded that using a cell phone had a substantial impact on sperm quality

In 2008, for instance, scientists led by Ashok Agarwal, director of research at the Center for Reproductive Medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, announced the findings of a study on 361 men treated at a fertility clinic. About 10 percent rarely or never used a cellphone, while just over half were on their cell more than two hours a day. Using a cellphone, the scientists concluded, “decrease[s] the semen quality in men by decreasing the sperm count, motility, viability, and normal morphology.” Or, as Agarwal put it less formally, “semen quality tended to decline as daily cellphone use increased. Men who said they used their phones for more than four hours each day had the lowest average sperm count and motility and the lowest numbers of normal, viable sperm.”

But even more alarming was a 2014 University of Exeter study that came up with some extremely frightening numbers

In 2014, another study on this matter was released, this one led by the University of Exeter. This study utilized 1,492 semen samples collected from fertility clinics and research centers. 50-80 percent of the samples had normal movement, but that number fell by 8 percent when the samples were exposed to cell phone radiation. This suggests that sperm viability and overall quality deteriorates when exposed to cell phone frequencies.

The same study goes on to propose that the reason 14 percent of couples in high and middle income countries experience infertility is because so many adults now have cell phones.

By now, you have probably heard that if you want to have a baby, you should not carry your cell phone around in your pants.

Well, one couple that was unable to conceive actually tried this, and it worked

In her 2010 book Disconnect: The Truth About Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry Has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family, Devra Davis recounts the story of a couple who had been unable to conceive. One doctor told them to keep their cellphones off their bodies and use them only to text or with a corded headset for two months. Within a year, they had a baby.

Now let’s take a step back and look at the broader picture.

Overall, it is undeniable that sperm counts have been steadily declining in the western world.

In fact, one recent study found that sperm counts in the western world have been declining by about 2 percent a year

Male fertility is falling every year in the Western world — and experts blame chemicals and modern lifestyles.

A study of 124,000 men visiting fertility clinics in Europe and the USA found sperm quality reducing by almost 2% per year.

Separate research focusing on 2,600 sperm donors [men with above-normal fertility] showed a similar pattern.

2 percent may not sound like a lot, but over time it really starts adding up.

In fact, a different study found that sperm counts in the western world had fallen by a total of 59 percent from 1973 to 2011

While most men can still father a child, scientists say the human race faces extinction if the trend continues.

It follows a landmark study last year showing a 59% cut in Western sperm counts from 1973 to 2011.

If sperm counts in the western world continue falling this dramatically, pretty soon most men in the western world will be infertile.

And if that happens, there will be dramatic population reduction.

At this point, the CDC is telling us that the birth rate in the United States has already hit an all-time record low

The research comes after the US National Center for Health Statics – the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) data arm – announced in July of 2017 that fertility in the US had reached an all-time low.

Birth rates among American women have been falling for decades, but took a sharp downward turn beginning around 2010.

By 2016, the fertility rate in the US was only 62 live births per every 1,000 women.

It is interesting to note that the very first iPhone was released in 2007.

The implications of what I have shared with you so far are staggering, and we desperately need an open and honest public debate about these issues.

And in this article, I haven’t even had room to discuss the scientific studies that link cell phone use to cancer and other debilitating diseases.

Of course all of the studies mentioned in this article examined the impact of our current cell phone technology or older technologies.  Now we are moving on to 5G, and there has not been any safety testing done on 5G technology at all.

According to Dr. Martin L. Pall, a PhD and Professor Emeritus of Biochemistry and Basic Medical Sciences at Washington State University, rolling out 5G without any safety testing at all is an incredibly foolish idea

“Putting in tens of millions of 5G antennae without a single biological test of safety has got to be about the stupidest idea anyone has had in the history of the world.”

But despite the objections of Dr. Pall and countless other scientists, we are going to do it anyway.

And at this point, there isn’t much that anyone can do.  According to federal law, local communities are banned from considering health concerns when deciding whether or not to put in new cell phone antennas…

However, according to federal law the city simply can’t consider health concerns. It’s outlined in a small section of the Telecommunications Act, based on science from 1996, back when we were still talking on cellphones that looked like bricks.

“I find it really unfair,” said Hiestand.

If cities do consider health, cell companies can sue them.

We need to get the word out about this.

We are talking about one of the biggest health dangers in American history, and once 5G technology has been completely rolled out nationwide it will be too late to do anything about it.

*

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

Michael Snyder is a nationally-syndicated writer, media personality and political activist. He is the author of four books including Get Prepared Now, The Beginning Of The End and Living A Life That Really Matters. His articles are originally published on The Economic Collapse Blog, End Of The American Dream and The Most Important News.

Featured image is from End of the American Dream

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Will 5G Cell Phone Technology Lead to Population Reduction as Large Numbers of Men Become Sterile?
  • Tags: , ,

Chelsea Manning yesterday lost the challenge she launched against a subpoena that requires her to be cross-examined by the Grand Jury in the Eastern District of Virginia which was convened in 2010 to decide whether to file charges against WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange.

Various sources have indicated that the Grand Jury did charge Assange under the 1917 Espionage Act, in either late 2010 or the first half of 2011, and sealed the indictment. A court document dated August 22, 2018, in an unrelated case, effectively confirmed that the charges exist. The document contained two paragraphs, allegedly inserted by mistake, that specifically stated the case had to be sealed in order to “keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.”

Judge Claude Hilton dismissed Manning’s motion on undisclosed grounds and also sealed the proceedings, legally proscribing her from speaking about the reasons. Manning, restricted in what she could or could not say, only told journalists outside the court that she now expects to have to answer questions before the Grand Jury multiple times over the coming days.

She condemned grand juries as “terrible tools,” noting that they are effectively run by the prosecutors and “there is no adversarial process.”

The Trump administration and the US Department of Justice were represented at the hearing by Trump appointee US attorney G. Zachary Terwilliger and the high-powered team of lawyers—assistant attorneys Gordon Kromberg, Tracy McCormick, Evan Turgeon and Kellen Dwyer—who will prosecute Assange if he is ever extradited to the US.

The subpoena is an escalation of the US government’s efforts to extradite Julian Assange, and a new and vindictive persecution of Manning—a courageous whistleblower who was subjected to years of solitary confinement. It is part of a bipartisan offensive against freedom of speech, aimed at suppressing critical and independent journalism through the threat of imprisonment and prosecution.

Last week, the New York Times, among other publications, noted that the obvious motive behind forcing Manning to once again face questioning in a court is to revisit her testimony that WikiLeaks and Assange played no role in her decision to leak hundreds of thousands of US government documents.

In late 2009–early 2010, when she was serving as an intelligence analyst in Iraq, Manning copied vast amounts of data that contained damning exposures of US war crimes and abuses in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as classified diplomatic cables from US embassies and missions around the world. She courageously sought to have the information brought into the light of day.

Manning referred to the Afghan and Iraq logs, in a text file attached to them, as “possibly one of the most significant documents of our time, removing the fog of war and revealing the true nature of 21st century asymmetric warfare.”

On April 3, 2010, WikiLeaks published the video Collateral Murder, which graphically showed a US helicopter gunship massacring civilians in Iraq, including two Reuters journalists. Over the following months, it published the Afghan and Iraq logs and the diplomatic cables, in partnership with a range of major newspapers, including the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Speigel, Le Monde, El Pais and the Sydney Morning Herald.

Manning was arrested on May 29, 2010 and charged by a military court on June 5, 2010 for multiple offences. Over the following three years she was held in maximum security detention and suffered systematic abuse. She pleaded guilty in February 2013 to some of the charges, admitting she had anonymously transferred the data to WikiLeaks, after other media organisations had not shown any commitment to publishing the leaks.

She was finally convicted by a military court on July 30, 2013 on five counts of espionage and other offences and, the next month, sentenced to a draconian 35 years’ imprisonment.

During her trial, Manning rejected prosecutor attempts to have her testify that WikiLeaks and its editor Julian Assange had actively conspired with her to obtain the leaks. Under questioning about what had occurred after she first anonymously sent data to WikiLeaks, she stated:

“No one associated with W.L.O (WikiLeaks) pressured me into sending any more information. I take full responsibility.”

Manning’s sentence was commuted by President Barack Obama on January 17, 2017, in the final days of his presidency. She was not, however, given a pardon. In all she spent close to seven years of her life in a prison cell for letting the world know the truth.

The implications of the requestioning of Manning over her statements are wide-ranging.

Firstly, it underscores what WikiLeaks and Assange have insisted since late 2010. The overriding aim of the vendetta against Julian Assange has been to have him extradited to the US to face charges for publishing the whistleblower leaks made by Manning.

The allegations of “collusion” with Russia over leaks published by WikiLeaks during the 2016 presidential election have always been a political pretext to justify sweeping internet censorship of all independent and critical media.

The public unveiling of espionage or conspiracy charges in the US could well become the pretext for the government of President Lenín Moreno in Ecuador to carry through on its implicit threats to evict Assange from its embassy in London, where a previous government granted him political asylum. Since March last year, Moreno’s administration has denied Assange any ability to communicate with the outside world, while steadily rebuilding military, economic and diplomatic ties with Washington.

Secondly, Manning herself, after all she had been through, could potentially face new charges, such as contempt of court, if she refuses to answer questions posed by prosecutors before the Grand Jury.

Finally, and most significantly, if Manning’s subpoena is the prelude to the unveiling of charges against Assange as the editor of WikiLeaks, it raises the possibility of the Trump administration also moving to file criminal charges against the editors of all the other publications that took part in revealing the leaks made by Manning. Again, these particularly include the New York Times, the Guardian, Der Spiegel, Le Monde, El Pais and the Sydney Morning Herald.

The US First Amendment does not prevent the government from prosecuting the media after they publish classified material. The 1971 Pentagon Papers decision, for example, ruled only against the government preventing or blocking publication. While the 1917 Espionage Act has not been used against a media organisation before, Assange and WikiLeaks may well be the precedent.

The situation highlights the importance of the Socialist Equality Party’s campaign to demand that the government immediately intervene to secure the right of Assange—an Australian citizen—to immediately leave the Ecuadorian embassy and return to his home country, with guaranteed protection from any extradition request by the US.

Hundreds of people participated in a demonstration March 3 to demand Assange’s freedom, which won the endorsement of a number of well-known intellectuals and artistic figures, including Pink Floyd co-founder Roger Waters, journalist John Pilger, and civil rights activist Stuart Rees.

*

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

Featured image is from WSWS

Benjamin Netanyahu’s bad day Thursday got off to the worst possible start: before the Israeli general prosecutor Avichai Mandelblit officially called for the indictment of the Israeli prime minister for corruption, the UN accused him of much more serious crimes.

He stood accused of war crimes and crimes against humanity, which, according to the UN, Israel has been shamefully perpetrating in the Gaza Strip over the past year.

This was the result of the investigation by the Independent Commission of Inquiry established by the UN Human Rights Council, tasked with examining what has been happening on the border lines between Gaza and Israel for almost a full year: namely, Israel’s repression of the Great March of Return, the initiative launched on March 30, 2018, to demand the right of return for Palestinian refugees (in accordance with UN Resolution 194/1948), and to call for an end to the Israeli siege of the region, which has been ongoing for the past 12 years.

According to the UN investigation, the indiscriminate fire aimed at unarmed civilians by Israeli snipers “may constitute war crimes or crimes against humanity.” The death toll has been devastating: more than 250 killed (including 48 children) and more than 26,000 injured, with many permanently disabled, compounded by the fact of being in Gaza, where the health system is already in a state of collapse because of the state of siege and the lack of drugs and electricity. Here, people have to live with just two to four hours of electricity a day.

Furthermore, the Commission (whose report was compiled based on interviews, video evidence, medical records and drone footage dating from up to Dec. 31) is in possession of the names of those who are responsible: of the snipers who actually killed people, and of the generals who immediately adopted the barbaric “shoot to kill” policy (on orders from Tel Aviv). The Commission “found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.” Israeli soldiers “have intentionally shot children, they intentionally shot people with disabilities, they intentionally shot journalists,” said Sara Hossaini, a member of the Commission, at a press conference in Geneva.

According to the Commission, the identification of those who committed these acts makes it possible to bring them to trial before an international court, and they have accordingly requested that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Michelle Bachelet, share the report with the International Criminal Court. A similar request came Thursday from the president of the PNA, Mahmoud Abbas:

“It is time to hold Israel accountable for these crimes,” he said in a statement. “No country should remain above the law.” He added that the UN report “proves what we have always said: that Israel conducts war crimes against our people in Gaza and the West Bank, including in Jerusalem.”

The Israeli government immediately responded with rage: Netanyahu accused the UN of “hypocrisy and lies, out of obsessive hatred of Israel, the only democracy in the Middle East.”

“No one can deny Israel the right of self-defense,” said interim Foreign Minister Katz, pushing the longstanding Israeli narrative of the past year regarding the “threat” supposedly represented by unarmed civilians hundreds of meters away from soldiers, civilians or Israeli infrastructure.

What the UN is denouncing is a reality already well known to those who have been following the situation of the March of Return for many months now, international organizations who have been accusing Tel Aviv of indiscriminate and unprovoked use of force. These include Amnesty International, who on Thursday described the actions of Israel as showing “a cruel and ruthless disregard for international humanitarian law.”

*

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

Featured image is from il manifesto global

It was a mere two months ago the president of the United States declared he would leave Syria and bring home the troops. 

“Our boys, our young women, our men, they’re all coming back,” Trump said. “And they’re coming back now. We won. And that’s the way we want it. And that’s the way they want it.”

.

That was then, this is now. 

Now Trump has gone back on his promise, as he has gone back on most of his other promises, and US troops will continue to violate Syria’s national sovereignty for the foreseeable future. 

Mr. Trump has yet to admit—his massive ego won’t let him—that at best the US played a minor role in eradicating the Islamic State, a terror organization that began as a Pentagon psyop during the Iraqi resistance to George W. Bush’s invasion. 

In fact, it was Russia and Iran in coordinated with the Syrian Arab Army that neutralized the threat, but you won’t hear Trump or the corporate media he supposedly detests talk about this. If you ask the average citizen, he or she will likely say it was the US that singlehandedly beat the Islamic State. (See David William Pear, “Who Really Defeated ISIS.”)

“A small peace keeping group of about 200 will remain in Syria for period of time,” White House press secretary Sarah Sanders said last month. 

The Pentagon, however, notorious for decades of deceit and lies, said the actual number will be double that mentioned by Sanders. The actual number is likely triple or quadruple the official estimate—possibly more, much more. 

This illegality, this violation of international law and the UN Charter (the US signed this document in 1945 with the founding of the UN), represents a cornerstone of US foreign policy. The US has invaded 70 nations, engaged in genocide, economic warfare, and has fomented terror since the founding of the nation (see Dr. Gideon Polya’s “The US Has Invaded 70 Nations Since 1776—Make 4 July Independence From America Day”). 

ISIS is not and has never been the reason the United States bombed targets and killed thousands of Syrian civilians. The war on ISIS was about establishing a military presence in Syria, the excuse being an effort to counter Iran’s geopolitical aims.

The centerpiece of this strategy is Israel, which has for years called for an outright invasion of Iran, using the fallacious pretext of nuclear weapons. Like Iraq under Saddam Hussein, Iran doesn’t possess nuclear weapons. This has been verified by the International Atomic Energy Agency. The agency also reported Iran was in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which Trump ultimately killed. Nonetheless, the US and Israel continue to push the absurd fallacy that Iran will nuke Israel, thus inviting annihilation by Israel with its nukes, which are undeclared and have been for decades. 

It was obvious from the start when Trump surrounded itself with generals, and then a rabble of neocons (Bolton, Abrams, and Pompeo), that in no way would he live up to his promise to make America noninterventionist again, which it never was (see above). 

It is safe to say the MAGA troops faithfully support of his policies, formulated by neocons and their cousins, the “humanitarian interventionists.” Take a look at the Breitbart and Drudge Report websites. There is virtually no criticism of Trump’s foreign policy and the focus is invariably on the border and the twists and turns of an orchestrated “civl war” between the “New Right,” or “Alt-right,” and the Left. It would seem Breitbart is more interested in Melania Trump’s footwear than endless war, while Drudge peppers his front page with nonsense about celebrities and sports mixed in with news stories on the border and the evilness of Hillary Clinton and all things Democrat. The new distraction is Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. She competes daily with the fake Mueller investigation.

It’s not fake news. It’s diversionary news.

It’s fair to say most of Trump’s hardcore MAGA supporters believe Make America Great Again is achieved by invading small, usually defenseless countries. In the case of Breitbart, Drudge, et al, these issues are ignored altogether. It should be kept in mind Breitbart got its start in Jerusalem.

“One thing we specifically discussed [while on a junket to Israel]… was our desire to start a site that would be unapologetically pro-freedom and pro-Israel. We were sick of the anti- Israel bias of the mainstream media and J-Street. By launching Breitbart Jerusalem, the journey comes full circle and a promise between two friends is fulfilled. And in a very real sense, Breitbart News Network returns to its roots,“ wrote Larry Solov for Breitbart in November 2013 (see previous link where there is a photo of Andrew Breitbart meeting with Bibi Netanyahu). 

Donald Trump is now a card-carrying neocon doing the work of Israel in the Middle East. His betrayal of a promise to get our troops out of Syria (and Iraq and Afghanistan) in addition to his collaboration with Israel and its crimes—above all its slow-motion genocide of the Palestinians—should stand as proof positive Trump is more of the same, never mind the personality quirks and the raving narcissism he displays on a daily basis. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Global Research Needs Your Support

March 5th, 2019 by The Global Research Team

Dear Readers,

With almost 1 million monthly visits to our website, and over 50,000 subscribers to our daily newsletter, during the last year we received contributions in the form of donations and paying memberships from only a small fraction of our readership. We are of course deeply grateful to all those who have come to our aid so far. However, if you value our work, we strongly encourage you to make a contribution if you have yet to do so. Financial support is crucial to the continuation of our activities at this stage, we currently do not cover our monthly costs.

Keep GlobalResearch.ca online and accessible to all, make a donation or become a member by clicking below now!

Click to donate:

DONATIONS BY POST:

To donate by post, kindly send a cheque or international money order, made out to CRG, to our postal address:

Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG)
P.O. Box 55019
11, Notre-Dame Ouest
Montreal, QC
CANADA  H2Y 4A7

Payment by check is accepted in US or Canadian dollars, GBP & EUR.


Global Research Annual Membership – $95.00/year

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewal (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy of “Voices from Syria” by Mark Taliano, as well as a FREE copy of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall.

 

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (annual basis) as well as all membership renewals (annual basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “The Global Economic Crisis: The Great Depression of the XXI Century“, edited by Michel Chossudovsky and Andrew Gavin Marshall, as well as a copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy (in PDF format) of “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

 

Sustainer Member – $200/per year

Help support Global Research with an annual membership payment of $200.00. Each Sustainer Member will receive any two books of their choice from our Online Store, as well as a FREE copy of  “The Globalization of War” by Michel Chossudovsky.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

Thank you for supporting independent media!

The Syrian Kurds are committed to changing their country’s name.

One of the group’s representatives told Sputnik that they insist on changing the constitutional name of the Syrian Arab Republic to the “Syrian Republic” so as to supposedly make the post-war country more inclusive for minorities, implying credence to the pre-war smears that the ruling Baath Party enforced a policy of so-called “Arab supremacy”. They also expressed their hopes that the forthcoming UNSC-mandated constitutional reform will result in a “decentralized” state. It’s noteworthy that neither of the group’s demands are new, and that they were actually included in the Russian-written “draft constitution” that Moscow presented during the first Astana Summit over two years ago in January 2017, but they take on a heightened significance given that the kinetic military phase of the conflict is winding down and being replaced by a mostly non-kinetic political one that will decide the country’s future.

The Baath Party solidly remains in power in Syria despite almost a decade of destructive Hybrid War against it because it genuinely enjoys the democratic support of most of the population, and it’s in connection with this that one should mentioned that most of the 85% of ethnic Arabs in the country support the ruling authorities’ official ideology of Arab Nationalism. Actually, there’s a larger percentage of Arabs in the Syrian Arab Republic than there are Russians in Russia, and the titular population of both states is overwhelmingly in favor of retaining their country’s constitutional name, which neither of them regard as being “discriminatory” against their minority compatriots. In the Syrian case, however, the Kurds control the most agriculturally, hydrologically, and energy-rich one-third of the country despite comprising only around 15% of its population and not even being a majority in most of the areas that they control, so their demands nowadays are disproportionately much more influential than they’d otherwise be.

Words having meaning, and the socialist-supporting Kurds know that as much as anyone, hence one of the reasons why they want to change their country’s constitutional name. It’s not just for “political correctness”, but because they intend for that to be the basis for “Balkanizing” the notionally unified Arab identity of the country into atomized units centered on sect, region, and other factors in order to expand their “decentralized” system all across the country and set the basis for a de-facto “internal partition”. To be clear, autonomy doesn’t in and of itself result in an “internal partition”, but the way in which the Kurds want to implement it could dangerously lead to that outcome, which is what they’re after in order to secure their sub-state “sovereignty” through a variation of the so-called “Yinon Plan”.

Removing “Arab” from the Syrian Arab Republic would be the same as removing “Rus” from Russia, which would make it much easier to socially engineer new artificially created identities as a means of dividing-and-ruling these strategic states. Many arguments will likely abound in the coming months about why this change is supposedly “necessary”, but it should always be remembered that it would run the enormous risk of facilitating this worst-case scenario, whether or not the non-Kurdish voices advocating for this even realize it. In view of this, any proposed change to the constitutional name of the country shouldn’t be agreed upon by political parties as part of some larger “compromise” aimed at ending the war, but should be put to a referendum in order to have the people themselves decide whether they want to abandon their Arab identity.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

Most people acknowledge the usually vicious assault of imperial wars that politicians call counter-terrorism strategy has forced developing states to capitulate to America, but the subtle variation in different types of imperial power gives us an even more disturbing picture on the likely coercion of states that aren’t explicitly invaded.

Luckily, we have international relations theories and evidence that allows us to examine where the relationship between America and Ecuador stands right now and why. Is it hard power, soft power, or something in-between?

These theories, the data point to a highly coerced Ecuadorean administration that is choosing to support US imperial policy rather than stand tall, defend its nation’s and previous administration’s historic record on human rights, allowing itself to be used as a proxy for the authoritarianism of America at large. As applied to the specific case against Wikileaks, recognised as a media organisation in the UK, Ecuador has experienced more than a mild wave of coercion from Washington, in all likelihood plied with an ocean of cash and privileges that keep them in line with the will of the senate, military and intelligence agencies.

The first evidence to which I refer is a letter sent recently from Washington to Quito, conducted perhaps at the behest of powerful authoritarian politicians, military elites and intelligence agencies and conducted in conjunction with elected representatives. They have so far made complaints that the hotly contested, protested embargo on Assange’s communications was lifted after six months and expect that the US ought to be able to determine the outcome of Assange’s fate. Looking at the significant demands to overturn Assange to the “proper authorities” using resolute language gives us a rare look under the imperial hood to see the true underlying dynamics of bilateral power, to understand that in all truth, the balance of power is not equal.

The letter reveals that Washington is extremely concerned to capture Assange regardless of the ostensible sovereignty of the Ecuadorean administration in its own territory. Democrats and Republicans alike say they are unanimously united in backing the previous US administration’s belligerence in virtually every battle fought. Moreover, corporate, military, intelligence agents’ support pertain irrespective of whether the electorate support, or know anything about, their authoritarian agenda. Incumbents are often rewarded with total power by a democratic election process corrupted by the corporate and military bankroll while earnest representatives acting in the common good are punished for their principled stances. As a result of the corruption of the electoral college bi-partisan support for imperial agendas has rocketed to galactic levels.

This data may tempt you in to concluding that diplomacy is the main issue. If co-option by persuasion is the main bi-partisan strategy, then sustained campaigns to make Ecuador enact US policy seems the prevalent strategy.

But this would be wrong. That’s because of the role bribery plays and because of how stooges are chosen and paid to enact US agendas and subvert the popular will in these troubled, neo-imperial times.

Stooges exhibit independent judgement and behaviour on the surface. They deliberate in national parliaments and hold ballots, seemingly independently, often giving the illusion candidates have a choice. They also lobby for the US backed result. Candidates who lead by example and do not conform to imperial policy are disadvantaged because they do not curry favour and are excluded from the most powerful public offices. Gifts from Goldman Sachs and the US government totalling just short of a billion USD show that, beyond persuading with words, Washington actively bribes Latin America to do its bidding. This suggests that by coopting national leaders, who in turn coopt national governments and democratic assemblies by hidden lobbying, the corporate and military elite run Quito from Washington through shadow networks.

Diplomatic pressure and active bribery show us what international relations theorist Nye sensed, that American imperial politics has evolved in to a more subtle form of trench warfare, with the most powerful side expending huge amounts of energy, money and staff to gain huge ground in Quito. But victory will not come to the monied interests of old elites who cultivate stooges in developing countries in the vain hope of maintaining their Project For A New American Century. The trenches are on the internet, the battlefield being reshaped by a congress of socially conscientious computer scientists invested in creating a freer, less restricted, truly democratic society buoyed by a lively exchange of ideas and information, not corporate finance. That the only strategic possibilities for empire include repressing dissent, which will broaden and deepen resistance, or giving up entirely, shows us that the winners of the new world will be those who don’t fit neatly in to American power and world 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.

Western mainstream media (MSM) typically present Iran as a degenerate and impoverished society under the sway of Islamic terrorist fundamentalists.  Alternate media and seriously investigated works present a much different picture.  Dan Kovalik’s The Plot to Attack Iran highlights the current state of affairs in Iran in the context of decades of covert and direct attacks aided and/or instigated by the U.S. and its allies.

The history starts with a contemporary scene in 2006, with the U.S. intentions to attack Iran, using nuclear weapons.  Kovalik argues that with Israel being bogged down in Lebanon by Hezbollah at that time, it stalled the planned assault.  As with Iraq, Iran was considered by the MSM as a terrorist state supporting al-Qaeda, wanting to develop nuclear weapons, and repressing its people under a totalitarian regime.

The story then fast forwards to the past few years.  Combined with the “oil war” in which prices are controlled mainly by Saudi Arabia oil production increases or cuts, “current U.S. economic sanctions” are “an act of economic terrorism in that it constitutes the intentional infliction of injury against the civilian population to bring about a desired political end – but it is par for the course for the United States.”   The civil disturbances as depicted by the MSM and the U.S. government was not about “civil liberties” but were mainly about the economy.

Collateral to this oil war, originally aimed at both Russia and Iran, is the effect on the Venezuelan economy.  These links and associations to other areas of U.S. imperial designs are a strong point of Kovalik’s overall presentation, demonstrating the global attempts to subjugate and overturn any government that goes against U.S. wishes.

Another factor with U.S.relations with Iran is “the United States has also been involved in supporting terrorist groups against Iran. The most notable such groups as the Mujahadeen e-Khalq (“MEK”…).”  This organization “was de-listed as a terrorist organization by the Obama Administration in 2012.”   John Bolton, then and now, leads the charge against Iran, previously aided by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

As the story develops it links Israel, ISIS, and Saudi Arabia into the web of lies about fighting terrorism in the Middle East when in reality “the United States is actually supporting the terrorists…chaos is the desired means to the United States desired end, which appears to be…more chaos.”   Kovalik reiterates this later,

“By design, the United States…has unleashed indescribable chaos upon the region.  This has not only caused untold loss of life and suffering to the people of the region, but has also led to the eradication of their history and culture.”

The latter is very noticeable throughout Iraq, was on the path to succeeding in Syria, and has been practiced daily over the years in occupied Palestine.

Mohammad Mosaddegh in court, 8 November 1953 (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The story then turns back in time to the beginning of the current history of imperial intentions for hegemony which started with Great Britain in association with the U.S. attempting to get rid of the popular and democratically elected government of Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953.  The objective at the time was the usual control of oil resources.  It should be noted control and profits were the motive, as the US$ link to oil had not yet been fully created.  Another factor in line with the U.S. desire for global hegemony and its communist fear mongering was the desire “to wipe out the “danger of a good example” to other upstart nations.”

While working through Mossadegh’s overthrow, the history also involves the reintroduction of the Shah into Iranian politics.  Supported by the CIA who trained the Shah’s security force, SAVAK, Iran became a loyal supporter of U.S. plans.  The suppression of resistance resulted in many political prisoners and many “disappeared” dissenters, a strategy replicated by CIA surrogate dictators in Argentina and Chile.”  The result was a “whole society corrupted by power and fear.”

Summing up the activities of the U.S.supported Shah and the SAVAK, Kovalik says,

“Iranians have every reason and right to feel anger, and even hatred toward the United States, not just for what has been done to them, but also because the United States continues to do so while holding itself out as a bright beacon of democracy and freedom to the world.”

The history continues with more links to events in the Carter regime and its aggression in El Salvador and its ongoing support of the Shah’s regime.  Again, these associations are directly applicable as “it is important to note that the United States has consciously utilized the “Salvador option” in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan to put down insurgencies….”

Then, at least according to MSM accounts, the Iranian people suddenly overthrew the Shah and installed their dictatorship under Ayatollah Khomeini, holding dozens of U.S. embassy personnel hostage until subsequently released after some shady dealings with Ronald Reagan’s electoral campaign.   Kovalik weaves the story through the Iran-Iraq war and its many side issues: the Iran-Contra affair;  the use of WMDs by Iraq (poison gas from U.S. sources);  Israeli and U.S. support given to both sides hoping to exhaust them both.

Jacobo Árbenz in military uniform

Another side trip is taken through Guatemala and the attempts to overthrow the Sandinista government.  Guatemala was the U.S.’ CIA second overthrow, as following the Mossadegh coup  in Iran, the same tactics were applied to overthrowing the democratically elected government of Jacobo Arbenz (image on the right), not for oil this time, but to stop land reform and for the United Fruit Company of Boston (now Chiquita).

Afghanistan’s war plays a significant part of this history, as Iran aided the U.S. in its measures against al-Qaeda and the Taliban and received nothing but an “Axis of Evil” label from George Bush with attempts to instigate rebellion in the Baluchi area of Iran.  Kovalijk’s summary of the Afghanistan mission is “that we have lost in Afghanistan, if there was ever anything there to win, and that we need to end the occupation and accept the inevitable rule of the Taliban whether we like it or not.”

Finally, the war in Yemen is brought into the narrative.  According to the MSM, the Saudi’s are fighting valiantly against Houthis/al-Qaeda in Yemen who are supported by Iran.  The reality is a crime of aggression by the Saudi’s to control more territory and in a personal vein, to inflate the ego of bin Salman.  While Yemen is being pummeled with U.S. made weapons, delivered in U.S. made planes, fuelled with U.S. air-tanker assistance, aided with U.S. reconnaissance information, and with tens of thousands of Yemenis killed and millions placed on the edge of starvation, disease, and murder, the U.S. and other western MSM remain silent.  “The disconnect on this issue is quite revealing of the dynamics of US foreign policy…demonstrates the stark double standard between how we view the “crimes of others” and our own crimes.”

Unfortunately, this kind of history goes back to the founding fathers (who adopted British colonial racist policies) as George Washington is cited, “lay waste to all settlements around…that the [native] country not be merely overrun but destroyed….Our future security will be…in the terror which the severity of the chastisement they receive will inspire in them.”  Welcome to the empire – Iraq, Libya, Guatemala and many dozens of other countries attacked by the U.S.

Kovalik’s conclusions are obvious.  Iran is not a threat to Israel (who have some 200 nuclear warheads to Iran’s zero warheads).  Iran is not a threat to the United States (well, perhaps in combination with Russia and China and the avoidance of the US$ as the empire continues to decline).  Oil is not required especially in an era when the U.S. could be leading the world with ‘green’ technology (okay, see the US$ again).

Kovalik’s book, The Plot to Attack Iran – How the CIA and the Deep State Have Conspired to Vilify Iran,  is mainly about Iran, it necessitates all the associations he brings to it concerning other U.S. efforts at subjugating a foreign nation to their imperial demands.  It is a well written work using many sources and personal anecdotal material, putting Iran’s story into a global and historical context, once again implicating the U.S. in humanitarian and war crimes, a good read for knowledge about the Middle East, Iran in particular, and about the workings of the U.S. empire.

*

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.


150115 Long War Cover hi-res finalv2 copy3.jpg

The Globalization of War: America’s “Long War” against Humanity

Michel Chossudovsky

The “globalization of war” is a hegemonic project. Major military and covert intelligence operations are being undertaken simultaneously in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, sub-Saharan Africa, Central Asia and the Far East. The U.S. military agenda combines both major theater operations as well as covert actions geared towards destabilizing sovereign states.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0
Year: 2015
Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Tuesday, March 5, will be the last day of production at the General Motors Lordstown, Ohio, plant as the last Chevy Cruze sedan rolls out of the 6.2 million-square-foot complex, halfway between Cleveland, Ohio, and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.

The closure of the iconic factory, the scene of many battles by militant autoworkers in the 1970s, is a corporate crime, added and abetted by the United Auto Workers (UAW) union. The plant, which was opened in 1966 and once employed up to 13,000 workers, had been reduced from three shifts to one before its closure.

Last Friday was the last day of work for hundreds of Magna Seating employees in nearby Warren, Ohio, who posed for pictures with the last seats made for the GM car. Thousands of other workers in supplier plants, trucking companies, local restaurants and other workplaces are also expected to lose their jobs.

The closure is part of GM’s move to close assembly plants in Detroit and Oshawa, Ontario, and two transmission plants in Warren, Michigan, and Baltimore, Maryland, as part of plans to eliminate 6,000 production and 8,000 white collar jobs in North America. This is part of a global restructuring that includes plant closings and layoffs in Brazil, Russia, China and other countries.

Many Lordstown workers have already been forced to make the difficult decision of transferring to other GM plants hundreds or even thousands of miles away, leaving behind relatives, friends and communities where they had established deep roots.

The shutdown is the most recent in a long line of attacks on jobs in the Mahoning Valley in northeastern Ohio, which includes Lordstown, Warren and Youngstown and was once known for steel production and related manufacturing. Since the Black Monday closure announcement of Youngstown Sheet and Tube on September 19, 1977, the valley has lost nearly one-fifth of its total population.

Mill closings throughout the 1980s cost the region roughly 40,000 manufacturing jobs. This resulted in a spread of poverty, substandard housing, collapsing school systems, and an opioid crisis that will only worsen now.

In early December, five children died in a house fire on Parkcliffe Avenue in Youngstown just a few miles from the Lordstown GM plant. Meanwhile, the death toll in Ohio from drug overdose has been staggering, with 4,854 deaths in 2017 alone.

Lordstown Strike in 1980s

According to a recent study by the Ohio Alliance for Innovation in Population Health, the combined loss of life expectancy in Ohio between 2010 and 2016 due to the opioid epidemic was more than 500,000 years. This includes approximately 30,000 lost years of life in the eastern counties of Mahoning, Trumbull and Columbiana around the former industrial centers of Youngstown and Warren. In Trumbull County, where the plant is located, the total reached a record 135 deaths for 2017.

“It is not just affecting workers at the plant or just the city of Youngstown, a veteran Lordstown worker told the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter‚ “It is devastating a wide area; communities, families. People are being forced to leave behind relatives, wives, parents who are ill.

“The mood is very somber,” he said. “All these plants are closing despite the fact we gave up everything they wanted; competitive operating agreements; everything.”

The Lordstown plant was the scene of a three-week strike in 1972 over grueling speed-up for the production of the Chevy Vega compact car. The strike was a rebellion, particularly of young workers, against GM, which laid off 300 workers while increasing the line speed from 60 to 101 cars per hour, the fastest line speed in the world at the time.

In the decades since then the UAW has done everything to stamp out any resistance by autoworkers to the destruction of jobs and ever greater levels of exploitation. The transformation of the UAW into a direct instrument of management was rooted in the inability of nationally based unions to respond in any progressive way to the globalization of production.

In the name of increasing global “competitiveness,” the UAW has overseen the destruction of hundreds of thousands of jobs and imposed one round of concessions after another, including the introduction of multiple tiers and the spread of part time work. At the same time, the UAW has sought to divert opposition to its collusion with the auto bosses by blaming job and wage cuts on workers in China, Mexico and other countries, even though these workers are facing the same attacks.

Scene of Youngstown house fire

In exchange for policing the workforce, the automakers have funneled billions of dollars over the last four decades into the coffers of the UAW through a network of corporate-union training centers established in the early 1980s. This has included the recently revealed direct bribery of union officials to obtain favorable contract terms from Fiat Chrysler. Through its retiree healthcare trust, the UAW also holds 100 million shares of GM stock, currently valued at around $4 billion.

According to its latest filing with the US Labor Department, the UAW has just over $1 billion in assets, even though the number of dues paying members has plummeted from 1.5 million in 1979 to 431,000 today. During the same period, the number of hourly autoworkers employed by Detroit’s Big Three automakers has fallen from 750,000 to barely 150,000.

Last year, UAW vice president for General Motors Cindy Estrada signed multiple Memorandums of Understanding behind the backs of workers that enabled GM to bring in low paid workers from its subsidiary, GM Subsystems, at Lordstown and sub-contract workers at its Lake Orion Assembly plant north of Detroit. The express purpose was to replace higher paid senior workers with a lower paid, essentially casual, workforce.

The wave of GM plant shutdowns takes place under conditions where the company is raking in bumper profits. In 2018, GM posted third quarter pre-tax earnings of $3.2 billion, with an 8.8 percent profit margin, a 25 percent increase over the same period in 2017. North American earnings rose from $2.1 billion to $2.8 billion. The plant shutdowns and other job cuts will transfer to GM shareholders another $6 billion in cost savings while destroying more than 14,000 jobs. Over the last four years, the company has spent more than $10 billion on stock buybacks—almost double its cost-savings from mass layoffs—in order to boost the fortunes its richest shareholders.

From the first announcement of the plant closures the Socialist Equality Party and the World Socialist Web Site Autoworker Newsletter insisted that the fight to defend jobs required the development of the independent initiative of workers in opposition to capitalism and the “right” of corporate owners to close plants and devastate workers’ lives. We insisted that such a fight had to be developed independently of and in opposition to the pro-corporate UAW.

The only organized opposition to the plant closings has been mounted by the WSWS and the Steering Committee of the Coalition of Rank-and-File Committees. On February 9, the committee and the WSWS Autoworker Newsletter held a demonstration at General Motors headquarters in downtown Detroit insisting on the defense of all jobs and a fight to win back all lost concessions. The demonstration called for the international unity of autoworkers, linking the fight against plant closures with the ongoing militant struggle of maquiladora workers in Mexico and the broader struggles of the working class. The demonstration received statements of solidarity and support from workers involved in struggles in India, Sri Lanka, Mexico, Germany and Britain.

In contrast, the response of the UAW to the closings has been a repetition of the failed and reactionary policies it has pursued over the last four decades. It has combined ferocious anti-Chinese and anti-Mexican chauvinism, including a boycott of vehicles assembled in Mexico, with pathetic protests to GM management, the Trump administration and Democratic politicians, and the organization of demoralizing candlelight vigils.

After a delay of months, only last week did the UAW file a pro forma lawsuit over breach of contract terms for the plant closures. Significantly, the Detroit-Hamtramck facility was not named in the suit. The UAW has refused to organize a single mass protest, let alone industrial action, over the ongoing jobs massacre.

Now UAW President Gary Jones has said that the union will make the plant closures an issue in the 2019 contract talks, a sure indication that the UAW is preparing to use the attack on jobs to press for further concessions.

Workers must launch a counteroffensive in defense of jobs and decent living standards. This requires the building of a network of rank-and-file committees from every factory to launch a struggle independent of the UAW, including preparations for demonstrations, plant occupations and a national strike. Central to this is establishing the unity in struggle of autoworkers throughout North America, linking workers in the US, Canada and Mexico to fight for demands that workers need, not what the auto bosses and the UAW claim is affordable.

This includes rehiring all laid off workers and victimized workers, abolishing all tiers, hiring temporary and contract workers as full time regular employees and a 40 percent wage increase to make up for decades of wage stagnation.

The fight against plant closings and mass layoffs requires a frontal assault on the financial oligarchy, which has dictated the restructuring of the auto industry. The working class must mount a political struggle for socialism against the corporations and financial interests behind them. This includes transforming the auto monopolies and other transnational conglomerates into public enterprises, collectively owned and democratically controlled by the working class, in order to guarantee good paying and secure jobs, industrial democracy and workers control of production.

*

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

All images in this article are from WSWS

Selected Articles: Trump-Kim: Will There be a Third Summit?

March 5th, 2019 by Global Research News

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

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

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

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

*     *     *

The Trump-Kim Summit: What Really Happened in Hanoi?

By Mike Whitney, March 05, 2019

Author Michael Haas disputes this account in an article at antiwar.com. Haas says there WAS a counter-offer that expanded Washington’s demands to include other weapons systems unrelated to the nuclear file.

North Korea: Achievements in Health and Education

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 05, 2019

What the US wants to impose on North Korea is the so-called “Vietnam Economic Model”. What this implies is that North Korea would embrace the free market, reform its economy under IMF-World  guidelines, open up to foreign investors and become a so-called “normal Asian country”.

The Trump – Kim Summit in Hanoi: Was Trump Forced to Walk?

By Peter Koenig, March 04, 2019

Trump demanded full denuclearization before he would even talk about lifting sanctions. The give-nothing and demand-everything approach obviously didn’t fly with Mr. Kim. Trump apparently didn’t even want to talk about a long overdue peace agreement – technically DPRK and the US have been at war for the last 70 years. Stalemate. Trump walked. No written statement. Nothing.

Did Bolton Blow North Korea?

By Rep. Ron Paul, March 04, 2019

Washington’s political class seemed terrified that the nearly 70 year state of “war” with North Korea might actually end. In the end the only positive thing they could say about the meeting was that Trump apparently walked away with nothing to show for it.

China Sees Some Light in the Failure of the Hanoi Summit

By Tom Clifford, March 01, 2019

The Hanoi talks were meant to trade some form of sanctions relief by the US for a freeze or dismantling of nuclear facilities in North Korea. This is broadly what China and Russia want and is the foundation stone of any potential deal.

Walkout in Hanoi: The Second Trump-Kim Summit

By Dr. Binoy Kampmark, March 01, 2019

At the end of January, Stephen Biegun, designated special representative for North Korea in the US State Department, suggested that Pyongyang had made a commitment in pre-summit talks to eliminate uranium and plutonium enrichment facilities for a price.

“Killer Diplomacy”: The Kim-Trump Summit in Hanoi, Sabotaged by Mike Pompeo?

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, March 01, 2019

Prior to the Hanoi encounter, Trump intimated that if a moratorium on nuclear missile testing by the DPRK was reached, he would be satisfied.  And that this commitment would then lead to subsequent negotiations.

Kim Meets Trump in Hanoi. Failure of Second US-DPRK Summit

By Stephen Lendman, February 28, 2019

Two days of talks were cut short on Thursday with no resolution of major differences, no final statement as was issued after last June’s summit – the customary format whenever formal meetings between leaders are held.

*

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

In the morning of March 3, fighters of the al-Qaeda-affiliated group Ansar al-Tawhid carried out a major attack on several positions of the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) near the town of Masasneh in northern Hama. A military source told SouthFront that more than 16 SAA soldiers were killed in the attack. 6 Ansar al-Tawhid members were eliminated.

The Ansar al-Tawhid attack was launched from the Idlib demilitarized zone, which had been established under a Russian-Turkish agreement in September 2018. According to the agreement, such groups should not be deployed within the zone and heavy weapons belonging to militants should be withdrawn from the area. However, these terms have never been met.

Both Syrian foreign and defense ministries have commented on the attack by warning that the Damascus government is not going to tolerate terrorists attacking SAA positions and civilians.

By the evening of March 3, it had appeared that the SAA resumed preparations for a military action in northern Hama and southern Idlib. Pro-militant sources revealed that civilians living within the zone of the supposed operation received warnings that they should stay away from militant positions. Pro-government sources speculated that the advance is imminent because the de-militarization zone agreement de-facto failed. It should be noted that last week the Syrian Air Force delivered several precise strikes on terrorist infrastructure in the provinces of Idlib and Hama.

If the guarantors of Astana format de-escalation efforts, in particular Turkey, take no measures to put an end to repeated violations of the ceasefire regime by Idlib militant groups, a new round of escalation in northwestern Syria will become imminent.

On March 1, the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces resumed their advance on ISIS positions near the village of al-Baghuz in the Euphrates Valley. The attack came following a formal SDF declaration that all civilians had been evacuated from the area. For example, according to the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR), over 52,000 people had withdrawn from the shirking ISIS-held pocket since December. Taking into account the pre-war density of population in this area, this number seems to be overestimated.

The number of ISIS members remaining besieged by the SDF was estimated somewhere between 250 and 300. At least 18 of them had been killed since the resumption of the operation. It’s expected that the SDF and the US-led coalition will soon eliminate the ISIS-held pocket. After this Washington will have to find some other pretext to continue operations in Syria. Most likely, this will be the declared need to defend young naïve democracy, which is being built up in the US-occupied part of the country.

*

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

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

The poster boy of the far-right in Britain would not be so prominent if it were not for radical free-market agitators on the extreme right in America providing support for his UK activities, which is ultimately designed to stoke up social division and tension for a specific political outcome.

By all accounts, it appears that Tommy Robinson has been served papers with legal papers over claims he made about a teen Syrian refugee who was then allegedly bullied at school.

The far-right mouthpiece, whose real name is Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, could face a defamation suit over videos and Facebook posts he made about the 15-year-old. Amid prominent media coverage, Robinson posted a series of videos on his Facebook account accusing the boy of bullying and claiming “lots of Muslim gangs are beating up white English kids” in Britain.

Members of the public donated well over £10,000 for legal action against the anti-Islam activist after he posted a series of videos and Facebook posts about the incident in October.

The legal papers were served only a week or so after Robinson’s Facebook page and other social media accounts were taken down.

But how did Robinson go from career criminal and local loudmouth to international right-wing poster boy? Of course, you need to follow the money.

It would be wrong to think that Robinson’s right-wing appearances, website and other communication outlets are funded by British people of a like mind – because while that may be true – it is only true to a certain extent. He is receiving financial, political and moral support from a broad array of non-British groups and individuals, including a number of right-wing US think tanks according to a Guardian investigation.

In that investigation, Robinson has been found to have received funding from a US tech billionaire and a think tank based in Philadelphia. Then there are two other US think tanks, part-funded by some of the biggest names in rightwing funding. They have published a succession of articles in support of Robinson, who has since become something of a cause célèbre among the American far right since he was jailed last May for two months.

Analysis conducted for the Guardian by the London-based Institute for Strategic Dialogue found that more than 40% of the tweets came from the US, 30% from the UK and the balance from a mix of other countries, putting the US, not the UK as his biggest followers. And prior to Facebook closing Robinson’s page he had more than 1 million followers, many from at least a dozen countries outside the UK, notably the US.

For everything in the Guardian investigation, it becomes apparent that although they cite supporters from a few different countries, by far, the vast majority of their report names American organisations such as the Philadelphia-based think tank, the Middle East Forum (MEF), US tech billionaire Robert Shillman, the New York City-based think tank, the Gatestone Institute and the David Horowitz Freedom Center (DHFC), a California-based think tank that describes itself as a “school for political warfare.”

And to give some idea of the ideology of the source of funding – the MEF received $792,000 from a foundation led by Nina Rosenwald, the co-chair of American Securities Management, once dubbed “the sugar mama of anti-Muslim hate”.

To make matters even worse, the Gatestone Institute has received more than $2m in donations, including $250,000 from the Mercer Family Foundation, which is funded by Donald Trump’s top donor, Robert Mercer, and run by the billionaire’s daughter Rebekah. This is the very same group involved in the Brexit scandal that used known military tactics and strategies on the civilian population of Britain in the EU referendum. Now familiar names like SCL elections, Cambridge Analytica and of course Facebook are implicated. The police and National Crime Agency along with the Electoral Commission are involved.

These very same organisations, typically fronted by think tanks and charities have been repeatedly accused of stoking anti-Islam sentiment in the west and spreading false information about Muslim refugees in Europe. And of course, their support for Robinson is very clear.

MEF president Daniel Pipes said –

In May 2018, in the course of five hours, he was arrested, tried, convicted, sentenced to 13 months’ prison, and jailed; that sounds more like a banana republic than the home of the Magna Carta.”

That is factually incorrect on all accounts. It was the very same Pipes that created the fake news story (HERE) about “no-go” zones in predominantly Muslim areas in Europe.

The MEF then spent a five-figure sum on Tommy Robinson’s legal defence. It also confirmed that it is aware of up to four other similar organisations were bankrolling a high-profile campaign aimed at supporting him and securing his release.

MEF also confirmed it is funding Robinsons’s organising of London rallies and additional political lobbying.

An American diplomat representing Donald Trump even lobbied the British ambassador on Robinson’s behalf at the time – a direct intervention attempt at pressuring the justice system in Britain. Writing for The Independent, Nick Ryan of Hope not Hate said American anti-Islam commentator Pamela Gellar had provided Robinson with financial support and the alt-right website Breitbart lobbied Donald Trump’s ambassador for international religious freedom who lobbied the British government over Robinson’s case. Ryan went on to say:

“He is backed by powerful overseas figures with deep pockets, yet portrays himself a man of the people: it’s time we woke up to the real Tommy.” 

Robinson’s following on social media has also surged and he has been publicly supported by figures including the US president’s son, Donald Trump Jr.

More American intervention into Britain’s political dialogue is seen where the news of Robinson’s imprisonment last May generated a surge of pro-Robinson tweets. Analysis of 2.2m #freetommy tweets showed 42% came from the US, according to research by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue.

The aims of these American right-wing free-market jihadists is simple. They are using any opportunity they can to amplify political divisions in the UK.

Fiyaz Mughal, the founder of Tell Mama, which records anti-Muslim hate crimes, describes this type of foreign interventionism as one we should all be very wary of – “It should alarm anyone in this country who values the democratic principles on which our country are founded.”

We should also not forget that far right terrorism is a “growing threat” in Britain according to the Metropolitan Police’s outgoing Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley. Four foiled terror plots in 2017 (28%) were categorised as far right, compared to ten foiled Islamist plots.

John Meighan, the 33-year-old founder of far-right Football Lads’ Alliance, a supporter of Robinson, was embroiled in a closed FLA Facebook group that came under fire for hosting comments that included calls for Sadiq Khan, London’s first Muslim mayor, to be “hanged”, and a graphic cartoon depicting Diane Abbott and Jeremy Corbyn.

“I don’t think saying ‘hang Sadiq Khan’ is racist,” says Meighan, defending the post. Meighan is the same man who is talking up the prospect of civil war on the streets of Britain – according to a 2018 report by the BBC. “We could have a civil war in this country if something isn’t done soon. People will just take things into their own hands.”

American right-wing media outlets including Fox News, Breitbart regularly feature as Robinson’s supporters along with American actress Roseanne Barr, and internet personalities associated with the American alt-right.

Britain dominates the top ten list of leading far-right influencers according to a new report by Hope Not Hate, with much of their success being driven by followers outside the UK, especially the USA. Tommy Robinson is now classified by this report and another study as one of the top five far-right figures in the western world.

Heidi Beirich, deputy director of the Southern Poverty Law Centre, which monitors hate groups across the US, said the level of support for Robinson is “extraordinary”.

Even Nigel Farage, a man allegedly about to be arrested on money laundering charges, involved with people who have been convicted of the same says – “The very idea of Tommy Robinson being at the centre of the Brexit debate is too awful to contemplate.”

It would be easy to forget amongst all the furore and media coverage surrounding Robinson that he did a stint in prison for mortgage fraud and was sentenced for assault, again for assaulting a police officer, for leading a punch up at a football match that almost turned into a riot, for using a false identity with a false passport and lastly convicted twice for contempt of court (source).

In short, we should be very wary of American intervention into British culture. They have been found to have extensively funded and influenced the result of the EU referendum. They have been found to be infiltrating public life and intervening in Britain’s political discourse and caught red-handed in open warfare against Britain’s moderate way of life.

*

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

Featured image is from TruePublica

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Tommy Robinson and the Ultra Right-wing Jihadists of America
  • Tags:

Latest round of proposed US sanctions is intended to offset Putin’s legacy-defining socio-economic development program known as the “Great Society”

***

Congress is deliberating whether to promulgate the so-called “Defending American Security from Kremlin Aggression Act of 2019” (DASKAA) that would impose a new round of sanctions against Russia’s financial, shipbuilding, and LNG industries. The timing of this bill shouldn’t be seen as coincidental either, nor should its targeted industries, because it’s part of the US’ strategy to offset President Putin’s legacy-defining socio-economic development program known as the “Great Society”. The Russian leader promised during his reelection campaign last year to prioritize state investment in the economy with a view to making the country competitive with its fellow Great Power peers, and he finally released details about his plans for implementing this grand vision last month.

According to reports, the “Great Society” will cost upwards of $390 billion and focus on 12 main spheres of development including agriculture, transportation infrastructure, and the digital economy, among others. Russia is able to afford this after unveiling its state-of-the-art hypersonic weaponry last year and proving that the country no longer needs to invest such large sums into the military-industrial complex in order to safeguard the state’s security. As such, budgetary funds will naturally be rerouted to the “Great Society”, provided of course that Russia is able to avoid playing into the US’ hands and entering into a costly interconnected arms and space race, which it has thus far been able to resist. It’s precisely because of that, however, that sanctions are once again being weaponized to subvert the “Great Society”.

It’s worthwhile to analyze the specific sectors that DASKAA intends to target in order to obtain a greater appreciation of the strategic deviousness behind this plan. Prohibiting any dealings with Russian state debt and “bonds issued by the Central Bank, the National Wealth Fund, or the Federal Treasury of the Russian Federation, or agents or affiliates of any of these entities” might not seem like that big of a deal at first because it only applies to American citizens, but the danger arises if the US decides to extra-judicially expand its authority to selectively impose so-called “secondary sanctions” against non-Americans who violate this legislation. That could have a chilling effect by deterring some Europeans from engaging in this industry and therefore dealing a hit to the Kremlin’s coffers.

Not only that, but it’s noteworthy that there are provisions included in the text for supposedly targeting Russian banks and other financial entities that the US accuses of being involved in what it alleges to be Moscow’s meddling abroad. This is nothing more than a pretext for selectively sanctioning various entities at will and holding that Damocles’ sword above Russia’s head at all times. Again, the effect is the same, and it’s to dissuade others from doing business with these important actors of the Russian economy. Similarly, the restrictions that are suggested for the shipbuilding and LNG industries are motivated by the desire to simultaneously undercut the US’ competitors, deprive Russia of extra revenue, and impede its non-Western diversification strategy.

About the latter, Russia has been “rebalancing” its strategic focus eastward towards the “Global South” ever since the initial imposition of sanctions against it in early 2014, with energy sales and shipping expected to become some of the vanguard industries of this pivot. Imposing sanctions against those two are supposed to cripple them and trigger cascading consequences that ultimately culminate in putting the brakes on this rapid “rebalancing” and subsequently hitting the state’s budget where it hurts at its most vulnerable time of systemic transition throughout the course of the “Great Society’s” gradual implementation. Acknowledging the risks that DASKAA could pose for Russia, it can be confidently predicted that the worst-case scenarios probably won’t transpire.

Germany’s continued cooperation with Russia on Nord Stream II despite the US’ sanctions threats proves that independently minded Great Powers are capable of defying America’s demands and pursuing their own self-interests as they relate to Russia, suggesting that Berlin might also be incentivized to ignore the US’ DASKAA sanctions threats as well. If the EU’s leader sets the example, then some of its other member states might follow, which could also send a powerful political message to the US. In addition, other non-Western Great Powers such as China, India, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and possibly even Japan might also be undeterred and contrarily double down on their commitment to doing business with Russia in those sectors.

The Russian leadership must have anticipated that the weaponization of sanctions would predictably follow the US’ expected failure to trick the country into a costly interconnected arms and space race to offset the “Great Society”, so it should be understood that the state was already prepared for all contingencies and also wouldn’t have made the far-reaching commitments that it did had it not had a reliable means to pay for it. In fact, President Putin announced late last month that Russia’s reserves cover all of the country’s foreign and domestic debt for the first time ever, which is places it in an excellent position to fund its ambitious socio-economic development program across the next six years. As such, there’s no reason to fear that DASKAA will succeed, but it also shouldn’t be completely dismissed either.

*

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

This article was originally published on InfoRos.

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 InfoRos

Em Camp Darby, as Forças Especiais Italianas

March 5th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

A notícia não é oficial, mas já é badalada: a partir de Outubro, em Camp Darby irá ondular a bandeira italiana. Será que os Estados Unidos estão para fechar o seu maior arsenal no mundo, fora da mãe Pátria, restituindo à Itália cerca de 1.000 hectares do território que ocupam entre Pisa e Livorno? De maneira nenhuma. Não estão encerrar, mas a reorganizar a base para que possam ser armazenadas mais armas e para fortalecer as ligações com o porto de Livorno e com o aeroporto de Pisa. Na reestruturação, ficou sem utilidade, uma pequena parte da área de lazer: 34 hectares, pouco mais de 3% de toda a área. É isso que o US Army Europe decidiu restituir a Itália, mais precisamente, ao Ministério da Defesa italiano, para fazer o melhor uso possível.

Assim, foi estipulado um acordo que prevê a transferência para esta área do Comando das Forças Especiais do Exército Italiano (COM.FO.S.E), actualmente alojado no quartel de Gamerra de Pisa, sede do Centro de Treino de Paraquedismo. São as forças cada vez mais utilizadas nas operações secretas: infiltram-se à noite em território estrangeiro, identificam os alvos a ser atingidos, eliminam-nos com uma acção relâmpago, saltando de aviões ou descendo de helicópteros, depois retiram-se sem deixar rasto, excepto mortos e destruição.

A Itália, que os usou principalmente no Afeganistão, deu um decisivo passo em frente para o seu fortalecimento quando, em 2014 se tornou operacional , o COM.FO.S.E, que reune sob comando unificado, quatro regimentos: o 9º Regimento de Assalto Col Moschin e o 185º Regimento de Aquisição de Objectivos Folgore, o 28º Regimento de Comunicações de Pavia e o 4º Regimento de Páraquedistas Alpine Rangers. Na cerimónia inaugural de 2014, foi anunciado que o COM.FO.S.E manteria uma “ligação constante com o U.S. Army Special Operation Command”, o comando americano mais importante para operações especiais, composto por cerca de 30 mil especialistas utilizados, principalmente, no Médio Oriente. Em Camp Darby – especificou no ano passado, o Coronel Erik Berdy, Comandante do US Army Italy- já está a ser realizado o treino militar conjunto de militares americanos e italianos.

A transferência do COM.FO.S.E para uma área de Camp Darby, que, formalmente, pertencente à Itália, permitirá integrar, para todos os efeitos, as Forças Especiais italianas com as dos Estados Unidos, empregando-as em operações secretas, sob o comando USA. Tudo sob a capa do segredo militar. Não pode deixar de vir à mente, neste momento, a história das operações secretas de Camp Darby: as investigações dos Juízes de Direito, Casson e Mastelloni, mostraram que Camp Darby tem desempenhado, desde os anos sessenta, a função de base da rede golpista constituída pela CIA e pelo SIFAR  no quadro do plano secreto Gladio. As bases USA/NATO – escreveu Ferdinando Imposimato, Presidente Honorário do Supremo Tribunal Federal – forneceram os explosivos para os massacres da Piazza Fontana, Capaci e Via d’Amelio. Nessas bases reuniam-se “terroristas negros, funcionários da NATO, mafiosos, políticos italianos e maçons, na véspera dos atentados”. No entanto, nem no Parlamento nem nas autoridades locais, ninguém se preocupa com as implicações da transferência das Forças Especiais italianas, de facto, para o interior de Camp Darby, sob comando USA.

Os municípios de Pisa e Livorno, que passaram, respectivamente, do Partido Democrata para a Lega e para o M5S, continuaram a promover, com a Região Toscana, “a integração entre a base militar USA, de Camp Darby e a comunidade circundante”. Há poucos dias, foi decidido integrar os sites Web das administrações locais com os de Camp Darby. A rede do Camp Darby estende-se, cada vez mais, pelo território italiano.

Manlio Dinucci

 il manifesto, 5 de Março de 2019

 

Artigo original em italiano :

A Camp Darby le forze speciali italiane

Tradutora: Maria Luísa de Vasconcellos

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Em Camp Darby, as Forças Especiais Italianas

Will Trump Take Action Against OPEC?

March 5th, 2019 by Nick Cunningham

Brent is creeping back up towards the high-$60s per barrel, prompting a scolding of OPEC by President Trump via tweet earlier this week.

Trump’s irritability with high oil prices is well-known, but the tweet suggests that he sees oil prices getting too close to dangerous political territory once again. He wants more supply to lower prices, but OPEC is much less likely to heed his warning this time around, having been burned by him last year following the surprise waivers issued on Iran sanctions, which helped crash the market.

Trump told OPEC to “relax and take it easy,” and in response, Saudi oil minister Khalid al-Falih said:

“We are taking it easy; 25 countries are taking a very slow and measured approach.”

Al-Falih’s comments suggest that OPEC will not back down in the face of pressure from the U.S. government.

The standoff is unfolding at a time when the U.S. Congress is pushing forward on the “NOPEC” legislation, which would open up OPEC members to antitrust regulation by the U.S. Justice Department. Legislation targeting OPEC has floated around Washington for years, but the momentum and odds of passage into law have never been higher. A confluence of events have come together in favor of the bill, including Democrats in the House of Representatives, an erosion of Saudi support on Capitol Hill, and a mercurial President that likes to rhetorically beat up on OPEC.

At a minimum, the possibility of the NOPEC bill becoming law grants President Trump significantly more leverage in his demands for OPEC to lower oil prices. So far, at least publicly, he has refrained from using that threat, most notably in his February 25 tweet calling on OPEC to “relax.”

“The effect of President Trump’s comment would likely have been greater had he explicitly mentioned the [NOPEC bill],” Standard Chartered analysts wrote in a note.

The investment bank noted that the sharp fall in oil prices that day may have been a result of the market interpreting the tweet as a veiled threat to OPEC regarding the NOPEC bill. However, Standard Chartered said that may not have been the case.

“Trump has not up to now been known to specialise in veiled threats; he tends to be explicit.”

So, perhaps Trump is holding his fire, at least for now. Even though Capitol Hill has warmed up to the bill, there are powerful interests lining up against the legislation, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the American Petroleum Institute and much of the domestic oil industry. After all, U.S. oil producers are perfectly happy to let OPEC cut production to boost prices – OPEC’s actions to engineer higher prices works entirely in the favor of U.S. shale drillers.

Also, U.S. Secretary of Energy Rick Perry expressed some skepticism on Thursday about the NOPEC bill, arguing that without OPEC’s market management, prices could crash, dealing a blow to supply, which could subsequently raise prices again. Hailing from Texas, Perry is wary of letting his friends in the shale industry suffer. In short, no market management from OPEC means a lot more volatility.

Still, OPEC is not exactly popular in Washington or elsewhere in the United States, so it doesn’t exactly have much of a political constituency outside of the oil industry. Bashing OPEC, or at least being seen as confronting the oil cartel, is arguably a political winner. That gives the bill decent odds of becoming law.

“We see NOPEC as potentially one of the defining issues for the oil market in 2019,” Standard Chartered analysts concluded. “While President George W. Bush vetoed similar legislation on grounds of it acting against the US national interest, the possibility of it being enacted into law should it reach President Trump’s desk appears significant in our view.”

For its part, OPEC doesn’t appreciate being made the bad guy. Secretary-General Mohammad Barkindo said that if it weren’t for OPEC, the oil industry would have faced disaster.

“OPEC has been doing a great service,” to the industry and to global oil markets, Barkindo told CNBC on Wednesday. “The decisions that OPEC took, together with our non-OPEC partners, literally rescued this industry from total collapse.”

When asked about the NOPEC legislation, Barkindo said:

“You can ask the producers in the shale basins in the U.S. whether they have benefitted from the actions we have taken over the years.”

He essentially argued that the U.S. needs OPEC to maintain market stability.

“[W]ithout OPEC, the U.S. would probably have created another organization to do exactly the same.”

*

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

Featured image is from OilPrice.com

While the western media has written off last weekend’s summit in Hanoi as a failure, the talks did help to burnish Kim Jong-un’s reputation as a sincere statesman committed to peacefully resolving the nuclear issue. This is a significant development for the simple reason that Kim needs to continue to build popular support for his cause if he hopes to prevail in the long-term. In that regard, the lifting of sanctions is not nearly as important as Kim’s broader goal of ending Washington’s military occupation of the Korean peninsula and reunifying the country. In order to achieve those objectives, Kim will need the support of his allies in Moscow and Beijing as well as that of the Korean people. His disciplined performance in Hanoi suggests that he is entirely deserving of that support.

There’s no way to know whether Kim expected President Trump to put the kibosh on the deal or not. But with uber-hawks like Mike Pompeo and John Bolton at the bargaining table, he must have figured that there was a high probability of failure. Was that why Kim made such a generous offer during the negotiations? Was it part of a plan to make him look good because he knew Trump would throw a wrench in the works?

It’s hard to say, but it’s clear that Kim emerged from the confab looking much more amenable and statesmanlike than Trump. From the very beginning, Kim appeared to be fully committed to working with his American counterparts to hammer out a deal that was mutually acceptable. He basically showed the world that he was willing to offer up the bulk of the DPRK nuclear weapons-ballistic missile programs on a silver platter in exchange for a partial lifting of sanctions. It was an extraordinarily generous offer which should have led to a real breakthrough, but it didn’t. Instead, the offer was breezily rejected without debate or counter-offer. Why? Why would Trump shrug off an offer to permanently halt all long-range rocket and nuclear tests and to “completely dismantle all the nuclear production facilities” at Yongbyon, the DPRK’s primary nuclear enrichment facility? Isn’t that what Washington wanted from the get go?

Author Michael Haas disputes this account in an article at antiwar.com. Haas says there WAS a counter-offer that expanded Washington’s demands to include other weapons systems unrelated to the nuclear file. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The most probable reason for lack of progress was that the United States made new demands at Hanoi. Although North Korea’s proposal for limited if robust sanctions relief had been discussed weeks prior to the meeting, American negotiators in Hanoi suddenly asked for destruction of a second nuclear enrichment facility that Pyongyang had not previously acknowledged. Even though North Korea apparently agreed to that demand, another unanticipated request was not only for full disclosure of all nuclear and missile sites but also for a full accounting of all biological and chemical weapons. In other words, the American negotiators moved the goalposts regarding the focus of the potential agreement, startling their North Korea counterparts, who then countered that such a step might require removal of all sanctions. Upping the ante on one side was mirrored by the other side, giving Trump an excuse to walk away.” (“Why the Hanoi Summit Failed”, antiwar.com)

Okay, so according to Haas, the Trump team deliberately blindsided Kim in order to sabotage the negotiations. That sounds about right. Of course none of this has popped up in the western media where US leaders are typically extolled for their unshakable virtue while their rivals, like Kim, are vilified as “brutal dictators who can’t be trusted.” Regrettably, the facts tell a different story.

What was particularly puzzling about the summit was the manner in which the negotiations were conducted, that is, there were no negotiations at all, not really. The Trump delegation simply listened politely to Kim’s offers, scratched their chins and then rejected them without debate or counter proposal. In other words, the whole summit was a fraud. The US did not come to argue, dicker, quibble, wrangle or haggle on any of the key issues. In their minds, the final verdict was already was set in stone before they ever touched down in Hanoi. It was a done deal. The sanctions would continue to be enforced until the DPRK government collapsed or until hell froze over, which ever came first. The media would like readers to believe that the credulous Trump narrowly escaped a lethal trap set by the evil despot, Kim Jong un. But that’s not what happened at all. What happened is that Kim showed his willingness to go the extra mile for peace but was slapped down by an unreasonable, inflexible and intractable adversary who remains focused laserlike on preserving the status quo, intensifying the sanctions and paving the way to regime change. That’s what the summit really proved, that one side is looking for compromise and resolution while the other favors confrontation and conflict.

So why did Trump agree to go to Hanoi if he had no intention of hashing out a deal? What did he hope to gain by looking rigid and unyielding while Kim made every effort to find common ground? Didn’t he know that leaders in China, Russia and South Korea would be following every word, putting every minute detail under the microscope, and convening high-level meetings to decipher what really took place?

Maybe those things don’t matter to Trump but they’re certainly going to affect the way that Kim’s allies address the sanctions issue in the future. After Hanoi, I would expect Russia and China will look for ways circumvent the sanctions in order to reward Kim for the steps he’s taken towards denuclearization, after all, Russia and China do not seek a permanently divided peninsula or regime change. They simply want Kim to abandon his nukes program for the sake of regional stability. That was the original purpose of the sanctions, to stop the provocative nuclear and missile tests that were intensifying the clash with Washington. But now the sanctions have taken on a life of their own and are being used to pursue a geopolitical agenda that conflicts with Russian and Chinese national security interests. That wasn’t plan.

Neither Putin nor Xi Jinping want to see North Korea brought to its knees creating another failed state that becomes a hotbed of terrorism and anarchy. That’s not what they want at all. They want a North Korea that is ready to participate in their massive economic integration plans (One Belt, One Road, Eurasian Economic Union etc) They want a North Korea that enjoys the benefits of modernization, state of the art technology and infrastructure, high-speed rail, gas pipelines and ever-improving standards of living. They want a North Korea that is an ally, a partner, and a friend that will participate in the shared vision of a giant pan-Asian free trade zone that benefits all equitably while respecting the sovereign rights of the individual nation-states. They want to implement a regional development plan that doesn’t put western banks and corporations at the top of the ladder where they arbitrarily impose ‘the rules of the game’ on everyone else. This is what Beijing and Moscow want, and this is what Kim wants. He wants to set aside his nukes, end his conflict with Washington and get on with the business of making money. Sound reasonable?

The one fly in the ointment is Washington, which is determined to torpedo Kim’s plan by any means possible. Pompeo and Bolton know what’s going on, they know Kim is not a communist ideologue or a Marxist revolutionary. They know he aspires to be Korea’s Deng Xiaoping, the leader who opened Chinese markets to the outside world. Here’s how author John Delury summed it up in a recent op-ed in the New York Times:

“Mr. Kim wants to be a great economic reformer….From the moment Mr. Kim took power almost seven years ago, he signaled a shift in the regime’s focus, from security to prosperity. …He decentralized decision-making,…lifted curbs on informal grass-roots markets and small private businesses”….and “called for “a breakthrough” in “re-energizing” the economy. In April… he said, all efforts should go to “socialist economic construction.”

Since then, the-economy-as-priority has been regular fare in North Korea’s media and from propaganda organs. Mr. Kim spent the summer months visiting farms, factories and tourist resorts, often chastising cadres for failing to implement development projects fast enough. During recent festivities celebrating the country’s founding, the parade featured floats with economic slogans and no ICBMs. If the iconic image of Mr. Kim in 2017 shows him watching a missile test, the one for 2018 shows him inspecting a fish cannery….

Mr. Kim wants North Korea to become a normal East Asian economy, catch up with and integrate into the region, and it’s in everyone’s interest to help him do so…”(“Kim Jong-un Has a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It”, New York Times)

The author is wrong about one thing, it is NOT in everyone’s interest to help Kim achieve his objectives, in fact, Washington believes it’s a threat to their national security and their so-called pivot to Asia strategy, which is a plan to economically dominate Asia through the next century. If Kim’s regional economic integration plan goes forward, you can stick a fork in Washington’s strategy. Here’s more from the same article:

“On his visit to Pyongyang this week, South Korea President Moon Jae-in brought the heads of state-backed rail and energy corporations, along with the CEOs of South Korea’s top conglomerates. No deals were struck, and the group has been mum so far about its meetings. But its presence was enough to send the message that South Korea stands ready to move forward with major economic cooperation projects with the North.

In one astonishing scene, Mr. Moon addressed a crowd of 150,000 cheering North Koreans and pledged to “hasten a future of common prosperity.” He praised Pyongyang’s “remarkable progress” and said he understood “what kind of country Chairman Kim and his compatriots in the North want to build.”

In a formal agreement known as the Pyongyang Declaration, the two leaders committed to reconnect rail and road links between the two countries, reopen a frozen joint industrial zone in Kaesong and a tourist site at Mount Kumgang, and make plans for a special economic zone, of the kind Deng promoted to open up China to foreign investment in the 1980s.” (“Kim Jong-un Has a Dream. The U.S. Should Help Him Realize It”, New York Times)

Can you see what’s going on? The economic integration plans are moving forward even before the nuclear issue has been resolved, the sanctions have been lifted, or a formal treaty ending the war has been signed. The entire region appears to be breaking out of Washington’s orbit and charting a new course on its own. Naturally, this has ruffled a few feathers at the White House where Trump’s advisers have concocted various means of derailing the project. Sabotaging the summit in Hanoi is just the first volley in this new confrontation., there are bound to be many more in the days to come. Check out this clip from Business Insider:

“US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that if North Korea agrees to fully dismantle its nuclear weapons program, then the United States will allow American companies to invest in the country.

“This will be Americans coming in — private-sector Americans, not the US taxpayer — helping build the energy grid,” Pompeo said in an interview on “Fox News Sunday.” “They need enormous amounts of electricity in North Korea, to work with them to develop infrastructure.”… Pompeo added that Americans will also help invest in North Korean infrastructure and agriculture to help feed its people if the country meets US demands.

All the things the North Korean people need — [including] the capacity for American agriculture to support North Korea so they can eat meat and have healthy lives,” he said. “Those are the things that if we get what the president has demanded, the complete, verifiable, irreversible de-nuclearization of North Korea, that the American people will offer in spades.” (“Pompeo says American companies could invest in North Korea if Kim Jong Un meets US demands”, Business Insider)

See? None of this has anything to do with Kim’s nukes, it’s all about money. The administration wants the North to open its markets on Washington’s terms which means the free movement of capital, safeguards on foreign investment, the mass privatization of state-owned assets, and preferential treatment for the uncompetitive, monopolistic US-backed mega-corporations that control the state behind the illusion of democratic government. And that’s why the Summit failed, because Kim wants to join an emerging coalition of independent nations that are building a prosperous multipolar world for the future.

Washington is determined to prevent that at all cost, which is why Trump walked out of the meetings in a huff. He wants to nip this thing in the bud.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

Mike Whitney is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Shutterstock

A Camp Darby le forze speciali italiane

March 5th, 2019 by Manlio Dinucci

La notizia non è ufficiale ma già se ne parla: da ottobre su Camp Darby sventolerà il tricolore. Gli Stati uniti stanno per chiudere il loro più grande arsenale nel mondo fuori dalla madrepatria, restituendo all’Italia i circa 1000 ettari di territorio che occupano tra Pisa e Livorno? Niente affatto. Non stanno chiudendo, ma ristrutturando la base perché vi possano essere stoccate ancora più armi e per potenziare i collegamenti col porto di Livorno e l’aeroporto di Pisa. Nella ristrutturazione restava inutilizzata una porzioncina dell’area ricreativa: 34 ettari, poco più del 3% dell’intera area. È questa  che lo US Army Europe ha deciso di restituire all’Italia, più precisamente al Ministero italiano della Difesa, per farne il miglior uso possibile.

È stato così stipulato un accordo che prevede il trasferimento in quest’area del Comando delle forze speciali dell’esercito italiano  (Comfose) attualmente ospitato nella caserma Gamerra di Pisa, sede del Centro addestramento paracadutismo. Sono le forze sempre più impiegate nelle operazioni coperte: si infiltrano nottetempo in territorio straniero, individuano gli obiettivi da colpire, li eliminano con un‘azione fulminea paracadutandosi dagli aerei o calandosi dagli elicotteri, quindi si ritirano senza lasciare traccia salvo i morti e le distruzioni.

L’Italia, che le aveva usate soprattutto in Afghanistan, ha fatto un decisivo passo avanti nel loro potenziamento quando, nel 2014, è divenuto operativo  il Comfose che riunisce sotto comando unificato quattro reggimenti: il 9° Reggimento d’assalto Col Moschin e il 185° Reggimento acquisizione obiettivi Folgore, il  28° Reggimento comunicazioni Pavia e il 4° Reggimento alpini paracadutisti Rangers. Nella cerimonia inaugurale nel 2014 fu annunciato che il Comfose avrebbe mantenuto un «collegamento costante con lo U.S. Army Special Operation Command», il più importante comando statunitense per le operazioni speciali formato da circa 30 mila specialisti impiegati soprattutto in Medio Oriente. A Camp Darby – ha specificato l’anno scorso il colonnello Erik Berdy, comandante dello US Army Italy  –  già si svolgono addestramenti congiunti di militari statunitensi e italiani.

Il trasferimento del Comfose in un’area di Camp Darby, formalmente appartenente all’Italia, permetterà di integrare a tutti gli effetti le forze speciali italiane con quelle statunitensi, impiegandole in operazioni coperte sotto comando Usa. Il tutto sotto la cappa del segreto militare. Non può non venire a mente, a questo punto, la storia delle operazioni segrete di Camp Darby: dalle inchieste dei giudici Casson e Mastelloni è emerso che Camp Darby ha svolto sin dagli anni Sessanta la funzione di base della rete golpista costituita dalla Cia e dal Sifar nel quadro del piano segreto Gladio. Le basi Usa/Nato – scriveva Ferdinando Imposimato, presidente onorario della Suprema Corte di Cassazione – hanno fornito gli esplosivi per le stragi, da Piazza Fontana a Capaci e Via d’Amelio. In queste basi «si riunivano terroristi neri, ufficiali della Nato, mafiosi, uomini politici italiani e massoni, alla vigilia di attentati». Nessuno però, né in parlamento né negli enti locali, si preoccupa delle implicazioni del trasferimento delle forze speciali italiane di fatto all’interno di Camp Darby sotto comando Usa.

I comuni di Pisa e Livorno, passati rispettivamente dal Pd alla Lega e al M5S, hanno continuato a promuovere, con la Regione Toscana, «l’integrazione tra la base militare Usa di Camp Darby e la comunità circostante». Pochi giorni fa è stato deciso di integrare i siti Web delle amministrazioni locali con quelli di Camp Darby. La rete di Camp Darby si estende sempre più sul territorio.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 5 marzo 2019

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on A Camp Darby le forze speciali italiane

Human Rights Orgs: End Canadian Arms Sales to Saudi Arabia

March 5th, 2019 by Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East

Canadians for Justice and Peace in the Middle East (CJPME) joined eleven other human rights organizations to send a letter calling the Canadian government to immediately suspend arms sales to the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. The letter pointed out that three months have passed since the government said it was looking at cancelling sales to the Kingdom, but nothing has happened. In the interim, Saudi Arabia maintains a military campaign in Yemen which commits war crimes and imposes abject suffering.

The organizations’ letter stressed the dire humanitarian situation in Yemen – 17 million food insecure; 3 million having fled their homes; 14.5 million without access to safe drinking water and sanitation; 14.8 million lacking access to healthcare – and Saudi Arabia’s role as a belligerent in the crisis. The letter also highlighted the damning contradiction between Canada giving humanitarian aid to Yemen, while arming Saudi Arabia.

Many of Canada’s allies have already either suspended or terminated arms transfers to Saudi Arabia, including Denmark, Finland, Germany, Switzerland, Greece and Austria. While Trudeau and Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland suggested they would try to find a way to end the sales, the government has remained mum since December. The organizations stressed the danger that Canadian arms could be used to perpetuate serious violations of human rights in Yemen.

The eleven organizations include Amnesty International, Oxfam, and other organizations focused on arms controls, human rights, international security and humanitarian aid.

*

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

Canada’s corrupt foreign policy practices have come home to roost on Parliament Hill.

Justin Trudeau’s government is engulfed in a major political scandal that lays bare corporate power in Ottawa. But, SNC Lavalin’s important role in Canadian foreign policy has largely been ignored in discussion of the controversy.

The Prime Minister’s Office has been accused of interfering in the federal court case against the giant Canadian engineering and construction firm for bribing officials in Libya. Former attorney general Jody Wilson-Raybould claims she was repeatedly pressured to defer prosecution of the company and instead negotiate a fine.

Facing a 10-year ban on receiving federal government contracts if convicted of bribing Libyan government officials, SNC began to lobby the Trudeau government to change the criminal code three years ago. The company wanted the government to introduce deferred prosecution agreements in which a sentencing agreement would allow the company to continue receiving government contracts. At SNC’s request the government changed the criminal code but Wilson-Raybould resisted pressure from the PMO to negotiate a deferred prosecution agreement with the company headquartered in Montréal.

Incredibly, before Trudeau went to bat for SNC after the firm had either been found guilty or was alleged to have greased palms in Libya, Bangladesh, Algeria, India, Kazakhstan, Tunisia, Angola, Nigeria, Mozambique, Ghana, Malawi, Uganda, Cambodia and Zambia (as well as Québec). A 2013 CBC/Globe and Mail investigation of a small Oakville, Ontario, based division of SNC uncovered suspicious payments to government officials in connection with 13 international development projects. In each case between five and 10 per cent of costs were recorded as “‘project consultancy cost,’ sometimes ‘project commercial cost,’ but [the] real fact is the intention is [a] bribe,” a former SNC engineer, Mohammad Ismail, told the CBC.

While the media has covered the company’s corruption and lobbying for a deferred prosecution agreement, they have barely mentioned SNC’s global importance or influence over Canadian foreign policy. Canada’s preeminent “disaster capitalist” corporation, SNC has worked on projects in most countries around the world. From constructing Canada’s Embassy in Haiti to Chinese nuclear centres, to military camps in Afghanistan and pharmaceutical factories in Belgium, the sun never sets on SNC.

Its work has often quite controversial. SNC constructed and managed Canada’s main military base in Kandahar during the war there; SNC Technologies Inc provided bullets to US occupation forces in Iraq; SNC has billions of dollars in contracts with the monarchy in Saudi Arabia.

Across the globe SNC promotes neoliberal reforms. The company greatly benefits from governments shifting to public-private partnerships. SNC is also a member or sponsor of the Canadian Council on Africa, Canadian Council for the Americas, Canada-ASEAN business council, Conseil des Relations Internationales de Montréal and other foreign policy lobby/discussion groups.

SNC has been one of the largest corporate recipients of Canadian “aid.” The company has had entire departments dedicated to applying for Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA), UN and World Bank funded projects. SNC’s first international contract, in 1963 in India, was financed by Canadian aid and led to further work in that country. In the late 1960s the firm was hired to manage CIDA offices in African countries where Canada had no diplomatic representation. In the late 1980s CIDA contracted SNC to produce a feasibility study for the Three Gorges Dam, which displaced more than a million Chinese. During the occupation of Afghanistan CIDA contracted SNC to carry out its $50 million “signature project” to repair the Dahla dam on the Arghandab River in Kandahar province ($10 million was spent on private security for the dam).

In 2006 SNC was bailed out by the Canadian aid agency after it didn’t follow proper procedure for a contract to renovate and modernize the Pallivasal, Sengulam and Panniyar hydroelectric projects in the southern Indian state of Kerala. A new state government demanded a hospital in compensation for the irregularities and SNC got CIDA to put up $1.8 million for the project. (SNC-Lavalin initially said they would put $20 million into the hospital, but they only invested between $2 and $4.4 million.)

Company officials have been fairly explicit about the role Canadian diplomacy plays in their business. Long-time president Jacques Lamarre described how “the official support of our governments, whether through commercial missions or more private conversations, has a beneficial and convincing impact on our international clients.”

Even SNC’s use of bribery has a made-in-Ottawa tint. For years Canada lagged behind the rest of the G7 countries in criminalizing foreign bribery. For example, into the early 1990s, Canadian companies were at liberty to deduct bribes paid to foreign officials from their taxes, affording them an “advantage over the Americans”, according to Bernard Lamarre former head of Lavalin (now SNC Lavalin). In 1991, Bernard, the older brother to SNC Lavalin’s subsequent head Jacques Lamarre, told Maclean’s that he always demanded a receipt when paying international bribes. “I make sure we get a signed invoice,” he said. “And payment is always in the form of a cheque, not cash, so we can claim it on our income tax!”

In 1977, the US Foreign Corrupt Practices Act outlawed bribes to foreign officials. Ottawa failed to follow suit until the Organisation of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) launched its anti-bribery convention in 1997. The OECD convention obliged signatories to pass laws against bribing public officials abroad and two years later Canada complied, passing the Corruption of Foreign Public Officials Act (CFPOA). Still, for the next decade Canadian officials did little to enforce the law. The RCMP waited until 2008 to create an International Anti-Corruption Unit and didn’t secure a significant conviction under the CFPOA until 2011.

As the recent scandal demonstrates — and the Financial Post noted years ago — SNC has “considerable lobbying power in Ottawa.” Placing its CEO among the 50 “Top People Influencing Canadian Foreign Policy”,  Embassy magazine described SNC as “one of the country’s most active companies internationally”, which “works closely with the government.” The now-defunct weekly concluded, “whoever is heading it is a major player” in shaping Canadian foreign policy.

And, as it turns out, in shaping the way things are now done at home in Ottawa.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on SNC Lavalin Scandal Blowback from Corrupt Canadian Foreign Policy
  • Tags: ,

North Korea: Achievements in Health and Education

March 5th, 2019 by Prof Michel Chossudovsky

Author’s Introduction

What the US wants to impose on North Korea is the so-called “Vietnam Economic Model”. What this implies is that the DPRK would embrace the free market, reform its economy under IMF-World  guidance, open up to foreign investors and become a so-called “normal Asian country”. 

In 1994, US sanctions on Vietnam were lifted. Today, Vietnam is America’s cheap labor haven in South East Asia. The levels of poverty are abysmally high. The minimum wage is 20 cents an hour. Health services are privatized and the entire educational system is in crisis.  

Another unspoken truth is that the DPRK’s achievements in health and education according to US-UN data are “higher” than in the United States of America. There is universal health care in the DPRK and literacy is at 99%. 

This article was first written in August 2017

Michel Chossudovsky, March 5, 2019

***

The North Korean government, according to the Western media is said to be oppressing and impoverishing its population.

According to US News and World Report, “North Korea is one of the most miserable places on earth. The standard of living has deteriorated to extreme levels of deprivation in which the right to food security, health and other minimum needs for human survival are denied,” 

“Here in the USA we have medicare, all our kids are educated, we are all literate, and “we want to live in America”.

And in the DPRK, the health system sucks, they don’t have schools and hospital beds, they are all a bunch of illiterates,  

You would not want to live there! “(Author’s paraphrase)

Beneath the mountain of media disinformation, there is more than meets the eye. Despite sanctions and military threats, not to mention the failed intent of “respectable” human rights organizations (including Amnesty International) to distort the facts, North Korea’s “health system is the envy of the developing world” according to the Director General of the World Health Organization:

“WHO director-general Margaret Chan said the country had “no lack of doctors and nurses””.

Screen shot of April 2010 BBC report

Health. DPRK vs. USA

While praising North Korea, the WHO admonishes the USA for “not having a universal health coverage”:

Screenshot CNBC Report, February 2017 quoting a study by the WHO and Imperial College London

Lets look at the figures. The Library of Congress Federal Research Division quoting official sources concurs:

North Korea has a national medical service and health insurance system. As of 2000, some 99 percent of the population had access to sanitation, and 100 percent had access to water, but water was not always potable. Medical treatment is free. In the past, there reportedly has been one doctor for every 700 inhabitants and one hospital bed for every 350 inhabitants

“In 2006 life expectancy was estimated at 74.5 years for women and 68.9 for men, or nearly 71.6 years total.”

Higher than in most developing countries. Lower than in the United States.

Can we trust official US-UN sources?

In America we have medicare.

Education: DPRK vs. USA

What about their run down schools, serving an illiterate North Korean population?

According to UNESCO, Public Education in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is universal and fully funded by the State. According to US official government sources (Library of Congress Federal Research Division):

“Education in North Korea is free, compulsory, and universal for 11 years, from ages four to 15, in state-run schools. The national literacy rate for citizens 15 years of age and older is 99 percent. (Library of Congress, Federal Research Division, p. 7)

In contrast in the USA, according to the US Department of Education Surveys, the Adult Illiteracy rate (16 and older) is of the order of 13.6% and 14.5%  depending on the criterion (2003 data).

There is a 99% percent adult literacy rate in North Korea compared to about 86% in the USA.

That sounds crazy! Who is fiddling with the data? These are all official UN-US statistics.

“The national direct estimates of the percentages of adults lacking BPLS (Basic Prose Literacy Skills) are 14.5 percent for the 2003 NAAL and 14.7 percent for the 1992 NALS. In comparison, the national direct estimates of the percentages Below Basic in prose literacy are 13.6 percent for the NAAL and 13.8 percent for the NALS. (National Center for Education Statistics)

Educational achievement measured in terms of adult literacy in the DPRK is higher than in the United States of America?

And how did they reach this performance with an economic sanctions regime extending over a period of more than 20 years?

History: Up to thirty percent of the population of North Korea was killed during the Korean War (1950-53)

Just a couple of additional statistics concerning “life expectancy” in the DPRK resulting from US led wars (1950-53), not to mention Trump’s “fire and fury”.

“After destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, [General] LeMay remarked,“Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” (See War Veteran Brian Willson. Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, April, 2002)

According to Dean Rusk, who later became secretary of state, the US bombed “everything that moved in North Korea, every brick standing on top of another.”  

It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.” (See Brian Willson. Korea and the Axis of Evil, Global Research, April, 2002)

Even Newsweek tacitly acknowledges that the US committed extensive war crimes against the Korean people:

Screenshot Newsweek 4 May 2017

While Newsweek in this article is telling the truth, more generally the US media has failed to inform Americans regarding the extensive war crimes committed against the Korean people by successive US administrations.

Collective Memory of the People of North Korea

It is not in America’s collective memory as pointed out by Newsweek, but it is certainly in the collective memory of the people of the DPRK.

There is not a single family in North Korea which has not lost a loved one during 37 months of extensive US carpet bombing (1950-53). Put yourself in their shoes.

Pyongyang capital of North Korea, in 1953, almost entirely destroyed by U.S. bombing during the Korean War.

Pyongyang today, rebuilt.

Pyongyang today rebuilt: Dispels the myth of a backward urban society. Trump wants to reduce Pyongyang to rubble.

Do the Pyongyang towers (see image above) compete with Manhattan’s Trump Tower? Ask Donald Trump.

WE NEED AN ORGANIZED AND UNIFIED PROTEST MOVEMENT ACROSS THE LAND, NATIONALLY AND INTERNATIONALLY

SAY NO TO TRUMP’S “PR-EMPTIVE” NUCLEAR WAR AGAINST NORTH KOREA.

SAY NO TO WORLD WAR III.  

CALL FOR THE US TO SIGN A PEACE AGREEMENT WITH NORTH KOREA.

The principal fault in democracy, as it is practiced all over the world, is the election campaign funding part, because individuals and corporations that finance election campaigns always have ulterior motives: that is, they treat political funding as investments from which they expect to make profits by influencing executive policy and legislation.

In Pakistan’s political system, there are three major structural faults. A representative and democratic political system weeds out corrupt and inept rulers in the long run. But Pakistan’s democracy was derailed by three decade-long martial laws and every time we got back to square one and had to start anew.

Democracy works like the trial-and-error method: the politicians who fail to perform are cast aside and those who deliver are retained through election process. A martial law, especially if it is decade-long, gives a new lease of life to the already tried, tested and failed politicians.

The second major fault in Pakistan’s political system is the refusal of mainstream political parties to hold genuine intra-party elections. How can one champion democracy on a national level when one refuses to ensure representation within political parties?

Nevertheless, democracy evolves over time. Instead of losing faith in political system, we must remain engaged in repetitive electoral process, which delivers in the long run through scientifically proven trial-and-error method.

The abovementioned two imperfections in democratic system, however, are only Pakistan-specific. When we take a look at stable democracies, like India for instance, even their politicians are not representative of the masses, because they work in the interest of moneyed elites rather than for the benefit of the underprivileged masses. This fact begs some further analysis of democracy as it is practiced in the developing world.

Politics is the exclusive prerogative of the ultra-rich in the developing world: the feudal landlords, industrialists and big businesses. The masses and members of the middle class cannot take part in elections, because election campaigns entail huge expenses, and if individual candidates spend money from their own pockets on their election campaigns, then how can one expect from such elected representatives that they will not use political office for personal gains in order to raise money for their expensive election campaigns for the next elections?

In the developing countries, politics works like business: individual candidates of political parties make an investment on their election campaigns and reap windfalls when they get elected as lawmakers in legislatures or as ministers in cabinets.

In the developed Western countries, on the other hand, individual candidates do not spend money from their own pockets on election campaigns; instead, political parties raise funds from electoral donations which are then spent on election campaigns of political parties and their candidates.

But this practice is also subject to abuse, because donors of electoral funds, especially corporations, when they donate money to a particular political party’s election campaign, in return they demand a say in the policymaking of governments of such political parties. Such governments are beholden to their financiers and hence cannot pursue independent policies in the interests of the masses.

A much better practice for generating election-related funds has been adopted in some developed countries like Canada and Germany, where state allocates funds from its national budget for political parties’ election campaigns if they manage to obtain a certain percentage of popular vote on a national level.

Although this practice may sound onerous for impoverished developing democracies, if we take a look at all other governance-related expenses, it would appear feasible. Take the cost of maintaining behemoth federal and provincial bureaucracies, for instance: paying the salaries of bureaucrats, maintaining federal and provincial public service commissions, and academies etc.

The bureaucracy only constitutes the mid-tier of governance structure; the top-tier is comprised of politicians who formulate state policy. Paying for election-related expenses of political parties would require expenditure from national exchequer only once in five years, but its benefits can be enormous, and it would also avoid all the pitfalls of taking contributions from shady individual and corporate donors.

More to the point, in the developed Western democracies, a distinction is generally drawn between power and money. If we take a cursory look at some of the well-known Western politicians, excluding a few billionaires like Donald Trump, others like Barack Obama, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Francois Hollande were successful lawyers from middle class backgrounds before they were elected as executives of their respective countries. Some Western executives even go back to their previous jobs and private practices once they retire from politics.

The Republican and Democratic parties in the US and the Conservative and Labour parties in the UK, all of them accept political contributions which are then spent on the election campaigns of their nominees, which generally are the members of the middle class.

Nowhere in the developed and politically mature West, it is permitted to individual candidates to spend money from their own pockets on election campaigns, because instead of a political contest, it would then become a contest between the bank accounts of candidates.

Therefore, Western politicians typically are genuine representatives of their electorates, whereas the politicians of the developing world generally belong to the insular and detached elite classes and hence they don’t have much in common with the electorates that they are supposed to represent.

Although money does influence politics even in the Western countries, that happens only through indirect means, such as the election campaign financing of political parties, congressional lobbying and advocacy groups etc.

In the developing democracies, like India and Pakistan, however, only the so-called ‘electable’ landowners, industrialists and billionaire businessmen can aspire for political offices due to election campaign-related expenses, and the masses are completely excluded from the whole electoral exercise.

This makes a sheer mockery of democratic process, because how can one expect from wealthy elites to protect the interests of the middle and lower classes? They would obviously enact laws and formulate public policy which would favor the financial interests of their own class without any regard for the interest of the masses.

*

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

Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan: How the Traditional Power Structure Undermines Democracy in Developing World?

US Militarizing Space for Future Wars

March 4th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

The notion of real time star wars, possibly with nukes and/or other super-weapons, should terrify everyone.

The 1967 Outer Space Treaty bans nations from placing WMDs (not conventional weapons) in earth orbit or otherwise in outer space.

It restricts use of celestial bodies to peaceful purposes, bans space bases and outer space weapons testing. The 1963 Limited Test Ban Treaty prohibits nuclear testing in outer space.

The 1972 SALT I Treaty, 1987 INF Treaty (pulled out from by Trump), 1992 Conventional Armed Forces in Europe Treaty, 1994 START I Treaty, 2000 Start II, 2011 New START, and other international agreements include provisions dealing with space-related issues.

The UN Conference on Disarmament, established in 1984 to negotiate arms control and disarmament agreements, strongly opposes weaponizing space.

So do the vast majority of world nations. The cosmos should be used exclusively for peaceful purposes benefitting humanity.

Washington refused to negotiate with Russia and China on their joint draft treaty to ban space-based weapons.

According to Russia’s General Staff/First Deputy Defense Minister General Valery Gerasimov, the US and its imperial partners are preparing for high-tech wars from space, an ominous prospect, forcing Russia to respond with its own outer space strategy, Gerasimov saying:

“(T)he search for rational strategies for waging war with a different adversary is of paramount importance for the development of the theory and practice of military strategy.”

“We need to clarify the essence and content of military strategy, the principles of prevention, preparation for war and its conduct” – a strategy for self-defense, not aggressive war, how the US, NATO, Israel, and their belligerent allies operate, not Moscow.

Russia must prepare for war by “classical” and “asymmetric” methods, Gerasimov explained, a strategy for strategic deterrence.

By 2025, “Russian armed forces will number 475,000, and the need for conscription of citizens will be reduced,” he explained, adding:

“All the commanders of military districts, integrated combined arms forces, air force and air defense units, as well as 96% of the commanders of combined-arms units and formations, have combat experience” – from service in Syria combatting US-supported terrorists.

“The share of modern weapons in our nuclear component has reached 82%,” Gerasimov explained.

Russian hypersonic and other super-weapons exceed America’s best, developed and produced at a small fraction of what the US spends, countless trillions of dollars poured down a black hole of waste, fraud and abuse.

Given US belligerence, its endless wars of aggression, its aim to dominate all other nations by brute force if other tactics fail, Russia “by all means (must) ensure technical, technological, and organizational superiority over any potential adversary,” said Gerasimov – meaning the US and NATO it controls, along with Israel.

“The United States and its allies have determined the aggressive vector of their foreign policy. They are working on offensive military actions, such as global strike, a multi-sphere battle,” Gerasimov explained, adding:

“They are using the color revolution technology and soft power. They aim to eliminate the statehood of countries they dislike, undermine sovereignty, and change the legally elected bodies of state power” – dangers Russia must counter effectively, including the following:

“The Pentagon has begun to develop a fundamentally new strategy of warfare, which has already been dubbed the Trojan Horse. Its essence lies in the active use of the protest potential of the ‘fifth column’ for the destabilization of a situation while simultaneously attacking the most important facilities with high-precision weapons.”

The above strategy was first used in Libya, currently being partially used in Syria. Venezuela is being targeted the same way – a low-level proxy offensive so far, likely to greatly escalate ahead, causing mass casualties and greater chaos and harm to millions of Venezuelans than already.

Russia is prepared to deal with existential threats posed by the US and its imperial partners. Its General Staff and “military scientists…developed conceptual approaches to neutralize the aggressive actions of potential opponents,” said Gerasimov, adding:

“The justification of the measures that are being developed should constitute the scientific activity of military scientists. This is one of the priority areas for ensuring state security.”

“We must be ahead of the enemy in the development of military strategy, one step ahead,” ready to strike swiftly with overwhelming force if attacked.

Post-WW II, the US never waged war on a nuclear power able to hit back as hard or harder than the Pentagon’s capability.

Northeast and Southeast Asian wars, Balkan ones and others in the Middle East, Central Asia, and North Africa are entirely different from confronting militarily powerful Russia and/or China – even non-nuclear Iran able to respond with great force against adversaries if attacked.

Yet Washington’s rage for dominance makes unthinkable wars possible, including with nukes able to kill us all if enough WMDs are detonated.

A Final Comment

The US Space Command (USSPACECOM) was created in 1985. Last December, Trump ordered it be made a unified combatant command for war under the US Strategic Command, saying:

“Pursuant to my authority as the Commander in Chief and under section 161 of title 10, United States Code, and in consultation with the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I direct the establishment, consistent with United States law, of United States Space Command as a functional unified combatant command.”

His order was a first step toward creating a space force for real time star wars. The ominous possibility should terrify everyone.

*

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.

Glorious Bitchery: Yorgos Lanthimos and “The Favourite”

March 4th, 2019 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

Yorgos Lanthimos likes his subjects deranged and troubled.  He likes seeing queens in the slap, servants in the lurch, and women in mud.  But that is just one side. The Favourite is a film of exotic, exorbitant bitchery, filmed with aesthetic relish.  It has been dubbed by Peter Bradshaw of The Guardian “punk Restoration romp”.  It is women seeking to main, kill and attain positions at court.  And he, for the most part, pulls it off.  The subject matter was promising, given the lack of gravitas Queen Anne exerts in the history books.  The result is a portrait of women in power, in a fashion.

The film purports to be based on Sarah Churchill, the Duchess of Marlborough (Rachel Weisz), and her competitions with fallen cousin Abigail, Baroness Masham (Emma Stone), for the queen’s favours.  The battle, shaped by the fine script from Deborah Davis and Tony McNamara, is untidy, baroque, poisonous and desperate, with Queen Anne played to supreme dysfunction by Olivia Colman. (It was a role that netted an Academy Award.)  This monarch is broken by her position and life, discouraged from thinking with independence, manipulated by courtiers, even bullied, by members of Parliament.  Her sense of helplessness is further accentuated by her need to be ferried about in a sedan chair or wheelchair.  When she does walk, she does so with pain and difficulty.

The court, with its functions of power, its hypocrisies of appearance, is grotesque, as it always has been.  Queen Anne herself layers it with her own contributions.  She has seventeen rabbits, each a reminder of her lost children, a picture of antenatal grief.  She has a fondness for racing lobsters and ducks.  She is perennially vulnerable.  She throws tantrums.  She overeats in depressive fits. 

What is delightful is the merciless portrayal of bitch land.  Lady Marlborough is delicious and atrocious, a true bitch of valour for queen but mostly country, married to Lord Marlborough, hero against the French during the War of the Spanish Succession. She comes across as determined to keep her monarch happy in the bedroom but compliant in acceding to higher taxation, favouring her preferred political faction, the Whigs.  After Anne’s accession to the throne in 1702, the Duchess managed to occupy virtually every grand post in the household: Groom of the Stole, Mistress of the Robes, Keeper of the Privy Purse and Ranger of the Windsor Great Park.  As Lady of the Bedchamber, she also had charge of what was fed to the queen, and all that it entailed.

She has ensured, at least till cousin Abigail’s arrival, that this universe will be kept in place, the monarch satiated and babied when required.  The Duchess will fuck the Queen (the queerness of sexual manipulation converges with that of the mother-child) but also do what is right by her country.

Necessarily cold when required, Weisz’s Lady Marlborough, a girlhood friend of Anne, is suitably exercised in her role before the prying and mutilating advances of Abigail.  Abigail woos the queen with her knowledge of medicinal herbs, assisting her in one of her attacks of gout.  It is a short way from herbal wooing to the bed chamber and becoming Keeper of the Privy Purse.  Sarah, in turn, resorts to blackmail over years of intimate correspondence. Favourites can be displaced.

There are scenes that are worth remembering.  The optical tightness of the shots and distortive efforts of cinematographer Robbie Ryan leave their mark.  In the kitchen, the viewer is left somewhat disoriented; the spits rotating, the staff milling about, the food arranged.  The generous use of shots in corridors illuminated by candle light serves this broody effect as well, along which the queen is moved by her respective admirers.  Outside, there are waterlogged fields, country riding, mud and manure. 

There are also acts of splitting violence and spontaneous exploitation in the scheming.  Statements abound, such as, “Would you like a bite of my new maid before you leave?”  This was also an age of abuse, rape and viciousness.  Blood flows readily – the shooting, of which the Duchess is an expert, serves as a good meeting point for teacher Sarah and future usurping pupil, Abigail.  

Amidst the court intrigue come arrangements.  Abigail is asked by the Tory leader of the opposition, Robert Harley (Nicholas Hoult) to conduct surveillance and gain access to the queen when he can.  She complies, if only because her self-interest converges with his.  She otherwise makes it clear that she is on the lookout for only one person.   

How rich is Lanthimos in depicting this, refusing to lecture, or hector his audience; what interests are the struggles of three women in power.  Watch this, and be enthralled.  As for the fact checking monsters who come out in droves at the release of any period drama, hoping to spot historical howlers and cross-check the history books, Lanthimos has the ideal answer.  “Some of the things in the film,” he says with contentment, “are accurate and a lot aren’t.”   

*

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

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 Glorious Bitchery: Yorgos Lanthimos and “The Favourite”

On 14 February, 20-year-old Adil Ahmed Dar rammed a vehicle fill of explosives into a bus full of reserve police force personnel in Indian Occupied Kashmir. The attack killed over 40 soldiers and was claimed by militant organization Jaish-e-Muhammad (JeM). The response on the Indian side was predictable. Fueled by the hyper-nationalist and sensationalist private media, the Indian government, along with large swathes of the chattering classes, and key opinion makers from across the spectrum, brayed for “decisive action” against “cross-border terrorism” emanating from Pakistan. Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan offered a joint-investigation, but sighting Pakistan’s past record in dealing with such cases, India refused the offer and then stepped up its crackdown in Kashmir.

On the night between February 23 and 24, Indian fighter planes intruded into Pakistani territory over the international border for a “surgical strike” (the first time this has happened since the full-scale war in 1971). While the village of Jaba, the target of the “surgical strike,” has a long-standing JeM seminary, Indian planes managed to only frighten some villagers and flatten some trees a kilometer or so away from the alleged “terrorist camp.” The Indian media claimed success for “surgical strike 2.0” (another one had also been claimed by the Indian government in 2016), while the next day, Pakistani air force responded with two Indian planes shot down as part of “a befitting response… at a time and place of its own choosing.” One of the Indian aircraft crashed in Pakistani territory and the pilot Abhinandan Varthaman was captured alive and only mildly injured, immediately becoming the subject of much fascination on the electronic and social media of Pakistan.

Anti-war demonstration in Islamabad: “Yes to Books, No to Bombs.”

Satisfied with having demonstrated Pakistan’s ability to respond, Pakistani PM Imran Khan reiterated the offer of peace and de-escalation from the brink of a disastrous war between the nuclear-armed powers. On the 28th, as a goodwill gesture, Khan announced in Parliament that Wing Commander Varthaman would be released. The move was welcomed by the heads of India’s three armed forces, and after a bout of backdoor diplomacy from the likes of China and the USA, the threat of a disastrous escalation of conflict seems – for now – to be averted. However, the belligerent mood of the Indian media and the Narendra Modi government’s prevarications with regards to further military action (in the context of upcoming general elections), means that things remain uncertain and skirmishes continue to be reported on both sides of the Line of Control in Kashmir.

A Doomed Balance of Forces

While an anatomy of the balance of forces in both countries is not the focus of this piece, some short comments must suffice. This theatrical conflict comes in the wake of fraying hegemony for the Modi government in the face of upcoming elections. Modi’s promise of “vikas” (development) has not materialized, ill-thought out policies such as demonetization to “wipe out” the black economy has hurt the poor, and the BJP-RSS combined have faced defeats in key state elections. In the face of plummeting confidence, the fascist Hindutva combine has resorted to stoking hate attacks against Muslims and Kashmiris in India, a move which proved successful for their election win in the key state of Uttar Pradesh. In the face of these travails, the anti-Pakistan belligerence before the general elections seems quite in accordance with the Hindutva combine’s previous history.

In Pakistan, the ruling classes – and its militarized core – have been facing disarray in the face of political, ideological, and economic challenges. While the political crisis has been temporarily abated with the election of the Khan government, criticism of state excesses – in the form of military operations, extra-judicial killings, and forced disappearances in “peripheral” areas and beyond – have been rife in large swathes of the population. While this has been managed through a mix of coercion, corruption, and wide-spread media censorship, the secular trend has been towards a general decrease in the prestige of the militarized core of the Pakistani state. In such a context, the provocations of Hindutva from across the border have come as a god-send. Of course, nothing promotes one suicidal nationalism as surely as another. And – in a war weary country – with their relatively measured response to Indian aggression, Pakistan’s ruling classes and military have recovered both a measure of coherence and a temporary boost to their legitimacy. Soaring inflation, a looming IMF package, and continuing military operations mean that the shoring up of legitimacy is bound to be temporary.

Regardless of the balance of political forces, the two wider realities fueling India-Pakistan conflict remain unchanged. India’s brutal occupation of Kashmir precedes the ascendancy of the RSS-BJP combine and remains the lynchpin of conflict in the region. Indian Kashmir remains the most militarized region of the world with a vibrant independence movement led by the youth. The Indian response has been to grant the military and paramilitary forces wide-ranging and unaccountable powers, with lawyers, human rights defenders, and youth facing the brunt of constant violence (the recent suicide bomber Adil Dar was himself a “guest” of the Indian forces six times in the last two years). This decades-long violence has now been combined with the belligerent rhetoric and regionally expansionist aims of the fascist combine in power in India. In this context, the Kashmiri youths’ resort to spectacular violence – while often counterproductive – is not beyond the realm of the unthinkable.

On the Pakistani side, since the U.S.-sponsored Afghan “jihad” in the 1980s, the security establishment continues to selectively patronize fundamentalist groups as part of their own regional ambitions. These militant groups have wreaked havoc in Pakistan in the aftermath of the War on Terror, with thousands killed and injured, and the “peripheral” areas bearing the brunt of the cycle of militancy, military operations, and drone attacks. Unaccountable security policies and a fraying social contract keeps providing grist to these groups’ violence within Pakistan and in the wider region. In addition to being nuclear powers, both countries remain major buyers of “conventional” weapons: Pakistan is now the world’s leading buyer of Chinese weapons and India was Israel’s largest arms client in 2017.

The Machinery of Images

What should concern pro-peace and democratic forces on both sides of the Radcliffe Line is the use of new media technologies in fueling the latest rounds of conflict and aggression between India Pakistan. For some time now, commentators have been pointing to the dangers and pitfalls of new media technologies – such as private TV channels, WhatsApp, Twitter etc. – and their contribution to the enabling conditions of neo-fascism in India, Pakistan, and beyond: the braying for war, the instantaneous assembly of lynch mobs, the 24/7 cycle of statements and counter-statements, and the manipulation of passions through the accumulation of TRP ratings.

An important aspect to think about here is the changed nature of subjectivity these developments represent. Television and its pocket-size upgrade, the touch screen, is a curious form in which to receive information. Compared to other classically modern media and forms of communication (such as the novel, radio and newspaper), the television and the touch screen herald a qualitatively new dimension of experience: the complete flattening out of time and space, the cancellation of context, the elimination of depth, and the conversion of the audience to mere passive receptacles for the reception of images.

In the rise of television, private media and the touch screen, the character of post-modern forms of the commodity and hyper-mobile capital is more pronounced than ever: the constant cycle of news, the permanent stimuli of the senses, the ever spiraling bombardment of histrionics disguised as opinions, very much akin to the (seemingly) disembodied, self-sustaining, and constantly shape-shifting drive of neoliberal capitalism itself (which of course is the driver of this media proliferation).

Here, the fetish character of (post-)modernity is stamped even more intensely than ever on the machines of our mutual destruction, which rule our consciousness as a fetish endowed with a life of their own. It is the peculiar quality of images that they have no depth, only surface; they represent a freezing and rupture of/from time, and thus project an aura of both confinement to the present and, paradoxically, of being beyond time and history itself. Thus, in the era of postmodernity and its intensified fetish of the commodity, the machine and its image, there is no depth to perception, the experience has no past and no future, it lives on in the momentary stimulus of the senses, the perverse orgasm of the present.

But also, as images curiously flattened out, without history or depth, they turn into mere ruses for filling up with our favourite fantasies of destruction and domination: the death cult of Hindutva versus the Two Nation theory; the cry of Ram and Vishnu on one side versus the slogans of Allah and Haider-e-Karrar on the other. To have one of “our side” killed today, only to “respond fittingly” with two of “their side” killed the next day.

In a now famous essay on The Origins of Postmodernity, Perry Anderson characterized the transition from modernist to post-modernist art as one of a shift “from the images of machinery to the machinery of images.” In Pakistan and India, with our worship of the machinery of war and the fetish rule of the image, we have a peculiar combination of the two.

It is a strange spectacle: the curious amalgamation of the modernist élan of the machine with the postmodernist fetish and flattening out of its image. A very concrete expression of our peculiar dilemma of combined and uneven development: great poverty on one side, dazzling affluence on the other; the conditions of 19th century Europe and of 21st century North America side by side; enclaves of the First World amidst an ocean of the Third World; disembodied “development” in the midst of proliferating zones of exception and exclusion; the plebianization of language and the abundance of WhatsApp; a war fought in places far way and in the intimate spaces of Facebook groups and Twitter feeds. In the words of the great Eric Hobsbawm, “civilization works its miracles and civilized man is turned back almost into a savage.”

This here then – both in this war of images and beyond it – is the challenge of postmodernity for us today. Subjectivity fractured, perception overloaded, senses overstimulated, attention spans ephemeral, memory both constantly created and erased, wars easier to begin than to end. Things falling apart where the center cannot hold, the old certainties of the political subject dissolved within the hyper-mobility and ephemerality of capital itself. All that is solid truly does melts into air.

How to forge a new (revolutionary) subjectivity in these conditions? How to think historically in conditions which militate against historicity? How to add depth to thought and practice, when experience itself has been flattened out? What substrate of experience and forms of organization to anchor the new political subject of emancipation?

How to embody the depravations of war when it is turned into a disembodied video-game on our touch screens? How to forge brotherhood and solidarity across (post-)colonial lines on the map, when the shared heritage of the past is denied by the very workings of commodity society, its machinery of images, and its flattening out of space and time?

The Pashtun Tahafuz Movement (PTM) in Pakistan have demonstrated that a unifying experience of the depravations of war can potentially form basis for a mass, anti-war movement with the use of new media technologies. However, as with any social movement in an era of such disarray, questions of ideological and organizational coherence, of sustainability, and of social-spatial alliances with other oppressed social groups in Pakistan remain paramount. That the question of subjectivity has gained increased salience in the context of material changes is without doubt. In case of Pakistan, the PTM – an accounting of all its pitfalls and substantial successes – is an interesting case study for revolutionaries.

With the vagaries of the commodity form and mediatized forms of subjectivity, merely shouting out truth from the rooftops is not enough, when the very grounds of truth and verification have slipped from beneath our feet. Part of the answer must be in the organization of an alternative, determined social force against the battering ram of the commodity form. The other parts of the answer are a matter of both thought and practice.

Otherwise, the old exhortation by the ever-green Rosa remains relevant: class struggle or death, bloody struggle or extinction, Socialism or Barbarism, thus is the question inexorably put.

*

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

Ayyaz Mallick is a doctoral candidate and member of the Awami Workers’ Party. He is a contributing member of Jamhoor magazine.

All images in this article are from The Bullet

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pakistan-India Crisis: The Machinery of Images and the (Post-)Modern War
  • Tags: ,

In just under six minutes, the grandson of the democratically elected president of Chile, Salvador Allende (murdered in a US-sponsored coup), tells the real story on Venezuela. 

You’ll never see Pablo Allende on CNN, Fox, MSNBC, etc. The American people—mostly unthinking consumers of the corporate state’s propaganda—have bought into the lies, distortions, and half-truths about Venezuela (and Nicaragua and Cuba, explicitly targeted by Trump’s national security adviser, the psychopath John Bolton). .

.

I don’t believe socialism works. However, I don’t live in Venezuela, Cuba, or Nicaragua, and it’s none of my business what government or leader the people of these countries elect to represent them. 

Here is a primer on Venezuela, the sort you’ll never see on the above mentioned corporate, government narrative-reading “news” (propaganda) networks. 

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

SNC-Lavalin, the large Canadian engineering firm at the centre of the present Liberal government crisis engendered by the treatment of former Attorney General/Minister of Justice and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Jody Wilson-Raybould, is merely the tip of an enormous iceberg.

The gyrations of SNC-Lavalin to have a law passed (obscurely in a Liberal “Omnibus” Bill in 2018) that permits it (and giant firms like it) to write “deferred prosecution agreements” (in what is called a “remediation regime”) may be seen as nothing more than another private/corporate attack on the Rule of Law … supported by the present Canadian (Liberal) government in power. 

That government, I suggest, is acknowledging the growing reality of A Regime For The Very Rich Outside The Law … and a law for us, the unimportant others.  The move should be seen, I suggest, as a full-scale attack on The Rule of Law in Canada.

In briefest words: the kinds of agreement (already at work in some other Western nations) permit wrong-doers to escape criminal conviction by paying large sums of money and “repenting” their sins!!! (Remember that Fraud Charges may  normally occur in such matters, pointing to fairly long jail sentences for individuals, real people involved in the criminal charges normally set in motion.)  The Remediation Regime works to erase that possibility completely … so that individuals are never guilty of criminal acts! 

Might the process be seen as the bribery of governments by ‘wink-wink-nudge-nudge’‘friends’ who – anyway (as with SNC-Lavalin) give large sums to the Party that has become the government in power?  Might the process be seen as the actual codification of the separation of powerful (Deep State) organizations from the Rule of Law in national jurisdictions? The answer is, probably, “YES”. 

Canadians should observe the huge consideration that was given to SNC-Lavalin through the whole process.  The Corporation sought and received dozens and dozens of meetings [“more than 50 times”, Globe and Mail, A-11, Mar.1, 2019] with MP’s, cabinet ministers … over months and months to – in effect – move huge Private Corporations outside The Rule of Law while claiming they are merely assisting in a change in the application of The Rule of Law.

And then … And then … SNC–Lavalin appears to have used more lobbyist meetings in order to have Liberal ‘sympathizers’ (including Prime Minister Justin Trudeau) pressure the Attorney General of Canada to impose a deferred prosecution agreement against the decision of the Prosecutor’s Office. 

In that regard, the highest Civil Servant in Canada – supposedly clean of political colouring – Michael Wernick, the Clerk of the Privy Council, entered the fray on behalf of SNC-Lavalin in attempts to force the hand of Jody Wilson-Raybould.  As an important member of a council much misunderstood – the Canadian Privy Council to the Queen of Canada (not to the Queen of the United Kingdom), and as highest Civil Servant (the actively non-political arm of government servants) Michael Wernick debased the position of Clerk of the Privy Council and of all Canadian Civil Servants, many will say, and should resign immediately to restore the confidence Canadians have in their historically admirable body of Civil Servants. 

If huge bribes are necessary to get contracts in some foreign countries which act outside The Rule of Law, then … SNC-Lavalin and the Liberal Party of Canada seem to be saying … ‘don’t work to bring those countries under The Rule of Law.  Instead, degrade Canada to their level of criminal behaviour as the normal state of “doing business”’.

That is a fact of present government (and Deep State criminal influence) in the Western World  that must be stopped in its tracks. That is the nine-tenths of the SNC-Lavalin Iceberg out-of-sight. That is, quite simply, the smoke-and-mirrors effort to con Canadians into thinking the removal of large corporations in Canada from the Rule of Law is, in fact, bringing them through special recognition into full relation to the Rule of Law! ! 

The tendency across the Western World (notably in Europe) is towards the creation of apparently democratic neo-liberal governments … which not long ago in history were called “proto-fascist” governments.  Whatever their apparent focus – national or international – their basic loyalty was and is to big Capital; their basic intention is to release great wealth from the restriction of the Rule of Law, their basic goal is to create a New World Order characterized by domination of a Deep State over all of the rest of life: human, ecological, spatial….

Canadians are indebted to Jody Wilson-Raybould and her integrity … bringing to the attention of the population not only the shabby values of the PM and PMO and of the Clerk of the Privy Council, Michael Wernick … but also the destructive actions of large corporations in league with a Canadian government to pervert and/or by-pass The Rule of Law in Canada.

The “deferred prosecution” legislation for large corporations must be erased from Canadian legislation.  Which Party will promise that in the coming election??

Author’s Note: [Thirty Liberal MPs registered their opinions of the treatment of Jody Wilson-Raybould in the March 2 Globe and Mail. None saw her as being unfairly pressured by the PM or PMO or others to impose a deferred prosecution regime upon the Prosecutions Office. None mentioned that she was dumped from the position of Justice Minister and Attorney General when she refused to buckle to the pressure which, they are all confident, was never applied.]

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on SNC-Lavalin: The Tip of an Enormous “Deep State” Iceberg. Attack on the Rule of Law in Canada
  • Tags: ,

Positive Political Change in Chicago?

March 4th, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

Is the city of many nicknames ready for political change for the better, serving its residents more equitably?

Familiar nicknames include the Windy City, referring to political, not atmospheric, wind; Second City (to NY), Sinatra’s My Kind of Town, That Toddlin Town, for poet Carl Sandburg the City of Big Shoulders, among many others.

William “Big Bill” Thompson was Chicago’s last Republican mayor, his second of two terms ending in November 1931 – undemocratic Dems running the city since then with one exception.

The late Harold Washington’s 1983 mayoral triumph ushered in hoped for change, the city’s first Black mayor, after being nominated, saying “(w)e were slow to move from the protest movement into politics,” adding:

“We were lulled to sleep thinking that passing a few laws was enough. But we’ve got to be involved in the mainstream political activity. That’s what’s happening here in Chicago.”

He served until November 25, 1987, the city’s 41st mayor, a cut way above his predecessors and successors, dying prematurely in office at age-65, a tragic loss.

He was found slumped over his desk in city hall unconscious, rushed to nearby Northwestern Memorial Hospital where attempts to revive him failed – leaving supporters shocked, dismayed, and deeply saddened over the loss of the only mayor in memory who addressed the rights and well-being of ordinary city residents.

Heart failure took him, a larger than life figure in stature and physical size with an unhealthy enlarged heart, what the diagnosis of his death confirmed.

No one like him followed as city mayor. He was an exception to the rule. Long ago alderman Paddy Bowler saying “Chicago ain’t ready for reform” didn’t apply to Harold, what many Chicagoans called him affectionately.

Winners of Chicago Dem mayoral primary elections automatically go on to defeat GOP rivals in the general election, how it’s been for almost 90 years, this time no different with a twist.

Of the 14 Dem aspirants competing in the February 26 primary, six were African-Americans, two winning more voter support than others. They’ll meet in the general election for the mayoral post on April 2.

For the second time in Chicago history, a Black candidate will become mayor, the second woman ever to hold the post. Jane Byrne served as city mayor from April 1979 – April 1983.

A personal note: After leaving office and losing its perks, amenities, chauffeured limousines and all the rest, Byrne stood in front of me in the same line at our local bank, waiting like others to reach a teller to conduct our business – what city mayors have subordinates do for them along with other personal chores, no longer when returning to private life.

On April 2, either Toni Preckwinkle or Lori Lightfoot will become Chicago mayor, whether a crack in longtime machine politics is achieved remains to be seen.

Several progressive challengers entered the race to succeed establishment Mayor Rahm Emanuel, former congressman, Obama chief of staff and investment banker – known as Mayor 1%, serving the city’s privileged class, disdainful of its ordinary mass majority.

Preckwinkle and Lightfoot finishing ahead of other mayoral aspirants bore testimony to Chicagoans wanting political change – getting it another matter entirely, but hope springs eternal even in a city known for corrupt machine politics fed by deep-seated political patronage.

Machine favorite Bill Daley losing was a positive sign, brother of former Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of Richard J. Daley. The family ran Chicago for 43 years, supported by a rubber-stamp City Council, much the same under hardline neoliberal corporatist Emanuel.

The late Chicago-based Citizens Committee to Clean up the Courts chairman Sherman Skolnick called him the “acting deputy chief for North America of Mossad.”

His father, Benjamin, was involved in smuggling weapons to the Jewish Irgun underground terrorist group (co-led by future Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin) in Palestine pre-1948.

Emanuel served as an IDF volunteer during the 1991 Gulf War, holding dual US/Israeli citizenship, notoriously pro-war throughout his political career. He won’t be missed.

Hopefully Chicago’s next major will be more social-minded, cut out of the Harold Washington mold, supporters calling his time in office the city’s camelot period lost with his untimely death, his legacy dismantled by successors.

He was a people’s mayor, a community leader with ties to grassroots organizations, combined with political savvy, independent of city machine politics – all of the above reasons for his popularity, able to forge progressive multi-racial/multi-ethnic coalitions, successfully dealing with opposition machine pols.

His time in office was Chicago’s finest hour. Can it be resurrected by Preckwinkle or Lightfoot? Supporters believe they represent progressive social change.

Preckwinkle is president of the Cook Count Board of Commissioners, a former Chicago City Council member, an advocate of affordable housing, a living wage, and other social issues, a strong opponent of notorious city police brutality and use of excessive force against least advantaged residents.

Lightfoot was a federal prosecutor, earlier involved in investigating Chicago corruption. She formerly served as chief administrator of the city’s Department of Professional Standards, a defunct police oversight group.

Most recently, she serving as a senior equity partner in the Litigation and Conflict Resolution Group at Mayer Brown LLP, providing services for the firm’s clients. Her responsibilities included involvement on its Diversity and Inclusion Committee.

Weeks ahead of Chicago’s April general election, ordinary city residents hope their new mayor will serve all Chicagoans equitably – a positive sea change in pre-and-post Harold Washington’s tenure if things turn out this way.

*

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 Positive Political Change in Chicago?

Yes, Mr. Trump had to walk. As he didn’t get his way, he had the audacity to get up and walk out of a meeting with Kim Jong-un, the President of the DPRK, of North Korea. As arrogant as it behooves the king of a failing and crumbling empire. But did he walk by his own will? Or was he, the most “powerful man in the world”, coerced by his handlers, represented by former CIA boss, Mike Pompeo, to abandon the denuclearization negotiations, i.e. no concessions on killer sanctions, or as Kim Jong-un said,

“we would like to see the five sanctions (out of eleven) lifted, those that most harm our people and their economic well-being.”

Therefore, Pyongyang was ready to permanently shut down the Yongbyon nuclear complex, an important nuclear research center for DPRK. Kim Jong-un was also ready to invite international observers to witness the dismantling process, and he was ready to stop medium range missile testing – all for giving his people, the North Koreans a ‘breather’ – a better life.

He requested some of the most harming sanctions to be lifted. A reasonable request. And at the outset it looked like Trump was happy with this arrangement. He had already basically agreed to stopping the aggressive annual military maneuvers with South Korea on the borders of the DPRK.

In any case, Trump was in no hurry. This was the second of a series of one-to-one summits with Kim. Trumps ego seems to enjoy this publicity. Why not make it last a bit longer? Give a little bit, but not too much, so the talks continue – and he would still call the shots. But Trump didn’t even give a little bit. He gave nothing, zilch, zero. So, something happened. Pompeo was constantly by Trump’s side, except for the 45 minutes Trump and Kim had a truly one-to-one talk – of which so far nothing has penetrated into the public, other than that it was cordial.

The turn-around was sudden. Trump demanded full denuclearization before he would even talk about lifting sanctions. The give-nothing and demand-everything approach obviously didn’t fly with Mr. Kim. Trump apparently didn’t even want to talk about a long overdue peace agreement – technically DPRK and the US have been at war for the last 70 years. Stalemate. Trump walked. No written statement. Nothing.

“We will meet again. I actually enjoy our meetings” – or something to that effect he told the press, as he ‘walked’. All the focus on Mr. Trump. The narcissist. The big master who can command world leaders around the globe to meet with him, the one-man show, the self-styled brilliant negotiator, is raising expectations – but never delivers. And even, if there are mutually signed statements or legally binding agreements – Trump breaks them.

One of the latest flagrant breach of an international agreement, is the Iran Nuclear Deal, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), signed in Vienna on 14 July 2015 between Iran, the P5+1, and the European Union. Instead of lifting sanctions – as was the deal, Trump imposed more sanctions and threatened the other signatories with more sanctions, if they didn’t follow Washington’s lead. That’s where we are in this world of deceit and more deception and lies. – How could Mr. Kim trust any word President Trump utters in his wonderfully colorful language that he uses for the common people to understand what he means!

But it seems all of this still does not explain everything that’s going on, be it with North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Afghanistan – and who knows – whatever other victim is in the crosshairs of the United States for regime change, for exploitation, economic and humanitarian strangulation.

Is Pompeo the answer? Did he boycott the Hanoi meeting? He is indeed the murderer-in-chief, as former CIA director, who doesn’t shy away from suggesting that if Mr. Kim Jong-un shows up dead one day – well don’t ask me or the CIA. Pompeo has watched over a long list of political assassinations – he insinuated a similar fate for Mr. Maduro. He is dishing out death threats left and right. And the world is not even stunned anymore, its common practice of the US of A – murdering ’inconvenient’ people. The CIA is the chief instrument for these killing; they have hundred years of practice – with an insane intensification after WWII.

Is Pompeo representing the “Deep Government”? – Which in desperation needs to show muscle; must demonstrate to the world that US hegemony is still reigning the globe. Alas, it’s a mere propaganda scheme, upheld by a bought corrupt western media system. It’s Goebbels lie-propaganda by a factor of hundred. “Let me control the media and I will turn any Nation into a herd of Pigs” (Joseph Goebbels, Hitler’s Propaganda Minister). Western society may already be converted into a ‘herd of pigs’.

Nothing could be farther from the truth, than what the western Anglo-Zion media propagates day-in-day out. It is beating the war drums. It becomes “common values” – and is believed and found natural by masses of people. “War is Peace” as the current opinion goes, openly propagated by such illustrious newspapers as the WashPost. Death and destruction are very, very profitable, for a few weapon industry oligarchs. Thus, the steaming Washington swamp – and add to it Hollywood – is still a brilliant example for the world and therefore, still intimidatingly relevant.

Ever-so-often, we, the public at large should be reminded of UN Resolution 1947: Propaganda for war is a war crime. This was echoed in the Resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations of November 3, 1947 that denounced war propaganda:

“The General Assembly condemns all forms of propaganda, in whatsoever country conducted, which is either designed or likely to provoke or encourage any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression.”

Back to DPRK and Donald Trump: On February 27 and 28, the two leaders of North Korea and the United States met to talk ‘de-nuclearizing’ of the northern part of the Korean Peninsula, and, of course, the lifting of the killer sanctions – and I must repeat time and again – totally illegal sanctions. All interference by one country in another sovereign nation, especially economic and military meddling, as the US is doing, is by all international standards, including the UN Charter, and by the rules of Human Rights – ILLEGAL. The world should remember – and light up, instead of falling asleep and nodding, when Washington’s arrogance hit another ‘un-aligned’ un-submissive country with economic sanctions. – Wake up, vassals, it may happen to you – while you are watching idiotic Hollywood soap.

Yes, Mr. Trump you should “walk”, not just out of summit meetings with leaders of other countries – but walk as far as to disappear for good in a distant cloud – and take Pompeo, Bolton and Abramsalong. The world would be a better place. Not good, but better – it might wake up and think about sovereignty, about solidarity, about friendship and about friendly trading again. What if a New Order of Peace, Harmony and of a Multipolar orld would be born? – Instead of the One World Order of aggression, exploitation and indiscriminate killing, currently driven by Washington and its crony vassal states.

What, then, would “Deep Government” do? Those who won’t relent until achieving full world hegemony, or as the PNAC (Plan for a New American Century) calls it – Full Spectrum Dominance.– Might it pull the ultimate trigger and eradicate civilization as we know it, humanity that we are supposed to be – into the abyss of extermination? – Would it invent a new clan of Trumpnicks to finish the job?

Mr. Kim traveled in good fate by train from Pyongyang to Hanoi, to the second meeting with the Donald, hoping to get some sanctions relief as was agreed when they met the first time, last June in Singapore. North Korea destroyed nuclear testing tunnels and a missile test stand. The US counterpart obligation was to begin denuclearization of South Korea and start peace talks. It didn’t happen. This time, Kim was ready to give up even more. According to Trump,

“they were willing to denuke a large portion of the areas that we wanted, but we couldn’t give up all of the sanctions for that, so we’ll continue to work and we’ll see. But we had to walk away from that particular suggestion. We had to walk away from that.”

This propaganda stint should show the world who is still the master. Kim wanted a better life for the people of the DPRK, a life without sanctions, a life of wellbeing that may develop with the strength and will of North Korea’s sovereign people. Trump just wanted his ego boosted – again and again. He is a sick man. In that sense he is ideal for the “Deep State”, for those who pull the strings from their invisible darkness. Imagine, the western world is run by a psychopath. To accept such leadership (sic), the vassalic west must be psychotic too. Are we, western un-civilization – for lack of a more accurate word – committing unwittingly suicide? There is no sanity left. We seem to have gone way beyond the point of no return.

Yes, Mr. Trump, it looks like you let your apparent noble thoughts for the summit be sabotaged by the bloody hands of Mike Pompeo, and maybe with a little help from John Bolton. Yes, you should be walking away; you should be walking away from Venezuela, Cuba, Nicaragua, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan, Somalia, Libya – and also Iran, all of which you attempt to suffocate with sanctions and more sanctions. In Iran it doesn’t work anymore. Iran has chosen the east – is moving towards the east, adapting to and soon will be integrating into eastern monetary systems, as well as political and military alliances, like the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO).

Is it possible that in the larger scheme of things empire’s last straw strategy is intimidating the world that there will be no concessions, no lifting of sanctions, no abandoning of the path of destruction for those nations who refuse to bend to Washington’s master and its European and South American puppets?

*

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

This article was originally published on New Eastern Outlook.

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

Featured image is an Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

The recent release of the proposed Green New Deal is a template, an outline identifying some of the most crucial issues facing the nation regarding climate change and a wish list of measures to address those issues. It contains a variety of inspired agenda items, many of which have been voiced by the Green Party and environmental fringe groups in Washington for over a decade. According to the Deal’s Fact Sheet, 92 percent of Democrats and 64 percent of Republicans support the Deal.

Almost every Democrat throwing their hat into the 2020 presidential race backs it. And the Deal has gained wide approval in the climatology and atmospheric science communities; among hundreds of conservation, environmental, renewable energy, and social activist organizations; and within the younger generation. It has been a long time coming, and the question is whether it is too late. It is optimistic to think that we can reverse accelerating global warming trends and mitigate their impact by keeping the planet below the International Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) 1.5 degree C warming mark for the next 12 years, and it is even more optimistic to think that Congress will be able to enact legislation like this without prioritizing the interests of the multinational corporations and lobbies that contribute to their re-election campaigns over the people who elected them.

It took no time for the Deal’s co-authors, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez and Democrat Senator Ed Markey, to be broadsided with disparaging criticisms by corporate leaders and political opponents, including old rank-and-file Democrats. The critics include the President of the Laborers’ International Union of North America, fossil fuel backer Terry O’Sullivan, who labeled the report a “fantasy manifesto” that will create “divisions and inequality.”  Billionaire Michael Bloomberg called it “pie in the sky.” And Pelosi and her multi-million dollar corporate colleagues are simply clueless about the “Green Dream or whatever they call it,” as Pelosi dismissed it. But there are plenty of legitimate criticisms too, and progressives would be wise not to let their desire to see pro-environmental legislation enacted at last blind them to the very real problems with Ocasio-Cortez and a legislative blueprint that could very easily become as much of a giveaway to multinational corporations as the Affordable Care Act was to insurance companies.

The Green New Deal largely relies for precedent upon the idealism behind great accomplishments in the US’ history when the nation succeeded in mobilizing to tackle difficult challenges that critics argued could never be accomplished.  Examples include FDR’s transformation of the private auto and manufacturing industries to meet military needs during World War 2, Eisenhower’s interstate highway system, and the achievement of JFK’s promise to reach the moon before the end of the 1960s.

Although Washington remains strait-jacked by the interests of the finance and energy lobbies, at the local level, constructive change is happening. Over one hundred cities across the country have issued statements pledging to transition to 100 percent renewable energy.Unfortunately, their dateline targets are far off track, and the best case, Hawaii, is looking at reaching 100 percent clean energy efficiency in another 26 years. Farmers are forgoing energy-intensive chemical agriculture and transitioning to organic. And the public is becoming increasingly more aware and educated about their energy usage and slowly changing its consumption habits. Nevertheless, compared to other developed nations, the US lags far behind in reaching realistic targets to address the IPCC’s 1.5 degree prediction, which is overly conservative. Absent the IPCC’s statistical limitations, the actual time frame, according to most independent climate scientists, is more dire. We may have only 7 years to get off fossil fuels.

However, reaching the Deal’s goal is potentially doable if the country’s industries and finance giants get behind it. Sweden already gets over half of its energy from renewables. In 2015, Denmark’s wind farm industry reached 140 percent of energy demands. In 2016 Portugal reached a milestone by operating for four days without any fossil fuels.Due to its favorable clean energy geothermal resources, Iceland generates the most clean energy per capita in the world; almost 90 percent of its total energy needs are satisfied by non-fossil fuel sources. Costa Rica has managed to run for over two months on 100 percent renewables. In 10 years, Uruguay’s unique public and private sector partnerships now supply 95 percent of its national energy needs with renewables.3 Many other nations are also making aggressive efforts to power themselves exclusively with clean energy.  And where does the US stand?  According to the US Energy Information Administration, for 2017, non-fossil fuel sources only accounted for a dismal 20 percent of energy consumption.  And still 34 percent of fuel for our electric power sector relies on coal!While getting off fossil fuel dependency is absolutely critical, the US’s electricity production only accounts for 28 percent of its greenhouse gas emissions (GHEs). While switching to renewable energy for electrical power needs is very likely achievable, the obstacles to reach the IPCC target are enormous.

In our estimation, several stumbling blocks may make it impossible for the US to eliminate fossil fuels during the next dozen years. Aside from opposition within with the Democratic Party by corporatists such as Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Steny Hoyer, the cost to overhaul all industry, manufacturing and current and new technological developments would be astronomical. A Republican-aligned think tank, the American Action Forum, recently published a report estimating the Green New Deal would cost between $51 trillion and $93 trillion over ten years, though the lion’s share of that sum relates to the Deal’s provision of jobs and healthcare for all, rather than its environmental measures. Eliminating carbon emissions from the power and transportation sector, the group said, would “only” cost between $8.3 and $12.3 trillion over a decade. The national debt is already almost $22 trillion and growing. Since Trump took office, the debt has increased $2 trillion, and there is no indication it will shrink. Increasingly extreme weather and its aftereffects will only further raise the debt.

A closer examination of these numbers is required. The “official” price tag of the “War on Terror,” which has laid waste to the Middle East over the last 20 years, creating an endless supply of future enemies by slaughtering entire villages full of civilians via depersonalized drone warfare, recently climbed north of $6 trillion,and an investigation last year turned up an eye-popping $21 trillion in fraudulent budgeting by the Pentagon and the Department of Housing and Urban Development6. Thousands of whistleblowers are swept under the rug by the Defense Department’s Inspector General every year in their efforts to call attention to waste and fraud within the wealthiest military in the world. The first-ever attempt to audit the Pentagon, performed last year, was an embarrassing failure, revealing $6.5 trillion had simply vanished.The US spends nearly $1 trillion a year on “defense”8– and while no one would suggest dismantling the American military, there are thousands of bases sprinkled around the world in countries the US does not belong, with undeclared conflicts raging in 134 countries.Surely some of this largesse could be repurposed to save the planet.

There is always money in the budget for war, which currently eats up more than half of every dollar spent by the US government, despite the fact that the US is not facing any credible military threats from state actors. Despite the evidence-free charges it meddled in the 2016 election, Russia does not pose a threat to the US – indeed, Russian President Vladimir Putin in a recent speech expressed frustration that Russia was “banging on a locked door” regarding friendship between the two nations, rendered all but impossible with every round of draconian sanctions imposed as a form of legislative virtue-signaling by congressmen eager to demonstrate their allegiance in Cold War Part 2.10 Even China prefers to flex its muscles economically, rather than militarily, spending trillions to build its Belt and Road throughout the developing world and amassing allies by funding large infrastructure projects – where the US has historically bullied poorer nations into submissions through military force. The Green New Deal would merely take roughly the yearly expenditure on the War on Terror and use it for constructive, rather than destructive, purposes. Troops returning from costly and destructive foreign wars could even be put to work planting trees or building infrastructure, much as environmental projects are undertaken in less wealthy nations.

Because that scary $12.3 trillion figure is the cost if the Green New Deal were undertaken in the typical American fashion of rolling out grand legislation. If environmental reforms were enacted the way other countries work, the figure would shrink dramatically. Unfortunately, Ocasio-Cortez is open about her wish to work with “business interests” to get the job done, just as Barack Obama was willing to work with the insurance companies to pass the Affordable Care Act, resulting in a ruinously expensive and flawed plan that forced Americans to buy health insurance they could not afford while subsidizing a tiny sliver of the population. Healthcare costs did not go down – they skyrocketed – and healthcare quality certainly did not improve. Involving corporations with their profit-above-all value system guarantees the Green New Deal will enrich wealthy conglomerates like Bechtel and Halliburton. These will receive the big contracts for building renewable infrastructure, repurposing existing infrastructure, etc. but will contract the work out to other, smaller companies while keeping most of the money as profit. The smaller companies will then outsource the jobs (constructing solar panels in the desert, say, or planting a hardy forest on now-barren disused farmland) to poorly-paid local firms, while keeping most of the remaining money as profit. The poorly-paid local firms will then do the jobs with the cheapest materials and shoddiest standards in the hope of retaining whatever funds are left for their CEOs and investors. This is the American way, and it is why any grand infrastructure or rebuilding project costs so much.

If enacted along the lines of past grand projects like the Affordable Care Act, the Green New Deal will essentially be a giveaway to the big corporations Ocasio-Cortez claims to oppose, with her champagne socialism, neoliberal economics degree, and unhealthy affection for the trappings of wealth and power. It is no secret that the very real climate catastrophe we all face has been weaponized by multinational interests interested in pushing global governance measures as the only “solution” to the climate change problem. Too often, this has made those rightly suspicious of the motives of government and the ruling class also doubt the existence of climate change, in a form of guilt by association. But taking action on a grand scale need not be ruinously expensive or involve an authoritarian clampdown on the rights of the individual. China assigned 60,000 soldiers to plant enough trees to cover an area the size of Ireland last year11 with an aim toward eventually upping their forest coverage from 21 percent to 26 percent by 2035. Even Bangladesh – one of the poorest countries in the world – began planting one million trees in 2017 after rural deforestation had so denuded the countryside that farmers were dying from lightning strikes at high rates, copying a similar program in Thailand.12India set a world record – twice! – using millions of volunteers to plant trees in order to bring its forests in line with the commitments it made under the Paris Agreement. With modern technology like “seed bombing,” a single airplane or drone can plant 900,000 trees in a day, dropping seeds encased in ready-to-grow soil bundles. This technology is already used in Africa, and it has advanced significantly beyond simply dropping seeds indiscriminately – modern seed bombing drones are equipped with imaging capability to ensure the seeds go where they are most likely to thrive.  None of this requires outsourcing, subcontracting, slicing and dicing profit margins, or any of the typically American approaches to the problem, and it will save billions.

Relying on the government to do the right thing almost invariably leaves one disappointed. If it was not Ocasio-Cortez pushing cooperation with the business community as an integral part of the Deal, it would be another congressperson. When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and the US Chamber of Commerce – the “business lobby” – is so massive it’s difficult for lawmakers to see outside its edges. Add in the size of the “energy lobby” and it’s easy to see how lawmakers find it difficult to conceive of taking large-scale action in a way that does not primarily benefit large corporations. The voice of the people has not been heard in Washington in decades, and it’s doubtful it would be recognized if it was heard.

Moreover, although the US is the world’s second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases (15 percent of global total emissions), China far surpasses us at 30 percent. Together with the European Union (10 percent) and India (6 percent), these four regions account for over half of all GHEs. The bottom 100 countries combined only contribute to 3.5 percent. Launching a universal, global environmental Marshall Plan may well be beyond humanity’s means. If we consider that China is currently constructing a single sprawling megapolis that will cover over 83,000 square miles — larger than Great Britain or New England — it is impossible to imagine how such a humongous urban operation could not be unsustainable and fossil-fuel dependent. The booming city of Jing-Jin-Ji will be the heaviest concentration of human beings on the planet, housing upwards of 130 million people, or the equivalent of the combined populations of the world’s four largest cities: Tokyo, New Delhi, Shanghai and Sao Paulo. And all of these residents will want the conveniences of a modern, western lifestyle: more cars, more meat on their tables and more energy-consuming luxuries.

Surprisingly, surveys seem to indicate that the Chinese are better-educated about climate change than the average American. After last year’s record-breaking heatwaves, droughts, deadly flash floods and a category 5 typhoon, 94 percent of Chinese polled said they believe climate change is happening now and 66 percent believe it is anthropocentric.  Seventy-three percent are willing to pay extra for climate-friendly products.  Yet similar to average Americans, the Chinese are not changing their consumption habits to adapt to the new climate reality. Likewise, similar to the US, the Chinese government is eager to press forward with unsustainable growth projects that will increase rather than decrease emissions.13

Among the other stumbling blocks the Green New Deal faces is that Washington has unfortunately almost reached its goal of being totally energy independent. While we produce the most energy in the world, we also consume the most per capita.  The US has also risen to the third largest fossil fuel exporter, after Saudi Arabia and Russia. Together, these three nations account for 38 percent of the world’s total oil.14 At the same time the US still needs to import petroleum, predominantly for our auto and transportation demands. Although the US now produces about 11 million barrels per day, it consumes almost 20 million barrels daily.15 For natural gas production, the US is king, and is expected to reach over 90 billion cubic feet per day of production, according to the EIA.16 Trump’s abhorrent policies have revitalized the coal industry and escalated production. Worse, the oil and coal industries are the recipients of monstrous corporate welfare to the tune of $20 billion in annual government subsidies.17

Jeremy Brecher properly notes that “global warming has rightly been called history’s greatest market failure. Correcting it cannot be left to the market.”18 Unlike the faux urgency for building a silly wall on the border, climate change is THE national emergency. It is a planetary emergency. Therefore, when thousands of large and small coal-gas-oil related companies reap enormous windfalls, employ almost 1.1 million workers  — compared to under 374,000 working full- or part-time in solar and 102,000 at wind firms — there is zero incentive for any of these major greenhouse gas emitters to leap off the gravy train and shift to cleaner, renewable forms of energy.19

A second major obstacle to the Green New Deal is that all of our leading institutions, politicians, legislative policymakers and opinion leaders, think tanks and foundations, and the mainstream media that is controlled by these institutions, are not going to truthfully challenge the paradigm of free-market capitalism and the myth that constant economic growth and expansion will better society. This means we only have more toxic pollution, urban sprawl, destruction of the environment and habitats, and depletion of natural resources to look forward to, and with it, warmer seasons and more extreme weather events such as superstorms, droughts, wildfires, and floods.

This may be the 3,000-pound gorilla in the room. We are caught in the perpetual cycle of earning more in order to buy more and accumulate more debt. The transition of weaning ourselves off of fossil fuels to increase investment in renewables and the new technologies necessary to meet the IPCC benchmark means a tradeoff for a much slower or no-growth economy in order to reach a more sustainable and livable future.  It may require up to $10 trillion to re-engineer entire industries and infrastructures in order to reach anything close to zero emissions. Yet with America’s new wealthy class of 11 million millionaires governing private industries, investments and policy-making to keep the capitalist engine churning, enactment of the kind of green agenda proposed and demanded today is unlikely. Again, there is no incentive for the ruling elite to cut back on consumption. The legions of lobbyists in Washington will make every effort to scuttle the Green New Deal and ensure it is dead on arrival. The ruling class has no allegiance to nationality. It is the most unpatriotic class in the nation. When the stresses of climate change get tough or their personal security and assets are threatened, the ruling class have the means to pick up and move elsewhere.

Furthermore, the ruling class and the conservative populace — even those educated enough to agree on anthropocentric climate change – lean heavily upon Libertarian values, which means smaller government and more freedom for the free market. Looking at the Green New Deal from any angle, it is clear this plan will require handing over enormous power to Washington. Trust in all branches of government has already eroded to a level where even true progressives doubt anything good can come out of the duopoly in Washington. Therefore, a sizable percentage of the public will be deeply suspicious of the government’s will and competence in executing any legislation that emerges from the Deal’s current outline.

The free-market economy is polluting everything, creating seas of plastic, landfills of toxic junk, and stores of computers and electronic equipment. Forests and ecosystems are being leveled to expand growth. There is little to no time to dramatically change our steel, auto, and high tech industries. And private industries and the population’s collective consumption behaviors will not change overnight. While we commend the Green New Deal’s authors and the progressive caucus that backs it, we encourage the public not to become passive with high expectations that Washington is willing or capable of solving the climate crisis. There are no saviors. Blind faith should not be directed towards the compliance of Washington, nor to new technologies developed to pull us through.  We live in remarkably tense times; but drastic times require drastic measures. In fact, the Deal may not be radical enough. Gutting our military expenditure — the largest fossil fuel consumer as well as the top recipient of our tax dollars — and the Washington Consensus’ cowboy adventurism to instigate regime changes as the world burns is absent from its wish list.

Are there any solutions that are doable without the body politic of government standing in the way?  Reducing GHEs can no longer be regarded as solely a challenge for government and private industry. It is a responsibility of every individual.

First, the public must become deeply and consciously aware of the climate problem and how our lives and culture contribute to global warming. We must also become deeply and consciously aware of how our lives will change as the world deteriorates. Our education system has been a complete failure in teaching people about the basic science of climate change and the immediate and long-term impacts of global warming.  Nothing we can do will efficaciously change the melting of the Arctic ice, the warming oceans and environmental dead zones, multi-gigaton methane burps from the thawing permafrost, the decimation of insect populations that will contribute to national food crises, rising coastal waters and the next season of record-setting wildfires in the Western states. The next category 5 super-hurricane could be the final straw for many Floridians and residents living along the Gulf. Industrial over-consumption is depleting our aquifers. There are in fact hundreds of canaries in the coal mine, not just one.

Second, every person and family can begin to gradually transition to eating a plant-based diet. This does not need to be an abrupt change. We can start by going meatless for a single day every week and then increase the days. The agriculture industry generates anywhere between 10 and 40 percent of GHEs, primarily methane and nitrous oxide, depending upon which metrics are being used in the equations. The United Nation’s Food and Agriculture Organization estimates that livestock production accounts for about 14.5 percent of all human-caused emissions.20 In the US, 42 percent of agricultural emissions come from the raising of livestock, and globally it accounts for approximately 16 percent of all human-induced GHEs.21 When storage, transportation and distribution of meat and produce are added, the CO2 footprint rises substantially. Imagine the footprint of a single bushel of tomatoes traveling from a California farm to a Maine supermarket.  If a sufficient number of people also purchase more locally-grown food, this too would have an impact. These are two efforts — a meatless diet and buying locally — that every American can adopt in order to be part of the solution rather than the problem.

Third, our consumption behaviors are traveling on a high speed rail off a cliff. We have the will to make conscientious choices about our buying habits. There is only one solution to this and that is to downsize, purchase only what is essential for our needs and find other ways to increase the quality of our lives.  Before making a purchase, consider the item’s carbon footprint before it reaches your hands. As the world gets warmer and the economic and social stresses of life increase, inevitably a time will arrive when people will be forced to downsize. It will no longer be a matter of choice.

Finally, if it is within your financial means, find ways to increase your reliance on renewable clean energy sources. If you can install solar panels to get off the grid and become energy self-sufficient, it will pay off in the long term. Although there remains considerable debate on whether or not our global civilization has reached a “peak oil” moment, oil prices will unquestionably increase steadily in the future.

What the nation can do collectively is adequately if vaguely summarized in the Green New Deal. During a press conference following the report’s release, Sen. Markey and Rep. Ocasio-Cortez were clear that the plan at this time does not include any “individual prescriptions” for the issues outlined. The details and following legislation will be developed following Congressional vote and approval and the creation of a Congressional committee to develop the solutions. However, the Deal is clearly defined as a “national, industrial, economic mobilization plan.” It will take years for the US to become “greenhouse gas emission neutral.” The report notes that it will require “massive investment” to reduce existing and future greenhouse gases. It acknowledges it is crucial to develop and install “a national, energy-efficient smart grid,” upgrade our entire infrastructure, residential and industrial base for “state-of-the-art energy efficiency,” and eliminate GHE from the agricultural industry. The report also includes the need for expanding education and training for such a nationwide mobilization effort.

The report also finally acknowledges that America’s energy grid is a disaster. The majority of people and even most politicians are unaware our energy and power infrastructures are sorely inefficient.  In an analysis conducted by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories to evaluate US energy consumption, 59.1 percent of electricity generation was “rejected energy” — energy lost due to inefficiencies in power plants, engines, buildings, etc.22 Almost all of this “rejected energy” is generated from coal, natural gas and petroleum. In the Livermore report, renewable energy sources such as solar, wind and geothermal barely contributed to any infrastructural energy loss.23 And yet Washington, and the Trump administration in particular, find it economically feasible to subsidize these fossil fuel industries for their ineptitude, negligence towards energy efficiency and exorbitant waste. Even Ocasio-Cortez seems to believe progress can be achieved by working with these monuments to inefficiency. This is naïve at best, and disingenuous at worst. In a true capitalist system – such as our president pays lip service to at every opportunity – the best performers come out on top. Why, then, does the government continually prop up failed systems, from energy to banking? This money would be better invested in funding sustainable alternatives.

A simple fact that opponents of the Deal in private industry, Wall Street and climate change deniers fail to understand as a rule is that the enormous costs for implementing a New Deal are already here. And they have been increasing annually due to rising frequency and damages from extreme weather events due to humanity’s messing with the atmosphere and environment.  NASA conservatively reported $91 billion lost in damages due to climate change episodes in 2018 alone.24 And the federal government’s most recent National Climate Assessment warns we will rapidly reach $500 billion per year in economic losses due to sea level rise and worsening weather, droughts, storms, floods and fires.25

Next, it is sheer negligence that the federal and state governments have failed to upgrade our public transportation system. The US falls far behind even banana republics in its inefficient rail system compared to high speed 200-plus mph rails in China, France, Japan and elsewhere. Creating a new high-speed rail system across America may be too optimistic at this time; nevertheless, upgrading our trains between major urban hubs is perfectly doable immediately. This would mean high-speed rails between Boston, New York, Washington, Chicago, Dallas and Houston, and Los Angeles, San Francisco and Las Vegas for starters. High speed trains between these city hubs would significantly reduce the carbon footprint of transportation and could even be faster than airlines after considering time spent at airports. It could also be accomplished at the state level through public-private partnerships. In addition, a tax incentive could be added for those who use public transportation.

Finally, the nation needs to act immediately upon a national reforestation program and roll back the Trump’s regressive orders to further devastate public land and ecosystems to increase corporate profits. Forests and trees are recognized as perhaps the most important natural resource to offset carbon emissions. China and India are making huge advances in reforesting their nations. China has reserved an area four times the size of the United Kingdom for reforestation. There are few areas on the planet with large swathes of forest canopies. Most are located in northern Canada, the Latin American countries in the Amazon basin, Scandinavia and Russia. Therefore, we would recommend a national conservation corps to start an aggressive reforestation campaign. If India can hold the world record in planting 66 million trees within a 12 hour period in 2017, and a single 53-year-old New Delhi resident can plant 1,100,000 trees in a single year, the US could reforest ourselves easily in a short period of time.

For all the Deal’s good points, it will go nowhere if the legislation that results is larded with giveaways to the same industries and corporations that led us to environmental and economic ruin in the first place. Ocasio-Cortez’s desire to liaise with these actors may be born out of a genuine desire for cooperation, but it is more likely her Democratic Socialism is being used as a more palatable face for the same rapacious neoliberalism that has created all the problems the Deal purports to solve. While we wait for government to get its act together and legislate its way out of this mess, we would be wise to begin solving as many problems as we can ourselves even as we hold our government representatives’ feet to the fire.

*

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

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on alternative and nutritional health and a multi-award-winning documentary film director, including Poverty Inc and Deadly Deception.

Notes

1 Steinbrecher, Stephanie. “100 US Cities are Committed to 100 Percent Clean, Renewable Energy.” Sierra Club. 5 Dec 2018. https://www.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2018/12/100-us-cities-are-committed-100-percent-clean-renewable-energy

2 Osborne, Samuel. “Sweden phases out fossil fuels in attempt to run completely off renewable energy.” Independent. 24 May 2016.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/sweden-phases-out-fossil-fuels-in-attempt-to-run-completely-off-renewable-energy-a7047306.html

3 “12 Countries Leading the Way in Renewable Energy.” Click Energy. 10 Aug 2017. https://www.clickenergy.com.au/news-blog/12-countries-leading-the-way-in-renewable-energy/

4 US Energy Information Administration. “Where Greenhouse Gases Come From.” Energy and the Environment Explained. https://www.eia.gov/energyexplained/index.php?page=environment_where_ghg_come_from Retrieved 27 Feb 2019.

5 Watson Institute of International & Public Affairs. “Costs of War.” Brown University. https://watson.brown.edu/costsofwar Retrieved 27 Feb 2019.

6 Skidmore, Mark and Andy Henion. “MSU scholars find $21 trillion in unauthorized government spending; defense department to conduct first-ever audit.” MSUToday. 11 Dec 2017. https://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2017/msu-scholars-find-21-trillion-in-unauthorized-government-spending-defense-department-to-conduct/

7 Syrmopoulos, Jay. Audit: Pentagon Cannot Account for $6.5 Trillion Dollars in Taxpayer Money.” MintPress. 8 Aug 2016. https://www.mintpressnews.com/audit-pentagon-cannot-account-6-5-trillion-dollars-taxpayer-money/219246/

8 Cordesman, Anthony. “US Military Spending: The Cost of Wars.” Center for Strategic & International Studies. 10 Jul 2017. https://www.csis.org/analysis/us-military-spending-cost-wars

9 Turse, Nick. “America’s Secret War in 134 Countries.” The Nation. 16 Jan 2014. https://www.thenation.com/article/americas-secret-war-134-countries/

10 “Putin: Russia is not an enemy of US, but it will not be banging on a locked door.” FARS News Agency. 21 Feb 2019. https://www.msn.com/en-ae/news/other/putin-russia-is-not-an-enemy-of-us-but-it-will-not-be-banging-on-a-locked-door/ar-BBTTCfE

11 Osborne, Samuel. “China reassigns 60,000 soldiers to plant trees in bid to fight pollution.”Independent. 13 Feb 2018. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/china-tree-plant-soldiers-reassign-climate-change-global-warming-deforestation-a8208836.html

12 “Bangladesh plants 1 million trees to cut lightning toll.” Straits Times. 24 Jan 2017. https://www.straitstimes.com/asia/south-asia/bangladesh-plants-1-million-trees-to-cut-lightning-toll

13 Jing, Lin. “Does the Chinese public care about climate change?” China Dialogue. 21 Sep 2018. https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/10831-Does-the-Chinese-public-care-about-climate-change

14 Wilson, Robert. “Which Countries Produce the Most Fossil Fuels?” The Energy Collective Group. 31 Jul 2014. https://www.energycentral.com/c/ec/which-countries-produce-most-fossil-fuels

15 Gaffen, David and Ayenat Mersie. “US crude oil output hits 11 million barrels per day for first time ever.” Reuters. 18 Jul 2018. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-eia/us-crude-oil-output-hits-11-million-barrels-per-day-for-first-time-ever-idUSKBN1K81XT and US Energy Information Administration. “How much oil is consumed in the United States?” Frequently Asked Questions. 3 Oct 2018. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=33&t=6

16 US Energy Information Administration. “Short Term Energy Outlook.” Analysis & Projections. 12 Feb 2019. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/report/natgas.php

17 Roberts, David. “Friendly policies keep US oil and coal afloat far more than we thought.” Vox. 26 Jul 2018. https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/10/6/16428458/us-energy-coal-oil-subsidies

18 Brecher, Jeremy. “The Green New Deal can work – here’s how.” AlterNet. 25 Feb 2019. https://www.alternet.org/2019/02/the-green-new-deal-can-work-heres-how/

19 2017 US Energy and Employment Report. Energy.gov. January 2017. https://www.energy.gov/downloads/2017-us-energy-and-employment-report

20 Gustin, Georgina. “Factory Farms Put Climate at Risk, Experts Say in Urging Health Officials to Speak Out.” Inside Climate News. 23 May 2017. https://insideclimatenews.org/news/22052017/factory-farms-cafos-threaten-climate-change-world-heath-organization

21 Friedman, Lisa et.al. “The Meat Question, by the Numbers.” New York Times. 25 Jan 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/25/climate/cows-global-warming.html

22 Fares, Robert. “Is the US Energy Independent?” Scientific American. 31 Oct 2016. https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/plugged-in/is-the-u-s-energy-independent/

23 ibid.

24 Zorn, Justin Talbot et.al. “A Green New Deal is fiscally responsible. Climate inaction is not.” Guardian. 25 Feb 2019. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/feb/25/green-new-aoc-deal-fiscally-responsible-climate-inaction

25 Irfan, Umair. “3 big takeaways from the major new US climate report.” Vox. 24 Nov 2018. https://www.vox.com/2018/11/24/18109883/climate-report-2018-national-assessment

Jeremy Corbyn, head of the British Labor Party, over the weekend, called for the British government to freeze arms sales to Israel and to condemn it for the killing of Palestinians.

Corbyn’s remarks came after a United Nations report, which found that Israeli security forces may have committed war crimes killing scores of Palestinians and wounding more than 6,100 in weekly protests in the besieged Gaza Strip over the past year.

Corbyn posted a tweet on his Twitter account, saying

“The UN says Israel’s killings of demonstrators in Gaza – including children, paramedics and journalists – may constitute ‘war crimes or crimes against humanity.’”

He added, “The UK government must unequivocally condemn the killings and freeze arms sales to Israel.”

The UN Independent Commission of Inquiry said in a statement that
“The Commission found reasonable grounds to believe that Israeli snipers shot at journalists, health workers, children and persons with disabilities, knowing they were clearly recognizable as such.”
*

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

Featured image is from MEMO

The OPCW (Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons) has presented its final report regarding an alleged chemical weapons attack on Douma, Syria on April 7, 2018. Despite attempts by the Western media to hail it as “proof” that the Syrian government used chemical weapons in Douma – the report says nothing of the sort.

In fact, the report fails to link any of the alleged 43 deaths to apparent chlorine found at the scene of the alleged attack.

Claims of the attack were made by US-backed militants on the eve of their defeat – with the Syrian military retaking Douma the following day. Initial reports claimed sarin or chlorine chemical weapons were deployed through the use of two yellow gas canisters modified as bombs.

No sarin of any kind was found by OPCW inspectors.

While the report suggests two modified yellow gas canisters were used in the attack and that they appeared to have been dropped onto two buildings (locations 2 and 4), the report also mentions that OPCW inspectors found a nearly identical canister in a workshop used by militants to construct weapons.

The alleged “chemical weapons” attack prompted the United States, UK, and France to launch missiles strikes against Syrian military targets on April 14, 2018, long before the first OPCW inspectors even arrived at the sites of the alleged attack on April 21.

No Link Between Chlorine and Casualties

The OPCW report would note video and photographic evidence of alleged victims of chemical exposure could not be linked to any specific chemical including traces of chlorine OPCW inspectors found. The report would specifically claim (emphasis added):

Many of the signs and symptoms reported by the medical personnel, witnesses and casualties (as well as those seen in multiple videos provided by witnesses), their rapid onset, and the large number of those reportedly affected, indicate exposure to an inhalational irritant or toxic substance. However, based on the information reviewed and with the absence of biomedical samples from the dead bodies or any autopsy records, it is not currently possible to precisely link the cause of the signs and symptoms to a specific chemical.

In other instances, the OPCW report would cite witnesses – including medical staff who allegedly treated victims of the supposed attack – who expressed doubts of the presence of any chemicals at all.

The report would state (emphasis added):

A number of the interviewed medical staff who were purportedly present in the emergency department on 7 April emphasised that the presentation of the casualties was not consistent with that expected from a chemical attack. They also reported not having experience in the treatment of casualties of chemical weapons. Some interviewees stated that no odour emanated from the patients, while other witnesses declared that they perceived a smell of smoke on the patients’ clothes. 

Other accounts reviewed by the OPCW suggest a large number of casualties were owed to smoke and dust inhalation from conventional bombardment.

The report would specifically state (emphasis added):

Some witnesses stated that many people died in the hospital on 7 April as result of the heavy shelling and/or suffocation due to inhalation of smoke and dust. As many as 50 bodies were lying on the floor of the emergency department awaiting burial. Others stated that there were no fatalities in Douma Hospital on 7 April and that no bodies were brought to the hospital that day.

The conflicting witness reports, the lack of any evidence linking chlorine to even a single death on April 7, and other inconsistencies and contradictions make it impossible to use the report’s conclusions as “proof” that the Syrian government carried out a deadly chemical attack on the eve of its victory in Douma.

Similar Canisters Found in Militant Workshop

While the Western media has focused on the report’s conclusion that chlorine was present and possibly emanated from the two canisters that appear to have been dropped onto two buildings in the area, another crucial finding has been predictably glossed over.

A militant-run weapons workshop investigated by OPCW inspectors revealed a large number of resources for working with chemicals to make explosives. Among an array of chemicals and equipment associated with making explosives, a yellow gas canister was found.

The report would admit:

Although the team confirmed the presence of a yellow cylinder in the warehouse, reported in Note Verbale of the Syrian Arab Republic (Annex 10, point 2) as a chlorine cylinder, due to safety reasons (risk involved in manipulating the valve of the cylinder, see Figure A.8.2) it was not feasible to verify or sample the contents. There were differences in this cylinder compared to those witnessed at Locations 2 and 4. It should be noted that the cylinder was present in its original state and had not been altered.

The lack of interest by the OPCW in the canister despite the obvious implications of its presence in a weapons workshop controlled by militants calls into question the inspectors’ diligence and agenda.

The canister’s “differences” are owed to the fact that those at locations 2 and 4 were modified to appear as bombs, while – admittedly – the canister in the militant workshop remained unaltered.

The obvious implications of a nearly identical canister turning up in a militant workshop making weapons is that the militants may likely have also made the two converted canisters found at locations 2 and 4. OPCW inspectors found other improvised ordnance in the workshop including, “a number of 20-litre metallic drums, some fitted with crude cord-type fuses, which appeared to have been filled with plastic explosives to serve as improvised explosive devices.”

Western media organizations have tried to dismiss the presence of the canister at the workshop by suggesting it was a “setup” orchestrated by the Syrian Arab Army. Huffington Post UK senior editor Chris York would go as far as referring to the workshop as:

…the rebel explosives lab that had been captured by the SAA days before and which they were desperately trying to make look like a chemical weapons lab.

In reality, the OPCW itself would suggest nothing of the sort, and noted that all of the equipment present was consistent with a weapons workshop. Nowhere does the OPCW suggest anything was altered – including the canister – which the OPCW specifically noted “had not been altered.”

The presence of a canister nearly identical to those found at locations 2 and 4 in a militant weapons workshop provides at least as much evidence that militants staged the supposed chemical attack as the Western media claims the canisters at locations 2 and 4 suggest it was the Syrian government.

In the absence of definitive evidence regarding who created and deployed the canisters found at locations 2 and 4, or how they truly ended up there, a better question to ask is “why” they would have ended up there.

Chemical Weapon Attack in Douma… Cui Bono? 

Why would the Syrian government – in the middle of a major military offensive it was on the literal eve of concluding in complete victory, drop only 2 canisters filled with a limited amount chemicals to kill – at most – 43 people? A simple artillery barrage could kill just as many people – or very likely – many more.

The use of chemical weapons even on a large scale have historically proven less effective than conventional military weapons – and the use of chlorine on such a small scale as claimed in Douma serves no conceivable purpose at all – at least not for the Syrian military.

Despite claims otherwise, the Syrian government has derived no benefit whatsoever had it been behind any of the chemical attacks it has been accused of by militants and their Western sponsors over the course of the Syrian conflict.

The Douma attack – were it the Syrian military – would have served no tactical, strategic, or political purpose.
Conversely, it would serve as one of the very few actions the Syrian government could take to jeopardize its victory by justifying a large scale Western-led military attack on Syrian forces.

In fact, just one week after the alleged attack, the US, UK, and France would indeed launch as many as 100 missiles into Syria in retaliation, the Guardian would report.

On the other hand, militants who had been occupying Douma had every reason to stage the attack.

By staging the attack on the eve of their defeat and producing graphic scenes of human suffering – particularly among children – the militants would have a propaganda tool readily able to invoke global public concern, sympathy, and outcry in defense of their cause – a propaganda tool their Western sponsors eagerly amplified through their global-spanning media platforms.

With the United States having previously launched entire wars based on false accusations of merely possessing chemical weapons, the militants correctly assumed the US would use the staged attack as a pretext  for further direct military aggression against the Syrian state – possibly saving them.

The US still to this day cites “chemical weapons” and the Douma incident on April 7, 2018 specifically – as part of its pretext to maintain its illegal occupation of Syrian territory and its continued support of militants attempting to overthrow the Syrian government.

The alleged us of “chemical weapons” by the Syrian government also regularly serves as a primary talking point used by the Western media when attacking anti-war politicians, pundits, and commentators.

The OPCW report’s conclusions are too ambiguous to draw a conclusion one way or the other. The presence of a nearly identical canister in a militant workshop raises serious questions and associated implications suggesting the attack was staged – questions that must be adequately investigated and answered.

That the Syrian government gained nothing from the attack and was only further jeopardized politically and strategically by it – raises questions about motivations that likewise need to be answered before drawing conclusions.

But as the Western media has proven many times before – it is fully capable of producing entirely irrational lies based on tenuous evidence or no evidence at all – and even repeating those lies after being blatantly caught telling them previously.

That the Western media is still attempting to sell WMD lies regarding Syria after being caught fabricating them to justify war in neighboring Iraq should be at the forefront of the global public’s mind when considering their “interpretations” of this latest OPCW report regarding Douma, Syria.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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.

All images in this article are from the author


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

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

Voices from Syria 

ISBN: 978-0-9879389-1-6

Author: Mark Taliano

Year: 2017

Pages: 128 (Expanded edition: 1 new chapter)

List Price: $17.95

Special Price: $9.95 

Click to order

105 heartfelt interviews with U.S. Soldiers traveling to and from war zones,  Military Families whose children were killed in Iraq, Veterans, and Youth. Intimately documented on film by Artists Sally Marr and Peter Dudar.

Arlington West is a 74-minute Art Film presenting “temporary cemeteries”in the sand, erected every Sunday by the Veterans For Peace in Santa Barbara, Santa Monica, Oceanside, and Huntington Beach.  Flag draped coffins and over 5,500 wooden crosses, affectionately placed, invites the public to honor the unacknowledged fallen U.S. soldiers from Iraq & Afghanistan, for us to lament the cost of the war.

Watch the trailer below.

Visitors write the name of the dead on slips of paper lining the ever-growing list of casualties and place it on a cross with fresh flowers and an American flag.

This presentation, now national, is a respite to express sentiments, a remembrance in silence or painful grief; for all to take time to honor the Soldiers, Marines, and Military Families who are paying the highest price for war. Children offer their intuitive wisdom. Veterans, survivors of the horrors of war, share their poignant experiences, and new recruits en route to combat speak of their enthusiasm, dedication and faith in their upcoming missions.

620,000 Iraq & Afghanistan War Veterans have either Traumatic Brain Injury or Post Traumatic Stress Disorder – RAND Corp.  18 U.S. Veterans kill themselves EVERY SINGLE DAY…6,570 suicides per year in the V.A. – CBS News.

California alone has spent $132.6 billion on wars in Iraq & Afghanistan; 27,000 teachers were laid off statewide in 2009.  ARLINGTON WEST is both non-partisan and non-political, a proven pedagogical tool.  The U.S. Department of Education is now using this film for their “Wounded Warrior Initiative,” helping Educators in Colleges and Universities understand Soldiers’ issues involving PTSD as young Combat Vets attempt secondary education.

Returning from the Middle East conflict, many of the military, distressed, disillusioned, damaged, and having lost friends “in country” share reflections, as well as their fellow soldiers who are eager to return to war zones.

The military families arrive with photos, dog-tags, and mementos to adorn the crosses as they honor, weep and pray…sharing their innermost feelings with you, their fellow countrymen and women.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Arlington West: Military Families Whose Children Were Killed in Iraq
  • Tags:

Che Guevara Exhibit at the UN Human Rights Council

March 4th, 2019 by T. K. Hernández

The home of United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva is showcasing a poster-sized photograph of the Cuban revolutionary Che Guevara in its exhibition hallways.

In 2013, UNESCO, a branch of the U.N., included the “The Life and Works of Ernesto Che Guevara” into the Memory of the World Register.  The Memory of the World Registry is engaged in preserving and protecting valuable documents and writings of human heritage from destruction.

The inventory of documents of the Documentary Collection was originally submitted by Cuba and Bolivia to the Memory of the World Register in 2013. The documents include:

“Life and Works of Ernesto Che Guevara: from the originals manuscripts of its adolescence and youth to the campaign Diary in Bolivia”, 1007 documents ― grouped in a total of 8197 pages from 1928 to 1967, concerning his revolutionary work, essays, news paper articles, biographical materials and personal works, as well as his correspondence with different persons, and his family. Of these, 431 are manuscripts by Che and 567 are documents about Che or related to him. The collection also includes valuable iconographic material by and about Che, films, letters and museum pieces.”1

Source: @HillelNeuer/Twitter

The U.S. government and its critics, conveniently forgetting its own long list of war crimes, (from Hiroshima, to the Mỹ Lai Massacre in Vietnam, the Iran-Contra Affair, the Abu Graib torture scandal, the illegal invasion of Iraq, etc., etc., etc., ad infinitum), came out against the U.N. in a brazen attempt to wipe out history that doesn’t exactly serve their purposes.  David T. Killion, the United States Permanent Representative to UNESCO wrote a letter to the U.N. urging the organization to censor the exhibit.

It is ironic that the words of Che Guevara spoken in 1964 to the U.N. are as true as they were then and still ring true today.  Guevara, at that time, addressed the U.N. General Assembly where he accused the United States of planning to overthrow the Cuba as well as other communist governments across Latin America.

“It must tie clearly established,” Major Guevara said, “that in the area of the Caribbean, maneuvers and preparations for aggression against Cuba are taking place—off the coast of Nicaragua, above all; in Costa Rica, in the Panama Canal Zone, in the Vieques Islands of Puerto Rico, in Florida and possibly in other parts of the territory of the United States. And also, perhaps, in Honduras, Cuban mercenaries are training, as well as mercenaries of other nationalities, with a purpose that cannot be peaceful.”

Ernesto Che Guevara was born on June 14, 1948 in Rosario, Argentina, and died by CIA-assisted assassination forces in La Higuera, in the southern province of Vallegrande, Bolivia  in 1967.

Approximately 100,000 visitors each year take guided tours of the Palais des Nations in Geneva.

*

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

T.K. Hernández is a journalist, co-founder and editor at the Cuba Business Report.

Note

1 unesco.org/…/documentary-collection-life-and-works-of-ernesto-che-guevara-from-the-originals-manuscripts-of-its-adolescence-and-youth-to-the-campaign-diary-in-bolivia

Did Bolton Blow North Korea?

March 4th, 2019 by Rep. Ron Paul

President Trump’s second summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un last week was criticized by both parties in Washington long before Air Force One even touched down in Hanoi. Washington’s political class seemed terrified that the nearly 70 year state of “war” with North Korea might actually end. In the end the only positive thing they could say about the meeting was that Trump apparently walked away with nothing to show for it.

The location of the meeting – Hanoi, Vietnam – serves as a great example of what can be won in peace versus what is lost in war. After losing nearly 60,000 US service members in an unnecessary war that took a million Vietnamese lives, the US loss of the Vietnam war resulted not in a communist takeover of southeast Asia but something very different: the domino theory failed because communism was destined to fail. Now we are close trading partners with an increasingly pro-market Vietnam. The result of trade and exchange versus war is a better life for all.

Unfortunately for Washington, the real lesson of Vietnam has not been learned. That is why the Republicans, Democrats, and the entire mainstream media spoke as one against President Trump’s decision to take a bold step and actually meet again, one-on-one, with one of our “enemies” to see if we can avoid nuclear conflict.

One leading Democrat, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA), attacked Trump for meeting with Kim because speaking to the North Korean “gives him legitimacy.” Does it make any sense that we should not even speak with our nuclear-armed adversaries because it gives them “legitimacy”? He’d rather have a nuclear war as long as Kim remains “illegitimate”? This is sadly the kind of thinking that prevails in Washington.

The media reported that Trump walked away from the meeting before the scheduled signing ceremony and closing press event. The talks broke down, it was reported, because Kim demanded an end to all sanctions before any reduction in North Korea’s nuclear arsenal. Washington sighed with relief and said all together, “better no deal than a bad deal.”

Meanwhile the North Koreans held a rare press conference clarifying that they only asked for partial sanctions relief in exchange for dismantling one of their main nuclear facilities. Further, press reports began to surface that National Security Advisor John Bolton threw additional demands on the table which led Kim to draw the meeting to an early close.

Who’s telling the truth? We likely won’t know. But given Bolton’s strong opposition to any kind of peace agreement with North Korea it’s hard to doubt that he had something to do with the blow-up of the summit. As the New York Times reported over the weekend, while Trump’s advisors were shocked when he decided to meet Kim face-to-face the first time for negotiations, John Bolton wasn’t worried at all. As the Times writes, “Mr. Bolton told colleagues not to worry. The negotiations, he said, would collapse on their own.” And so they did.

Will Trump continue to allow his diplomatic efforts to be undermined by his own staff? Let’s hope the president will ignore Washington, ignore the neocons, and continue to work for peace with North Korea.

*

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

Featured image is from The Transnational

Earthworm Research Spurs Farmers to Act

March 4th, 2019 by Rothamsted Research

A study of England’s farmland has found key earthworm types are rare or absent in two out of five fields and has led to the majority of farmers affected vowing to change the way they farm.

The results indicate widespread, historical over-cultivation, and may explain observed declines in other wildlife, such as the song thrush, that feed on these worms.

The #60minworms project was the first comprehensive worm survey concentrating solely on farmland and was carried out by farmers themselves – 57 percent of whom said they would now change their soil management practices as a result.

The scientist behind the survey, Dr Jackie Stroud, a NERC Soil Security Fellow at Rothamsted Research, said:

“Earthworms are sensitive and responsive to soil management which makes them an ideal soil health indicator.  The aim of this research was to find a baseline of farmland earthworm populations that would be useful and used by farmers to assess soil health now and in the future.”

Biologists categorise earthworms by ecological role – with surface dwelling and deep burrowing worms the types most sensitive to farming practices, whilst the topsoil worms are generally unaffected by over-cultivation.

Earthworms perform a number of useful ‘ecosystem services’, and high numbers of earthworms have been linked to enhanced plant productivity.

This new citizen science project published today in the journal PLOS One, has revealed most fields have good earthworm biodiversity – meaning an abundance of all three types of earthworms were seen.

In Spring 2018, the average field had 9 earthworms in every spadeful of soil, with top fields having three times that number. One in 10 fields had high earthworm numbers of more than 16 worms per spadeful.

However, the study also revealed that 42 percent of fields had poor earthworm biodiversity – meaning either very few or none of the surface dwelling and deep burrowing worms were seen.

The absence of deep burrowing worms on 16 percent of fields is concerning, says Dr Stroud, because they are ‘drainage worms’ with vertical burrows that aid water infiltration and ultimately helps combat waterlogging.

“The deep burrowing worms have slow reproduction rates so recovery in their populations could take a decade under changed management practices.  In fact, we know very little about earthworm recovery rates.”

More than 1300 hectares were surveyed from all over England for the project, including fields managed under arable, potatoes, horticulture and pasture.

Each farmer volunteered to dig 10 regularly spaced pits across their field to make the observations, and an identification guide allowed them to allocate any sightings to one of the three main types of earthworm.

The success of this pilot project has already led to a much larger study, which recently concluded, says Dr Stroud.

“Working with farmers led to the redesign of the pilot survey, culminating in a shorter, more efficient field assessment and a co-created earthworm identification guide, to help improve farmer confidence in earthworm monitoring.

“These improvements were well received, with farmers all over the country spending an hour of their time digging five soil pits and assessing their earthworm populations in the Autumn.”

Empowering farmers to survey their own soils would save about £14 million in soil health monitoring if rolled out nationally, she added.

Healthy Soils were not a headline indicator for the draft DEFRA 25-year plan for the environment, so the DEFRA policy aspiration of achieving sustainable soils is currently unclear.

Despite this, soil health is widely regarded as vital for both farming and the environment.

Dr Stroud said:

“Decisions made above the ground, whether by farmers or policy makers, influence the billions of earthworms that are engineering the soil ecosystem below the ground.

“Earthworms influence carbon cycling, water infiltration, pesticide movement, greenhouse gas emissions, plant productivity, the breeding success of birds and even the susceptibility of plants to insect attack.”

However, she added, as earthworms are sensitive to various farming practices, including tillage, rotations, cover cropping, organic matter additions, and pesticides, we need to do more to look after them.

“Crucially, working together with farmers, we now know typical earthworm numbers in agricultural soils and between us have developed a quick method for ongoing monitoring.  Many farmers have reported they plan to survey again this Spring following benchmarking their fields last year.

“Soil health is complicated, but the path to doing things differently has to begin somewhere.”

The work is funded by the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) with facilities provided by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC).

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Earthworm Research Spurs Farmers to Act

They could not hold on.  A small – and in the scheme of things negligible group – split from the British Labour mothership last month in an effort to salvage some self-described form of credibility.  In truth, they were the original sceptics of Jeremy Corbyn, the pro-New Labour grouping indifferent, even disbelieving, about the predations made by Tony Blair during his reign. Thinking that he would remain on both backbench and in museum, a historical relic of Labour values supposedly done away with under Blair’s rule of spinning and cunning, some even put Corbyn up for the Labour leadership. As things transpired, the tired technocrats, focus groupies, and a range of other associates of Tone’s worldview were given a rude shock with the ascendancy of Corbyn and Momentum.

The split, comprising Chris Leslie, Luciana Berger, Ann Coffey, Chuka Umunna, Mike Gapes, Angela Smith and Gavin Shuker, should have happened sooner.  But times are good to make shallow decisions short on policy but noisy with neglected values.  Britain remains chaotically disposed and unruly; its Prime Minister remains desperate and hoping for an extension on negotiations regarding an exit from the European Union. Papers associated with the left of British politics were chewing over the decision to form a new grouping.  The resignations, claimed the Guardian, “are a mistake, but they are also a warning.  Like it or not, and a few on all wings have always disliked it, the Labour party is not a centralist party.”

Chris Leslie used the familiar themes of hostage taking that have come to symbolise the divide in Britain’s left.  “The Labour Party we joined, what we campaigned for and believed in is no longer today’s Labour Party… it has now been hijacked by the machine politics of the hard left.”  Labour had betrayed Europe and enabled, according to Leslie, the conditions for May’s Brexit to take place.   The “public” had been denied “a final say”.  (Matters of the public are relative: the public did have a say in 2016, but a narrative that is digging its way into the books is that it was illegitimate, stolen, an act of grand and cruel deception, ergo invalid.)

Berger felt “embarrassed” at her party, claiming that its values of equality had been “undermined and attacked.”  For her, the movement had mutated, fed by “a culture of bullying, bigotry and intimidation.”

The Independent Group, as they have termed themselves, have also been swelled by three Tory recruits, a point which made the Financial Times exaggerate its significance (no less than “the fifth largest bloc in the House of Commons”!).  In a sense, they were merely peelers from the periphery, and fairly flip-floppy on that score.  All have now reached the conclusion that Brexit is a bad idea, wish for a second referendum to reverse the rot and loathe the Eurosceptic grouping within their party.  Amongst the three, though, are curious streaks of variation.  Sarah Wollaston had embraced the Eurosceptic stance but felt troubled by the claim from Brexit campaigners that leaving the EU would result in £350m being put into the National Health Service.  Heidi Allen, by way of contrast, was always a Remain supporter.

The language of departure, and of being left behind, is standard political fare.  Anna Soubry spoke about not leaving the Conservative Party; it was her party, rather, that had left her.  And so Tom Crewe reminds us in the London Review of Books of Joseph Chamberlain when he founded the Liberal Unionist Party in an act of defection in 1886: “We are liberals and unchanged, even though our leader has deserted us.”  The issue then for the Liberals was Home Rule for Ireland; the Liberal Unionists went on to get 77 MPs elected.

If Labour does succumb to a cathartic slaughter, these are things best done in collective drubbings.  There is not yet the feeling that this could be another “Gang of Four” moment that led to the formation of the SDP in the 1981, along with the gathering of 35 MPs into its ranks.

And Corbyn’s popularity remains undervalued and hard to estimate in any polling performance, even if he has not acted, in decisive terms, as a fully engaged and constructive opposition leader.  Like other political phenomena who have managed to burst through the conventional tedium of statistical prediction and dull projection, he not only survived but came through mightily at the last general election.  This served to show the sheer divisions present in British politics.  The Independent Group, as has been pointed out by Rod Liddle, cannot merely survive on anti-Corbyn mania.  At some point, it will have to come through with a few ideas to hang on a hook or two.

Anti-party parties eventually have that perennial habit of becoming another political movement that will either sink, float or be absorbed.  In this case, the obvious disruption to the Independent Group will come from Vince Cable’s Liberal Democrats, who are currently polling at 7 percent.  The question to ask in 2019, poses Crew, “is not whether a ‘centre’ exists but whether political circumstances have once again made ‘centrism’ a viable political strategy.”

*

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

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

Featured image is from Red Pepper

The Ukraine courts are still dependent on political authorities, and the special service is used to carry out political schemes and to fight inconvenient points of view and dissent, rather than to protect national security. — Imprisoned Ukrainian-Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky tells Eva Bartlett.

***

KHERSON, UKRAINE (Interview) — Ukrainian-Russian journalist Kirill Vyshinsky has been imprisoned by Ukraine since his May 2018 arrest on yet unproven allegations of “high treason” and of conducting an “information war” against Ukraine in his role as chief editor of RIA Novosti Ukraine news agency.

To date, Vyshinsky has not been allowed a trial, the Ukrainian authorities instead repeatedly prolonging his pre-trial detention and delaying his right to justice.

In November, 2018, I spoke with journalist Vladimir Rodzianko about the case of Kirill Vyshinsky. In our interview, Rodzianko explained Vyshinsky’s May 2018 arrest, Vyshinsky’s work as an editor, the absurdities of Ukraine’s accusations against Vyshinsky, and the lack of outcry on his imprisonment.

Through intermediaries, I was later able to interview the imprisoned journalist, via email. While his replies came at the end of 2018, my intermediaries just recently were able to provide a translated transcript of Vyshinsky’s words.

More recently, I went to Kiev to interview Vyshinsky’s defense lawyer, Mr. Andriy Domanskyy. That interview will be published in the near future. While conducting the interview with Mr. Domanskyy on February 19, he received a phone call from the Kherson Court informing him that during the February 21 pleading, the court would limit the time during which Vyshinsky and Domanskyy could read the case files–case files amounting to 31 volumes.

Below is my correspondence with Kirill Vyshinsky.

Eva Bartlett: What do you believe was the motivation for the Ukrainian authorities to arrest and detain you?

Kirill Vyshinsky: My detention and arrest represent an attempt by the Ukrainian authorities to bolster the declining popularity of President [Petro] Poroshenko in this election year. How? First, my arrest was used to stoke another scandal involving a story about “terrible Russian propaganda.” I’m a journalist, a citizen of the Russian Federation and Ukraine, and my arrest can be explained as part of the fight against “Russian propaganda.”

Second, from the very first hours of my detention, without a trial and even before pre-trial restrictions were set for me, high-ranking Ukrainian politicians started talking about the need to swap me for a Ukrainian convicted in the Russian Federation. Swaps are a favorite PR topic of the current Ukrainian government, which, in the past five years, has been unable to accomplish anything to benefit the country’s economy, achieve peace in Ukraine, or resolve the civil conflict in Donbass. This government did nothing to improve the well-being and safety of its citizens, so it was looking for other ways to score electoral points. Anti-Russian hysteria and PR around a prisoner swap is one such way.

EB: Had the Ukrainian authorities harassed you prior to May 2018?

KV: Nothing happened before May 2018, this is what amazes me! Accusations

against me in the case investigated by the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) are connected with posts on the website that I run dating back to the spring of 2014.

The posts were made in the spring of 2014. According to the SBU, they represented a threat to the national security of Ukraine, but they remembered them only in 2018! And this is despite the fact that the SBU and Ukraine’s Ministry of Press and Information (another supervisory authority) have been regularly publishing lists of websites that were a “threat to national information security,” while my website was never listed!! And then, in May 2018, I was arrested.

EB: The authorities accuse you of “treason”. How would you counter this? What had you been covering in Ukraine?

KV: I believe that accusing me of treason is false and absurd. None of the posts they are using to incriminate me are under my byline. These texts were submitted by our contributors, who shared their point of view on the developments in Ukraine in the spring of 2014, when the referendum was held in Crimea, and everything was just getting started in Donbass. All these materials are from the Opinion and Point of View sections, and each of them is followed by a disclaimer that “the author’s views do not necessarily represent those of the editorial board.”

From the vast number of texts that were published in the spring of 2014, the SBU picked only about 15 that they deemed “treasonous.” They simply ignored other texts with other views posted on our website and accuse me of conducting “special operations.” Again, they accuse me of conducting an “information war” for the mere fact that we posted a variety of opinions on our website. What does the fact that I impartially let people speak in support of Maidan or against it have to do with special operations?

As for the events that I covered, ours is a news website, and we post many texts on social and political issues. None of the texts that are included in the SBU files were written by me. I’m accused of providing an opportunity to speak about the situation in the country to people whose opinion is inconvenient for official Kiev. That’s all there is to it.

EB: How did your coverage of the proposed autocephaly for a ‘national Ukrainian church’ influence your detention?

KV: This is the most absurd accusation! This is the only episode from 2018. We posted a news piece on our website, in which Ukrainian political scientist Dmitry Korneychuk expressed skepticism about the possibility of granting autocephaly [a form of self-governance exceeding basic autonomy] to the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. The same news piece included the point of view of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which has argued for the need for autocephaly!! It was a classic piece of journalism providing two points of view, for and against, where the reader has to decide which one is more credible.

However, the SBU believed that posting this material was part of my personal war against the autocephaly of the Ukrainian Church!! I read this text out more than once in court. In it, the view “against” autocephaly takes up 11 lines, whereas the case “for” autocephaly is laid out in 17 lines, and I’m being accused of conducting a special operation against Ukrainian autocephaly!

EB: How have you been treated in prison? Do you have access to doctors? How has your health been since in detention? Are you allowed visitors and if so, under what conditions?

KV: I consider the prison conditions to be tolerable by Ukrainian standards, although access to medical care is quite limited. The prison medical unit was downsized, and I had to wait for a specialist doctor appointment for months. To alleviate acute neuralgia pain, I was given …diphenhydramine! It’s like treating acute heart pain with vitamin C. It won’t make things worse, but it doesn’t do much to help, either.

I feel pretty good right now, but this is definitely not due to the prison medicine but to the efforts of my lawyers and the medications they passed me. Once a month, my father comes to see me. We talk through a phone, separated by a glass partition.

EB: How many times has your trial been delayed? What were the reasons given for the delay? Do you feel that you will be given a fair trial?

KV: The issue is not about adjourned hearings, but the fact that the SBU keeps extending the investigation all the time, citing the need to conduct some kind of expert analysis in addition to the one that is already filed in the case. That is why I have been in jail for seven months now. The charges are absurd, the evidence does not include any text that was written by me, but the SBU is acting upon a political order issued by the Ukrainian authorities, which is to keep me in prison while the authorities try to net some political dividends from my arrest. It has nothing to do with justice. They just want me in prison.

EB: Have any international bodies supporting journalists, or any international human rights organizations, been in contact with you about your imprisonment?

KV: Yes, the UN Monitoring Mission in Ukraine and the Red Cross office in Ukraine visited me. Representatives of the OSCE [Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe] mission regularly attend my court hearings in order to stay up to date on my case. Several international journalism organizations — such as the European Federation of Journalists (EFJ), the OSCE Representative on Freedom of the Media, the Press Club Brussels Europe — my colleagues from Russia, and many friends spoke in my support, and I thank everyone so much! I am counting, primarily, on moral support and the ability to get as much information out about my actual case as possible, as opposed to what is published in the Ukrainian media at the behest of the SBU.

EB: Do you have any message you’d like to convey about this entire ordeal?

KV: My main takeaway from the past six months is huge disappointment in the level of political power in Ukraine and the state of its judicial system. Despite declarations about Ukraine’s “European choice,” the courts are still dependent on political authorities, and the special service is used to carry out political schemes and to fight inconvenient points of view and dissent, rather than to protect national security.

Kirill Vyshinsky

December 26, 2018, Kherson Detention Center

*

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

Eva Bartlett is a Canadian independent journalist and activist. She has spent years on the ground covering conflict zones in the Middle East, especially in Syria and Palestine. She is a recipient of the International Journalism Award for International Reporting. Visit her personal blog, In Gaza, and support her work on Patreon.

Featured image is from RFE/RL

VIPSers Binney & Johnson use the forensics that the FBI avoided doing. (See this)

Thinking back, President Barack Obama dropped a huge hint two days before he left office, using his last press conference to point out that the “conclusions of the intelligence community” regarding how WikiLeaks received the DNC emails were “inconclusive.”  The nerve! Daring to say that just 13 days after the U.S. intelligence Gang of Four briefed Obama up and down on their evidence-free “assessment” that WikiLeaks got the DNC emails via a Russian hack.

This was one time Obama summoned the courage to face down James (the-Russians-are-almost-genetically-driven-to-deceive) Clapper and other intelligence chiefs.  After all, Obama is a lawyer.  He “does evidence.”  In contrast, ex-CIA Director John Brennan, told Congress that he does not “do evidence.”

Back in the day, the intelligence community “did evidence.”  As soon as the evidence-impoverished “Intelligence Community Assessment” was published on January 6, 2017, members of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS) smelled a rat.  That same day, former NSA Technical Director William Binney and Ray published “The Dubious Case on Russian Hacking”.

Then came “The Gaping Holes of Russia-gate,” and in July 2017 VIPS published their key forensic-based study “Intel Vets Challenge ‘Russian Hack’ Evidence,” followed by “More Holes in the Russia-gate Narrative.” by Binney and Ray.

Even Michael Cohen admitted yesterday that he had no “direct evidence that Mr. Trump or his campaign colluded with Russia.” But, he added, “I have my suspicions.”  We intelligence analysts, back in the day, did not “do suspicions.”

There are 1,001 other reasons to impeach President Donald Trump, if Nancy Pelosi had the courage.  But politics, not the Constitution, reigns supreme in the people’s House to which Founders bestowed an orderly political process to get rid of such a president.  Shame on them all.

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock/cunaplus

The internet has unleashed human knowledge. Never before has it been so easy to learn so much. Of course, it has also drowned us in distraction and created a breeding ground for trolls and misinformation, but if the internet is redeemed by anything, it is its liberation of education.

When it comes to accessing this ocean of information, we have two basic choices: wired or Wi-Fi. The vast majority of schools have embraced the wireless revolution. It’s easy to see why. Compared to wired internet, wireless is simpler, cheaper, and faster for schools to install.

Today, students are trading notebooks and textbooks for laptops, cellphones, iPads, and all manner of “smart” devices connected to a potent wireless infrastructure that lets them be used virtually anywhere on school grounds.

But that wireless web comes with a devastating downside. Doctors and scientists say that the students and teachers who attend these schools are risking their health.

Radiation Dangers

Dr. Martin Pall, Professor Emeritus of biochemistry and basic medical sciences at Washington State University made a grave case about the dangers involved in his paper, “Wi-Fi is An Important Threat to Human Health,” published in the July 2018 issue of Environmental Research.

“The placement of Wi-Fi into schools around the country may well be a high-level threat to the health of our children as well being a threat to teachers and any very sensitive fetuses teachers may be carrying, as well,” Pall writes.

Since Wi-Fi is found everywhere from private homes to public spaces, Pall’s alarming claim seems hard to fathom. And yet his evidence is compelling: 23 controlled scientific studies demonstrating numerous adverse effects to Wi-Fi radiation exposure. And that’s just the tip of the iceberg—there are dozens more studies on Wi-Fi harms which were not included in the paper.

Wireless radiation has become commonplace despite well-documented evidence of its harm, with thousands of studies going back several decades demonstrating health problems associated with exposure. Some of the strongest evidence came last year from the final report of a $30 million, 19-year study funded by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. It was conducted by the National Toxicology Program (NTP)—the federal agency tasked with testing toxins—and was designed to be the final word on whether wireless radiation was harmful. It showed clear evidence of cancer and DNA damage linked to cellphone use.

Concentrated Risk

Schools are particularly worrisome, experts say, because they are where the most intense concentration of wireless radiation is found today. The Wi-Fi systems schools have adopted are much more comprehensive than your average home or coffee shop Wi-Fi. These commercial grade systems use several routers or “access points” throughout the classroom, often in the ceiling above students’ heads. Now, add in all the radiation spewing from all the wireless devices operated by each student, and you’ll find that kids are spending up to seven hours per day in a thick soup of electro-smog.

Even worse, the people we place in this remarkably concentrated field of wireless radiation are more vulnerable to it. Compared to adults, children are smaller and have smaller and thinner skulls so the radiation penetrates more easily and gets to larger parts of the brain. Also problematic, children’s’ immune and nervous systems are still developing. Plus, kids’ cells divide at a faster rate, which increases the risk for mutations that can lead to cancer.

According to Pall, these factors make children more susceptible to the disease processes that wireless radiation has been consistently shown to cause: oxidative stress (which can lead to cancer and non-cancerous conditions, as well as DNA damage), sperm and testicular damage, neuropsychiatric effects, cell death, changes to the endocrine system, and calcium overload.

Evidence of Illness

These disease processes aren’t merely theoretical. Epidemiological studies conducted by Dr. Lennart Hardell, an oncologist at Orebro University Hospital in Sweden, showed that children exposed to this radiation are more likely to develop cancer and develop it quicker.

Other doctors and scientists say exposure is likely a significant contributing factor to the rising rates of other childhood diseases. Dr. Hugh Taylor, a professor and chair of obstetrics, gynecology, and reproductive sciences at Yale University, has shown that fetal exposure to wireless radiation affects neuro-development and behavior and can lead to Attention Deficit and Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD)— a condition that has doubled in the past 10 years.

Harvard Medical School professor and a pediatric neurologist at Massachusetts General Hospital, Dr. Martha Herbert, makes a compelling argument that the rise in autism spectrum disorders may also be related to our rise in wireless radiation exposure.

Herbert’s 60-page report from 2012 doesn’t provide evidence of cause, but it does reveal several similarities between symptoms known to occur with wireless radiation and biological manifestations in autism, such as cellular stress, tissue damage, protein misfolding, and injury of membranes.

Herbert describes autism, not as a condition of a broken brain, but of a brain that has a hard time regulating itself. And she believes that if such a brain is caught in a cloud of wireless radiation, it is confronted with a disruptive factor, making it even harder for behavior and biology to come into balance.

While the brains of children with autism may be most vulnerable to microwave radiation, Herbert says every brain is at the mercy of its influence.

“I really am concerned about people’s brains,” Herbert said. “It’s not a joke to have this stuff getting into these three pounds of delicate, gel-crystalline structure in our heads that does this amazing stuff. It wasn’t meant for this level of exposure.”

Electromagnetic Neurology

Herbert explains that, just like our wireless devices, our brain communicates with electromagnetic signaling. In fact, as our instruments have become more sensitive, scientists have discovered that each cell in our body uses electromagnetic signaling.

Now that we live in a wireless world, where we all walk around in a field of electromagnetic radiation nearly all the time, Herbert believes there is enough scientific support to argue that this influence could be an important contributor to degrading the optimal chemical-electrical function of our bodies—thereby detuning our brains and nervous systems.

Autism was once considered strictly a genetic abnormality. But as knowledge of the condition has grown, researchers have uncovered a more complex landscape, where a host of environmental influences have shown an impact on gene expression.

This means that instead of one smoking gun tied to this fast growing condition (the latest estimate from the Centers for Disease Control is that one in every 40 children has autism, up from one in every 166 in 2005), there are likely many factors. Toxic chemicals, for example, have long been demonstrated to impact fetal brain development.

But Herbert argues that, due to electric nature of our bodies, wireless radiation may create more of a disruption than toxic chemicals.

“When you have a toxicant exposure, it can affect the brain, but it has to go through metabolic pathways that can influence the electromagnetics in order to do that,” Herbert said. “But when you have electromagnetic radiation, it’s a straight shot. It’s the same language, so it can be more instantaneous.”

Sick in Schools

Dafna Tachover is a former telecommunications officer turned lawyer whoadvocates for people harmed by wireless radiation. Her Supreme Court lawsuit in Israel led to the first limits on Wi-Fi in schools worldwide. Tachover showed evidence of 200 sick children from the Wi-Fi in just six schools.

Now in the United States, Tachover says she is contacted by several parents every week with children who have become sick from their school’s wireless system. She says the most common symptoms include headaches, increased sensitivity to noise, nose bleeds, concentration and memory problems, nausea, exhaustion, and hyperactivity.

“Unfortunately, these harms are not potential but existing, and at an epidemic scale,” Tachover said.

The acute or chronic illness that results from wireless radiation is known aselectromagnetic sensitivity. It’s the same illness the U.S. Navy dubbed “microwave sickness” when soldiers who had been working with technologies such as radar for extended periods of time displayed the same symptoms. The illness is named for the microwave frequencies that powers wireless technology. Those who contract microwave sickness can’t be in the presence of wireless radiation without painful and sometimes debilitating symptoms.

One child Tachover is working with is a 13-year-old girl from Oregon whose desk was directly under the classroom’s Wi-Fi router. After she developed microwave sickness, her parents enrolled her in a private Waldorf school, because they’re one of few schools that don’t use Wi-Fi.

In some cases, parents are forced to homeschool their children because they can’t get access to schools without Wi-Fi. In other cases, sick kids are forced to make do.

Tachover said one parent had two sons who developed microwave sickness. This mother urged her sons’ school to accommodate by hard wiring the classroom internet and even offered to pay for the accommodation, but the school refused. As a result, her children can only attend school for a few hours per week.

“When in the Wi-Fi environment they experience headaches, concentration problems, skin rashes and hyperactivity,” Tachover said.

Risk to Teachers

Microwave sickness can impact teachers who work in Wi-Fi too. Laurie Brown, a teacher in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), says she knew nothing about the health impacts from wireless until her school installed a commercial grade Wi-Fi system in April of 2015. Today, she says the damage caused by this technology is impossible for her to ignore.

“We had Wi-Fi before, but the upgraded system now had two access points in every single classroom, adding a total of 190 access points to the school, including additional boosters to prevent any loss of connectivity,” Brown said. “All of this was for Common Core testing, and 21st-century teaching.”

During Common Core testing, each of Brown’s students used a wireless laptop (Chromebook) to access this new system. After just two hours in this new high tech environment, Brown started feeling several symptoms: tingling and burning in her skin, breathing problems, and a rising heart rate. Her ankles started itching and her nasal passages started to swell.

Symptoms grew worse and soon Brown could barely make it through the day. Before the new Wi-Fi system, Brown was rarely sick and had saved close to 800 hours of time off for illness. But after the installation of the new equipment, she was sick all the time. By the end of the school year, Brown was out at least two days every week.

“I just started to feel horrible,” she said. “I would go home from school feeling so lousy. I was never a headachy person, and I was getting all these headaches that were so strange.”

Brown knows of at least 10 teachers and staff members who complained of symptoms that they traced to the school’s Wi-Fi. Two retired, one from another school resigned, and at least three (including Brown) filed for workers compensation injuries with the LAUSD. All the claims were initially denied.

Brown is now on disability leave, but she would rather have her old life back. Today, if someone is just using a cellphone near her, Brown’s inflammatory symptoms, as well as other sometimes debilitating symptoms, can quickly return.

“It’s overwhelming and it’s sad because it takes away from the enjoyment of life and your lifestyle,” she said. “I’m someone who is accommodating, likes to please and is easy going. I wasn’t a high maintenance person. It makes me feel uncomfortable in my own skin to feel like I’m inconveniencing others.”

For schools that are willing to make accommodations, lives have been turned around. Appeals through the American with Disabilities Act have made some schools remove the Wi-Fi routers in the classrooms where there are microwave illness sufferers, even extending the router removal to neighboring classrooms when they still exert an influence.

Teacher Sheila Reavill contracted microwave sickness but she convinced her school to hardwire their internet access and connect laptops with an adapter. There is no Wi-Fi or Bluetooth in Reavill’s class, and the children who carry cellphones shut them off when they’re in the room.

“She says she not only she feels better in the classroom, but her students are also calmer and can focus better,” Tachover said.

Experts saw dangers in school Wi-Fi upgrades even before they were installed.  In 2013, Herbert wrote a warning letter to the LAUSD, citing the thousands of papers that have accumulated over decades which document adverse health and neurological impacts of electromagnetic frequency and radiofrequency radiation (EMF/RFR).

“EMF/RFR from Wi-Fi and cell towers can exert a disorganizing effect on the ability to learn and remember, and can also be destabilizing to immune and metabolic function,” Herbert wrote. “This will make it harder for some children to learn, particularly those who are already having problems in the first place.”

The letter went viral, but the school district paid it little mind.

“You know who did react? The firefighters,” Herbert said. “They had this boondoggle going where they were putting cell towers right behind all the fire stations. So guess what? All the firefighters were getting sick.”

Pushing for Change

As more people become aware of the dangers associated with wireless radiation and Wi-Fi in schools, efforts are emerging from teachers unions, parent organizations, and physician groups to address the problem.

One widely proposed solution is for schools to adopt a wired system. This would allow students to have more reliable high-speed internet access but without the microwave radiation. The cost would only be slightly higher than a wireless system.

While installing a wired system would mean a greater cost up front, it could save schools millions in the long run, as well as ensuring the health of the children who attend these schools. Tachover says that most schools are not insured for health effects related to wireless radiation because most insurance companies learned their lesson from tobacco and asbestos and have made an exclusion with regard to wireless.

Some change may come in the form of new laws. In Massachusetts, seven bills have recently taken aim at the issue of wireless technology in a handful of schools.

Deb Mayer runs the Oregon chapter of Parents Across America (PAA). She says her organization has introduced three bills into the state legislature that target children’s increasing exposure to wireless radiation.

“We aren’t against technology. We’re against unsafe use and irresponsible use,” Mayer said.

One bill allows Wi-Fi wary parents to choose an alternative for their child. The bill also calls for kids to have recess so they get a chance to move around in the physical world for some part of their day.

The second bill focuses on better public understanding of the biological impact of wireless. It requires public and private schools to distribute information about the potential health risks of wireless network technology to employees, students and parents or guardians. It would also require the state’s Health Authority to examine peer-reviewed, independently funded studies on the effects of exposure to microwave radiation in schools and similar environments, particularly exposure that results from the use of wireless network technologies. It then calls on the Health Authority to create guidelines based on this review.

The bill that Mayer believes has the best chance of passing is one which calls for something wireless manufacturers already do, but writ large. Buried deeply in your cell phone manual are tips about using your device more safely. The bill asks to have these tips more explicit with clear warning labels so that consumers take safety more seriously.

Overall, that’s the biggest challenge—getting schools, lawmakers, and the public to treat the issue with the gravity it deserves.

“Getting people to believe that what we say is real and true is really a heavy lift because they don’t want to think there is a downside to their devices,” Mayer said. “And they especially don’t want to think that giving devices to their kids is a bad thing to do.”

Herbert says another reason why people may be resistant to see this problem is that all this wireless radiation may be affecting our judgment.

“Your judgment is intrinsically off when your brain function is altered in some way. You could be missing things—missing distinctions, or being disorganized in ways you don’t realize until you come out of it. Maybe you never come out of it,” Herbert said. “Just something to contemplate as we try and look at our increasing exposure to electromagnetic waves.”

*

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

Featured image is from Shutterstock

Mumia’s Speech to Yale Rebel Law Students Conference

March 4th, 2019 by Mumia Abu-Jamal

Mumia gave a speech to the Yale Rebel Law Students Conference through a recording from his prison cell. You may listen to it right below. Full transcript is also presented below.

.

.

.

***

Dear Friends at Yale Law School, dear Rebel Lawyers,

On the Move!

I greet you all as I endeavor to address the issue of rebel lawyers. When I think of the term, the first thing that comes to mind are jailhouse lawyers. They are by definition rebels who oppose the prison-industrial complex, especially in the courts. Jailhouse lawyers fight for freedom for themselves and others and sometimes they prevail. Some jailhouse lawyers, like John and Mo Africa of the MOVE Organization, defended themselves at trial and won acquittals.

Because such men and women aren’t trained in the law and do their work using logic and sheer will, they fall under the description of rebel lawyers, I think, but I’ve got a feeling that this isn’t what students at Yale Law think of when they use the term. If you’re really interested in that subject, I urge you to see my book Jailhouse Lawyers.

Let us return to rebel lawyers but with a peculiar twist. That’s because I’m speaking here of two revolutionary leaders who went to law school but found that the law and the systems that they lived under were so corrupt, so biased, so dominated by unjust political elites, that they learned that their very society had to be radically transformed before the law could be functional. I speak of two men who are rarely thought of as lawyers even though both studied law and one even briefly practiced it.

I speak of Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela. Castro went to law school under the Cuban dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, a tool of US imperialism and a supporter of the American mafia. Mandela earned his law degree under the racist National Party, which ruled South Africa with brutality and what they called apartheid, Afrikaans for “separateness,” a system of domestic colonialism that deprived all Africans of their most fundamental human rights. Both Castro and Mandela rebelled against such unjust systems and joined revolutionary movements to transform those societies. They are therefore the very epitome of rebel lawyers. But again, unless I’m dead wrong, I don’t think there is a Fidel or a Nelson in this audience, but I’d be glad to be wrong.

Image result for fidel castro + nelson mandela

Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela

The next rebel lawyer is a little closer to the mark. He’s Clarence Darrow, who lived during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. He was a brilliant lawyer, a socialist back when millions of Americans voted for socialists and atheists. In 1902, Darrow went to the Cook County jail in Chicago and spoke to the prisoners there about law. Here’s a little something of what he said.

“See what the law is when these men – the rich – get control of things, they make the law. They do not make the laws to protect anybody. Courts are not instruments of justice. When your case gets into court, it’ll make little difference whether you are guilty or innocent but it’s better if you have a smart lawyer and you cannot have a smart lawyer unless you have money. First and last, it’s a question of money. Those people who own the earth make the laws to protect what they have. They fix up a sort of fence or pen around what they have and they fix the law so the fellow on the outside cannot get in. The laws are really organized for the protection of the men who rule the world. They were never organized or enforced for justice. We have no system for doing justice. Not the slightest in the world.”

Those are the words of Clarence Darrow (image on the right), one of the original rebel lawyers.

Image result for clarence darrow

In September 1925, Dr. Ossian Sweet of Detroit was charged and convicted of murder after shooting at a mob of whites assembled to attack his home for being a black man who dared to move into a white area. When he was granted a retrial, Clarence Darrow took the defense case and won an acquittal. You, law students, should read the closing arguments, for you will read some of the finest arguments ever made in an American courtroom. I leave that to you if you’re interested.

I use Darrow as a model for rebel lawyers. For reasons you as law students have a wealth of doors open before you. Indeed, some of you will go into prosecutors’ offices and work to help build and strengthen the bulwark of mass incarceration. Why? Because the lure of power is powerful. How do you think mass incarceration came to be? Was it a mistake? No.

Back during the early 1980s, neoliberals took power in major American cities and waged war on black communities, led more often than not by Democrats like Philadelphia’s first black mayor, Wilson Goode, who brought the infamous MOVE bombing into being. Shortly before him, DA Edward Rendell would join with former mayor Frank Rizzo to give his blessing to the August 8, 1978, attack on MOVE. Several years later, Rendell would announce an end to the prevailing prison system by saying that prisons would no longer do rehabilitation. Their job, he said, was incapacitation.

Thus we saw the so-called blood war achieve hyper-status with neoliberals joining conservatives to enact mass incarceration on a scale the nation and world had never seen before. It should not therefore surprise us when we see that Pennsylvania has the highest number of juvenile lifers on earth. Bipartisanship between neoliberals and conservatives built the monster we now call mass incarceration. No so-called progressive prosecutor can or will unbuild it. That’s because it took the entire system – DAs, judges, cops, defense lawyers, and prison administrators, not to mention the media – to collaborate on a monstrous project like mass incarceration. Only mass resistance can abolish mass incarceration. In other words, only a mass movements, movements like Black Lives Matter or, for that matter, RebLaw, movements of law students who stay engaged after they become lawyers and say no to monsters like mass incarceration and its architects.

That’s why it’s important to make note of Darrow’s early days. He began his career as a corporate lawyer and made a pretty penny representing the people he would later call the men who rule the world. But his 1894 meeting with socialist, activist, and leader Eugene Victor Debs was transformative. Darrow resigned from his corporate clients and, at serious financial sacrifice, began representing those who opposed the economic elites. He represented Debs at a federal espionage trial four years later and lost. But Darrow, socialist antiracist, atheist, had begun his long walk as a rebel lawyer. He opposed the death penalty and represented 100 clients facing death and never had a single one go to death row.

And speaking of the death penalty, I want you to know that this isn’t my first trip to Yale, for in 1991 the Yale Law Journal published my essay called “Teetering on the Brink Between Life and Death.” It’s in volume 100. One of my lawyers was exalted, saying I made Law Review. I calmly replied, “Hmph. You’re right, and I didn’t take a class.”

I thank you for inviting me back and welcome the work to come to abolish mass incarceration.

From a Prison Nation, this is Mumia Abu-Jamal.

*

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

“Ah, mon cher, for anyone who is alone, without God and without a master, the weight of days is dreadful.  Hence one must choose a master, God being out of style.” – Albert Camus, The Fall

To be fascinated by another person who holds or symbolizes power is very common. It is often accompanied by a frisson of sexual excitement, whether repressed or acknowledged, explicitly or implicitly projected.  Masters need slaves and slaves need their masters.  The chief, the big man, the fascinating woman, the glamorous celebrity, the rich mogul, the powerful politician, while all standard vintage people without their accoutrements of prestigious (magical) power, magnetically attract many people wishing to surrender passively to the perceived superior power of what Carl Jung called the “mana-personality.”  However, such supernatural power or aura is in the eyes of the beholder, who wishes to be hypnotized and to fulfill his secret wish to be will-less.  As Dostoevsky has written,“Man is tormented by no greater anxiety than to find someone quickly to whom he can hand over that great gift of freedom with which the ill-fated creature is born.”  A smile, a song, or the projection of unconflicted authority – often that is all it takes for the spell to be cast.

Think of weasels.  They are very vicious and can be found all around the world.  Their cute faces belie their treacherous nature.  They have the ability to fascinate their victims – fascinate means to cast a spell upon or hypnotize (from the Latin, fascinare, to bewitch).  They do this by a stupefying song and dance, a facility that paralyzes those they prey upon before they pounce upon them.

Most people have never seen weasels in the wild, for they are secretive creatures who go about their killing clandestinely.  Whether they kill softly, I can’t say.  I’ve never heard their song, or the screaming of their victims.

Nevertheless, many people have been seduced by human weasels, who also court with a song and dance. These weasels come in all shapes and sizes.  Their faces are almost never as cute as their small fury cousins’ are, but their facial masks conceal similar tendencies and abilities: the talent to immobilize their victims through powerful seductive techniques.

It’s nothing new, of course.  It’s still the same old story, a gory story of the fight to dominate and control that is coterminous with human history or longer. It is an ancient myth that we still live by.  As in days of old, the siren song is often sexual in nature, not sexual in the passionately loving sense, not an encounter between two unknowns seeking to discover each other, but an instrumental sexual enticement wrapped in power, prestige, money, false charm and fake bravado whose purpose is domination.

There is a reason why the news is constantly filled with stories of a sexual nature: R. Kelly, Donald Trump, Jeffrey Epstein, Robert Kraft, the “me too movement,” Catholic priests, and so many others without end.  Obviously, sex sells, and the corporate mass media are in the business of selling sexual titillation and political propaganda – two products that are not unconnected.

But there are many real victims here, people who have been used and abused by predators who traffic in human degradation for their sick pleasures.  Some of their victims have been fascinated, while others have been physically or mentally coerced.  Power corrupts, yes, but it also thrives on humiliating and using others, shaming them and destroying their innocence.

Living in a society of screens and spectacles, many people have lost a physical connection to other people.  This is the paradox of a sexually saturated, sadomasochistic mass media society.  Our bodies have become instruments in a spectral show of instrumental rationality and our relationships metamorphosed into shadows on the walls of our electronic devices.  Social life has become mass hallucination.  Everything and everyone has become a means to be used.  It is a society of mutual masturbators afraid to meet the unknown other in sexual intimacy.  Kate Julian chronicles aspects of this sexual recession in The Atlanticmagazine, “Why Are Young People Having So Little Sex.”  And it is not just young people.

While the United States has long been a hotbed for sexual scandals and media, FBI, and CIA exposure of the sexual lives of those they wish to destroy, today, when sex is a staple of the media where it is presented and discussed openly as if one were discussing another consumer product, the use of sexual blackmail and sexual muddling as a political tool of the “deep-state” propaganda apparatus is unmentionable, even as its significance is enhanced by electronic spying and the loss of privacy.  Jonathan Marshall puts it this way in “Sex Scandals and Sexual Blackmail in America’s Deep Politics”:

One outstanding consequence has been to elevate the importance of sexual blackmail and public exposure as tactics of covert political intrigues, just as they have been in espionage.  If information is power, the information about adultery, homosexuality, and other private sexual indiscretions by officials is power of a high order indeed.  Individuals and organizations that are adept at collecting and controlling such information – such as law enforcement, spies, private eyes, journalists and lawyers – thus play a key role in the hidden campaigns of the deep state.  One perverse measure of the importance of sex in America’s ‘deep politics’ is the paucity of systematic attention paid to it by political scientists.

Yet sexual blackmail is central to “deep-state” operations and political espionage, even as sexual trafficking and scandals mix with the omnipresent sexual intoxication of popular culture.  Like the term “deep-state” that is now a staple of the corporate mass media as the secret governing forces go deeper while seemingly becoming more exposed and shallow, the use of sex and sexual identity to confuse and confabulate is presented by the media as transparency.  It’s an old trick in new clothes.

Think of Julian Assange, an innocent man in a living hell in Room 101 of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London for seven years.  Think sexual blackmail for telling the truth. Read John Pilger.

There are all kinds of weasels, and the spells they cast appeal to the very human desire to be fascinated.  Yet it’s a fool’s game.  Our society of the electronic spectacle of disembodied images and speculative “news” is meant to immobilize those who remain spectators.  It is black magic of the highest order.

So feel your pulse and take a walk in the woods.  If you encounter a weasel there, at least you’ll know it’s doing what comes naturally.  It’s the human weasels, those D. H. Lawrence called the “living dead,” who are out to get us.

As Lawrence warned, “Don’t let the living dead eat you up.”

*

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

Distinguished author and sociologist Edward Curtin is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sickness and Paranoia: The Morrison Government’s Refugee Problem
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on After Withdrawal from the IWC: The Future of Japanese Whaling
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Remembering the Grandmothers: The International Movement to Commemorate the Survivors of Militarized Sexual Abuse in the Asia-Pacific War

According to conventional wisdom, there should be no serious talk of foreign military intervention in Venezuela. But these aren’t conventional times. The conventional playbook would adopt a strategy of foreign coordination of the Venezuelan opposition, economic sabotage, infiltration of the military, and manipulation of popular movements against the elected government. All this is being done, however, so far, not successfully. The frustrations of the Bolivarian movement’s enemies is palpable. Does this mean intervention is imminent? And what would such an intervention look like?

We know that the Trump administration met with Venezuelan coup plotters in 2017 and the Venezuelan opposition speaks openly of its coordination with the United States government. Officials in the U.S. and internationally have repeatedly called for the Venezuelan military and business people to take power, denouncing and refusing to recognize legitimate elections, and even having the audacity to “recognize” a “new president” in Venezuela who was not elected and who has no legitimate claim to office. Recent events have included the first ever attempted coup-by-drone, in August 2018; and the January 22nd mutiny by 27 National Guard troops led by a sergeant. One might infer a sense of desperation among the enemies of the Bolivarian government.

US National Security Advisor John Bolton called Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua a “Troika of Tyranny”, but the real triple threat faced by Latin America is the alliance of ultra-right administrations from the United States, Colombia, and Brazil of Donald Trump, Iván Duque, and Jair Bolsonaro, respectively. These Oligarchs of Overthrow have Venezuela in their sight, and military intervention is clearly an option on the table where they are seated.

Important circumstances have changed that had previously served as effective obstacles to intervention. Military engagements in the Middle East and Central Asia had made intervention in Venezuela untenable. In Colombia, the kind of military invasion advocated by former President Álvaro Uribe was impossible because the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC) were committed to defending Venezuela from within should war break out. Today the FARC has transformed into a political party, the unarmed Revolutionary Alternative Common Force (still called FARC). Meanwhile, President Trump has announced troop withdrawals from both Syria and Afghanistan. Trump is not a man of peace, and he has openly expressed his support for a violent intervention in Venezuela.

Certainly, there is a long-standing connection between the Colombian military and the war in Afghanistan. Colombia has sent advisors, trainers, and special operations troops to Afghanistan, and there is a history of U.S. troop transfers between the two countries.  In fact, the application in Afghanistan of lessons learned from decades of protracted war in Colombia is an oft-mentioned theme among military officials. Regarding Syria, Venezuelan expert on unconventional warfare, Jorgé Negrón Valera wrote in October 2018 that, “A hypothesis of a direct conflict cannot be discarded. But all indications are that the the first thing on the Pentagon’s table will be Syria….” But as we enter 2019, the situation has changed. Should U.S. troops be withdrawn from Afghanistan and Syria, they could be well-suited for redeployment in a Colombia-based conflict with Venezuela.

Does all this mean that an invasion of Venezuela is imminent? Not at all. But it also doesn’t mean an invasion is not imminent, or that there are not scenarios that include other forms of military intervention. The US Empire and its Latin American partners want to use Venezuela as an example and put the nail in the coffin of socialist and popular advances in the region. They want it so badly that they are willing to consider options that had previously been unthinkable.

Back in the early 2000s, when then Colombian President Álvaro Uribe wanted the US to back him in a military assault on Venezuela, even an enthusiastic proponent of war like George W. Bush felt constrained to put the brakes on Uribe’s adventurous inclinations. At that time, traditional voices still were confident they could put together the coalition to force regime change. Nineteen years later, one cannot be surprised if some of that confidence has waned.

Until recently, talk about military intervention in Venezuela was roundly criticized and dismissed. Neither Wall Street nor the traditional right wing had any stomach for the disruption that would follow. But that was then, and this is now. Bess Levin makes this point in a September 2018 article published in Vanity Fair:

“Approximately one year ago, Donald Trump said that he was considering a ‘military option’ in Venezuela. At the time, virtually no one in Washington thought this was a good idea….

What has changed, alarmingly, is that now there are some people in Washington who have actually come around to the idea. Last month, Senator Marco Rubio said that… there is now a ‘very strong argument’ that the situation… could very well necessitate U.S. military involvement. Bloomberg notes that ‘security hawks with an interest in Latin America are taking positions in the administration, adding to a sense that Washington may be warming to intervention.”

There has been a series of statements by world and national leaders concerning military intervention in Venezuela. President Trump famously declared “We have many options for Venezuela, including a possible military option”. In September 2018, Trump said that, Venezuela, “…frankly, could be toppled very quickly by the military if the military decides to do that.”

Likewise, in September 2018, Luís Almagro, General Secretary of the Organization of American States said, “With regards to a military intervention aimed at overthrowing the regime of Nicolas Maduro, I think we should not exclude any option.” Latin American opposition to military intervention is widespread, and a subsequent vote to denounce Almagro’s comment was passed by the Lima Group, specifically tasked to find a solution to the Venezuelan crisis. Nevertheless, it is notable that Canada, Colombia, and Guayana refused back this censure.

Since then, the situation on the diplomatic front has only worsened. The OAS’ Almagro, all thirteen members of the Lima Group, and the U.S. government have released statements that they would not recognize the election of Nicholas Maduro as Venezuela’s President. Both Almagro and the U.S. State Department, in an act of brazen violation of Venezuelan sovereignty, have instead recognized the little-known Juan Guaidó, leader of the right-leaning National Assembly (as opposed to the more popular Constituent Assembly). While President Maduro was reelected overwhelmingly in May 2018, Guaido has not even run in a national election.  Former director of the Central Intelligence Agency and current Secretary of State Michael Pompeo released a statement on January 23 2019 saying,

“The United States recognizes Juan Guaidó as the new interim President of Venezuela, and strongly supports his courageous decision to assume that role pursuant to Article 233 of Venezuela’s constitution and supported by the National Assembly, in restoring democracy to Venezuela. As President Trump said, “The people of Venezuela have courageously spoken out against Maduro and his regime and demanded freedom and the rule of law.”

On the Colombian front, indications from President Iván Duque have been contradictory. Not only did Colombia refuse to censure Almagro’s comments, but its ambassador in Washington DC, Francisco Santos has insisted that “all options are on the table”. Nevertheless, Duque, in contrast with his mentor, Uribe, has said that the military option “is not the way.” On the other hand, Duque has called for increasing spending on Colombia’s air force and issued an order to put the air force on high alert. Following on the heels of Pompeo’s announcement, Duque declared his recognition of Guaidó as Venezuela’s president.

As mentioned earlier, the disarming of the FARC is a factor we must consider.

In a 2005 interview (while the FARC still existed as an armed force) conducted by Dick Emanuelsson and Ingrid Storgen, political analyst Heinz Dieterich makes the following points:

“There are 20,000 soldiers in the rear guard of an eventual military conflict between Colombia and Venezuela…. If these forces were not to exist, I am absolutely sure that today we would have the scenario that the Sandinistas had on the northern border with Honduras (in the 80s)…. Objectively, by its mere existence, they fundamentally make impossible whatever strategy of military or paramilitary destruction by the forces of the United States or Uribe.”

Similarly, in February 2005, the FARC made exclusively clear their position when FARC commander Raúl Reyes declared,

“In case of an invasion of our Venezuelan brothers by the United States War Hawks, the FARC would condemn it energetically and will offer its unconditional solidarity to the Bolivarian process of the country that saw the birth of our Liberator. In Bolívar we find everything.”

Now the FARC are demobilized and Raúl Reyes himself was killed in a camp in Ecuador, working out terms for the release of prisoners of war.

With this absence of the FARC, the presence and activity of Colombian paramilitaries has grown and intensified. As previously mentioned, on August 4 2018, Venezuela’s President Nicholas Maduros was targeted in an assassination attempt using drones. Venezuela says it has evidence that Colombian paramilitaries were involved. In October 2018, the Venezuelan military captured three Colombian paramilitaries in the state of Tachira along the border, citing evidence that the paramilitaries were in coordination with Colombian police and military. On November 5 2018, at least three members of the Venezuelan National Guard were killed in confrontations with Colombian paramilitaries in the state of Amazonas. On December 24, 2018, Venezuela captured nine Colombian paramilitaries entering the country to carry out a “mission in Caracas.” Maduro maintains that as many as 734 Venezuelan and Colombian mercenaries are preparing to commit false flag operations attacking military units on the border in order to escalate and confuse popular opinion, and to justify a potential intervention.

Negrón Valera instructs,

“Finally, we must understand that within the doctrine of Non-Conventional Warfare, aggression will not come in the traditional army against army form…. It will be the Colombian paramilitaries operating on the border, the U.S.’s armed wing in the region. Only this time it will have the full logistical and military support of Washington and the support of Colombia on the ground.”

Negrón Valera also notes the construction of wells in Colombia by the U.S. Army near the border with Venezuela as a possible precursor to intervention. He writes that,

“Let’s turn our attention to the tweet of the Commander of the Colombian National Army, Ricardo Gómez Nieto, who in the framework of the UNITAS naval exercises, speaks of his gratitude to the U.S. Army for its help in the ‘construction of a drinking water well’ in the community of Rumonero.

The same ‘altruistic’ strategy has been used by the US army in Afghanistan to consolidate itself in the territory.In any case, the important thing to highlight is that it was precisely in this part of Guajira that Colombia established in 2015 the Task Force on Combined Medium Arms (FUTAM), equipped with armored combat weapons, artillery, infantry, logistical support and army aviation. Only by looking at the map where the ‘water wells’ are built do we understand why Venezuela has a right to be concerned.”

Nevertheless, we must consider that there remain strong arguments that military invasion and other forms of intervention are not likely. It behooves us to soberly assess both Empire’s voices for and against such a war before we jump to any conclusions.

The main argument is that such an invasion or other interventions would be far too disruptive not only to their targets, but to all those involved. Such efforts would throw the economy into yet further crisis and fuel a flood of refugees. A coup or invasion would also likely spur a civil war that, in the absence of a strong Venezuelan military component, would depend on foreign troops to stabilize. That in and of itself would be so offensive to most Venezuelans that, be they supporters of the Bolivarian government or not, many would defend their national soil on patriotic grounds.

And that underscores the lack of popular backing for the Venezuelan opposition. Uruguayan journalist and Telesur cofounder Aram Aharonian observes,

“A Hinterlaces poll revealed that more than 64% of Venezuelans have an unfavorable opinion about the actions of rightwing leaders….There is another fact that stands out in the poll: 62% of Venezuelans prefer President Maduro to solve the economic problems of the country, while 34% prefer an opposition government. 61% blame economic problems on agents external to the government, such as the economic war, the fall of the price of oil, price speculation, and U.S. financial sanctions, while 37% attribute them to economic policies implemented by the government.

….However, it is clear that the US hawks may push for intervention: we must not let our guard down.”

Another factor that makes military intervention less plausible is the reality that the Venezuela military would not resist a military intervention alone. There are 1.6 million armed and trained civilian militia members ready to take to the streets to fight coup attempts and foreign invaders. At the same time, with the failures of the Colombian peace process, many former FARC insurgents are returning to the hills to join other armed groups and to perhaps form a new insurgency. The National Liberation Army (ELN) is still armed and several thousand strong. The ELN has claimed responsibility for a January 17 car bombing in Bogotá. Would the ELN be a pro-Bolivarian force within Colombia in the event of an invasion?

With or without an armed Colombian insurgency, there is a popular movement that can be expected to take the streets in Colombia in protest to any invasion. Colombia has a very large and well-organized opposition that could paralyze its streets with protest, should its people rise up to resist this war.

Internationally, countries such as Russia, China, and Cuba could be counted on to come to Venezuela’s defense, perhaps even with arms. On December 10, 2018, Russia openly sent two nuclear-capable bombers to Venezuela. Likewise, Mexico’s newly elected President Manuel Lopez Obrador has announced that Mexico will not participate in or support destabilization plans toward Venezuela.

When we weigh all the factors, it is not possible to say with any kind of certainty that there will be, or that there will not be, a foreign military intervention, invasion, or otherwise foreign directed coup in Venezuela. But Empire has been waiting a long time and faced failure after failure, so patience may be running thin. More, the prize of regime change in Venezuela, even with all the disruption and chaos that would entail, is that it would existentially threaten popular governments and movements throughout Latin America. We must not underestimate that temptation.

What is required of all those who stand in solidarity with Venezuela, and of all those who oppose Empire and its wars, is this: that we be ready for all eventualities on the table, including the military option. The best way to end a march toward war is to make sure that war never happens. To do that requires those who love peace to mobilize.

*

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

Featured image is from Venezuelanalysis

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Is a Foreign Military Intervention in Venezuela Imminent?
  • Tags:

It looks like the embattled representative from Minnesota will end up like Cynthia McKinney, who was thrown out of Congress for the sin of criticizing the official narrative on 9/11.

She is also a fierce critic of Israel and its treatment of the Palestinians (she sailed with activists on the Gaza-bound ships Dignity and Spirit of Humanity). McKinney deviated from the official narrative on Libya and she introduced articles of impeachment against President George W. Bush for committing war crimes and violating the Constitution. 

Rep. Ilhan Omar was sworn in a little over a month ago and in that time fellow members of Congress and the corporate propaganda media have attacked her for “antisemitism,” that is to say criticism of the apartheid state of Israel, which is a cardinal sin for members of Congress and, for that matter, anybody else. 

Both establishment Democrats and Republicans are taking turns bashing her, but the Republicans went further than simply denouncing her with strident soundbites. They have conflated her with the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. 

Meanwhile, the chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee demanded she apologize for a remark stating there are dual citizens in America doing the work of Israel. 

During the Bush regime, there were a number neocons holding dual US-Israel citizenship and they plotted a war that undeniably benefited Israel. These folks include Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz, “Scooter” Libby, and others. 

Back in 2004, two years into the neocon war waged on Iraq, Bill and Kathleen Christison, both former CIA employees, wrote: 

The link between active promoters of Israeli interests and policymaking circles is stronger by several orders of magnitude in the Bush administration, which is peppered with people who have long records of activism on behalf of Israel in the United States, of policy advocacy in Israel, and of promoting an agenda for Israel often at odds with existing U.S. policy. These people, who can fairly be called Israeli loyalists, are now at all levels of government, from desk officers at the Defense Department to the deputy secretary level at both State and Defense, as well as on the National Security Council staff and in the vice president’s office.

“I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country,” Omar said during a town hall Wednesday. 

Fair enough question, right? Wrong. 

“Representative Omar’s comments leveled that charge by invoking a vile anti-Semitic slur,” complained New York Rep. Eliot Engel. 

Others see the over-the-top efforts to defame Omar and remove her from Congress as endangering her safety. 

Just about every member of Congress is demanding she be shown the door. Here’s Sarah Palin, the fifteen minutes of fame darling of the Republican Party, desperately trying to remain relevant:

Finally, Ilhan Omar made a mistake when she said the reason she is being attacked is because she’s a Muslim, which is merely a bonus for her accusers. The fact is anybody who criticizes Israel—regardless of race, gender, or religion—will be targeted.

*

Note to readers: please click the share buttons 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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from MPR News

Sex Trafficking: A Form of Modern-Day Slavery

March 3rd, 2019 by Stephen Lendman

All forms of modern-day slavery affect an estimated 40 million or more people worldwide – mostly women and young girls, ongoing in scores of countries, including America and other Western nations.

Human trafficking and forced labor in the US exists mainly in the following forms: prostitution, pornography, and related sex services, domestic indentured servitude, agricultural slavery, industrial sweatshops, exploited restaurant and hotel workers, entertainment exploitation, and involuntary mail-order brides.

The above practices persist for lack of enforcement of laws and regulations, poor or no work conditions monitoring, and a strong demand for cheap labor, enabling unscrupulous employers and criminal networks to exploit powerless workers for profit.

The International Labor Organization (ILO) defines forced labor as “work or service…exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which said person has not offered himself or herself voluntarily.”

Forced child labor is:

“(a) all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labor, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict;”

“(b) the use, procuring or offering of a child for prostitution, for the production of pornography or for pornographic performances;”

“(c) the use, procuring or offering of a child for illicit activities, in particular for the production and trafficking of drugs as defined in the relevant international treaties;” and

“(d) work which, by its nature or the circumstances in which it is carried out, is likely to harm the health, safety or morals of children.”

US laws against sex and other forms of human trafficking include:

The 1910 Mann Act prohibits trafficking individuals across state lines to engage in prostitution or related offenses.

The 1930 Tariff Act includes provisions, prohibiting imports of goods made from forced labor. The 2009 Customs and Facilitations and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act has similar provisions.

The 2000 Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act  combats trafficking in persons, especially for sex, slavery, and involuntary servitude.

The 2003 PROTECT Act protects children from human trafficking and sexual exploitation.

Section 7202 of the 2004 Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act established the Human Smuggling and Trafficking Center to combat the practice.

US Code, Title 22, Chapter 78 – Trafficking Victims Protection (2012) combats it in all forms, calling it “a contemporary manifestation of slavery whose victims are predominantly women and children…”

The problem with these laws is lax enforcement. America’s most vulnerable are poorly protected – all too often not at all.

Sex slavery in America is the nation’s most common form of involuntary servitude. Tied to organized crime, countless numbers of young women and girls are affected. Estimates range from 100,000 – 300,000.

According to a Justice Department assessment, pimps control at least 75% of exploited minors, intimidating them psychologically, threatening them with violence for noncompliance.

The Internet is a common recruiting tool, among other methods – targeting hundreds of thousands of runaway street girls and youths, luring them into prostitution, pornography, and related sex activities with false promises, holding them in bondage once involved.

Sex trafficking and other forms of involuntary servitude amount to a multi-billion dollar business. In 2014, the ILO estimated human trafficking earns around $150 billion annually worldwide – mostly from sex trafficking and exploitation.

It occurs in a variety of venues, including brothels, truck stops, at hotels and motels, residential apartments, as well as massage parlors fronting for prohibited prostitution and related sexual activities.

The issue made headlines when New England Patriots billionaire owner Robert Kraft was charged days earlier with two misdemeanor counts of paying for sex at an illicit massage parlor in Jupiter, Florida.

According to local police, body cam video evidence identified him during two visits to the so-called Orchids of Asia Day Spa. Around two dozens others will be charged separately – following a Palm Beach, Florida sex trafficking probe.

On the one hand, adult married men engaging in consensual sex with women above the legal age of consent in their state is no one’s business but their wives – provided women involved aren’t being exploited.

If sex with girls below the age of consent occurs, varying in the US by state, often below age-16 or 18, it’s a criminal offense even if voluntary, usually referred to as statutory rape or child molestation.

Soliciting sex at a massage parlor or other fronts for prostitution lets the practice connected to organized crime flourish – at the expense of exploited women and girls.

That’s why Kraft’s indulgence was abhorrent and a misdemeanor offense, likely resulting in a fine and perhaps mandated hours of community service.

Through a spokesman, he denied charges against him, a statement saying “(w)e categorically deny that Mr. Kraft engaged in any illegal activity. Because it is a judicial matter, we will not be commenting further.”

The massage parlor he visited faces more serious charges, the penalty to its managers likely to be much harsher, depending on specific violations committed, including likely human trafficking for sex.

Palm Beach County police said many women at the massage parlor Kraft visited were Chinese nationals – living at the establishment and not allowed to leave.

Ten similar county “spas” were investigated, around 300 arrest warrants issued, all establishments probed shuttered.

*

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.