Global Research

The right wing Ecuadorean government of President Moreno continues to churn out its production line of fake documents regarding Julian Assange, and channel them straight to MI6 mouthpiece Luke Harding of the Guardian.

Amazingly, more Ecuadorean Government documents have just been discovered for the Guardian, this time spy agency reports detailing visits of Paul Manafort and unspecified “Russians” to the Embassy. By a wonderful coincidence of timing, this is the day after Mueller announced that Manafort’s plea deal was over.

The problem with this latest fabrication is that Moreno had already released the visitor logs to the Mueller inquiry. Neither Manafort nor these “Russians” are in the visitor logs.

Screengrab from The Guardian

This is impossible. The visitor logs were not kept by Wikileaks, but by the very strict Ecuadorean security. Nobody was ever admitted without being entered in the logs. The procedure was very thorough. To go in, you had to submit your passport (no other type of document was accepted). A copy of your passport was taken and the passport details entered into the log. Your passport, along with your mobile phone and any other electronic equipment, was retained until you left, along with your bag and coat. I feature in the logs every time I visited.

There were no exceptions. For an exception to be made for Manafort and the “Russians” would have had to be a decision of the Government of Ecuador, not of Wikileaks, and that would be so exceptional the reason for it would surely have been noted in the now leaked supposed Ecuadorean “intelligence report” of the visits. What possible motive would the Ecuadorean government have for facilitating secret unrecorded visits by Paul Manafort? Furthermore it is impossible that the intelligence agency – who were in charge of the security – would not know the identity of these alleged “Russians”.

Previously Harding and the Guardian have published documents faked by the Moreno government regarding a diplomatic appointment to Russia for Assange of which he had no knowledge. Now they follow this up with more documents aimed to provide fictitious evidence to bolster Mueller’s pathetically failed attempt to substantiate the story that Russia deprived Hillary of the Presidency.

My friend William Binney, probably the world’s greatest expert on electronic surveillance, former Technical Director of the NSA, has stated that it is impossible the DNC servers were hacked, the technical evidence shows it was a download to a directly connected memory stick. I knew the US security services were conducting a fake investigation the moment it became clear that the FBI did not even themselves look at the DNC servers, instead accepting a report from the Clinton linked DNC “security consultants” Crowdstrike.

I would love to believe that the fact Julian has never met Manafort is bound to be established. But I fear that state control of propaganda may be such that this massive “Big Lie” will come to enter public consciousness in the same way as the non-existent Russian hack of the DNC servers.

Assange never met Manafort. The DNC emails were downloaded by an insider. Assange never even considered fleeing to Russia. Those are the facts, and I am in a position to give you a personal assurance of them.

I can also assure you that Luke Harding, the Guardian, Washington Post and New York Times have been publishing a stream of deliberate lies, in collusion with the security services.

I am not a fan of Donald Trump. But to see the partisans of the defeated candidate (and a particularly obnoxious defeated candidate) manipulate the security services and the media to create an entirely false public perception, in order to attempt to overturn the result of the US Presidential election, is the most astonishing thing I have witnessed in my lifetime.

Plainly the government of Ecuador is releasing lies about Assange to curry favour with the security establishment of the USA and UK, and to damage Assange’s support prior to expelling him from the Embassy. He will then be extradited from London to the USA on charges of espionage.

Assange is not a whistleblower or a spy – he is the greatest publisher of his age, and has done more to bring the crimes of governments to light than the mainstream media will ever be motivated to achieve. That supposedly great newspaper titles like the Guardian, New York Times and Washington Post are involved in the spreading of lies to damage Assange, and are seeking his imprisonment for publishing state secrets, is clear evidence that the idea of the “liberal media” no longer exists in the new plutocratic age. The press are not on the side of the people, they are an instrument of elite control.

*

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

Morocco’s parliament, at this moment, is deciding the nation’s Decentralisation Charter. Since its working draft is not currently made public, we can only hope that every parliamentarian realises that the human development course of the nation and the relationships between public, civil and private institutions depend upon the creation of a meaningful charter. Its conception and implementation will also determine the extent to which Morocco can inspire its neighbours towards a hopeful, modern and yet historic approach to empowering people to achieve their best life’s course.

With the benefit of hindsight, one may fairly consider that in 2008, Morocco’s public commitment to decentralise decision-making, especially with regards to people’s development, was a forward-thinking and strategic position to take. The declaration of King Mohammed VI that Morocco would commence the restructuring of public administrations, was the culmination of a series of other actions and preceded several others. These served to demonstrate a consistency of participatory principles that guide and accelerate sustainable development.

Considering that the decentralisation of management is best achieved in contexts that also promote the participation of communities in project planning, Morocco had already incorporated this concept in its National Initiative for Human Development in 2005. The building of decentralisation is also enabled by an active civil society and the full inclusion of women in all aspects of social development, the frameworks of which were expanded upon in laws that were brought into operation in 2002 and 2004 respectively. Morocco then in 2010 reaffirmed these statutes in its Municipal Charter, delegating responsibilities to locally elected leaders, to facilitate people-centered development utilising the participatory method.

Furthermore, and once again with hindsight, one could conclude that Morocco’s experience in the Arab Spring was made more calm and united, as a result of the intentions of these formative guiding pillars of social evolution, in combination with its new Constitution, which had been ratified in 2011.

With all this said however, we find ourselves at this moment in 2018, with different national conditions, expectations and even urgencies.

Rural poverty remains painfully entrenched in many areas of the Moroccan countryside. Girls’ participation in education drops precipitously from primary to secondary, while clean drinking water remains a key driver of illness and a stunting factor in girls’ attendance at school. Despite some fine examples of cooperatives gaining traction and bringing increased opportunities for its members, the vast majority of them remain ineffectual and without the means to deliver their products beyond most local markets. Adding a dimension that is extremely hard to bear is the people’s awareness that all of these harsh difficulties are essentially avoidable; opportunities and solutions to their problems are known and viable. Nevertheless, these remain unachieved year after year, decade after decade.

Decentralisation is fundamentally the idea that people who experience the everyday challenges of life in their communities are in the best positions to design and manage the initiatives that directly address their needs and bring them the benefits that they seek. Inherent also in decentralisation is an understanding of the opposite: in centrally-controlled societies, localities distant from decision-making capitals will hardly ever obtain sustainability. This is because central planners will most likely fail to select the contextually appropriate actions which promote the varied interests of the people.

As the members of Morocco’s parliament work toward ratification of the Decentralisation Charter, they would be diligent to embrace the synergistic elements of the King of Morocco’s aforementioned principles from 2008. They should closely consider the lessons from other nations that embarked on this worthy and humanistic manner of organising society. They would strategically embody the monarchy’s unique position and vitally needed contribution toward overcoming fundamental challenges to decentralise. Finally, they should remember that their actions will serve as a guide for other countries on the African continent and the Middle East.

With these considerations in mind, the following recommendations may prove useful moving forward:

Firstly, Morocco’s initial integration of three pathways to decentralise–devolution, deconcentration and delegation–essentially harnesses the national government’s capacities and sub-national cross-sectoral partnerships to achieve the projects that local communities decide. Not only does this incorporate the key tenet for sustainable development, which is people’s participation, but it acknowledges what people have identified to be most important for themselves. The result is the generation of goodwill between social groups and sectors, solidarity and diversity.

Secondly, Morocco’s decentralisation has been referred to as “regionalisation”, meaning that its emphasis is on the devolution of power to its twelve regions. Nevertheless, regional public administrative centres in Morocco remain too distant from the dispersed communities of their jurisdictions. This causes considerable delays of basic authorisations needed to carry development initiatives forward. Even provincialisation, which is the breakdown of regions into their provinces, resembles an unnecessary limitation on reasonable actions for sustainable change and growth.

Instead, Morocco should opt for “communalisation”, which targets municipalities as the primary drivers of development, with the understanding that recentralising to the provincial or regional level remains an open possibility, should administrative difficulties arise. Understandably, Morocco is hesitant to diffuse authority related to development to the municipal tier. After all, social stratifications between classes, genders, economic and political groups are as real and formidable at this level as they are on national and global scales.

However, the conditions to avoid entrenching existing power structures could be achieved, with the satisfactory implementation of the National Initiative for Human Development, in complete conjunction with the Municipal Charter. This would require the creation of participatory plans and their fulfilment, to be driven by communities.

This moment of reckoning pivots on this issue more than any other. If the municipal level first experienced sustainable development through the participatory method, then empowering tiers above those that are closest to the people, i.e. the regional and provincial, will most likely prove unsatisfactory, rife with the pathological remnants and processes of centralisation.

Third, there is a critical lesson that public administrators and observers alike have learned in the ten ensuing years from when Morocco first announced its intention to decentralise, until today, when its final charter is being debated. It is exceedingly difficult to imagine that Morocco’s thoroughly centralised government system can decentralise itself without a third party facilitator to forge the productive linkages between the administrative tiers and sectors of society. The necessary arbitrator should also have discretionary ability to influence the access and allocation of financial resources in order to achieve municipal and regional balance of development opportunities. To be realistic, if Moroccan decentralisation will know its full measure, either one or both of the following may need to transpire: His Majesty the King will perform this arbitrating role, or a Ministry of Decentralisation operating on all tiers will need to be established.The challenge is too vast and the implications are too existential for anything less than major engagement.

Morocco is an early champion of decentralisation and its thoughtful and progressive road map that it established for itself at the outset, ten years ago, remains vital to implement. Nevertheless, the questions remain: will it transfer power to people in a way that they can actually interact with and gain access to? Will the nation create a participatory environment to enable the benefits of decentralisation to form productive, mutually affirming relationships? Will the country just pass yet another charter, an inspiring programme or policy, or will it actually complete its journey into the real and daily experiences of the people?

*

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

This article was originally published on High Atlas Foundation.

Dr. Yossef Ben-Meir is a sociologist and president of the High Atlas Foundation, a nonprofit organization dedicated to sustainable development in Morocco.

The crowds arrived at the box store many hours before opening, or nowadays even on Thanksgiving night. They wait outside (sometimes in frigid Northern areas) for the opportunity to get ‘Once in a lifetime’ deals. Many of these shoppers are low income folks who really need those deals… many don’t really need them. The rhetorical question no one seems to ask  is why those ‘barely above water’ don’t earn enough to avoid having to compete for bargains? The inevitable answer of course is that this is laissez-faire free enterprise Amerika where Charles Darwin would be so proud. You know the drill, everyone has an equal opportunity to sink or swim on their own. Besides, old Ben Franklin said it best: “A penny saved is a penny earned.” Hear that all you Wal-Mart shoppers?

Sadly, because of the diabolically successful tweaking of our public education system begun decades ago, many of my fellow Amerikans have been ‘dumbed down’. The boob tube from the19 70s right up until present has completed its assignment of ridding the public of any real historical or counter mainstream political discourse or debate. Everything has to suit the will of those corporate sponsors and of course our powerful Military Industrial Empire. They got the majority of us, the suckers and bottom feeders that they call us, into actually believing that the dream of becoming super rich is within reach for anyone. The media celebrates great wealth and corporate success. It is the working stiff who has no one to blame but himself for not earning more. This is why we don’t see thousands of street corner demonstrations throughout this nation on a regular basis. Why stand on a street corner with a sign when you can be saving money by shopping?

It is already a given to more of us working stiffs that the overwhelming majority of politicians are full of shit. The propaganda machine has literally brainwashed so many Amerikans that their only recourse is to simply vote, and not to something more relevant like just getting out and demonstrating on key issues. Anecdotally, when we relocated to Central Florida 21 years ago, we found a nice local seafood store selling lots of fresh caught fish. The store was located, along with a few other small businesses, on a narrow street alongside  the railroad tracks off of a tremendous curve on the busiest road in town.

To exit that store meant attempting to enter that road with little visibility beyond that dangerous curve. Thus, the best way to exit the street was to go out the back way and down an adjoining residential street. Fine…until the residents of that street complained that too many big delivery trucks were using their street to deliver to the boat manufacturer near the fish store. So, the city council decided, unanimously, to put a blockade by that street, thus closing it off to all traffic. This caused the seafood store owner to lose lots of customers, especially the many seniors who shopped there. Just too damn dangerous. Well, a few customers and merchants on that street put together a petition, and 15 of us showed up at the next council meeting to speak out. We did, and guess what? The blockade came down, and a new one was installed that only stopped trucks. Folks, concerted activism can work.

There are countless key issues for we working stiffs to concentrate our attention on. If even one key issue is taken and given full energy and attention…. folks, the Vietnam debacle was phased out because of mass citizen action. When the parents of GIs and draft age young men got pissed off and spoke out, the empire had to back off. When demonstrators replaced shoppers…..

*

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

Featured image is from Mancunian Matters

It is impossible to see peace prize or freedom awards as anything other than fragments of an industry.  In time, ideals become marketable and matters of commodity. Those who go against this market rationale face the fires of moral outrage.  The business of promoting peace in the wrapping of human rights protections is its own market, with false advertising.  It is merely, in many instances, the flipside of conflict.   

A point often forgotten in this indulgence is that most recipients tend to be not merely the advocates of peace but previous advocates of conflict.  Bloodied swords preceded ploughshares; the terrorist became, in time, a peace maker.  Realising this tense, and central reality, should put any committee responsible for peace prizes or humanitarian awards out of business.

The speed at which a previously celebrated Aung San Suu Kyi has been stripped of such awards shows the frustration and rage of peace bureaucrats and the cocktail set who suddenly deigned their choice a counterfeit.  Like an original hanging in a gallery, the award had to be removed, its bestowing reconsidered.

So many removals and revocations have taken place that Suu Kyi’s record now reads like a veritable Who’s Who of award deprivation.  Each has been accompanied with necessary doses of hurt and cant in the face of a sanctified figure who has rusted. Stripping Suu Kyi of the Freedom of City awards figures prominently in these grand moral gestures: Edinburgh, Oxford, Glasgow and Newcastle, to name but a few examples.  A good deal of this suggests an inflated brand gone wrong: the saint sinned in taking the steroids of pragmatism, and to that end, city councillors are left in search of other appropriate products and recipients.   

When she was in fashion, Suu Kyi could rely on such remarks as those of the Lord Provost of Edinburgh, who described her in 2005 as “a symbol of peaceful resistance in the face of oppression.”  Comparisons were made to another figure rendered pure by a lengthy prison stint: Nelson Mandela.  Last November, the Lord Provost started getting nervous.  Use your “immeasurable courage and influence,” urged Frank Ross, to ensure the safe return of the Rohingya Muslims to Rakhine. 

With total radio silence following, Ross tabled a council motion calling for her freedom of city to be stripped.  Suu Kyi found herself in curious company: the last, and previously only time Edinburgh had revoked a freedom of city award was in 1890, when the giddily nationalistic Charles Parnell was accused of conducting an adulterous affair with Katharine O’Shea.  Then, as now, the moralists were in charge of both tradition and award. 

Much is also being made about her silence on matters that are, less the bread and butter of human rights than its publicity.  To air them is to incite a miracle.  The atrocities against the Rohingya by the Burmese military is marked out as a significant inkblot on previously unblemished paper.  In October, Canadian lawmakers, in an unprecedented move revoking Suu Kyi’s honorary Canadian citizenship granted in 2007, cited her inaction on calling out “genocide” against the Rohingyas as a determining factor. Senator Ratna Omidvar was almost aggrieved at a symbol fallen from imposed grace.

“The world pinned its hope on her as the shining light and hope for a democratic and peaceful Myanmar.” 

Suu Kyi’s ambitions were evidently more modest and less global. 

Amnesty International followed in November. 

“Our expectation,” came an enraged letter from its Secretary General Kumi Naidoo this month, “was that you would continue to use your moral authority to speak out against injustice whenever you saw it, not least within Myanmar itself.” 

The organisation thereby announced it revocation of the Ambassador of Conscience award.

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has also been pressed to reconsider their award.  Olav Njølstad, secretary of the committee, tiptoed around the matter with a ballerina’s ease, finding relief in the certainty that the prize was not a presently relevant issue. 

“It’s important to remember that a Nobel Prize, whether in physics, literature or peace, is awarded for some prize-worthy effort or achievement in the past.” 

Using the past as apologia, escape and salvation for his organisation’s decision, Njølstad could argue that Suu Kyi’s award was based on “her fight for democracy and freedom up until 1991, the year she was awarded the prize.” 

Committees often exhibit such pedantic, book-keeping tendencies.  Berit Reiss-Andersen, head of the Norwegian Nobel Committee, eschewed any prospective policing role by her organisation’s members in 2017. 

“It’s not our task to oversee or censor what a laureate does after the prize has been won.”

Once awarded, never to be revoked.

For Myanmar gazers, peace is a complex commodity, bought through complicity, acquiescence and the dictates of stability.  The National Coalition of Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), a composite of exiled pro-democracy figures elected to the national parliament in 1990, left a specific tripartite rationale in place: unchallenged, near-divine respect for Suu Kyi; a reluctance to directly criticise the military (notable here is Suu Kyi’s own bloodline, tied to a father considered one of the founders of the Tatmadaw, or Myanmar military); and a chronic inability to confront ethnic problems within the country. 

In the words of J.J. Rose,

“The military controls all significant political action in Myanmar, despite its political wing winning less than 7 percent of the popular vote in the country’s major parliamentary house in 2015.”

Under conditions of house arrest, the activist becomes a symbol externally venerated rather than a practitioner able to exert meaningful action.  In time, Suu Kyi became a cipher for democratic impulses and sentiments, but hardly a genuine, substantive figure of effective leadership.

The sentiments of veneration and subsequent despair seem cute to bricks and mortar pragmatists who see the obsession with her refusal to use microphone and rostrum as complicit in culpability.  Abhijit Dutta, writing in the Hindustan Times, gives the leader far more time and consideration. 

“Today, she has a job to do: remake a country that has systematically hollowed out its institutions over the past 50 years and ensure that it stays the course on its democratic transition.”

The vocal stance, or in this case its absence, has been elevated to the level of mystical influence.  To not speak is tantamount to the gravest of sins in the epoch of emoting, where the decibel range of outrage is taken as a measure of an activist’s worth.  Even a concession by a UN independent international fact-finding mission that “the constitutional powers of the civilian authorities afford little scope for controlling the actions of the Tatmadaw” does not sway proponents of necessary, and public condemnation. The present condemns the past.

*

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

Predictably the crisis that began on Sunday between Russia and Ukraine in the Kerch Strait is quickly worsening as Russia has announced plans to deploy more of its advanced S-400 surface-to-air missile systems to Crimea. 

Adding to tensions, Reuters has further reported that a Russian warship has been dispatched to the Sea of Azov — waters used by both countries and near where the Russian Navy seized Ukrainian vessels and crew for what Moscow condemned as “maneuvering dangerously” and illegal entry into Russian territory.

The warship was seen departing a Crimean port by a Reuters correspondent on Wednesday and was described as the Russian navy minesweeper ship, the Vice-Admiral Zakharin, going in the direction of the Sea of Azov.

This comes a day after Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko issued provocative statements during a televised interview on Tuesday that his country is “under threat of full-scale war with Russia” while seeking to justify martial law.

The Ukrainian president added that “the number of units that have been deployed along our border – what’s more, along its full length – has grown dramatically.” He referenced unspecified intelligence reports pointing to Moscow tripling its forces along the border since Crimea joined Russia in 2014.

Though likely the plans were already in motion, the timing of the S-400 deployment announcement is designed to send a strong message to the West, which is also building up its forces as both the UK and US are reportedly injecting more military hardware and troops into Ukraine.

According to TASS:

A division set of Russia’s S-400 Triumph air defense system has undergone tests and will soon be put on combat duty in Crimea, the Southern Military District’s press service said on Wednesday.

The personnel of the air defense missile unit of the 4th army of the Air Force and the Southern Military District deployed to Crimea has started preparing the equipment to be transported by rail to a permanent base. “In the near future, the new system will enter combat duty to defend Russia’s airspace, replacing the previous air defense system,” the spokesman explained.

The other deeply interesting aspect to the timing of the entire crisis, made more alarming for the Ukrainian population in particular after Poroshenko’s announcing the implementation of martial law until at least January to combat “growing aggression” from Russia, is that it’s occurring just days ahead the planned meeting between Presidents Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin at the G20 in Argentina later this week.

This is 2014/15 redux. Back then, the Kiev authorities, and their media supporters, used to claim almost every week that a full-scale Russian invasion was imminent. It never came. Now, a few months out from an election he’s poised to lose, Poroshenko is at it again. https://t.co/A1jpfyMlaf

— Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) November 28, 2018

Even Reuters can’t help but observe the following crucial timing of this week’s crisis in the Kerch Strait:

The episode risks derailing a meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin at the G20 in Argentina later this week. Trump said on Tuesday that he might cancel the meeting due to the incident, but the Kremlin said on Wednesday it thought it was still on.

And there’s further this likely more than just rumor: “Citing sources in Ukraine’s ruling circles, Russia’s Izvestia newspaper reported that Kiev had been trying to persuade Washington – so far unsuccessfully – to open a military base in Ukraine“, according to Reuters, which noted could not be independently confirmed.

Much about the question of whether more dramatic escalation is to follow, or if tensions will calm will likely be determined by the question of if the Trump-Putin meeting will proceed.

*

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

If the Democrats were a true political party Nancy Pelosi’s failures would have taken her out of the running for any leadership position.

“We must say no to the false dichotomy of Trumpian fascism or the pretend Democratic Party variety.”

Black Agenda Report was first published in October 2006, just as the Democratic Party was poised to take control of the House of Representatives with Nancy Pelosi as leader. Twelve years later they will be in the majority for the first time since 2010, and again with Pelosi at the helm.

In those early issues of BAR, our team pondered the meaning of a Democratic majority that didn’t represent the interests of the black constituency that brought it to power. In 2006 John Conyers was the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee. He had publicly stated his goal of holding impeachment hearings to investigate George W. Bush. But Pelosi made it clear that impeachment was “off the table,” and indeed it was.

“Pelosi’s ‘pay as you go’ federal spending may as well have been written by the Koch brothers.”

Fast forward to 2018. Despite the supposed Democratic Party outrage over charges of collusion against Donald Trump, Pelosi again says there will be no impeachment. What she does offer are right wing talking points about “pay as you go” federal spending, a guarantee of more austerity that may as well have been written by the Koch brothers.

Nancy Pelosi may have raised millions of dollars for Democratic candidates, but the money did little to help as four election cycles went by without a victory. If the Democrats were a true political party her failures would have taken her out of the running for any leadership position. Instead her fealty to the rotten system makes her an untouchable.

In 2006 the BAR rallying cry was “Let Black Democrats Be Black!” Our demand referred to the Democratic Party beat down of the progressive policies that the constituents of Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) members want to see enacted. It appears that 2018 is a repeat of 2006.

“Pelosi and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have silenced and side lined what remains of any left wing tendency.”

Nancy Pelosi is only good at two things. She raises lots of money, which isn’t really hard for someone with an estimated net worth of $120 million. Pelosi gets credit for asking her rich friends to contribute to her favorite cause, something that every lady who lunches knows how to do.

Her other talent is shooting down any and all progressive policy proposals. She and the rest of the Democratic Party leadership have silenced and side lined what remains of any left wing tendency.The phony left, represented by the likes of Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, mouth the right words but then sign on to Pelosi and the rest of the discredited gang.

Nancy Pelosi won’t face a serious challenge because she does what Democratic Party funders want her to do. They determine the policy agenda. They don’t want Medicare for All. So there will be no Medicare for All. They want austerity and permanent war and that is all we will be offered.

“Democratic Party funders want austerity and permanent war and that is all we will be offered.”

The trap of the duopoly for black Americans only gets harder to escape. Donald Trump is the living embodiment of all our fears, a president who speaks directly and openly to white nationalists. The danger is real but the opposition is fake. The fake opposition will tell Democrats to protest the firing of segregationist Attorney General Jeff Sessions because his replacement may sabotage Robert Mueller’s investigation.

They do not point out that the now Democratic controlled House of Representatives can subpoena witnesses, hold hearings and impeach, whether the new Attorney General approves or not. If they want Trump investigated they should have demanded that Pelosi put impeachment back on the agenda. The thousands of people who succumbed to this foolishness no doubt thought of themselves as defenders of the resistance against fascism. But they were merely pawns in a silly propaganda game.

“If they want Trump investigated they should have demanded that Pelosi put impeachment back on the agenda.”

In 2006 BAR said, “Republicans out does not mean progressives in.” Those words are just as true in 2018. Black people suffer politically more than any other group for a very simple reason. We sabotage our own political desires in order to keep Republicans out of office.That goal subverts everything else and makes us the losers even when the party we support manages to get back into power.

The Democrats we ride and die for are fakes. They won’t say that all Mexicans are rapists and they won’t refer to African countries as “shit holes.” They put palatable black faces in high places. But they don’t end mass incarceration or cut the military budget. CBC members actually joined in giving Trump a bigger military budget than he requested while also claiming to support human needs paid for by government.

This charade will go on until the people reject Pelosi, the rest of the Democratic Party leadership, their funders, and their quislings in the black misleadership class. We must say no to the false dichotomy of Trumpian fascism or the pretend Democratic Party variety. If not, we may have the same headline in another twelve years. The BAR team would rather write about how this deadly dynamic finally came to an end.

*

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

Margaret Kimberley’s Freedom Rider column appears weekly in BAR, and is widely reprinted elsewhere. She maintains a frequently updated blog as well at http://freedomrider.blogspot.com . Ms. Kimberley lives in New York City, and can be reached via e-Mail at Margaret.Kimberley(at)BlackAgendaReport.com.

Featured image is from BAR

Results from the Mississippi Senatorial runoff elections where Republican Cindy Hyde-Smith defeated Democratic candidate Mike Espy by an 11 percentage points margin illustrates the formidable obstacles placed before the opposition party within the United States body politic.

Hyde-Smith was captured on videotape making a macabre joke about being invited to a public hanging. Mississippi is one of the most dreaded states in the country as it relates to racial violence and terror.

Untold numbers of lynchings and other pseudo-legal forms of torture and execution have been carried out in the state since the conclusion of the Civil War over 150 years ago. During the period of Reconstruction after the war, southern planters resisted vehemently the empowerment of African Americans.

Other factors involved in the Hyde-Smith and Espy race was the revelation that the Republican candidate had attended an all-white segregationist academy during the 1970s. These schools were established as private institutions to avoid the federally-mandated desegregation of public education in the aftermath of the Brown v. Topeka Supreme Court ruling of 1954 and subsequent decisions by lower courts and state administrative structures.

Yet this was clearly not enough to convince the majority of whites in Mississippi that such a politician would be bad for the state. The notions of a “new south” seemed to have faded into oblivion of past decades in the aftermath of the turbulent 1960s.

Adding insult to injury was the appearance of nooses on trees outside the capitol building in Jackson on November 26, just one day prior to the runoff election. There were also hand written signs posted which said that things have not changed in Mississippi since the Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s.

Mississippi nooses found hanging outside state capitol building in Jackson

There were numerous false statements made by the corporate media saying that if Espy won he would be the first African American senator to represent Mississippi in history. In fact there were two African American senators in Mississippi during the 1870s and early 1880s during Reconstruction.

Hiram Rhodes Revels, a former African Methodist Episcopal (AME) minister and Civil War regiment leader for the Union army, was elected to the Mississippi state legislature and eventually selected by the state senate to serve as its senator as a Republican  during 1870-71 in Washington. Later Blanche Kelso Bruce, a politician and successful commercial farmer, was elected by the Republican-dominated state house to the U.S. Senate where he served from 1875-1881.

During this post-Civil War period in U.S. history, the Republican Party sought the support of African Americans in their quest to disempower the white former slave-owning planters who were Democrats. By 1880, with the 1876 end of Federal Reconstruction, Senator Bruce lost his political base in Mississippi and was forced out of the Senate. He remained in Washington, D.C. until his death in 1898 where he was appointed to several federal positions such as the Register of the Treasury and the Register of Deeds.

The election of Hyde-Smith sends an ominous message to African Americans and their allies in Mississippi along with the entire country. President Donald Trump campaigned for Hyde-Smith in line with his alignment with the most conservative and racist political forces in the U.S.

Stolen Statewide Elections in Georgia and Florida

Two major gubernatorial elections in the southern states of Georgia and Florida provided opportunities for African Americans Stacey Abrams and Andrew Gillum to break the glass ceiling of the political structures of these areas. There was overwhelmingly documented proof of voter suppression in the state of Georgia which drew national and international press coverage.

Georgia candidates Stacey Abrams and Brian Kemp 

Abrams, a state legislator, refused to concede the race for over a week after the controversial November 6 ballot. Initially she demanded that all votes be counted saying there was enough support for her candidacy to force a runoff election against Republican former Secretary of State Brian Kemp.

Nonetheless, on November 16, Abrams said she was ending her campaign for Governor. This was the announcement even after her supporters had won a favorable court ruling on the necessity of counting all votes just three days earlier.

In response to the national uproar over the suppression of African American voters in Georgia, people across the country were contemplating ways to strike back against the racist power structure in the state. However, there was never a call from the Democratic Party of Georgia to engage in any type of national mobilizations in defense of the basic political rights of the African American people.

After the ending of the campaign by Abrams, some leading figures in the film entertainment industry such as Alyssa Milano, Bradley Whitford, Ron Perlman and Frank Rich called for a boycott of the state of Georgia. It is estimated that $4.6 billion in revenues are generated annually through filming in the state and such a withdrawal of these movie production firms would send a solid message to the racists who control the political apparatus of Georgia.

These methods have been successfully utilized dating back to the Civil Rights struggles of the 1960s and the anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s. Yet Abrams came out against a boycott saying that people in Georgia needed the jobs generated by the film industry. She claimed that the problem of voter suppression would be fought in the courts.

Nonetheless, when has federal court litigation achieved any advancement for African Americans absent of mass mobilizations such as demonstrations, boycotts, divestment, sanctions and other measures? There were many court rulings against voter suppression and segregation from the 1940s through the 1970s. However, it was the advent of picket lines, civil disobedience, marches, strikes, boycotts and rebellions which brought even minimal reforms to the institutionally racist system.

In Florida, Andrew Gillum, the Mayor Tallahassee, conceded the elections to former Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis on November 17. The situation of voter suppression in Florida has been well known for decades and was highlighted in the 2000 presidential race where the conservative majority on the U.S. Supreme Court decided the outcome of the vote in favor of former President George W. Bush.

Although a referendum overturning the exclusion of former felons from the electorate passed by a wide margin, restoring the right to vote to over one million people in the state, this still excluded these same people from participating in the November 6 poll. As was the case in Georgia, there has been no call for any type of national protest activity in response to the irregularities in Florida.

Who Will Lead the Democrats and Who Will Lead the Masses?

These developments in the electoral arena during the midterms illustrate again the political failures of the Democratic Party leadership to address important issues impacting the African American people. On a national level there are efforts to reinstall California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi to be Speaker of the House in January despite the election of dozens of new Democratic representatives, many of whom are much younger African Americans and women of color.

Pelosi’s tenure as Speaker of the House from 2007 to 2011 was disastrous. Even after former President Barack Obama won the White House with a comfortable majority in 2008, no fundamental reforms were initiated by the Democratic Senate, House and executive branch.

The Pentagon continued to wage unjust genocidal wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Haiti. Later the war against the Libyan people beginning in 2011 destroyed the most prosperous state in Africa and spread destabilization and dislocation throughout the Northern and Western regions of the continent.

In 2011, as well, the U.S.-engineered a war against Syria which has brought about the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the forced removals of millions. Today the world is facing the largest number of refugees and internally displaced persons since the conclusion of World War II.

Racism and state repression is on the incline in the U.S. This is compounded by a worsening economic situation as exemplified by the proliferation of sub-standard wage labor; a widening gap between the rich and poor; a burgeoning federal budget deficit due to the corporate tax cuts imposed by the Republican-dominated Senate and House at the aegis of President Trump; the levelling of tariffs against foreign states creating havoc in the agricultural and industrial sectors of the economy; as well as the recently-announced plant closings by General Motors leaving tens of thousands of workers to a future of joblessness and uncertainty.

What is needed is an independent political party of the workers and oppressed in the U.S. which can speak in its own name based upon proletarian economic interests. A party of the workers and oppressed being brought into existence would end imperialist wars abroad and the super-exploitation of workers and the oppressed inside the country.

The Democrats cannot effectively represent the masses in this period of heightening international tensions since the leadership is pro-war and follows the dictates of Wall Street. Only a socialist-oriented party can put forward a program of struggle aimed at seizing the commanding levers of the political structures and national economy, to institute the monumental changes needed to liberate the people from the imperatives of capitalism and imperialism in the U.S. and worldwide.

*

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

Abayomi Azikiwe is the editor of Pan-African News Wire. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

On November 10, a 5,290-ton Norwegian warship sank into one of the country’s inner fiords after colliding with a 62,557-ton tanker carrying almost 100 million liters of oil. CNN reported, “Now all that remains above the waterline is the frigate’s top, antennas and radar, leading local media to speculate how a ship designed for war failed to avoid a slow-moving, 62,557-ton tanker.”

Good question, and it will cost Norwegians an estimated $100 million to recover and repair its warship, but that’s minor compared to the damage that could be done by more military mistakes within its borders. In 1949, Norway joined NATO, and NATO nations have since enjoyed its “nuclear sharing” largesse, by which member nations without nuclear weapons of their own participate in nuclear force planning, train their armed forces to use nuclear weapons, and store nuclear weapons in their territories. United States Air Force (USAF) personnel guard the nuclear weapons “shared” with NATO nations, and the codes for deploying and firing them also remain under US control.

In October 2016, Norway voted against a UN nuclear disarmament resolution, saying that it “will not support proposals that would weaken NATO’s role as a defence alliance.” A month later, a Russian official warned that Norway, which shares a border with Russia, had become a nuclear target due to the deployment of 330 US Marines in its territory.

Exercise Trident Juncture prepares for Russian invasion of Scandinavia

Norway’s ill-fated frigate sank at the end of the war-games phase of Trident Juncture, NATO’s massive military exercise on Russia’s Scandinavian and Arctic borders. The first phase of Trident Juncture was deployment, from August to October. The second phase, war games, lasted from October 25 to November 7, and was based on the premise that Russia had invaded Scandinavia by ground, by air, and by sea. The third phase was a command post exercise to rehearse control of a real military operation from within Norway and Italy. The exercise included 50,000 participants from 31 NATO and partner countries, 250 aircraft, 65 naval vessels, and up to 10,000 tanks and other ground vehicles. Its “modular combined petroleum unit” provided 25,000 gallons of jet fuel and 5,000 gallons of diesel fuel.

In his most recent podcast with Russian History professor Stephen F. Cohen, New York City radio host John Batchelor said,

“Five or six years ago, this would have been science fiction. Nobody would have accepted this was possible, but it is entirely logical. This is the escalatory cycle of Cold War thinking. We are in the New Cold War, and each time these exercises will grow larger. The thinking in the original Cold War was that the scale of the exercise was a way of intimidating and in some fashion backing off the enemy. So the Russians conducted most recently a Vostok exercise in easternmost Siberia with the scenario of an invasion of Korea by an unnamed foe, meaning the United States. Now that was an exercise combining Chinese troops and Russian troops to fight this unnamed foe. Now the American troops and 30 other countries conduct an exercise to fend off an unnamed foe named Russia. These are very serious people.

These exercises are not minor. The planning that goes into this and the money that’s spent means that both sides are preparing for conflict, or as Steve says, war with Russia. One more detail: within these last days, the Commission on National Defense Strategy organized by Congress, choosing senior officers retired from all militaries, Republican and Democrat, came together to issue a report to the Pentagon to say that, as of right now, the US military is not prepared to fight straight up with Russia.”

Curious claim—that the US is not prepared to fight Russia—given that the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute ranks Russia’s military budget as the fourth greatest in the world, after those of the US, China, and Saudi Arabia, and one-tenth the size of the US military budget. Are Americans being conned by the Pentagon and the military industrial complex? Of course we are, and that’s among the greatest understatements of the 20th and 21st centuries. Weapons manufacturers who profited from Trident Juncture and all the rest of the US-financed NATO operations are no doubt laughing all the way to the bank, while Russia remains determined not to bankrupt its people in an arms race with the US, as the Soviet Union did.

Stephen F. Cohen, author of the new book “War with Russia,” said that Russia is the most resource-rich nation on earth, and that the attempt to isolate it with sanctions and vilification has failed. Instead, Russia’s global diplomatic status has increased, and it has become more economically self-sufficient because it was compelled to develop agricultural and industrial import substitutions in response to sanctions. As George Szamuely, Senior Research Fellow at the Global Policy Institute, says,

“It’s ridiculous for the US to imagine that it could isolate Russia. It’s not Iraq.”

Indeed. It’s a major world power, a nuclear power, and a permanent member of the UN Security Council with veto power. And it continues to build alliances with other powerful nations, most importantly China and Iran.

The US is by contrast an empire declining beneath the weight of its grotesque military budgets and wars, even if it’s not sinking as fast as Norway’s frigate in NATO’s latest war games. Question is, will its handlers take the rest of the world down with it, either by accident or on purpose?

*

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

Ann Garrison is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay Area. In 2014, she received the Victoire Ingabire Umuhoza Democracy and Peace Prize for her reporting on conflict in the African Great Lakes region. She can be reached at [email protected]. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

All images in this article are from the author

What do Argentinian protesters have in common with French protesters? – They both strongly dislike their governments, and their leaders (sic).

The protests in Argentina against the upcoming G20 meeting and around the IMF are just a pretext for an overall malaise – which is an understatement – vis-à-vis President Mauricio Macri and his debt-driven austerity program, that has left hundreds of thousands jobless. People who had decent jobs under the Kirchner governments have now joined the ranks of the unemployed and are begging for survival. Macri has driven the poverty rate from about 14%, where it was in November 2015, a months before the Presidential elections, to more than 35% in September 2018 – and all the while increasing tariffs for transportation and basic services such as electricity, gas, water – health care, education – in fact, privatizing such vital public services to the point where only higher middle class and elite can afford them.

That of course, will leave a vast majority of the people uneducated and without basic health care – precisely what neoliberalism wants. Decimating the number of poor people to a minimum needed for useful slavehood and leaving those who vegetate along, struggling for one meal at the time without education, without a job, so they don’t have the time, energy and political savvy to protest against the ruling class.

Greece is an outstanding example. Within less than ten years the once cheerful, happy and economically relatively well-off country was destroyed into misery by foreign imposed debt and austerity programs. – By now, almost all public assets were sold or privatized to pay for the horrendous debt service. Public health services are on a drip, there is a lack of special medication, like for cancer – schools are closed or privatized – pensions cut to unlivable levels, unemployment rampant – all leading to extreme poverty and skyrocketing suicide rates, about which nobody dares speaking.

That’s the making of the west. In the case of Greece even worse. Their European brother and sister countries went along with the loot. In fact, they pushed Greece into her demise, especially Germany, France, the European Central Bank (ECB), and, of course, the entire European Brussels apparatus, led by the unelected European Commission (EC) and, and eventually with the ‘official’ outside hammer, the IMF. Greece had to go.

Is Argentina going to become under Macri the Latin American Greece? Could well be. By now the country is encircled by neoliberal and fascist neighbors, Brazil, Chile Paraguay, Uruguay. Bolivia is a laudable exception. All the others will do what Washington mandates; whatever it takes to support Macri and his IMF-imposed economic killer policies, that – in the end – will sell out the resource-rich country to foreign oligarchs and corporations, to the US and NATO. Yes NATO, unbelievable, but true. NATO is officially in south America, as Colombia by her own choice has become a NATO country.

From Colombia to Argentina and actually to all of Latin America is like a walk in the park, with all the borders of the partly newly installed neoliberal / neofascist governments wide open – for NATO forces, that is. Macri has already invited the US to establish several US military bases. In July 2018 Sputnik reported that President Macri has given green light to establish “at least three US bases in the provinces of Neuquén, Misiones and Tierra del Fuego. Their creation would be financed by the US Southern Command.”

And now, in the midst of this man-made – Macri-made – socioeconomic calamity, he invites the G20 (30 November to 1 December 2018) to feast on Argentina’s goodies, to see for themselves what can be made of an otherwise prosperous country – so that prosperity is ‘shared’ and outsourced to foreign oligarchs, banks and corporations. Wonderful. For that G20 event, Macri mobilized some 22,000 military forces to guarantee the security of the chiefs of state.

Surely, after the G20 summit, new austerities will be imposed, because everybody sees there is more to be milked from Argentina. They see what they were able to do to Greece.  When common sense would dictate – stop, that’s it, that’s all we can take – there is an opening for even more to be squeezed out of the country. In Argentina there is still a lot of milking to be done. It has just started. If nothing else, the newly Washingtonshoed-in president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, will teach Macri how to do even better for the western money sharks.

Fuel tax protestors in France (Source: WSWS)

In France, the Yellow Vests protests against higher fuel prices and labor reform laws is just a pretext for something much bigger – a growing awakening of the French people, a steadily increasing recognition of how the slippery soft-speaker Emmanuel Macron is stripping France’s populace of most of their civil and social rights, of their labor rights – and ultimately, still to come, of their jobs. A number of ‘false flags’ from Charlie Hebdo to Bataclan to the Nice’s 14^thJuly terror attacks, have helped Macron to put a permanent State of Emergency – basically Martial Law – into the French Constitution. By doing so, he has created a kind of French “Patriot Act”, slice by slice reducing long acquired social rights, transforming them into increased profits for foreign and French corporations and banking giants. Big wonder, Macron is a Rothschild child. He has been put into his position to uphold and expand the Rothschild clan’s banking empire, expanding it way beyond the French borders.

Who are the Yellow Vests – or ‘gilets jaunes’in French? The name refers to the yellow phosphorescent vests that each and every French driver needs to carry in his vehicle for visibility and protection in case of an incident on the highway. The movement started on 10 October, propagated through facebook against the Macron imposed increase of fuel taxes. It then expanded rapidly into a movement of discontent with the continuous loss of purchasing power of the common people through budget cuts and soft but steadily increasing austerity imposed on the French citizenry. That, plus the decay of public services, especially in urban peripheries, has transformed the Yellow Vests movement into a vivid protest against Macron, an outright call for Macron’s resignation.

Hundreds of thousands – cumulatively several millions – of Yellow Vests have demonstrated and blocked at times most of Paris during the past two weeks, to reverse the fuel tax increase and to basically regain their social rights and financial purchasing power, increase salaries to at least keep pace with inflation. Diesel prices have already increased in 2018 alone by 23% and gasoline prices by 15%. These prices should increase further by 2019 according to a Macron imposed law.

Can protests in the street remove a President? – A President, who came to power with less than 27% of the French eligible voters, a President, who built his power on a movement, called “En Marche” (something like ‘moving on’) which hardly even existed a year before Macron’s ‘election’ in May 2017, an election based on false propaganda, selling heaven to desperate people, who after socialist President François Hollande deceived his country bitterly, leaving his presidency with a popularity rate of less than 10% – these people were ready to accept any ‘populist’ lie in the hope that life would become better.

Well, as usual, the ruling class – almost always the financial elite – took advantage of the desperate situation – and bingo. Macron is legally in office for 5 years, until 2022. Removing him the ‘democratic way’, through a Parliamentary vote of confidence, is a slim chance, as he has an absolute majority in Parliament, also called the French National Assembly.

So far Macron has been able to impose his ‘austerity’ without the open help of the IMF. But, be sure, with Christine Lagarde at the helm of the IMF, a former French Finance Minister, with close ties to Macron, he most certainly get IMF ‘advice’ on how to continue softly squeezing the juices out of the French people, of their, since the end of WWII, accumulated and hard fought-for social benefits. Maybe also Greek style?

Curiously, the European Commission and the ECB are much more generous with France than with Italy, when it comes to adhering to the arbitrary 3% deficit limit. Italy was scolded, called to order and to submit a revised budget, when deputy PM, Matteo Salvini, presented Italy’s 2019 budget with a 2.9% deficit. France, on the other hand, has been running a deficit above 3% for years, but is gently reminded to please look into their finances a bit more carefully. In other words, the EU is treating brothers and sisters with different yard sticks, thus, helping Macron to do whatever he sees fit to push austerity down the French citizens’ throats. And if they protest, well, we see what’s happening now. There is the State of Emergency that allows the most brutal police crack-down, if needed. And Macron may well need it, if he wants his presidency to survive.

The French people, are, however, special. They prompted the French Revolution in 1789, the legacy of which still reverberates in legal systems around the world. French students started 40 years ago, the 1968 student and workers revolt. It began on the premises of “equal rights and liberty” between men and women. It led to strengthening workers unions and eventually to many workers rights and benefits, precisely those that already former President Sarkozy attempted to dismantle and for which Macron was installed to finish the job.

There is a direct relation between what happened in 1968 and what is occurring now. Will the people prevail? – Will France set an example for the rest of Europe? –  Mind you – Europe is in the plans to be derailed and robbed similarly and through different means, one of which is a massively increasing influx of so-called refugees or migrants from poor countries bordering Europe. Absorbing millions of homeless souls from western destroyed countries, is a challenge, Europe may not survive. Macron may just be a convenient intermediary.

So, what do the people of Argentina and the people of France have in common? – They both want to get rid of a despotic president, implanted by the western financial elite to steal the socioeconomic coffers of their heritage, and which, if not stopped, may continue a movement throughout the Americas and Europe.

*

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

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 21^st Century; 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. 

The Power of the Documentary is an unusual film festival, because its aim is to break a silence that extends across much of film-making, the arts and journalism.

By silence I mean the exclusion of ideas that might change the way we see our world, or help us make sense of it.

There are 26 films in this festival and each one pushes back a screen of propaganda – not just the propaganda of governments but of a powerful groupthink of special interests designed to distract and intimidate us and which often takes its cue from social media and is the enemy of the arts and political freedom.

Documentary films that challenge this are an endangered species. Many of the films in the festival are rare. Several have never been seen in this country. Why?

There’s no official censorship in Australia, but there is a fear of ideas. Ideas of real politics. Ideas of dissent. Ideas of satire. Ideas that go against the groupthink. Ideas that reject the demands of corporatism. Ideas that reach back to the riches of Australia’s hidden history.

It’s as if our political memory has been hi-jacked, and we’ve become so immersed in a self-regarding me-ism that we’ve forgotten how to act together and challenge rapacious power that is now rampant in our own country and across the world.

The term “documentary” was coined by the Scottish director John Grierson.

“The drama of film,” he said, “is on your doorstep. It is wherever there is exploitation and cruelty.”

I like those words: “on your doorstep”.

What they say is that it’s the blood, sweat and tears of ordinary people that has given us the documentary film at best. That’s the difference.

A documentary is not reality TV. Political documentary is not the consensual game played by politicians and journalists called “current affairs”.

Great documentaries frighten the powerful, unnerve the compliant, expose the hypocritical.

Great documentaries make us think, and think again, and speak out, and even take action.

Tomorrow at the MCA, we’ll show a documentary called Harvest of Shame directed by Susan Steinberg and Fred Friendly and featuring the great American journalist Edward R. Murrow.

Made in 1960, this film helped pave the way to the first Civil Rights laws that finally ended slavery in the United States, though not the oppression borne of slavery. It has great relevance in the Age of Donald Trump, and Theresa May and Scott Morrison.

On 9th December, we’ll show a remarkable film entitled I am Not Your Negro, in which the writer James Baldwin speaks not only for African-Americans but for those who are cast aside everywhere, and these include the First Nations people of Australia, still invisible in the country that is unique only because of them.

Next week, at the Riverside, we’ll show The War Game.

The War Game was made for the BBC in 1965 by Peter Watkins, a brilliant young film-maker then in his early 20s.

Watkins achieved the impossible — he re-created the aftermath of a nuclear attack on a town in southern England. It’s true reality; it’s surreal; it’s truth.

No one has ever matched Peter Watkins’ achievement, or the direct challenge of his art to the insanity of nuclear war.

What he did was so authentic it terrified the BBC, which banned The War Game from television for 23 years.

In one sense, this was the highest compliment. His grainy 48-minute film had scared the powerful out of their wits.

They knew this film would change minds and cause people to question Cold War policies. They knew it would even turn people away from war itself, and save lives.

Today, not a frame of The War Game has been altered — yet it’s right up to date.

Not since the 1960s have we been as close to the risks and provocations and mistakes that beckon nuclear war. The news won’t tell you that. The incessant alerts on your smart phone won’t tell you that. That’s what I mean by ‘silence’.

Governments in Australia – a country with no enemies – seem determined to make an enemy out of China, a nuclear armed power, because that’s what America wants.

The propaganda is like a drumbeat. Our TV and newspapers have joined a chorus of American admirals and self-appointed experts and spooks in demanding we take the final steps to a confrontation with China and Russia.

Donald Trump’s vice president, a religious fanatic called Mike Pence, destroyed this month’s APEC conference with his demands for conflict with China.

Not a single voice in Australia’s privileged, deferential elite spoke out against this madness.

Well paid journalists have become gormless cyphers of the propaganda of war: lies known these days as fake news and spread by the intelligence agencies.

How shaming for my craft.

The aim of this festival is to break that collusive silence – not only with The War Game but with documentaries like The War You don’t See and The Coming War on China.

And the festival is proud to feature Australian documentaries that have broken silences: Dennis O’Rourke‘s haunting Half Life, and Curtis Levy‘s The President Versus David Hicks — and Salute, Matt Norman‘s film about his uncle, Peter Norman, the most courageous and least known of our sporting heroes.

Mark Davis‘s film, Journey into Hell, was one of the first to report the persecution of the Rohingya in Thailand and Burma.

I shall be in conversation with Mark at the MCA next Wednesday. I urge you to come and hear this distinguished Australian journalist and film-maker.

This coming Friday, the 30th, the festival will welcome Alec Morgan, who will introduce his historic film, Lousy Little Sixpence. This landmark documentary revealed the secrets and suffering of the Stolen Generation of Indigenous Australia.

We owe a debt to Alec Morgan, who made his film in the early 1980s, around the time Henry Reynolds published his epic history of Indigenous resistance, The Other Side of the Frontier. Together, they turned on a light in Australia.

Alec’s film has never been more relevant. Last week the NSW parliament passed a law which, for many Aboriginal people, brings back the whole nightmare of the Stolen Generation. It allows the adoption of their children. It allows Pru Goward’s troopers to turn up at dawn and take babies from birth tables. It was barely news, and it’s a disgrace.

I have made 61 documentaries. My first, The Quiet Mutiny, will be shown immediately after this talk. Filmed in 1970 when I was a young war reporter, The Quiet Mutiny revealed a rebellion sweeping the US military in Vietnam. The greatest army was crumbling. Young soldiers were refusing to fight and even shooting their officers.

When The Quiet Mutiny was first broadcast in Britain, the American ambassador, Walter Annenberg, a close friend of President Nixon, was apoplectic. He complained bitterly to the TV authorities and demanded that something be done about me. I was described as a “dangerous subversive”.

This is certainly the highest honour I have ever received, and tonight I bestow it on all the film makers in this festival. They, too, are dangerous subversives, as all documentary film-makers ought to be.

One of them is the Mexican director Diego Quemada-Diez whose film, The Golden Dream, will be shown at the MCA on 2nd December.

This wonderful film takes us on a perilous journey through Central America to the US border. It could not be more relevant.

The heroes are children: the kind of children Peter Dutton and Scott Morrison and Donald Trump would call “illegal migrants”.

I urge you to come and see this film and to reflect on the crimes our own society commits against children and adults sent to our Pacific concentration camps: Nauru, Manus Island and Christmas Island: places of shame.

Of course, many of us are bothered by the outrages of Nauru and Manus. We write to the newspapers and hold vigils. But then what?

One film in the festival attempts to answer this question.

On 6th December, we’ll show Death of a Nation: the Timor Conspiracy, which the late David Munro and I made 25 years ago.

David and I filmed undercover in East Timor when that nation was in the grip of the Indonesian military. We were witnesses to the destruction of whole communities while the Australian government colluded with the dictatorship in Jakarta.

This documentary became part of one the most effective and inspiring public movements we’ve known in Australia. The aim was to help rescue East Timor.

There is a famous sequence in Death of a Nation in which Gareth Evans, foreign minister in the Labor governments of the 80s and 90s, gleefully raises a glass of champagne to toast his Indonesian counterpart, Ali Alatas, as they fly in an RAAF plane over the Timor Sea.

The pair of them had just agreed to carve up the oil and gas riches of East Timor.

They were celebrating an act of piracy.

Earlier this year, two principled Australians were charged under the draconian Intelligence Services Act. They are whistleblowers.

Bernard Collaery is a lawyer, a former distinguished member of the ACT government and a tireless champion of refugees and justice. Collaery’s crime was to have represented an intelligence officer in ASIO, known as Witness K, a man of conscience.

They revealed that the government of John Howard had spied on East Timor so that Australia could defraud a tiny, impoverished nation of the proceeds of its natural resources.

Today, the Australian government is trying to punish these truth tellers no doubt as an example to us all — just as it tried to suppress the truth about Australia’s role in the genocide in East Timor, and in the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, just as it has colluded with Washington to silence the courageous Australian publisher Julian Assange.

Why do we allow governments, our governments, to commit great crimes, and why do so many of us remain silent?

This is a question for those of us privileged to be allowed into people’s lives and to be their voice and seek their support. It’s a question for film-makers, journalists, artists, arts administrators, editors, publishers.

We can no longer claim to be bystanders. Our responsibility is urgent, and as Tom Paine famously wrote: “The time is now.”

*

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

Sumantra Bose‘s new book Secular States, Religious Politics: India, Turkey and the Future of Secularism (Cambridge University Press, 2018) is a fascinating comparison of the rise of religious parties in the non-Western world’s two major attempts to establish a post-colonial secular state.

The secular experiments in Turkey and India were considered success stories for the longest period of time but that has changed with the rise of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan’s Justice and Development Party in Turkey and Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Bharatiya Janata Party in India and the capture of state power by political forces with an anti-secular vision of nationhood.

In his ground-breaking book, Bose attributes the rise of secularism to the fact that non-Western states like Turkey and India never adopted the Western principle of separation of state and church and instead based their secularism on the principle of state intervention and regulation of the religious sphere. In doing so, Bose distinguishes between the embedding of secularism in Turkey in authoritarianism entrenched in the carving out of the modern Turkish state from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire and the fact that secularism in India is rooted in culture and a democratic form of government.

With the anti-secular trend in Turkey and India fitting into a global trend in which cultural and religious identity is gaining traction, Bose’s study constitutes a significant contribution to the study of the future of secularism and the of the complex relationship between religious parties and the secular state.

*

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

Dr. James M. Dorsey is a senior fellow at the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies, co-director of the University of Würzburg’s Institute for Fan Culture, and co-host of the New Books in Middle Eastern Studies podcast. James is the author of The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer blog, a book with the same title and a co-authored volume, Comparative Political Transitions between Southeast Asia and the Middle East and North Africa as well as Shifting Sands, Essays on Sports and Politics in the Middle East and North Africa and just published China and the Middle East: Venturing into the Maelstrom. He is. a frequent contributor to Global Research.

What does President Trump’s recent nomination of retired Army General John Abizaid to become the next U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia signify? Next to nothing — and arguably quite a lot.

Abizaid’s proposed appointment is both a non-event and an opportunity not to be wasted. It means next to nothing in this sense: while once upon a time, American diplomats abroad wielded real clout — Benjamin Franklin and John Quincy Adams offer prominent examples — that time is long past. Should he receive Senate confirmation, Ambassador Abizaid will not actually shape U.S. policy toward Saudi Arabia. At most, he will convey policy, while keeping officials back in Washington apprised regarding conditions in the Kingdom. “Conditions” in this context will mean the opinions, attitudes, whims, and mood of one particular individual: Mohammed bin Salman. MBS, as he is known, is the Saudi crown prince and the Kingdom’s de facto absolute ruler. By no means incidentally, he is also that country’s assassin-in-chief as well as the perpetrator of atrocities in a vicious war that he launched in neighboring Yemen in 2015.

Implicit in Abizaid’s job description will be a requirement to cozy up to MBS. “Cozy up” in this context implies finding ways to befriend, influence, and seduce; that is, seeking to replicate in Riyadh the achievements in Washington of Prince Bandar bin Sultan, who from 1983 to 2005 served as Saudi ambassador to the United States.

With plenty of money to spread around, Bandar charmed — which in this context means suborned — the Washington establishment, while ingratiating himself with successive presidents and various other power brokers. With his fondness for nicknames, George W. Bush dubbed him “Bandar Bush,” informally designating the Saudi prince a member of his own dynastic clan.

After 9/11, the Saudi envoy made the most of those connections, deflecting attention away from the role Saudis had played in the events of that day while fingering Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as the true font of Islamist terrorism. Bush came around to endorsing Bandar’s view — although he may not have needed much urging. So while Bandar may not rank alongside the likes of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz among the architects of the ensuing Iraq War, he certainly deserves honorable mention.

That Abizaid will come anywhere close to replicating Bandar’s notable (or nefarious) achievements seems unlikely. For starters, at age 67, he may not want to spend the next 20 years or so in the Saudi capital, Riyadh, sucking up to the Kingdom’s royals. At least as significantly, he lacks Bandar’s bankroll. However much dough Abizaid may have raked in via his consulting firm since leaving the Army a decade ago, it doesn’t qualify as real money in Saudi circles, where a billion dollars is a mere rounding error. The mega-rich do not sell themselves cheaply, unless perhaps your surname is Trump.

So the substantive implications of Abizaid’s appointment for U.S.-Saudi relations will likely be negligible. Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner will undoubtedly continue to wield greater influence over MBS than Ambassador Abizaid — or at least will fancy that he is doing so.

Long (and Wrong) War

In another sense, however, Abizaid’s appointment to this post (vacant since Donald Trump became president) could mean quite a lot. It offers an ideal opportunity to take stock of the “Long War.”

Now that phrase “Long War” is one that presidents, national security advisors, defense secretaries, and their minions assiduously avoid. Yet, in military circles, it long ago superseded the Global War on Terrorism as an umbrella term describing what U.S. forces have been doing across the Greater Middle East all these many years.

Already by 2005, for example, hawkish analysts employed by a conservative Washington think tank were marketing their recipe for Winning the Long War. And that was just for starters. For more than a decade now, the Long War Journal has been offering authoritative analysis of U.S. military operations across the Greater Middle East and Africa. In the meantime, West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center churns out monographs with titles like Fighting the Long War. Always quick to recognize another golden goose of government contracts, the RAND Corporation weighed in with Unfolding the Future of the Long War. After publishing a lengthy essay in the New York Times Magazine called “My Long War,” correspondent Dexter Filkins went a step further and titled his book The Forever War. (And for creative types, Voices from the Long War invites Iraq and Afghan War vets to reflect on their experiences before a theatrical audience.)

But where, you might wonder, did that dour phrase originate? As it happens, General Abizaid himself coined it back in 2004 when he was still an active duty four-star and head of U.S. Central Command, the regional headquarters principally charged with waging that conflict. In other words, just a year after the U.S. invaded Iraq and President George W. Bush posed under a White House-produced “Mission Accomplished” banner, with administration officials and their neoconservative boosters looking forward to many more “Iraqi Freedom”-style victories to come, the senior officer presiding over that war went on record to indicate that victory wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. Oops.

And so it has come to pass. The Long War has now lasted twice as long as the average length of marriages in the United States, with no end in sight. Whether intuitively or after careful study, General Abizaid had divined something important indeed.

Crucially, however, his critique went beyond the question of duration. Abizaid also departed from the administration’s line in describing the actual nature of the problem at hand. “Terrorists” per se were not the enemy, he insisted at the time. The issue was much bigger than any one organization such as al-Qaeda. The real threat facing the United States came from what he called “Salafist jihadists,” radicalized Sunni Muslims committed by whatever means necessary to propagating a strict and puritanical form of Islam around the world. To promote their cause, Salafists eagerly embraced violence.

Back in 2004, when Abizaid was venturing heretical thoughts, the United States had gotten itself all tangled up in a nasty scuffle in Iraq. A year earlier, the U.S. had invaded that country to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Now the Iraqi dictator was indubitably a bad actor. At least some of the charges that George W. Bush and his subordinates, amplified by a neoconservative chorus, lodged against him were true. Yet Saddam was the inverse of a Salafist.

Indeed, even before plunging into Iraq, looking beyond an expected easy win over Saddam, George W. Bush had identified Iran as a key member of an “Axis of Evil” and implicitly next in line for liberation. Sixteen years later, members of the Trump administration still hanker to have it out with the ayatollahs governing Shiite-majority Iran. Yet, as was the case with Saddam, those ayatollahs are anything but Salafists.

Now, it’s worth noting that Abizaid was not some dime-a-dozen four-star. He speaks Arabic, won a fellowship to study in Jordan, and earned a graduate degree in Middle East Studies at Harvard. If the post-9/11 American officer corps had in its ranks an equivalent of Lawrence of Arabia, he was it, even if without T.E. Lawrence’s (or Peter O’Toole’s) charisma and flair for self-promotion. Nonetheless, with Abizaid suggesting, in effect, that the Iraq War was “the wrong war at the wrong place at the wrong time against the wrong enemy,” just about no one in Washington was willing to listen.

That once-familiar quotation dates from 1951, when General Omar Bradley warned against extending the then-ongoing Korean War into China. Bradley’s counsel carried considerable weight — and limiting the scope of the Korean War made it possible to end that conflict in 1953.

Abizaid’s counsel turned out to carry next to no weight at all. So the Long War just keeps getting longer, even as its strategic rationale becomes ever more difficult to discern.

The Real Enemy

Posit, for the sake of discussion, that back in 2004 Abizaid was onto something — as indeed he was. Who then, in this Long War of ours, is our adversary? Who is in league with those Salafi jihadists? Who underwrites their cause?

The answer to those questions is not exactly a mystery. It’s the Saudi royal family. Were it not for Saudi Arabia’s role in promoting militant Salafism over the course of several decades, it would pose no bigger problem than Cliven Bundy’s bickering with the Bureau of Land Management.

To put it another way, while the Long War has found U.S. troops fighting the wrong enemy for years on end in places like Iraq and Afghanistan, the nexus of the problem remains Saudi Arabia. The Saudis have provided billions to fund madrassas and mosques, spreading Salafism to the far reaches of the Islamic world. Next to oil, violent jihadism is Saudi Arabia’s principal export. Indeed, the former funds the latter.

Those Saudi efforts have borne fruit of a poisonous character. Recall that Osama bin Laden was a Saudi. So, too, were 15 of the 19 hijackers on September 11, 2001. These facts are not incidental, even if — to expand on Donald Rumsfeld’s famous typology of known knowns, known unknowns, and unknown unknowns — Washington treats them as knowns we prefer to pretend we don’t know.

So from the outset, in the conflict that the United States dates from September 2001, our ostensible ally has been the principal source of the problem. In the Long War, Saudi Arabia represents what military theorists like to call the center of gravity, defined as “the source of power that provides moral or physical strength, freedom of action, or will to act” to the enemy. When it comes to Salafist jihadism, Saudi Arabia fits that definition to a T.

So there is more than a little poetic justice — or is it irony? — in General Abizaid’s proposed posting to Riyadh. The one senior military officer who early on demonstrated an inkling of understanding of the Long War’s true nature now prepares to take up an assignment in what is, in essence, the very center of the enemy’s camp. It’s as if President Lincoln had dispatched Ulysses S. Grant to Richmond, Virginia, in 1864 as his liaison to Jefferson Davis.

Which brings us to the opportunity referred to at the outset of this essay.  The opportunity is not Abizaid’s. He can look forward to a frustrating and probably pointless assignment. Yet Trump’s nomination of Abizaid presents an opportunity to the U.S. senators charged with approving his appointment. While we can take it for granted that Abizaid will be confirmed, the processof confirmation offers the Senate, and especially members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a chance to take stock of this Long War of ours and, in particular, to assess how Saudi Arabia fits into the struggle.

Who better to reflect on these matters than John Abizaid? Imagine the questions:

General, can you describe this Long War of ours? What is its nature? What is it all about?

Are we winning? How can we tell?

How much longer should Americans expect it to last?

What are we up against? Give us a sense of the enemy’s intentions, capabilities, and prospects.

With MBS in charge, is Saudi Arabia part of the solution or part of the problem?

Take all the time you need, sir. Be candid. We’re interested in your opinion.

After the embarrassment of the Kavanaugh confirmation hearings, the Senate is badly in need of refurbishing its reputation. The Abizaid nomination provides a ready-made chance to do just that. Let’s see if the “world’s greatest deliberative body” rises to the occasion. Just don’t hold your breath.

*

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

Andrew Bacevich is a regular contributor to TomDispatch. His new book is Twilight of the American Century, published by the University of Notre Dame Press.

Featured image is from Military Times

The first study to investigate microplastics around Ascension Island and the Falkland Islands — two of the most remote locations in the South Atlantic Ocean — has found levels of contamination comparable with the waters around the UK.

On November 28, Russian air-defense forces deployed intercepted and destroyed an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) near the Russian Hmeimim airbase in the province of Lattakia, according to local sources.

The intercepted UAV was probably an armed UAV launched by militants in a fresh attempt to attack Russian personnel and aircraft deployed at Hmeimim. The resumption of UAV attacks on Russian facilities in Syria is another sign of the wanng influence of the de-militarization agreement on Idlib province. It’s highly unlikely that radical militants are going to abandon their hostile approach anytime soon if a military operation to punish them is not launched.

Cells of the Kurdish People’s Protection Units (YPG) continue their successful attacks on Turkey-led forces in the area of Afrin. On November 26, 4 members of the Hamza Division militant group were killed and 2 others were injured in an explosion of a YPG-planted IED on the road between the city of Afrin and the town of Basuta.

On the same day near the village of Gubele, the YPG destroyed a vehicle of another militant group, the Levant Front with an anti-tank guided missile.

On November 24, YPG members killed 2 Sham Legion fighters and destroyed their vehicle near the village of Birj Heyder.

Successful YPG operations in Afrin show a significant gap in the security system established by the Turkish Armed Forces and Turkish-backed militants in the area.

On November 28, the pro-opposition Syrian Observatory for Human Rights claimed that the US had started establishing the first of its observation posts along the Syrian-Turksih border. The first post is reportedly located near Bir Ashiq in northern Raqqah.

With this move, which was announced by Secretary of Defense James Mattis last week, the US is in fact seeking to prevent a possible Turkish military operation against US-backed Kurdish factions in northern Syria.

*

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

The Anglophone Israel Lobby benefits from its ability to mold the media narrative while at the same time using financial incentives to corrupt the political class. For those who do not succumb to the corruption, there is always the option of direct pressure, which in the United States and Britain consists of targeted interference in the political system to remove critics either through promotion of scandal or by supporting well-funded alternative candidates in the following election. In the United States, this has led to the removal of a number of congressmen who had dared to criticize the Jewish state, terrifying the remainder into silence. All of this goes on with little or no debate in the media or in congress itself.

There are signs, however, that the general tolerance of Israeli misbehavior might be ending. The election of at least three Democratic Congresswomen Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez who might be willing to discuss Israel in something less than worshipful ways is a miniscule shift in the alignment of the Democratic party, where Jewish money dominates, but it reflects the views of the party’s grass roots where a recent poll demonstrates that surveyed Democrats favor Israel over Palestine by a margin of only 2%, twenty-seven per cent versus twenty-five per cent with the remainder of responders favoring neither side.

Much more significant is last week’s announcement by Senator Rand Paul that he intends to place a “hold” on the current package of $38 billion in military aid to Israel, which means he can filibuster the issue in the Senate to delay its passage. Paul, who, like his father, is a skeptic regarding foreign aid in general, did not cite any specific issues connected to the aid package, but critics have long noted that Israel is in fact ineligible for any foreign aid from the United States because it has an undeclared nuclear arsenal consisting of at least 200 weapons. For that reason, providing aid to Israel is illegal under the Symington Amendment of 1961 as well as due to the fact that Tel Aviv has rejected signing the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT.

Paul’s action is extremely courageous as he is the first Senator since William Fulbright to dare to say anything negative about the Jewish state. Fulbright was, of course, punished by the Israel Lobby, which committed major resources to defeating him when he next came up for reelection. Another U.S. Senator Charles Percy was so bold as to maintain that Palestinian Arabs might actually have “rights” also found himself confronted by an extremely well-funded opponent who defeated him for reelection, so Paul’s action is far from risk free. In fact, the Israel Lobby is already reacting hysterically to the “hold,” as is the Israeli government, and one can be sure that all their massive resources will be used to punish the senator.

Another area where one might have expected more pushback from Americans is the lack of any serious resistance from Christian groups to the process whereby the conservative Likud dominated Netanyahu government is seeking to turn Israel into a purely Jewish state. That too is changing due to Israeli behavior. Even though Israel boasts that it provides a safe haven for Christians to practice their religion, reports occasionally surface suggesting something quite different. Jewish Zealots spit on Christian clergy and curse them out in the streets without any fear of repercussions. Some clergy have been harassed and even assaulted by Jewish extremists. Churches and religious foundations are frequently vandalized or defaced with obscene graffiti and the Israeli government has also confiscated or destroyed church property.

America’s Presbyterian Church has led the charge in criticizing Israeli brutality. At its June General Assembly it passed a resolution condemning Israeli apartheid. Its Office of Public Witness has been in the forefront in calling on Israel to cease and desist. An Action Alert issued this summer entitled “Tell Congress: 70 years of suffering is enough! Stop the killing, hold Israel accountable, and support human rights for all” denounced the slaughter of unarmed Palestinian demonstrators in Gaza by the Israeli Army.”

Now it is the turn of the Quakers in Britain, who have banned any investment by the church in companies that exploit the “military occupation of Palestinian territories by the Israeli government”, prompting a furious response from Jewish leaders. It is the first British Church to do so and leaders of the group have compared their action to taking steps against apartheid and the slave trade.

It is certainly a turnabout to see anyone taking on Israel and its all too often invincible lobby. What is significant is that Christian churches and even some congressmen have begun to speak out in spite of the knowledge that immense Jewish power in the United States and Britain will make them pay a price for doing so. May the realization that Israel’s interference in friendly countries damages their democracy finally reach a point where some people in Congress, the media and even in the White House will begin to listen.

*

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

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

Featured image is from SCF

739 ISIS members have been killed by the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) in the province of Deir Ezzor, the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (SOHR) claimed. 452 members of the SDF were killed during the same period, according to the SOHR.

The SOHR number of ISIS casualties is close to what the SDF claims itself in its time-to-time reports on the supposed ISIS casualties in the Euphrates Valley clashes.

The problem is that according to the numbers provided by US military officials there was a total of 1,000-2,000 ISIS members in the area. So, if the SOHR and SDF claims are true, at least a half of the ISIS force in the area was eliminated. However, the SDF progress on the ground does not look like the US-backed group and coalition airpower had done so. The SDF was not able to capture the small ISIS-held town of Hajin and nearby villages and even lost some positions during the past few weeks.

Therefore there are two main options:

• The number of ISIS members in this small pocket is much higher than 1,000-2,000;
• The SOHR and SDF claims on ISIS casualties do not correspond with the reality.

Mainstream media outlets continue to ignore intentionally the November 24 chemical attack carried out by militants on the city of Aleppo. Furthermore, the attack, which targeted at least 107 civilians, once again uncovered the pre-designed media narrative, which surrounds the conflict.

Over the past few months, military and diplomatic representatives of Russia and Syria had repeatedly warned that Idlib militant groups with assistance from the so-called White Helmets were preparing to stage chemical attacks in the Idlib demilitarized zone in order to accuse the Damascus government of using chemical weapons and trigger another US-led military action against Syria. The Russian Defense Ministry also provided intelligence data about the movement of chemical substances across the militant-held area in northwestern Syria.

This media and diplomatic campaign undermined a possible effectiveness of such staged attack. However, at least a part of the militant factions, which obtained chemical weapons, appeared to be ready to use them even without propaganda purpose and attacked Aleppo city.

Following the attack, mainstream media organizations as well as Syrian media outlets and speakers linked to militant groups started speculating that it was the evil Assad regime, that attacked itself in Aleppo city with chemical weapons.

This version claims that the attack was a part of Assad’s skilful plan to blame the so-called “moderate opposition” in chemical weapons usage and to undermine the peaceful settlement in Idlib province.

Thus, the mainstream narrative is clear:

• If an alleged chemical attack takes place within the militant-held area, the Assad regime is guilty it because it cannot defeat “moderate rebels” in a conventional fight;
• If an alleged chemical attack takes place within the government-held area, the Assad regime is guilty because it wants to undermine a peaceful settlement of the conflict.

*

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

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.

The idea of creating a common army for the countries of the European Union has been repeatedly proposed by numerous advocates of the globalist elite for at least a decade. The latest example came from French President Macron, who took the opportunity during commemorations of the end of WWI in Paris to revive an idea that represents more a fantasy than a real possibility.

First the good news. Richard Shirreff, a retired senior British Army officer, stated:

“I think we have got to be very careful about loose talk of a European army. An army is a legally constituted armed force operating under the authority of a sovereign Government. So, if you accept that definition, the notion of a European army is impossible until and unless there is a sovereign European Government, which is obviously not in existence. And I think it is some way off.”

The question then arises as to why Macron and Merkel are so interested in talking about something that seems unrealistic at the moment? The answer is simple and obvious. It is a strategy aimed at striking at Trump directly, as evidenced by the words of Merkel, who also voiced her support for the creation of a European army. The Chancellor has indeed stated that

“[t]he times when we could rely on others are over”.

By “others” she is clearly referring to the United States. Also, putting to one side the tense personal relationship between Macron and Trump, the Frenchman, like Merkel, is an exponent of globalism. The agreement between Berlin and Paris is intended to move Europe in a direction more agreeable to them, focussing on the need to attract more investment in European weapons, coupled with a desire to decrease dependence on US weapon systems. As Macron stated:

“Europe must increase military spending, but the money should go to European, not American companies.”

The main issue, therefore, revolves around the economics of the import and export of arms in Europe and around the world, a business worth tens of billions of dollars a year. As SIPRI’s annual report reminds us,

“The five largest West European suppliers – France, Germany, the UK, Spain and Italy – together accounted for 23 per cent of global arms transfers in 2013-17. The combined arms exports by European Union (EU) member states accounted for 27 per cent of the global total in 2013–17.”

Specifically, France and the UK increased their exports by 27% and 34% respectively, while Germany had a decline of 14% over the last 5 years. It should be remembered that the data is only up to 2017, and many agreements have since been concluded, especially between European countries, with France and Germany leading in exports. The SIPRI report presents us with a fairly clear picture of imports from countries like Greece and Italy,even as the US dominates market share, with 20 out of 40 importing countries having the US as their main supplier.

France, the fourth country to have increased exports from 2008-2017, has gone from 5.8% of world exports to 6.7%, increasing exports by 27%. The United Kingdom, the 18th largest importer in the world, imports about 80% from the US. Italy is the 22nd largest importer in the world, importing 55% from the US and about 28% from Germany. Italy is the European country that imports most arms from another European country (Germany), about 28%, about 55% from the US, and the remaining 8.4% from Israel. In terms of imports, Greece is the 28th in the world, importing 68% from Germany, 17% from the US, and 10% from France. Of the top 40 importers, the US is the leading supplier for 20 of the 40, followed by Russia with seven countries, China with three, and seven for the UK, France and Germany combined.

In addition to the creation of a conglomerate that would combine mainly French and Germany industries, Merkel emphasized that such a European army would not be for the purposes of ensuring greater sovereignty for the EU, but rather complement NATO, thereby strengthening the imperialist and ultra-neoliberal positions that have devastated the world in recent decades. As the German chancellor has emphasized, “This is not an army against NATO, it can be a good complement to NATO”, also pointing out the logistical difficulties Europe faces to integration, with more than 150 different weapons systems as opposed to the 50 to 60 of the US.

Such veiled wording indicates the desire of Merkel and Macron to further decrease the importation of arms from American companies, even if overall Germany and France import less than 100 million euros a year from the US. France and Germany will face a critical need to modernize their armed forces in the coming decade, given Europe’s relative backwardness when compared to recent strides made in Russia, China and even the United States. Macron stated that it is crucial to devote 2% of GDP to military spending within four to five years. The new French defense budget, Macron said, would allow for the acquisition of:

“1,700 armored vehicles for the Army as well as five frigates, four nuclear-powered attack submarines and nine offshore patrol vessels for the Navy… The Air Force would receive 12 in-flight refueling tankers, 28 Rafale fighter jets and 55 upgraded Mirage 2000 fighters … This year will see a €1.8 billion increase (US $2.1 billion) in the annual defense budget to €34.2 billion, of which €650 million is earmarked for overseas deployment of combat troops… The modernization strategy will not be just about numbers, as performance should be pursued and the equipment should meet the requirement for ‘balanced’ cooperation between the services and the Direction Générale de l’Armement procurement office.”

The idea of ​​creating a European army also contributes towards budgetary planning, which will start mainly from 2022, as “a large part of the money would only be released in 2024 and 2025, after a budgetary review in 2021.”

This all represents the perfect excuse to increase defense budgets, aiming at a European army that will apparently establish some sort of independence from Donald Trump’s America while simultaneously warding off Vladimir Putin’s Russia. Both Trump and Putin are hated by the globalist elite, being seen as their absolute enemies, and are both used by Macron and Merkel as boogeymen threatening European security, as if Moscow were intent on invading the Baltic countries as NATO analysts constantly claim. Such analysts need to make such claims in order to justify the existence of NATO and their accompanying salaries, with the defense sector being among Europe’s main industries, accounting “for about half a million jobs directly (plus half that number indirectly), in more than 1,300 companies”. That pretty much sums up the reason behind an EU army.

The American and European military-industrial complexes are huge employers. This represents a pool of voters that Merkel and Macron need to keep onside, just as they need financial support from the CEOs of large arms manufacturers in exchange for billion-dollar contracts, something that would simply be called corruption if practiced in other parts of the world.

With the economic crisis of 2008, European spending on arms fell by 22%, But with the provocations in Ukraine in 2014, and then the aggression directed against the Donbass region, creating tensions between Russia and the EU, there was new justification for an increase in military spending, especially since 2017. For example, Poland, Romania and Sweden have each decided to acquire long-range air-defense systems from the US, and Lithuania ordered medium-range air-defense systems containing components coming from Norway and the US.

Thankfully the use of Trump and Putin as boogeymen to justify the creation of a European army is a bluff that will not lead to any concrete action. It all comes down to the money to be made in this multi-billion dollar market. Once again, SIPRI’s study reminds us that Washington is dominant in this field, especially in the private sector, with “[f]orty-four US-based companies accounted for over 60 percent of all arms sales listed by SIPRI. The 30 European companies on the list make up just under 30 percent. France and German lead the pack, followed by the United Kingdom.” This is while taking into account that EU member states “are not even legally obliged to declare what their companies sell. Their code has achieved neither transparency nor consistency.”

The question may arise as to how Europe is to be prevented from developing imperial ambitions. The simple if banal answer is that this is not possible so long as Europe remains dependent on the United States and her imperialist and ultra-capitalist ambitions. European countries would in the first instance need a sovereign central bank with their own currency, in addition to a national army that could defend European territory. European elites are in fact moving in the exact opposite direction, and this can be seen almost in the daily activities and statements by leaders like Merkel and Macron. The creation of a European army, instead of guaranteeing greater political freedom and distancing the EU from the US, would only actually serve to buttress the ideology of Washington as the only world superpower.

Contrary to what would in actual fact be needed – more military and economic sovereignty of EU member states – the EU leadership seems to be heading in the other direction. In a world that is becoming more multipolar, the abdication of any kind of political, economic and military sovereignty is a recipe for disaster. Macron and Merkel, instead of balancing Europe’s political weight with China, Russia and the US, are hoping and waiting for a new Obama after the 2020 presidential election, so as to subjugate the whole of Europe to Washington’s rule, with Paris and Berlin acting as local satraps, treating the remaining 25 states of the EU as provinces of the Franco-German sub-empire.

*

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

Federico Pieraccini is an independent freelance writer specialized in international affairs, conflicts, politics and strategies. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from SCF

This possibility was discussed in mid-November during the bilateral Investment Forum and signifies the natural outgrowth of India’s connectivity investments in Iran. Reaching the Russian marketplace is the prime reason why India’s investing in the Islamic Republic’s infrastructure, but it would be strategically irresponsible not to take advantage of the opportunity for advancing its “Connect Central Asia” policy too given that the country is New Delhi’s geographic gateway to the region. Apart from partaking in the race for natural resources there, India is interested in tapping into new export markets and correspondingly expanding its influence in this increasingly important part of the world.

As it stands, Russia and China treat Central Asia as a condominium of sorts whereby Moscow provides security while Beijing is gradually becoming its top trade partner, but an influx of Indian commercial activity there could shake up the state of affairs and proverbially given China a “run for its money”. Concurrent with this, Pakistan is also poised to play a greater role in this region too if China’s CPEC+ initiatives succeed in connecting Beijing’s top ally with the Central Asian states, interestingly opening up the possibility for the Indo-Pakistani rivalry to extend to this part of Eurasia and advance the concept of “Greater South Asia”.

It can be all but certain that this will result in geopolitical changes as locals’ livelihoods become more dependent on trade with China, India, and/or Pakistan, with their regional and national elites also profiting from these various arrangements but shifting their countries’ loyalties in the direction of their preferred and most profitable partner. Uzbekistan is literally right in the middle of these processes and borders each of the Central Asian states and Afghanistan, which could accordingly give the most populous nation in the region a shot at realizing its long-held leadership ambitions if it can deftly “multi-align” between these Great Powers.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

We bring to the attention of our readers a Donbass report pertaining to the presence of British Special Forces in Ukraine. Yet to be verified these special forces are said to be experts in chemical weapons.  

British military personnel have been present in Ukraine since 2015 involved in training Ukraine military personnel 

On November 21, 2018,  a few days prior to the Kerch Strait Incident, the British Ministry of Defense confirmed that a new contingent of UK special forces were slated to be sent to Ukraine.

According to Deputy commander Eduard Basurin, a representative of  the Ministry of Defense of the DNR,

 “We’ve repeatedly said that an act of terror on a chemical enterprise is being prepared.”

The UK forces are in Ukraine advising Ukrainian forces. “The last of them arrived at Artyomovsk, or as Ukrainians call it, Bakhmut.

They’re British special forces. They’re experts in chemistry. They can cause accidents in this regard and then create media reports about it. Just like the Skripal case.”

The British media have dispelled the Donbass reports regarding the use of chemical weapons by UK special forces against Donbass

The Independent, November 21, 2018

Global Research, November 28, 2018

***

Scroll down for VIDEO REPORT (English subtitles)

Unedited Transcript 

– The British Minister of Defence promised a ship. He also promised to support Ukraine in Donbass. Let’s fast forward to Donbass. Eduard Alexandrovich Basurin is live, The Deputy Commander of the Corps of the Ministry of Defense of the DNR. Do you see collective support from the West or just from the UK? How are they helping the Ukrainians? Does it have any effect on you? Are there advisors or something?

Eduard Basurin: Hello, everyone, hello, Olya.

If we are talking about an effect on me, there’s no such thing yet. But there is an effect on Ukraine. See, we’ve repeatedly said that an act of terror on a chemical enterprise is being prepared. The UK forces Ukraine to do this. That’s why there are advisors. The last of them arrived at Artyomovsk, or as Ukrainians call it, Bakhmut. They’re British special forces. They’re experts in chemistry. They can cause accidents in this regard and then make publications about it. Just like the Skripal case.

– But what’s it all about?

– If we proceed…

– Yes, go on.

– Zhenya, see, firstly, we’ve found out that there are British servicemen near Artyomovsk. They’re special forces units and they’re preparing operations with the use of chemicals. Secondly, the statement made by the British Minister of Defence. He said they would send specialists who gained their combat experience in Afganistan and Iraq. We know what kind of experience they gained. They can only teach how to kill civilians. That’s why the huge number of them here caused the hysteria they put around the Azov and the Black Sea. The scout ship that has arrived there is a way to create a hysteria that everyone wants to conquer Ukraine.

– How is it obvious and can you prevent this chemical provocation you’ve talked about? What can you do about the Stirol? Some extra security? It’s actually on the front line.

– Well, we have the means to secure the facility so that nothing will happen there. But we can’t guarantee anything on the side where the Ukrainian Army is. We can do it for our side.

– It’s unbelievable. You can see Donetsk at war behind Eduard’s back. Not long ago, there wasn’t a single place there which a Ukrainian projectile couldn’t hit. Nonetheless, it looks beautiful.

– Thank you, Eduard. He was live from Donetsk. Right after the commercial, we’ll give you all the information. This is the 60 Minutes program.

*

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

Relevant to unfolding events in Ukraine, this article was first published on July 25, 2018

The uproar in the West, and in the United States in particular, that followed the summit meeting between presidents Trump and Putin in Helsinki on 16 July last, fits into the intense anti-Russian campaign that had been going on for many years. A key moment in that campaign was the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 on 17 July 2014. That tragic event, in which all 298 people on board perished, allows us a view of a far broader set of large-scale historical developments. 

These developments include the NATO advance into the former Soviet bloc and the actual USSR, with the EU in tow; the resurrection of a strong, directive state in Russia after a decade of economic plunder and social degradation; the energy connection between Russia’s Gazprom and EU countiries, and the slow coming together of resurgent Russia with China and other members of the loose blocs formed between them, such as the Eurasian Union and the BRICS countries. My book analyses this larger context; with respect to the actual downing it tries to come as close as possible on the basis of established facts, on which one can then meaningfully base further hypotheses and inquiry. 

The February 2014 regime change in Kiev placed state power in the hands of Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and anti-Russian billionaires intent on removing the country from the post-Soviet orbit and reorienting it to the West. Like other successor states of the multi-national USSR,  Ukraine then began to fracture as a result of Western forward pressure. The US State Department through assistant secretary Victoria Nuland and the US ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt, played key roles in the coup d’état; after its successful completion, followed by the secession of Crimea and an armed uprising in the eastern Donbass area, the NATO command joined in. Hacked e-mails of NATO commander General Philip Breedlove reveal that the war party in the United States and NATO began to elaborate a strategy that would make Ukraine the testing ground for a trial of strength with Russia and China from late March onwards. The re-incorporation of Crimea into the Russian Federation was exploited to evoke the spectre of an expansionist Russia threatening invasion on several fronts. After all, the Russian Federation Council had authorized Putin to deploy troops abroad in response to threats, basically to protect Crimea from the new regime in Kiev (an authorization revoked again on 24 June, to facilitate a ceasefire). 

Breedlove, commander of US Eucom (European Command, one of nine regional US military commands spanning the globe) and NATO Supreme Allied Commander Europe (Saceur), envisaged two fronts in the ‘Russian invasion’, the Baltic states with their large Russian minorities, and Ukraine. From the  correspondence of 5 and 6 April between Phillip Karber and General Wesley Clark, a former NATO Saceur, it emerges that they were already advising Kiev forces in eastern Ukraine before the Donbass had actually risen in revolt. Karber is the ex-CEO of the aerospace consultancy, BDM, and president of the Washington think tank founded by it, the Potomac Foundation. One major line of his activity was to assist former Soviet bloc countries in their quest for NATO membership and the coup regime in Kiev sought his advice too. A US Marines veteran himself, Karber in his e-mails to Breedlove reported positively on Ukrainian army units deployed on the ‘northeastern front’ (no fighting had erupted yet). 

On 6 April, government buildings in Donetsk and other cities were occupied by local  residents fearful of the forces unleashed by the ultra-nationalist coup in Kiev. For one of Karber’s and Clark’s correspondents the occupations were ‘the beginning of the second phase of the scenario for the Russian invasion in our country’ (after Crimea). Clark forwarded this information to Nuland and Pyatt an hour later. Thus, the narrative of the ‘Russian invasion’ reached the highest echelons of the Western war party early on and it remains the framework in which events in Ukraine are being interpreted.

Wesley Clark also wrote to Nuland that the US should make a statement supporting a military operation to regain control of the east, urging her to ignore possible German objections. Still on the 12th, he asked Breedlove whether NATO could arrange a statement blaming Moscow for the violence in the Donbass because ‘the Ukrainians [might otherwise] lose control of the narrative’. Clark then elaborated on the general geopolitical situation, giving further insights into why the war party in the US believed that Ukraine was to be ‘held’ and chosen as a battle ground to confront Russia and China. Claiming that ‘Putin has read US inaction in Georgia and Syria as US “weakness”,’ Clark went on to explain that ‘China is watching closely. China will have four aircraft carriers and airspace dominance in the Western Pacific within 5 years, if current trends continue. And if we let Ukraine slide away, it definitely raises the risks of conflict in the Pacific … If Russia takes Ukraine, Belarus will join the Eurasian Union, and, presto, the Soviet Union (in another name) will be back. … Far easier to [hold] the line now, in Ukraine than elsewhere, later.’

On the weekend of 13 to 14 April, CIA Director John Brennan was in the Ukrainian capital. The attack against the insurgency, the ‘Anti-Terrorist Operation’, began right after Brennan’s visit; armed volunteers hurried to the east to join the fighting, as the regular army’s appetite and readiness were limited, in spite of $2 billion in credit guarantees granted to the Kiev regime by the Obama administration. 

In early May, massacres in Odessa and Mariupol worked to snuff out the beginnings of an uprising in the south. Later that month, Andrej Parubiy, appointed as secretary of the crucial National Security and Defence Council (NSDC), visited NATO headquarters for confidential talks. Parubiy was one of the founders of the fascist party of independent Ukraine, commander of its military wing, and responsible for the random killings at the Maidan central square in Kiev that preceded the coup; today he is the speaker of the Kiev parliament.  On the 25 th Petro Poroshenko was elected president in a pre-cooked election to give the coup a veneer of legitimacy. A few days before, US Vice President Biden’s Washington office announced that the US and NATO allies would hold naval exercises in the Black Sea in July, codenamed ‘Breeze’.

To the dismay of the Donbass rebels, the Russian government recognised the presidential election and on the margins of D-Day celebrations in Normandy in June, Poroshenko agreed with Putin to start talks on a ceasefire in the rebellious provinces.  However, later that month a threatening demonstration in Kiev by volunteer battalions demanded the immediate resumption of the civil war. On the 30th of June, following a four-hour NSDC meeting with Parubiy, Interior Minister Avakov, and others whose followers were demonstrating outside, Poroshenko was compelled to declare that the ceasefire would be lifted and a new offensive launched. In spite of a last-minute attempt by EU ministers to prevent a resumption of the fighting, a barrage of accusations from Washington, denouncing Moscow’s supposed interference in Ukraine, worked to encourage Kiev. 

For NATO, there was a lot at stake. With a summit in Wales coming up in September, the trope of a ‘Russian invasion’ had become vital to the survival of the alliance after the Afghanistan debacle. French and German hesitations (they did not join the NATO manoeuvres in the Black Sea in July, although there were two French ships in the area) were of little concern to Washington and London. According to Mike Whitney, writing in CounterPunch, Putin had to be demonized as a ‘dangerous aggressor’ and disqualified as a business partner, a reference to the energy links between Russia’s Gazprom and its clients in the EU. Indeed  Whitney wrote (seven days before the downing of MH17), the United States ‘has a very small window to draw Putin into the fray, which is why we should expect another false flag incident…  Washington is going to have to do something really big and make it look like it was Moscow’s doing.’ 

But did Washington indeed ‘do something really big’, or are we looking at a coincidental prediction? 

In my book I list all the possible types of weapons that may have been used; who had them, what was their operational status, and so on. Karber actually reported to Breedlove in detail about the state of the Kiev air force available for the Anti-Terrorist Operation. Yet ultimately I stick to an agnostic position, because there is no way to ascertain who actually pulled the trigger; even though all signs point to the Kiev regime and possibly Western, especially US and NATO advisers at hand. 

Nevertheless, by listing all the elements that have been established, one gets a factual foundation on which certain scenarios can be meaningfully based. Let me try out one here, leaving aside the broader context of the energy struggles and the determination, articulated by Wesley Clark, to militarily confront the Eurasian and BRICS blocs (and Russia and China in particular) and turn the Ukrainian civil war into a proxy contest. 

Ukraine ceded the direction of the official investigations to the Netherlands whilst retaining a veto on their outcomes. The investigations maintain that the pro-Russian Donbass rebels, or even the Russian military, shot down the plane by using a single Buk SA-11 medium-range surface-to-air missile. Now if one doubts this, and there are good reasons for it, the question arises why the plane broke up in mid-air. 

First: was it a Buk, as NATO and its echo chamber, the mainstream media, insist? Several military experts familiar with air defence from Soviet times have gone on record that a Buk hit would have made the Boeing explode into a fireball. They refer to the enormous kinetic energy of the impacting shrapnel (small metal pellets) and to examples such as Buk hits in the 2008 war to recapture its breakaway South Ossetia by Georgia. The Russian Ministry of Defence also questioned the Buk theory on the grounds of the impact damage and referred to certain types of air-to-air missiles used by supersonic fighter planes in the Ukrainian air force (I leave aside that Russia never developed a consistent narrative contesting the Western/NATO account). 

What if the cockpit, riddled with holes (the Dutch Safety Board’s final report of October 2015 estimates that some 800 shrapnel pieces hit it), was not struck by a Buk missile but by an air-to-air missile fired from an Ukrainian jet (the rebels had no planes), possibly also by cannon fire?  An air-to-air missile has a much smaller warhead and a shrapnel count more than ten times smaller than a Buk (which contains 7,800 pieces or more). In that case the question might arise why the cockpit broke off in mid-air; the main fuselage, with the wings and the engines intact, flew on for a few minutes, before breaking up into pieces too. This latter break-up can be explained from the amputation of the cockpit section from the hull, but why did that occur? 

One of the most knowledgeable bloggers on this issue has claimed that the cargo of almost one and a half tons of lithium ion batteries may have caused this fatal rupture. The DSB states in its final report that there was one battery on board and that it was properly packed—1,376 kilos! In fact the plane was a flying bomb, according to Victor Ettel, an expert on the science and manufacture of lithium ion batteries—and he was speaking on Flight MH370, on which there was a cargo of only a few hundred kilos of them, and which Malaysia Airlines mysteriously lost in the previous March. The batteries on board MH17, more than six times the load of MH370, were packed in seven large batches in three containers, most of it stowed in the front cargo section right behind the cockpit (a smaller batch in the rear), with the bill of lading marked ‘urgent’. Clearly, not ‘one battery’ of which the DSB speaks. 

In the picture below, the (much smaller) battery cargo of MH370 gives an indication of this location; in the DSB report one can see that the cockpit section broke off roughly where the bulk of the batteries were stowed. I stress that this is conjecture, but why did the DSB choose to lie about the lithium ion cargo? 

 In the Internet debate on this issue, the leading Dutch expert on the battery issue, who also advised me when I worked on the book, comments that the attack on the cockpit may have triggered a fire (lithium ion batteries are highly flammable) and such a fire produces high explosive hydrocarbon gases. He then writes,

‘Someone should ask logistics [at] Schiphol, this is one of the things the DSB should have been doing. The fact they didn’t is an unbelievable lack of competence (or deliberate ignorance) from their part. It was known from early 2013 on that these kind of batteries could pose a severe risk to airplanes when something unintended happens.’  

As I write in the book, the batteries had been flown to Schiphol by TNT from Grâce-Hollogne airport near Liège, where there is a distribution centre for them (a subsidiary of a UK company). The Ukrainian national airline, owned by the anti-Russian oligarch, Ihor Kolomoiskiy, flies three times per week to this airport, but I found no indication that there was something here to pursue further. What I did find, was that an Israeli-owned company, ICTS, headquartered at Schiphol, has developed the Advanced Passenger Screening with which the details of every flight are reported to the US authorities under existing anti-terror laws. ICTS International NV was established under Dutch law in 1982 by former members of Shin Bet, Israel’s internal security agency, and El Al security agents. Few companies are so directly involved with the terrorism/counter-terrorism complex as ICTS. Its subsidiary, Huntleigh USA, shared security duties at Boston’s Logan Airport, from where the two planes that were hijacked and later claimed to have hit the Twin Towers, took off on 11 September 2001. ICTS also permitted the Nigerian student, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallah, to slip past Schiphol’s normally stringent security with explosives sown in his underwear on Christmas Day 2009 and board a Northwest Airlines plane. Quite a record… and yet we don’t know, it may all be coincidence. 

Even so: why did the DSB not delve into these matters and instead chose to lie about the battery cargo? Why did Malaysia Airlines remove the cargo manifest in which the batteries are listed, from its website? There are many more such questions that can be raised. Again, my aim in the book was to list all the elements that we can be certain about, so that meaningful speculation beyond them becomes possible and pertinent hypotheses may be formulated. Then it may take only one more piece of evidence, one witness statement, one new, unbiased investigation, and we will have come much closer to establishing the real reasons why MH17 was shot down. 

*

Prof. Kees van der Pijl is fellow of the Centre for Global Political Economy and Emeritus Professor in the School of Global Studies at the University of Sussex.

Title: Flight MH17, Ukraine and the New Cold War (Prism of disaster)

Author: Kees van der Pijl

ISBN: 978-1-5261-3109-6

Publisher: Manchester University Press

Pages: 208

Price: £18.99

Click here to order.

As serious problems emerge with the further development of China’s ultra-ambitious New Economic Silk Road, the formally named Belt, Road Initiative (BRI) the Russian Federation, especially in the wake of Washington’s mis-named trade war, is finding a positive role that could serve to change the entire dynamic of East Asian and Eurasian economic development. Depending on how it proceeds, it could help China to make necessary corrections to its current BRI development model and even benefit the development of the United States in a peaceful way. Here are some factors to consider.

Since Chinese President Xi Jinping formally proposed his BRI project in Kazakhstan in 2013 the project has undergone a huge advance across many countries from Pakistan to Malaysia to Africa. The original rather vague concept has been greatly expanded with creation of numerous state-tied think tanks in China proposing this or that new element. A major problem, however, has become evident in recent months in several BRI partner countries where China seems to have pursued its own project concepts such as in Malaysia, without due consideration for the needs of the partner country, sometimes leaving them with unpayable debts.

The BRI is one of the truly transforming ideas for rebuilding our debt-bloated world economy in a productive way. If that is to happen, it cannot be a mere repeat of the Anglo-American IMF model, “with Chinese characteristics.” Here is where recent initiatives of Russia’s Putin government could provide a major recalibration. The recent ASEAN meeting is instructive in this regard.

Putin Asia Pivot

Until the foolish John Brennan-Joe Biden-instigated CIA coup d’etat in Ukraine in early 2014–designed to split Russia from the EU, most especially from Germany, France and Italy–there was a dominant orientation in Russian policy circles to look West. With the Obama administration strong-arming of the EU to impose economic (self-destructive) sanctions in their trade with Russia, Russia understandably reviewed her options elsewhere. Initially, that has meant opening new economic and political and even military relations with the other giant Eurasian power, China. The results of the cooperation have been impressive in many areas. That said, the danger always lurks that the asymmetry of the relation will make Russia one day overly-dependent on China, and not a sovereign equal. The recent signs of a Putin Asia Pivot also beyond China could be beneficial to all sides.

Notably, while Russian Prime Minister Medvedev was sent to the simultaneous APEC meeting in Papua New Guinea where President Xi met with Vice President Pence, Putin chose to attend the ASEAN annual meeting in Singapore November 14 of the ASEAN-Russia Summit.

Source: The Epoch Times

ASEAN members include Vietnam, Malaysia, Indonesia, Singapore, Thailand, The Philippines, Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar, Brunei. On the agenda was discussion of how to deepen contacts and trade between Russia’s Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) and ASEAN as well as creating what they term a Greater Eurasian Partnership also in the context of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization which includes China, India and Pakistan as well as Russia and Central Asian republics.

Russia, owing to its geography and its economy, despite not being the economic or financial colossus China is, is uniquely positioned to be the facilitator of deeper economic and political cooperation across Asia, especially in areas where historical distrust of China is strong. A look at the Eurasian map will show how intimately close Russia is to all these countries. Now Russia is well-situated to leverage that geographical, economic and even military advantage with other Asian partners.

Concretely, the Singapore summit agreed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with Russia and its Eurasian Economic Union, to expand trade and investment. ASEAN formally designated their relation with Russia for the first time as a “strategic partnership.”

The MOU covers agreement on Customs procedures and trade facilitation; sanitary and phytosanitary measures; technical regulations; e-commerce; trade in services and investment; as well as business development. Among projects are agreement for Russia with its advanced IT industry to join with ASEAN in developing “smart cities” along the lines already in process between Moscow and Singapore. Putin also extended a personal invitation to the ASEAN members to be guests at the 2019 Russian St Petersburg Economic Forum and the Vladivostock Eastern Economic Forum.

Mutual trade between the ASEAN countries and the Russian-dominated Eurasian Economic Union grew in 2017 by 40% to some $36 billion, still a small fraction of the potential.

Negotiations with ASEAN member Vietnam are a significant example of the potentials. Russia has been involved with Vietnam since it discovered the first successful commercial oil offshore Vietnam during the Cold War. In 2015 the EAEU and Vietnam signed a Free Trade Agreement. Bilateral trade grew by 31% between Vietnam and the EAEU (90% Russia) in 2017 to almost $4 billion, and is on a similar further growth path in 2018.

Russia’s EAEU countries exported oil, steel, fertilizers, and machinery. Major Vietnamese exports included phone components, electronic devices, computers, apparel, and footwear. Food exports included fruits, vegetables, coffee, cashew nut, and seafood. The treaty calls for the gradual reduction to an average of between 1-2% for import tariffs on both sides by 2025. Now with the MOU between Russia’s EAEU and the ASEAN, Vietnam is positioned to become the supply chain gateway to the other ASEAN countries for Russia and the EAEU. For Vietnam the free trade agreement with the countries of the EAEU opens a market with a combined GDP of $2.2 trillion. They both have targeted US$10-12 billion bilateral trade by 2020, and US$30 billion by 2030.

During the ASEAN Summit Putin also held private talks with Malaysian Prime Minister Mahatir who recently scaled back his country’s engagement in the BRI, as well as with Japan’s Abe, Indonesia President Widodo, South Korea’s Moon Jae-in and the Chinese and Thai prime ministers.

Putin-Abe talks intensify

Notable were his talks with Japan’s Abe on settlement of the long-standing Kuril Islands dispute and with South Korean President Moon on a trilateral resolution with Pyongyang of the Korea issue. Japan, South Korea and Russia are members of ASEAN+8, the East Asia Summit.

Abe announced that he is ready to pursue a mutual resolution of the territory dispute that hinders a peace treaty between Russia and Japan since 1945. Several months ago Japan and Russia conducted joint tests to explore development of shipping of Japanese goods to Russia using a sea link and the Trans-Siberian Railway. Russia’s rail transport artery, which is 5,772 miles long, has great development potential for mutual trade between the two nations, according to Japan’s Deputy Minister of State Lands, Infrastructure, Transport and Tourism, Toshihiro Matsumoto. Currently trade is done by sea or air between the two, taking up to 62 days for ocean freight to reach Russia via the Indian Ocean. Air freight is costly. The new corridor would cut transport time significantly and reduce shipping costs as much as 40%.

In 2017 Russia and Japan agreed to establish a joint infrastructure development fund, the Russia-Japan Investment Fund between the government-backed investment funds of the two countries to support mutual projects. A resolution of the islands dispute could see that fund expand significantly.

What gives Russia a unique window regarding expanding economic and other ties with ASEAN is the fact that now China is under enormous pressure from Washington on its “Made in China 2025” agenda. As well, Japan and South Korea and India seek a balance to over-dependence on either the USA or on China. Russia can represent a highly productive “third way” without forcing a break with China, as Russia uniquely is the bridge connecting all sides.

India-Russia

Russia’s recent trade initiatives towards ASEAN, South Korea and Japan assume even more significance in light of Putin’s relations with Indian Prime Minister Modi.

In his October meetings in New Delhi, Putin and Modi signed the official agreement for India to purchase Russia’s advanced S-400 Triumf, the world’s most effective surface-to-air missile system, despite threats of sanctions from the US. In their joint press conference Modi declared, “Russia has stood by India through time and has played a crucial role In India’s growth story. With time, the relations between our countries have gone from strength to strength.” The talks also resulted in several agreements in space, nuclear energy and railways. Then nuclear agreement with Russia, currently the world’s largest nuclear power constructor, will include manufacturing of nuclear fuel assemblies in India. And India will acquire 4 Krivak-class frigates from Russia, two of which will be built in India under a $2.5 billion deal.

The Putin-Modi meeting was the fifth time the two had met in the past year. They also reaffirmed a strategic partnership, reviving relations going back to the 1950’s between India and Russia. The recent Russian attention to India represents a significant change over the past four years to counter a decline in Russia-India relations and trade as Washington tried to draw India into its sphere.

When we look at the recent Asian Pivot of Russia towards not only China, but more recently also ASEAN, both Koreas, Japan and India it is clear that Russia has realized it has a unique potential to emerge as the key to future Asian economic development. It is clear that Putin is making it a state priority to pursue what he announced a year ago at APEC as Russia’s Greater Eurasian Partnership. There he cited Russia’s intention to create an “Energy Super Ring” that unites Russia, China, Japan, and the Republic of Korea, and the Sakhalin-Hokkaido transport link, a proposed road-rail bridge-tunnel that would connect Japan’s northernmost island of Hokkaido with Russia’s Sakhalin. This could only be the beginning of a mutually beneficial regional cooperation.

*

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

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

Featured image is from NEO

G20 leaders will meet on Friday and Saturday in Buenos Aires, Argentina. Kiev’s staged Black Sea provocation and Trump’s trade war with China hang over the summit, along with US hostility toward Russia, endless war in Syria, and other major geopolitical issues.

Major Sino/US differences highlighted the mid-November APEC summit – notably America first protectionism v. fair trade.

For the first time, APEC leaders failed to agree on a joint communique, largely over major unresolved Sino/US disagreements.

Will the G20 summit end the same or a similar way – major differences between the Trump regime v. Russia and China highlighting it?

On Tuesday, John Bolton said Trump meet with Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping, Angela Merkel, Japan’s Shinzo Abe, South Korea’s Moon Jae-in, Turkey’s Recep Tayyip Erdogan, India’s Narendra Modi, and Argentina’s Mauricio Macri in Buenos Aires.

No meeting with Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman is scheduled. According to White House press secretary Sarah Sanders, he hasn’t “ruled out any interaction” with MBS.

It may or may not happen. Being together in the same venue, they’ll certainly cross paths, perhaps to hold an unscheduled meeting – despite Bolton saying his schedule is “full to overflowing.”

There’s always time for what anyone wishes to do, no time for what someone wants avoided. According to Bolton, Putin and Trump will discuss “security issues, arms control, and regional issues, including the Middle East” – along with Kiev’s Black Sea/Kerch Strait provocation and aftermath so far, if a meeting occurs. With one scheduled, it’s hard imagining not having it with much to discuss.

On Tuesday, Trump threatened to cancel his meeting with Putin over the incident, saying

“I am getting a report on that tonight and that will determine what happens at the meeting,”

adding:

“That will be very determinative. Maybe I won’t have the meeting…We’re going to see, depending on what comes out tonight.”

He blamed Russia for Kiev’s provocation, saying

“I don’t like that aggression. I don’t want that aggression at all. Absolutely. And by the way, Europe shouldn’t like that aggression. And Germany shouldn’t like that aggression.”

Was Kiev’s November 25 Black Sea/Kerch Strait provocation strategically timed ahead of Ukraine’s March 2019 presidential election and this week’s G20 summit?

The likely US/UK orchestrated incident was all about escalating East/West tensions, further undermining prospects for Putin/Trump agreement on key bilateral issues, along with whatever the US-installed Poroshenko regime hopes to gain from what happened.

Much rides on Trump’s meeting with Xi Jinping. DLT threatened to increase tariffs on $250 billion worth of Chinese goods from 10 – 25% in January 1 if Beijing doesn’t subordinate its economic interests to Washington’s.

It clearly won’t happen, but it remains to be seen if both leaders can find accommodation middle ground with each other – or at least delay the January 1 action and Trump’s added threat to impose duties on all Chinese imports in the new year.

Ahead of Trump’s meeting with Xi, Chinese envoy to Washington Cui Tiankai warned of “dire consequences” if both leaders fail to find accommodation with each other, adding:

“The lessons of history are (clear). In the last century, we had two world wars. And in between them, the Great Depression. I don’t think anybody should really try to have a repetition of history. These things should never happen again, so people have to act in a responsible way.”

Given Washington’s rage for confrontation over diplomacy and permanent war agenda, he didn’t rule out “all-out conflict” with the US if things deteriorate beyond resolution.

China didn’t initiate trade war. It’s largely Trump’s call on how far to push it or be willing to step back from the brink.

Cui was clear saying

“(w)e cannot accept that one side would put forward a number of demands and the other side just has to satisfy all these things.”

According to hardline Trump regime chief economic advisor Larry Kudlow, DLT intends increasing tariffs on Chinese goods if there’s no breakthrough in talks with Xi, adding discussions so far failed to yield what the White House demands.

If nothing comes from talks this weekend, Trump said he’ll order additional tariffs on another $267 billion worth of Chinese imports, along with increasing tariffs to 25% – harming both countries and the world economy if he goes this far and sticks with it.

On Monday, he said

“(t)he only deal that would be really acceptable to me – other than obviously we have to do something on the theft of intellectual property, right – but the only deal would be China has to open up their country to competition from the United States.”

“They have to open up China to the United States. Otherwise, I don’t see a deal being made.”

America’s huge and growing trade deficit with China is all about US corporations offshoring their production and other operations, along with millions of jobs, to low-wage countries.

Trump consistently fails to lay blame where it belongs – on corporate America, not China or other countries.

It’s unclear if talks between him and Xi can achieve (or at least appear to achieve) what numerous previous Sino/US rounds failed to accomplish.

Perhaps agreeing on a reprieve is the best to hope for – so talks on major unresolved issues can continue in the new year.

A Final Comment

Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said things are “settled” about Putin/Trump talks on the sidelines of this week’s G20 summit – adding “(w)e have no…information otherwise.”

It’s hard imagining both leaders won’t meet. Being in the same place at the same time, it seems virtually certain they’ll meet with much to discuss.

*

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

Steve Bannon.  The Oxford Union.  A university that has been the breeding, sculpting and minting ground for British prime ministers for centuries and the Establishment.  Here, Bannon, strategist of the Trump campaign in 2016, was in full swing, spearing his enemies and mocking the elite with an approach he has come to master.  The audience was hushed, bewildered, even stunned.   

The thrust of his anti-elite argument was something that sat strikingly well with a figure he failed mention: John Ralston Saul.  Saul was himself an investment manager and oil executive turned pure; he has reflected upon the failings of the system occasioned by an elite that has duped, gulled and hoodwinked entire nations, citing the value of rationalism filled by an “obsession with expertise”.   They are, as Bannon reminded his audience, the party of Davos; they are the ones who prospered as bailouts were being dished out after the financial crisis of 2008-9, socialising privately made losses. They are, as Saul claimed, Voltaire’s bastards, the ones who hijacked reason to despoil societies in the name of an estranged technocracy.

Perversely, the weapon to initiate this upending and bruising of these laboratory technocrats was Donald Trump, a person very much part of a system riven by decay.  Trump had himself been beneficiary of its fracturing, one that left former employees without work and a string of bankruptcies.  He fed the world of reality television with viral dedication.  But instead of seeking a professional campaign manager, Trump struck electoral gold, appointing, in Ken Stern’s words, “a media bomb-thrower with no experience on the trail.”   

Trump, in turn, served a useful purpose (in Bannon’s own description, a “blunt instrument for us”): he could slay sacred cows, mock members of the establishment and foul the temples.  Bannon gave a taste of this sentiment, a true politics of aggression.  “I said I wanna unchain the dogs on Megyn Kelly and I’m proud of it – politics is war by other methods.” 

There were those who felt Bannon had no place at the Union.  The Oxford Students Stand Up To Racism took issue with the body for “giving credibility to racism and fascism”, a view as childish as it was ill-thought.  In a press release, the group claimed that Bannon was “attempting to build an Islamophobic international of far-right groups and is looking to fascist Tommy Robinson here in Britain as a key figure for his movement.”    Anneliese Dodds, MP for Oxford East, thanked the demonstrators for not welcoming “white supremacists like Bannon.”

A rough estimate of 1,000 protestors had gathered; Bannon was himself smuggled into the talk “in the back of a police van” according to the Daily Mail.  There were chants. 

“The police protect the Nazis!”; “Say it loud, say it clear, Bannon is not welcome here!” 

Two men happily goaded the protests in St. Michael’s Street, mimicking Nazi-style salutes and causing, according to the police, “alarm and distress to those who were present”. 

The address was peppered with the observations of a man who is now speaking to a political orthodoxy that has taken root in numerous states. 

“I did the original travel ban, it made our citizens safer.  Zero-tolerance at the border is a humanitarian policy.” 

The view has been endorsed by both conservative and Labor governments in Australia since the late 1990s.

Bannon betrays a certain ideological inconsistency, suspicious of cults and followings of protest he sees as equivalent (naturally, he exempts his own):

“Nazis and the KKK have no place in our society, they should have never been allowed to march in Charlottesville.” 

But the blade cuts all ways:

“The same can be said about Antifa and Black Lives Matter – they shouldn’t be allowed to be doing what they are doing.” 

The problem here is that both Bannon and the protestors sport the very same defective positions they wish to promote.  Scotland’s First Minister Nicola Sturgeon, for instance, boasted about her belief in free speech but refused to appear at an Edinburgh conference attended by Bannon for fear that she risked “legitimizing or normalizing far-right, racist views.” 

Both sides want to ban each other in fits of self-conviction, ideologically convinced they have found the appropriate way. Both feel they have found some unassailable truth in their Manichean struggle.  Consider the student at Oxford who was reported to say that he was “here to protest against the Student Union events being used for right wing personalities.”  (Keep them vanilla, safe, or left, whatever that might entail.)  To be right is to be wrong and worthy of silencing. 

“I am Australian and we already have a fascist government so it’s important to fight right-wing politics while we still can.” 

Tossing about vague labels serves more to restrict discussion and confuse social symptoms rather than advance argument which is, ultimately, the aim of most regimes of censorship.  Tagging alt-right and fascist to the Bannon show is handily reassuring for the ideologically closeted, but it betrays a convenient ignorance. For one, it resists an inquiry into the causes for the rise of Trumpism, and the broader Bannon agenda of a neo-nationalist international. 

A set of brief contributions to the Times Literary Supplement this month from a range of thinkers on the subject merely served to illustrate how unsure the field of comparative studies on fascism is.

“We could no more define [fascism],” argued classics titan Mary Beard, “than most of the mid-twentieth century fascists themselves could.” To use the word “fascist” in the Trump debate “has become a sloppy, and even dangerous, alibi for failing properly to analyse conduct.”  

Bannon is not in any conventional, let alone unconventional sense, fascist, but a sharpened reactionary attuned to the impulses of a malcontent. He is the perfect condottiere’s type, having become an advisor for the European, and generally global right, on those populist disruptions that now find shape inside and outside numerous governments. Some of these have an undeniable encrustation of neo-fascism.  But the essential point here is hardly to shut them up and ignore them but rally with appropriate antidotes.  Censorship, notably at such forums as the Oxford Union, would be a poor, and ultimately weak form, of combat.

*

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

“The displacement from south to north is inevitable; fences, walls and deportations will not curtail it: they will come in millions. They come looking for what we stole from them. There is no return for them because they come from a famine of centuries and they come tracking the smell of the everyday food…” Jose Saramago, Nobel Prize in Literature 1998

The photograph of a migrant mother and her diapered and shoeless infants running in fear from teargas fired by the US border patrol — supported by 5000 US troops with shoot-to-kill orders — is not going to disappear easily from the collective memory. Even the mainstream media cannot spin it away.  This image captures the inhumanity of the situation; it is becoming viral and travelling around the world. It is one of those iconic, indelible images like the Vietnamese girl running covered in napalm after an aerial attack incinerated her village in 1972.

They are both running from US terror and its continuum of a policy of war. Hundreds of thousands of people from Central America — facing unimaginable dangerous obstacles — have fled their homes and communities to reach the North where the profit-mad system of exploitation and violent repression that created their condition in the first place also despises them. They have no place else to go.

Ironically the tear gas attack at the border took place on the last day of the Thanksgiving holiday when many in the US were enjoying and sharing time with family members.

Compliant U.S. corporate and government support of Central America elites and political despots have created unlivable conditions that force people to flee their homes and countries.

No matter how much impoverished Central American asylum seekers have been characterized as dangerous criminals and disposables in the rants of the xenophobic president and ignored by the congress of the rich for the rich, we will not allow the truth of that image to be erased from our minds. It is a mirror of the inhumanity that festers in the government buildings in Washington and the stock peddling floors of Wall Street. And fair-minded U.S. citizens must act to create and enforce a just, humane immigration policy.

The Network of Intellectuals, Artists and Social Movements in Defense of Humanity demands the U.S. government respect the human rights of Central American immigrants and grant asylum to those who request it. We also demand the demilitarization of the border with Mexico and the cessation of violence against innocent people whose only crime is to flee conditions of poverty in search of a better life for themselves and their families.

*

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

Featured image is from Network in Defense of Humanity

When the Ukrainian navy sent a tugboat and two small gunboats on Sunday to force their way through the Kerch Strait into the Sea of Azov, it knew in advance the Russian response would be swift and merciless. 

After all, Kiev was entering waters claimed by Russia with military vessels without clarifying their intent.

The intent, though, was clear; to raise the stakes in the militarization of the Sea of Azov.

The Kerch Strait connects the Sea of Azov with the Black Sea. To reach Mariupol, a key city in the Sea of Azov very close to the dangerous dividing line between Ukraine’s army and the pro-Russian militias in Donbass, the Ukrainian navy needs to go through the Kerch.

Yet since Russia retook control of Crimea via a 2014 referendum, the waters around Kerch are de facto Russian territorial waters.

Kiev announced this past summer it would build a naval base in the Sea of Azov by the end of 2018. That’s an absolute red line for Moscow. Kiev may have to trade access to Mariupol, which, incidentally, also trades closely with the People’s Republic of Donetsk. But forget about military access.

And most of all, forget about supplying a Ukrainian military fleet in the port of Berdyansk capable of sabotaging the immensely successful, Russian-built Crimean bridge.

Predictably, Western media has been complaining again about “Russian aggression”, a gift that keeps on giving. Or blaming Russia for its over-reaction, overlooking the fact that Ukraine’s incursion was with military vessels, not fishing boats. Russian resolve was quite visible, as powerful Ka-52 “Alligator” assault helicopters were promptly on the scene.

Washington and Brussels uncritically bought Kiev’s “Russian aggression” hysteria, as well as the UN Security Council, which, instead of focusing on the facts in the Kerch Strait incident, preferring to accuse Moscow once again of annexing Crimea in 2014.

The key point, overlooked by the UNSC, is that the Kerch incident configures Kiev’s flagrant violation of articles 7, 19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea. 

Russian lakes

I happened to be right in the middle of deep research in Istanbul over the geopolitics of the Black Sea when the Kerch incident happened. 

For the moment, it’s crucial to stress what top Russian analysts have been pointing out in detail. My interlocutors in Istanbul may disagree, but for all practical purposes, the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea, in military terms, are de facto Russian lakes.

At best, the Black Sea as a whole might evolve into a Russia-Turkey condominium, assuming President Erdogan plays his cards right.  Everyone else is as relevant, militarily, as a bunch of sardines. 

Russia is able to handle anything – naval or aerial – intruding in the Kerch Strait, the Sea of Azov and the Black Sea in a matter ranging from seconds to just a few minutes. Every vessel moving in every corner of the Black Sea is tracked 24/7. Moscow knows it. Kiev knows it. NATO knows it. And crucially, the Pentagon knows it.

Still, Kiev – “encouraged” by Washington – insists on militarizing the Sea of Azov. Misinformed American hawks emerging from the US Army War College even advocate that NATO should enter the Sea of Azov – a provocative act as far as Moscow is concerned. The Atlantic Council, which is essentially a mouthpiece of the powerful US weapons industry, is also pro-militarization.

Any attempt to alter the current, already wobbly status quo could lead Moscow to install a naval blockade in a flash and see the annexation of Mariupol to the People’s Republic of Donetsk, to which it is industrially linked anyway.

This would be regarded by the Kremlin as a move of last resort. Moscow certainly does not want it. Yet it’s wise not to provoke the Bear.

Cheap provocation

Rostislav Ischchenko, arguably the sharpest observer of Russia-Ukraine relations, in a piece written before the Kerch incident, said: 

“Ukraine itself recognized the right of Russia to introduce restrictions on the passage of ships and vessels through the Kerch Strait, having obeyed these rules in the summer.”

Yet, after the US Deep State’s massive investment even before the protests on the Maidan in Kiev in 2014 that wrested Ukraine away from Russian influence a possible entente cordiale between the Trump administration and the Kremlin, with Russia in control of Crimea and a pro-Russian Donbass, could only be seen as a red line for the Americans.

Thus a Kerch Strait incident designed as a cheap provocation, bearing all the hallmarks of a US think-tank ploy, is automatically interpreted as “Russian aggression”, regardless of the facts. Indeed, any such tactics are good when it comes to derailing the Trump-Putin meeting at the G20 in Buenos Aires this coming weekend.

Meanwhile, in Ukraine, chaos is the norm. President Petro Poroshenko is bleeding. The hryvnia is a hopeless currency. Kiev’s borrowing costs are at their highest level since a bond sale in 2018. This failed state has been under IMF “reform” since 2015 – with no end in sight.  

Poroshenko’s approval rate barely touches 8%. His chances of being re-elected, assuming polls are credible, are virtually zero. Little wonder he used the Kerch to declare martial law, effective this Wednesday, lasting for 30 days and bound to be extended. Poroshenko will be able to control the media and increase his chances of rigging the election. 

But the US would lose no sleep if they had to throw Poroshenko under the (Soviet) bus. Ukrainians will not die for his survival. One of the captains at the Kerch incident surrendered his boat voluntarily to the Russians. When Russian Su-25s and Ka-52s started to patrol the skies over the Kerch Strait, Ukrainian reinforcements instantly fled.

Poroshenko, wallowing in despair, may still ratchet up provocations. But the best he can aim at is NATO attempting to modernize the collapsing Ukrainian navy – an endeavor that would last years, with no guarantee of success.

For the moment, forget all the rhetoric, and any suggestion of a NATO incursion into the Black Sea. Call it the calm before the inevitable future storm.

*

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

Donald Trump is attempting to do something that no previous recent president of the United States has attempted. Trump is trying to abrogate longstanding legal international treaties signed by some of his predecessors with sovereign Native American tribes. The Trump administration is using a requirement that Medicaid recipients work in return for health benefits to deny Native American tribes the right to govern themselves as sovereign entities. The Trump administration is denying an exemption for the work requirement for tribal nations by reclassifying Native Americans as a racial group subject to federal law, not as separate sovereign nations bound by distinct tribal laws.

Trump’s move against tribal sovereignty is part of the overall transformation of the Republican Party into a far-right Trump cult that advances racist policies. Trump has provided impetus to the marginalization of tribal sovereignty by repeatedly calling Massachusetts Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren, who hails from Oklahoma, formerly known as the Indian Territory, by the racist pejorative, “Pocahontas.” The Republicans also engaged in voter suppression of Native American tribal members in North Dakota by requiring new anti-tribal identification cards in order to register to vote. The decision played a part in the defeat of Democratic Senator Heidi Heitkamp in her race for re-election in North Dakota.

Treaties signed between the United States government and sovereign Native tribes are protected in the US Constitution, a document that the Trump administration has relegated to the waste bin. The Constitution’s “supremacy clause” in Article VI states:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any state to the contrary notwithstanding.”

It is the supremacy clause which establishes the US treaties with the tribal nations as sacrosanct and inviolable, even by a fascist-oriented demagogue like Trump. Mr. Trump’s antipathy toward tribal sovereignty stems from his belief that it was the opening of casinos on sovereign tribal reservations throughout the United States that helped drive his casinos in Atlantic City, New Jersey out of business. In fact, Trump’s casinos were plagued by mismanagement at the top – meaning Mr. Trump and his top executives – and close ties to organized crime syndicates in Atlantic City and Philadelphia. These factors were as much responsible for Trump’s casino failures as was the competition from Native American gaming complexes. Nevertheless, Trump railed against Indian gaming, telling radio host Don Imus in 1993,

“I might have more Indian blood than a lot of the so-called Indians that are trying to open up reservations. It’s a joke.”

Two senators condemned Trump’s remarks about Native Americans. One was Senator Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. The other was Senator John McCain, a man who would later clash with President Trump on several issues.

However, Trump had no intention of competing with Indian casinos. He bought off a New Jersey Democratic Senator, Robert Torricelli, who introduced a bill in Congress that would forbid tribes from opening casinos in New Jersey unless they were in Atlantic City. Torricelli’s bill was nicknamed the “Donald Trump Protection Act.”

Mr. Trump has long disparaged Native Americans. In 1993, when plans were afoot to build a Native American casino in Connecticut, Trump told the Imus program,

“I think if you’ve ever been up there [Connecticut], you would truly say that these are not Indians. One of them was telling me his name is Chief Running Water Sitting Bull, and I said, ‘That’s a long name.’ He said, ‘Well, just call me Ricky Sanders.’ So, this is one of the Indians.”

Trump’s use of the pejorative “Pocahontas” in referring to Elizabeth Warren did not start with her. His racism has been on full display for decades.

Map of National Historic trails (Source: Public Domain)

Mr. Trump’s vindictiveness against Native Americans is on full display with his attempt to whittle away tribal sovereignty rights by refusing to grant the Medicaid work exemption. This is only a first step toward his final goal of trashing the tribal treaties, thus opening up sovereign territory to exploitation by oil companies, mining operations, and real estate developers. It is not coincidental that Trump’s favorite president is Andrew Jackson, the man responsible for genocidal war crimes against Native Americans and the forced relocation of tribes to the Indian Territory of Oklahoma during the infamous “Trail of Tears.”

Trump, trying to emulate Jackson, recently grabbed 85 percent of the Bears Ears and 50 percent of Grand Staircase-Escalante National Monuments in Utah, both sacred to Native American peoples. Trump hand over the seized land to uranium mining companies and natural gas fracking firms. Trump’s approval of the Keystone XL pipeline ran counter to protests from Native American tribes in Montana and South Dakota that were impacted by the project. Trump’s ethics-conflicted Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, wants to eliminate trust provisions for Native American lands.

A hallmark of a fascist regime is the elimination of sub-national centers of sovereignty. The Trump administration, while paying lip service to states’ rights, especially when it comes to voter disenfranchisement, institutionalized racism, and gun rights, is less inclined to support the rights of states to legalize marijuana, abortion, and euthanasia. The Trump administration has also sharply curtailed self-government in American territories like Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Northern Marianas. This grab for unitary executive power is also being felt by tribal governments.

Native Americans, many rejecting US citizenship, are being forced to assimilate into Trump’s “America First” nationalist state. Rather than assimilate into the United States, and thus lose what remains of their cultural and linguistic identities, Native Americans have, over the past several decades, attempted to break from dictates from Washington and its proto-colonialist Bureau of Indian Affairs.

Native Americans, refusing to accept American citizenship, have traveled abroad on tribal passports. The Onondaga Nation of the Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Confederation and the Hopi Nation have issued passports that have been recognized by the US State Department, the United Nations, and immigration authorities in Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, France, Italy, Russia, Australia, Libya, and Japan. The Kickapoo Nation, the Cherokee Nation, and the Tohono O’Odham Nation have also implemented passport/international travel card systems. In addition, diplomatic passports used by native Hawaiians representing the Kingdom of Hawaii (and who reject American citizenship) have been recognized by Switzerland, other European countries, and Central American states.

In 2009, the Lakota Sioux Nation declared its independence from Washington and its leader, Russell Means, was received at the embassies of Chile, Venezuela, Bolivia, and South Africa in Washington. The Lakota Sioux also requested diplomatic recognition and announced plans to issue passports.

The Trump administration has run roughshod over the Tohono O’Odham nation, which lies astride the US-Mexican border. Their nation now stands to have a Trump-initiated border wall bisect it, which will prevent the tribe unfettered access within the sovereign reservation. Trump and his cronies are treating the Tohono O’Odham in the same ruthless fashion as Israel’s behavior toward the Palestinians, with the Israeli “Separation Wall” dividing Palestinian villages from one another.

Mr. Trump’s billionaire financial supporters like casino moguls Sheldon Adelson and Steve Wynn, have little time for Indian casinos eating into their profit shares. Florida’s incoming racist governor, Ron DeSantis, a Trump supporter, may make a move against the Seminole Nation’s and other tribal casinos in the state. This showdown will not come without a fight. The Seminoles and allied tribes never signed peace treaties with the United States. The Miccosukee Nation, a Seminole sub-nation, continues to exist on a reservation bordering Everglades National Park in southern Florida. The unofficial capital is the Tamiami Trail Reservation. One thing that makes the Miccosukee Nation stand out from other tribal nations is the rightful absence of the US flag anywhere on the reservation. The Miccosukee flag of horizontal bands of white, black, red, and yellow is ubiquitous and a welcome sight in place of that “other flag” of red, white, and blue, the one that represents to Native Americans, the genocide of native peoples.

Mr. Trump’s days of making jokes about Native Americans and threatening their tribal sovereignty may be coming to an end. That is, if New Mexico’s newly-elected Native American Democratic Representative Deb Haaland has anything to say about it. She is a member of the Pueblo of Laguna tribe and a 35^th-generation New Mexican and has no time for Trump’s racal stereotyping of Native Americans. She will be joined in Congress by newly-elected Democratic Representative Sharice Davids of Kansas, a member of the Ho-Chunk Nation, and a third Native American, Xochitl Torres Small, another newly-elected Democrat from New Mexico. These Native American congresswomen will be in no mood for Mr. Trump’s jokes or slurs.

*

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

Wayne Madsen is an investigative journalist, author and syndicated columnist. A member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) and the National Press Club.

Featured image is from SCF

Despite the post-Kirchner government’s many faults, one thing that it’s doing right is retaining the Argentinian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, which holds the best hope for Beijing to balance Trump’s “Fortress America” plans in the hemisphere.

This week’s G20 Summit has drawn global attention to the host country of Argentina, a South American nation that’s recently experienced a US-backed Hybrid War regime change through electoral means. Washington supported the opposition’s infowar against former President Cristina Kirchner there and ended up successfully reshaping popular perceptions to the point where right-wing neoliberal candidate Mauricio Macri narrowly defeated her chosen successor in the 2015 polls. He then wasted no time in reversing her “Pink Tide” legacy, but the one element of it that he importantly retained was his country’s strategic partnership with China, which is presently Beijing’s best hope for balancing Trump’s “Fortress America” plans in the hemisphere following Bolsonaro’s US-backed rise in neighboring Brazil.

Strategic Context

In a nutshell, the US wants to reclaim its previously undisputed hegemonic position in the Western Hemisphere that was severely challenged during the “Pink Tide” of the mid-2000s, to which end it’s carried out a series of creative regime change operations in the region via military coups, electoral coups, and ‘constitutional coups’ to remove the multipolar gains from that time. This grand strategic campaign has yet to be successfully completed and is presently being pushed back against by the People’s Republic in an unexpected way following El Salvador’s surprising geopolitical pivot towards China a few months ago, which greatly advanced Beijing’s designs in the region and opened up a fresh opportunity to inject multipolarity into this increasingly unipolar space.

Nevertheless, for as strategically positioned as Central America is, it isn’t capable on its own of serving as the springboard that China needs for reversing the US’ recent gains in the hemisphere, but could instead function as a complementary part of a larger holistic strategy there that sees much more economically influential countries taking the lead in this respect. Mexico immediately comes to mind as the prime candidate if AMLO sees the wisdom in “balancing” between the US and China, such as if he seeks Chinese support for building his promised “Tehuantepec Corridor” and joining his Foreign Minister’s suggestion for a joint Mexican-American “Marshall Plan” in Central America aimed at stemming illegal migration from there.

Reuters References

Even in the best-case scenario where both of these far-reaching strategic cooperation proposals succeed (which certainly can’t be assured given the US’ expected resistance to China’s participation in them), this still wouldn’t be enough for offsetting Trump’s plans for “Fortress America” seeing as how Beijing wouldn’t be making a noticeable dent in reversing the US’ latest gains in South America. Therein lays the relevancy of the Argentinian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, however, which is gaining more Mainstream Media attention ahead of the G20 Summit. Reuters published two very informative pieces about this earlier in the week that the reader should review if they’re interested in learning more details about it:

• “China, vying with U.S. in Latin America, eyes Argentina nuclear deal”
• “Factbox: Four ways China is a major economic driver in Argentina”

Basically, Kirchner locked her country into a strategic partnership with China by agreeing to prohibitively costly “cross-cancellation clauses” that made it impossible for Macri to pull out of Argentina’s Silk Road deals with it. In addition, Reuters notes that “China is the main importer of Argentine soybeans, the South American country’s biggest cash crop”, so the country’s influential agricultural lobby also stood to lose if Buenos Aires “recalibrated” its relations with Beijing to such an extent that its counterpart felt compelled to respond by boycotting its purchase of their soybeans. Naturally, Macri had no practical choice but to retain the Argentinian-Chinese Strategic Partnership, which is expanding to this day.

Pro-Chinese Multipolar “Balancing”

Interestingly enough, the Argentine model might be applied to Bolsonaro’s Brazil in the future too as China seeks to convince him to “moderate” the anti-Chinese rhetoric that he spouted on the campaign trail after realizing that his country might stand to lose too much if it worsens relations with Beijing at Washington’s behest. There are certainly differences between Argentina and Brazil’s relations with China, but the two South American countries have historically been rivals and Beijing could potentially seek to play Buenos Aires off against Brasilia in the future by refocusing on the first-mentioned if the second makes it too difficult for its companies to continue doing business there.

Furthermore, Argentina could play an important role in influencing the outcome of Mercosur’s free trade negotiations with other blocs, possibly with Beijing’s blessing. For example, Brazil just signed a free trade agreement with Chile, which outgoing President Temer celebrated as “uniting the Mercosur and Pacific Alliance”. This suggests that the continent’s two main economic camps could come together to form a South American-wide free trade area in the future, one which might jointly advance Mercosur’s free trade talks with the EU and possibly even the US. None of this can happen, however, without Chinese-friendly Argentina greenlighting the process, and Beijing might use Buenos Aires as its “backdoor” into this larger trade network.

Red Dawn Rising

China, after all, is investing considerable human resources into ensuring that its influence in the Western Hemisphere isn’t ephemeral. President Xi was quoted in a Spanish newspaper on Tuesday as proudly proclaiming that “This year, Spanish is officially included in China’s high school curriculum”, proving just how much the People’s Republic values this language that it’s giving hundreds of millions of schoolchildren the opportunity to learn it for boosting their future Silk Road career prospects. Argentina is undoubtedly expected to form the fulcrum of China’s South American strategy in this respect by virtue of the two nations’ strategic partnership, symbolized most significantly by their plans to clinch a nuclear energy deal this weekend.

If China succeeds in reaching such a high-level agreement with Argentina, then it would intimately tie both of their countries together in a deeply trusting long-term relationship that could enable Beijing to positively influence Buenos Aires’ decisions on some key issues, such as the previously discussed free trade negotiations. Furthermore, this deal would position Argentina as China’s main strategic partner in Latin America, thereby seriously complicating Trump’s “Fortress America” plans by extent and possibly even leading to Bolsonaro “moderating” his promised anti-Chinese positions once he takes office at the beginning of next year. In addition, the demonstration effect of this partnership could also influence other countries such as Mexico to follow Argentina’s lead in using China to “balance” the US.

Concluding Thoughts

The “Pink Tide” might have given way to a revival of the unipolar moment in Latin America, but just like its global predecessor, this moment might only be fleeting and already on the decline if China is able to nimbly leverage its strategic partnership with Argentina to offset Trump’s “Fortress America” plans. Should that happen, then the “Pink Tide” might transform into a “Red Dawn”, especially if China coordinates its moves with AMLO’s leftist Mexico and facilitates the North American country’s expansion of influence into comparatively Chinese-friendly Central America by signing on to its so-called “Marshall Plan” for the region. A lot can still happen to sabotage this grand strategy, but as it stands, Trump shouldn’t underestimate China’s challenge to his hemispheric plans.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Since Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) (allegedly) ordered the brutal murder of Jamal Khashoggi on October 2, White House strategy about the incident has been coverup, denial, and changing the subject.

Trump and regime hardliners want nothing interfering with longstanding US dirty business as usual with Saudi Arabia.

On Wednesday, Mike Pompeo and James Mattis will testify in closed door session before Senate Foreign Relations Committee members on Khashoggi’s murder and endless (US, UK, French, Israeli, Saudi, UAE) war in Yemen.

Today’s testimony comes ahead of an upcoming Senate vote up or down on whether to suspend US arms sales to the kingdom – clearly what won’t be congressionally approved longterm, if at all. Nor will Trump regime hardliners accept changes to US/Saudi relations.

CIA chief Gina Haspel heard damning audio evidence of Khashoggi’s murder, provided by Turkish intelligence.

Based on Turkish evidence and its own assessment, Langley concluded with high confidence that MBS bears full responsibility for ordering Khashoggi’s murder.

Yet Trump and regime hardliners remain in coverup and denial mode about an indisputable fact. It’s significant that the CIA refuted the White House and Riyadh in its conclusion about Khashoggi’s murder.

It’s a major development, indicating Langley’s displeasure with MBS rule and Trump’s support for a figure it opposes.

DLT was fully briefed on the agency’s assessment. Haspel above all other regime officials is in a position to provide intelligence information to Congress about what happened.

Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman Bob Corker called for her to appear before committee members with Pompeo and Mattis on Wednesday.

According to an unnamed US official, she was told by the White House not to testify, adding “(t)here is always an intel” official present during briefings like Wednesday’s.

“It is totally unprecedented and should be interpreted as nothing less than the Trump administration trying to silence the intelligence community.”

Haspel’s absence today speaks for itself, despite John Bolton claiming no White House order for her to stay away from the Senate hearing.

According to former CIA official Bruce Riedel,

Haspel “traveled to Turkey, and she is the one who listened to the tapes and is reported to have briefed the president multiple times.”

“This is further evidence that the White House is trying to outdo the Saudis in carrying out the worst cover-up in modern history.”

A March Senate measure, under the 1973 War Powers Resolution, to suspend arms sales to the kingdom for Yemen war high crimes was defeated by majority Senate members.

An upcoming measure, perhaps to be voted on this week, could pass. Congressional approval for suspending arms sales to the kingdom requires at least a veto-proof two-thirds majority.

Even if enacted into law during the lame duck session or by the new Congress next year, it’ll be short-term policy before resuming dirty business as usual with the kingdom.

Trump and regime hardliners remain in coverup and denial mode. Earlier this week, DLT again turned truth on its head, claiming “the CIA did not say affirmatively” that MBS ordered Khashoggi’s murder.

In a CIA-obtained smoking gun phone call tape, MBS is heard saying “silence Jamal Khashoggi as soon as possible.”

An unnamed former State Department official minced no words, saying MBS’ direct responsibility for Khashoggi’s murder is “blindingly obvious” to virtually everyone in the international community.

Trump, regime hardliners, and Saudi MBS loyalists alone dispute what’s indisputably clear.

The 15-member hit team dispatched to Istanbul included Saudis close to the crown prince, including members of his personal security detail.

The order to kill Khashoggi came from the kingdom’s highest authority – its de facto ruler Mohammad bin Salman, no one else.

Endless Trump regime coverup and denial won’t change what’s “blindingly obvious” to everyone paying attention.

*

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

A decision whether to unseal U.S. government charges against Julian Assange was delayed for a week by Judge Leonie Brinkema in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on Tuesday.

In her comments to the court, Judge Brinkema appeared to be siding with the government’s argument that there is no legal precedent for a judge to order the release of a criminal complaint or indictment in a case before an arrest is made.

However, Katie Townsend, a lawyer for the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, which filed an application to “unseal criminal prosecution of Julian Assange,” told the court that the government’s inadvertent revelation of charges against the WikiLeaks publisher should prompt the court to release the complaint.

The government says it mistakenly included a passage referring to Assange in a totally unrelated case. The passage was reported this month in the press and was read in full by Judge Brinkema in court. It says the government considered alternatives to sealing, but that any procedure “short of sealing will not adequately protect the needs of law enforcement at this time because, due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case, no other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.”

The paragraph goes on to say that the “complaint, supporting affidavit, and arrest warrant, as well as this motion and proposed order would need to remain sealed until Assange is arrested in connection with the charges in the criminal complaint and can therefore no longer evade or avoid arrest and extradition in this matter.”

As additional evidence that the government was pursuing WikiLeaks, Townsend also cited the Jan. 2017 intelligence “assessment” that Russia had interfered in the 2016 election in which WikiLeaks is blamed for playing a role; congressional testimony from former FBI Director James Comey that the bureau had an “intense focus” on WikiLeaks; then CIA Director Mike Pompeo’s claim that WikiLeaks was a “hostile, non-state intelligence service;” and the naming of WikiLeaks as “Organization 1” in the government’s indictment of Russian intelligence agents for allegedly interfering in the election.

Government Calls Charges ‘Speculation’

But Assistant U.S. Attorney Gordon Kromberg argued that the government has never said it was investigating Assange, only WikiLeaks and those leaking to it. He said further that it was “speculation” that there are already charges against Assange based on anonymous press sources, even though the mistakenly published paragraph clearly speaks of the “fact that Assange has been charged.”

Kromberg told the court that the government could neither confirm nor deny that the passage relates to Julian Assange, nor could confirm or deny that he has been charged because to do so would admit Assange’s status, which the state contends must remain secret.

Judge Brinkema, who called the case “interesting, to say the least,” agreed that it was an “assumption” and “hypothetical” that the WikiLeaks founder has already been charged. But she asked Kromberg in court what “compelling” rationale there was to keep Assange’s status secret after the government’s inadvertent release.

Kromberg said he could not discuss in public the specifics in this case regarding sealing.

Judge Brinkema then listed the general reasons why indictments and complaints remain sealed before an arrest is made:  to prevent a suspect from fleeing, from destroying or tampering with evidence, from pressuring potential witnesses, from being prepared to harm arresting officers and also to protect against alerting other defendants that might be named in a complaint or indictment.

Assange, however, is purposely not fleeing from the Ecuador Embassy in London as he fears he will be arrested by British authorities and extradited to the United States. It is highly unlikely he is armed and could harm arresting officers, who could enter the sovereign territory of Ecuador only with that government’s permission. Assange could possibly have alleged evidence on a laptop and others could be named in the complaint.

The judge then asked Townsend to name any case in which a judge had ordered the government to release criminal charges before an arrest was made. Kromberg had argued that there were none. Townsend requested a few days to respond.

Judge Brinkema gave both parties a week to make further submissions to the court.

*

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

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, Sunday Times of London and numerous other newspapers. He can be reached at [email protected] and followed on Twitter @unjoe.

Featured image: Federal courthouse in Alexandria, VA where hearing took place. (Source: Consortiumnews)

On November 27, Russia started deploying Bal coastal missile systems near the Kerch Strait, south of which an encounter between a group of 2 Ukrainian Gurza-class artillery boats and a sea-tug and Russian coastal guards had taken place on November 25.

Every launcher in the Bal coastal defense missile system carries 8 Kh-35 anti-ship cruise missiles equipped with 145 kg High Explosive Fragmentation warheads. The KH-35 has a range of 130-260 km (depending on the modification) and is capable of defeating ships with a displacement of up to 5 000 t.

The detained Ukrainian ships are currently stationed in the port of Kerch while local courts are determining measures of restraint for the 24 Ukrainian servicemen, including several intelligence officers. So far, they have been indicted with illegal crossing of the Russian state border.

On November 28, martial law is entering into force in 10 Ukrainian regions, in particular those near the borders of Russia, Belarus and the breakaway republic of Trans-Dniester.

Local sources fear that the Poroshenko regime may use the martial law regime to launch a large-scale crackdown on government critics across the country, first of all directed at opposition politicians, journalists and bloggers. Over the past few years, the current Ukrainian regime has become widely known for its oppressive actions against political and civic opposition as well as for its suppression of non-loyal media outlets.

In an escalation of absurdity, Chief of the General Staff of Ukraine’s Armed Forces Gen. Viktor Muzhenko came up with a new fiction story about the mighty Ukrainian Navy and Russian aggression. According to him, a Russian S-30 fighter jet launched two missiles at the Ukrainian ships during the November 25 incident.

Clearly, the Ukrainian Gurza-class artillery boats and sea-tug evaded these missiles with Matrix-style moves because there is no other explanation as to why none of them was sunk.

*

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

Enquanto a ONU relata, ano a ano, dramático aumento nos assassinatos de civis no Afeganistão, e o Tribunal Penal Internacional (TPI) não avança na investigação de tais crimes pelo governo local, pelos terroristas e forças lideradas pelos EUA, Friba, representante da Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão (RAWA, na sigla em inglês), afirma que os EUA destroem intencionalmente para oprimir, destruir e, assim, poder ampliar o dominio sobre seu país através do “uso desproporcional da força [que] só pode ser chamado de ataque intencional a civis”.

No Iraque, sobram evidências de ataques intencionais de militares estaunidenses sobre civis, em diversos casos divertindo-se excessivamente sobre as vítimas. Inclusive bebês têm sido vitimizados mortalmente pelos bombas humanitárias e inteligentes” dos xerifes do mundo, donos de ímpar duplo discurso (fotos, artigos e videos). Já no Afeganistão, soldados norte-americanos chegaram tiraram fotos de si mesmos divertindo-se e urinando sobre corpos de vitimas (fotos, artigos e videos). “Insegurança, guerra, assassinatos, tortura, violência contra as mulheres, pobreza, máfia, corrupção, desemprego, refugiados ou crise de imigração, drogas, tudo isso se faz presente com a ocupação norte-americana contra nosso povo”, denuncia Friba.

Em ambos os países, ataques contra crianças, inclusive por soldados em terra, acumulam-se impunemente através destes quase vinte anos anos de invasão para “combater o terror” segundo o regime de Washington, que jánão engana nem os mais mal-informados. “Guerra ao Terror” que, apenas em Iraque, Afeganistão e Paquistão sem contar outros invadidos e atacados pelo mesmo motivo pelos EUA, matou mais de 800 vezes (segundo dados mais conservadores) que os ataques do 11 de Setembro em solo norte-americano. “Esta realidade tem cobertura zero em todo o mundo e é doloroso como as pessoas têm uma imagem distorcida da guerra criminosa dos EUA no Afeganistão e em outros países”, reclama, na efervescente Cabul, a ativista afegã pelos direitos humanos.

“A vida dos afegãos não tem valor para os EUA”, inconforma-se Friba, quem não confia na justiça de organizações internacionais em seu país, assim como nenhuma outra membro da RAWA e a maioria de seus compatriotas. “A UNAMA, como a ONU em geral, é uma entidade dominada pelos EUA, pequena ferramenta em suas mãos para atividades imperialistas. O TPI ainda não superou esta impopular imagem”.

Nesta entrevista, a valente ativista afegã também especifica o interminável jogo de Tom & Jerry dos Estados Unidos-Taliban-Estado Islamita (EI) no tabuleiro de xadrez local. “O EI e o Taliban servem a um duplo propósito aos EUA no Afeganistão”, enquanto Friba observa que “hásegmentos do Taliban e do EI comprados e usados por Rússia, Irã e outros países, para seus próprios fins”. A velha Guerra Fria atualizada em território afegão. “Desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os EUA usam esses elementos sanguinários contra o comunismo, os elementos de esquerda e nacionalistas”, observa Friba.

Nas linhas a seguir, direto do Afeganistão a voz do povo afegão, o que a grande mídia de emburrecimento em massa não lhe conta – nem jamais contará.

***

Edu Montesanti: Enquanto a UNAMA [Missão de Assistência das Nações Unidas no Afeganistão] emitiu recentemente relatórios sobre o aumento dramático das mortes de civis no Afeganistão, cenário inalterado ano a ano, o Tribunal Penal Internacional está considerando investigar crimes cometidos no Afeganistão pelo governo local, pelo Taliban e por outras forças acontra o governo, e pelas forças lideradas pelos EUA.

Sua opinião sobre o TPI e a UNAMA, e diga quanto a RAWA está confiante de que os EUA serão levados a um tribunal internacional.

Friba: Por muitos anos, a RAWA esforça-se sobremaneira para processar os senhores da guerra, criminosos fundamentalistas, através do TPI e de outros tribunais, mas, como previa-se não se obteve nenhum resultado. Todos conhecemos a realidade desses organismos, que servem a agenda dos países imperialistas e não representam a justiça.

A UNAMA, como a ONU em geral, é uma entidade dominada pelos EUA, pequena ferramenta em suas mãos para atividades imperialistas. Por décadas, as vítimas das guerras e intervenções dos EUA revelaram essa amarga verdade sem esperanças nem expectativas em relação à ONU que, por um lado, persegue abertamente os rivais dos EUA em todo o mundo, mas por outro ignora os próprios crimes dos EUA.

Representantes afegãos nas Nações Unidas estão também vendedidos à CIA enquanto porta-vozes dos EUA, ampliando seus objetivos na ONU. Isso, sem mencionar a corrupção generalizada que atinge a ONU há anos.

Enquanto o passado vergonhoso da ONU é de um corpo pró-EUA, o TPI ainda não superou esta impopular imagem. As guerras atuais em Afeganistão, Iraque, Líbia e Síria também estão testando os fundamentos do ICC a fim de determinar se ele é um órgão imparcial que irá atrás de todos os criminosos de guerra, ou apenas um órgão pró-EUA que ignora os crimes cometidos pelos EUA, seus aliados e fantoches, como a ONU.

A recente decisão da procuradora-geral do TPI, de investigar os alegados crimes de guerra perpetrados pelas forças militares norte-americanas e pela CIA no Afeganistão, é um passo positivo apesar de muitos não acharem que a investigação trará nenhum resultado.

Edu Montesanti: Recentemente, conversamos sobre uma antiga estratégia imperialista, oprimir e destruir para dominar determinada região enquanto falávamos sobre o assassinato de civis nos EUA que aumenta ano a ano, desde a invasão a seu país em 2001. O TPI relatou que,

“Apesar dessas operações [ataques dos EUA] terem resultarado na baixa incidental da vida civil e em danos a civis, na maioria dos incidentes a informação disponível não fornece base razoável para acreditar que as forças militares não tinham como alvo a população civil como tal nem civis individualmente, que não participavam diretamente das hostilidades como objeto do ataque”.

Acredito firmemente, dados os fatos sobre esses assassinatos e as práticas dos EUA no Afeganistão e em todo o mundo ao longo da história, que pelo menos muitos desses crimes contra inocentes em seu país são intencionais para destruir e dominar o Afeganistão, além de ataques como consequência de ódio, discriminação, efeito de drogas entre militares dos EUA, soldados mentalmente doentes, vingança para a Bandeira Falsa que foi o 11 de Setembro…

Neste sentido, o que você acha dos assassinatos de civis no Afeganistão?

Friba: A vida dos afegãos não tem valor para os EUA. Concordo com todos os pontos acima mencionados: ódio, discriminação racista, desumanização, efeito de drogas, doença mental, vingança e, mais importante, dominar a região. No Iraque especialmente, acredito que eles bombardearam o país e torturaram e mataram pessoas para dominá-lo. O Afeganistão já foi destruído por 20 anos de guerra quando os EUA chegaram.

“Oprimir e destruir para dominar” é uma tática muito eficaz para dominar um país ou uma nação, conforme demonstrado recentemente pelos EUA em Iraque e Líbia. Um país desenvolvido com um governo independente nunca aceitará a dominação estrangeira. Dirigir um país que descende à pobreza e à devastação, com a completa obliteração da base econômica, da infra-estrutura básica e do sistema estatal, oprimirá o povo e destruirá o país ao ponto de quebrar a espinha dorsal da nação, e não resistir à nenhuma opressão.

Essa tática foi efetivamente implementada pelos lacaios jihadistas dos EUA durante as lutas internas entre 1992 e 1996, quando os mestres paquistaneses da Aliança do Norte ordenaram a destruição de todas as infra-estruturas básicas do país imediatamente depois que esses brutos jihadistas assumiram o poder.

Agora, depois de quase 20 anos de guerra, o povo afegão está muito cansado e privado de uma vida minimamente humana para buscar seus maiores desejos ao país, tais como como independência, liberdade, democracia e justiça social.

A maioria dos ataques dos EUA é realizada sem inteligência precisa e respeito às vidas de civis, resultando em massacres sangrentos por meio de ataques aéreos, ataques com drones, ataques noturnos e tiroteios por todo o Afeganistão.

Depois de todos esses anos, os EUA entendem muito bem as táticas de combate do Taliban: lutam ao estilo de guerrilha e imediatamente deixam uma área depois de realizar sua operação, deixando para trás civis inocentes que não têm para onde fugir. Bombardear uma área depois de uma operação taliban como essa, normalmente só tem como alvo civis inocentes. Esse padrão bem-conhecido tem sido ignorado pelos militares dos EUA. Em certos casos, todo um bairro ou pequena cidade foram bombardeados para atacar alguns poucos membros do Taliban, ou mesmo um único comandante taliban.

Esse uso desproporcional da força só pode ser chamado de ataque intencional a civis. Há evidências esmagadoras, na forma de admissão de membros do exército dos EUA e documentos vazados, enquanto The Intercept  relatou que 90% das pessoas mortas em ataques de drones não eram seu alvo, que a maioria dos ataques que causaram a perda de vidas inocentes de maneira intencional ou altamente imprudente

A maioria das tropas estaduidenses e empreiteiros de empresas privadas enviados à Guerra do Afeganistão sofreram lavagem cerebral inflada de ódio contra os afegãos. Eles agem motivados por vingança pelo 11 de Setembro. Isso faz com que civis inocentes afegãos sejam presas fáceis para que eles cumpram o ódio doentio que possuem.

Há numerosos exemplos de ataques intencionais e de assassinatos contra inocentes por parte dessas tropas e empreiteiros no Afeganistão, bem como a outra vítima dos EUA, o Iraque, onde pessoas sãoo mortas, decapitadas e humilhadas por diversão. O infame “Kill Team” [Esquadrão da Morte] e o massacre de Panjwai [2012] são apenas dois incidentes expostos e investigados. Muitos incidentes, especialmente em ataques fracassados ​​e ataques noturnos, não são investigados.

A consistência desses crimes de guerra não é surpreendente, já que os militares dos EUA evitaram investigações e processos de crimes de guerra no Afeganistão, fornecendo relatos falsos dos acontecimentos e protegeram as tropas envolvidas nos crimes. As tropas dos EUA também têm imunidade de processos judiciais no Afeganistão devido ao Acordo de Segurança Bilateral [Bilateral Security Agreement], assinado entre o traidor governo afegão e os EUA em 2014.

As investigações e processos realizados pelo próprio Exército dos EUA não podem ser justos e justos, razão pela qual as tropas norte-americanas culpadas de crimes escaparam da punição ou receberam um tapinha na mão pelos crimes hediondos. Essa imunidade incentiva as tropas e empreiteiros dos EUA a prosseguir com crimes sem se preocupar com as consequências nem ter receio da punição ou da responsabilização. É por isso que casamentos, hospitais e vilarejos densaente povoados continuam sendo atacados, fazendo com que pessoas inocentes morram.

Se falamos amplamente sobre intenção, os EUA nunca pretendem libertar nosso povo, restaurar a paz nem combater os terroristas em sua “Guerra ao Terror”, em primeiro lugar; e o fato de que essa guerra criminosa tem tirado a vida de milhares de mulheres, crianças e homens inocentes, os militares invasores não deveriam escapar de processos e condenações apenas porque os ataques não foram intencionais.

A discussão da “intenção” pode ser a resposta para as pessoas que perderam filhos e familiares, e estão buscando justiça? Com certeza, não. Isso vai contra o próprio conceito de justiça, de responsabilizar exércitos e governos por suas ações, para impedir a reincidência de tais crimes.

O TPI não deve enganar-se a si mesmo nem às pessoas de todo o mundo, fechando os olhos aos crimes de guerra simplesmente em defesa da “intenção”. Se o TPI é inflexível em favor da justiça, deve então tomar alguma medida concreta contra os crimes de guerra como contra o hospital de Kunduz [2015], o massacre de Balabuluk [2009], o massacre de Shindand[2008] e inúmeros outros que nem sequer foram denunciados e investigados.

Edu Montesanti: Diz-se, com fortes evidências, que as empresas norte-americanas têm extraído minerais de terras raras no Afeganistão: certamente, nenhuma nova notícia, Friba Jan…

Friba: Velha notícia, Edu Jan. Quando as tropas inglesas estiveram anos na província de Helmand, as pessoas relataram que aquelas desenterraram urânio e os transportaram secretamente para fora do Afeganistão por via aérea. Temos muitos relatos de tais sujos saques desses países.

Pós-2001, as tropas inglesas estiveram, principalmente, estacionadas naquela província ao sul durante anos. Não havia nem mesmo muita guerra e insegurança nem a presença do Taliban naquela época, portanto algo muito suspeito. Muitas dessas atividades suspeitas foram relatadas em todos os lugares.

Embora esses relatórios sejam úteis para denunciar a guerra dos EUA, utilizando suas próprias fontes contra eles mesmos, não acho que seja um retrato fiel do Afeganistão. Isso faz parecer que os EUA estão realmente lutando contra o terrorismo no Afeganistão, lutando de verdade contra o Taliban, e que essa corrupção é o único obstáculo. Apesar de que parte da corrupção seja verdadeira, e que muitos jovens soldados tenham sofrido uma lavagem cerebral para combater essa guerra, a verdade é que a maior política dos EUA na região não é combater o Taliban nem o EI, mas sim usá-los como ferramentas para seus ganhos. Tais relatos apenas enganam o povo dos EUA e do mundo, acreditando que esta é uma guerra “boa”.

Edu Montesanti: Como você descreve os 17 anos de ocupação do Afeganistão pelos EUA?

Friba: O principal interesse dos EUA no Afeganistão está em seu posicionamento geoestratégico.

As maiores bases militares dos EUA estão localizadas nas partes mais favoráveis ​​geoestrategicamente do Afeganistão, eles podem colocar confortavelmente seus agentes, soldados e empreiteiros em qualquer número que desejar e realizar quaisquer ações, como testes de mísseis como o MOAB, e a pilhagem de recursos naturais.

Sem medo de processo nem responsabilização graças ao seu Estado fantoche, tudo para um propósito: manter seus atuais arqui-rivais – Rússia, China, Irã, e até certo ponto indianos – sob controle, manter sua esfera de influência na região e impedir que esses rivais desenvolvam mais influência na região.

A situação no Afeganistão é diferente das outras guerras atuais porque o Afeganistão está sob ocupação direta dos EUA, nenhum outro país está competindo com ele, e é dominado por todos os lados pelos mercenários fundamentalistas islamitas dos EUA, o governo fantoche afegão, o EI e o Taliban.

Naturalmente, a devastação de nosso país, política, social e economicamente, é resultado direto dessa ocupação e dominação. Nosso povo prova a guerra neocolonial de 17 anos dos EUA e os desastres que causa. Insegurança, guerra, assassinatos, tortura, violência contra as mulheres, pobreza, máfia, corrupção, desemprego, refugiados ou crise de imigração, drogas, tudo isso se faz presente com a ocupação norte-americana contra nosso povo.

Esta realidade tem cobertura zero em todo o mundo e é doloroso como as pessoas têm uma imagem distorcida da guerra criminosa dos EUA no Afeganistão e em outros países.

Edu Montesanti: Se no passado recente a RAWA teve que lutar contra três fortes inimigos, o governo fantoche afegão composto por antigos senhores da guerra, o Taliban e os militares dos EUA, agora o Estado Islamita une-se barbaramente à lista de inimigos locais – ou à lista para participar de um “processo de paz“…?

Especifique qual é o jogo sobre o tabuleiro afegão.
 
Friba: Nesta busca imperialista, nenhuma outra força serviu aos EUA melhor que seus parceiros mais leais e de longo prazo, seus mercenários fundamentalistas islamitas, incluindo os jihadistas no governo, e o Taliban e o EI.

Hoje, o EI e o Taliban servem a um duplo propósito aos EUA no Afeganistão: como procuradores [proxies] para atingir seus rivais, e como desculpa para justificar a Guerra Afegã em curso para os contribuintes e o mundo. Não é segredo que os EUA são criadores e fomentadores desses grupos criminosos, e os utilizam ativamente hoje como seus representantes no Afeganistão e em outros países.

Mas há segmentos do Taliban e do EI compradas e usadas pela Rússia e pelo Irã e outros países para seus próprios propósitos, o que significa que enquanto certos segmentos pró-EUA desses grupos são apoiados e protegidos pelos EUA, os outros são atacados e mortos.

Os EUA também têm ao seu dispor o Exército afegão e as milícias locais, altamente envolvidas em crimes hediondos desde sua criação, à medida em que eliminam os procuradores de seus rivais, o que aumenta a insegurança e a taxa de criminalidade nas áreas em que essas batalhas estão ocorrendo.

Esta guerra por procuração [proxy war] entre tais países é o que compõe as batalhas em curso, e o derramamento de sangue em todo o Afeganistão. É também nisso que a complexa guerra afegã se resume – uma luta de poder entre os EUA e seus rivais regionais.

Todo desenvolvimento, grande ou pequeno, toda mudança de política e estratégia adotada por todos esses atores, deve ser visto sob essa luz. As vítimas desta guerra e a consequente insegurança e derramamento de sangue, são os inocentes do Afeganistão.

Esta relação de amor e ódio entre os EUA e seus mercenários fundamentalistas islamitas, isto é, onde esses elementos os servem, os EUA os nutrem e os sustentam contra seus rivais e inimigos, e onde isso não acontece, os aniquila, existiu por toda a história, algo bem explicado por Robert Dreyfuss em Devil’s Game, e manifesta-se desta forma no Afeganistão hoje.

Os EUA não apenas criaram e apoiaram esses grupos fundamentalistas reacionários no Afeganistão, mas também em diferentes partes do mundo ao longo do século passado. Desde a Segunda Guerra Mundial, os EUA usam esses elementos sanguinários contra o comunismo, os elementos de esquerda e nacionalistas.

Mas os EUA só os utilizam instrumentalmente para atingir seus objetivos em um determinado país ou região, e depois os descartam como papel higiênico. Há alguns anos, os EUA criaram o EI para derrotar Bashar al-Assad, controlar o Iraque e atingir o Hezbollah, o que significa o Irã, na região; agora o EI não é mais útil no Oriente Médio devido à derrota dos EUA na guerra da Síria, por isso os estão bombardeando.

No entanto, o EI serve aos propósitos dos EUA atualmente no Afeganistão, de maneira observamos uma rápida ascensão do EI no Afeganistão; suas atividades, uma vez limitadas à província de Nangarhar, agora se espalham por todas as partes do Afeganistão, e alguns dos mais sangrentos atentados e massacres neste ano e no ano anterior foram realizados pelo EI em diferentes partes do Afeganistão, incluindo Cabul.

Este rápido surgimento do EI não seria possível, sem apoio e proteção dos EUA.

Edu Montesanti: Nós conversamos algumas semanas atrás sobre Wali Karzai, ativo da CIA que traficava drogas no Afeganistão. Wali é figura-chave para se entender o papel da CIA no Afeganistão, e sua morte em julho de 2011 parece ter sido algo para queimar um arquivo vivo contra a CIA, você não acha, Friba?

Friba: Temos informação exata sobre Wali Karzai. Nós sabemos tanto quanto a mídia noticiou.

No entanto, temos várias teorias, nada confirmado, por que ele poderia ter sido morto, e por quem. O mais provável é que foi alvo dos EUA, talvez por muitas razões ocultas mas, principalmente, porque os EUA têm muito cuidado em garantir que nenhum agente acumule poder demais em nenhuma parte do Afeganistão. Isto é especialmente verdade para senhores da guerra corruptos que podem se desviar de servir os EUA em sua busca de dinheiro e poder, inaceitável para os EUA. Observamos esta política dos EUA aqui.

Outra possibilidade é que ele foi simplesmente morto em conflitos internos, típicos da máfia.

De qualquer forma, fato é que ele esteva envolvido no tráfico de drogas, em lavagem de dinheiro, tinha um esquadrão da morte e, mais importante, constava na folha de pagamentos da CIA.

Edu Montesanti: Gulbuddin é outro melhor amigo do Tio Sam neste jogo por trás do domínio regional dos EUA – quem segue vivo e forte em seu país, respaldado pelo governo local e pelos Estados Unidos…
 
Friba: Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, senhor da guerra fundamentalista e beneficiário da mais alta ajuda dos EUA, tem sido alvo de todas as nossas denúncias a você, como exemplo de como os EUA ainda apoiam e dão poder aos terroristas fundamentalistas mais criminosos e traidores no Afeganistão.

Gulbuddin é um arqui-terrorista, e assassino de dezenas de revolucionários, intelectuais e nacionalistas, como discutimos detalhedamente em entrevistas anteriores.

A RAWA historicamente o expôs e condenou, e fomos perseguidos e assediados por seu partido criminoso por muitos anos no Paquistão.
Edu Montesanti: Fale um pouco mais sobre as origens da RAWA, e sobre o trabalho atual do movimento para concluir.
 
Friba: A RAWA iniciou atividades no Paquistão durante as guerras do Afeganistão dos anos 80 e 90, quando a situação era muito difícil para nós realizarmos as atividades.

Nos anos 80, o chamado regime comunista perseguiu intelectuais e ativistas, especialmente revolucionários e esquerdistas, lutando contra eles. Então, a guerra civil e o Taliban chegaram nos anos 90. Mesmo no Paquistão, a RAWA não estava segura pois nossa jovem líder Meena foi martirizada em Quetta, pelo sanguinário Gulbuddin Hekmatyar.

Nossas atividades ainda eram, em grande parte, realizadas no Afeganistão, mas na clandestinidade. RAWA tornou-se, logo, sinônimo de resistência contra a ocupação estrangeira, a ocupação soviética e uma luta feroz e implacável contra as espécies mais perigosas, os fundamentalistas islamitas da coleira de EUA, Paquistão, Arábia Saudita e Irã, que assumiram o poder em 1992.

Demonstrações e cerimônia no Paquistão, e trabalhamos extensivamente entre mulheres afegãs através de projetos sociais em campos de refugiados; nossas publicações foram distribuídas secretamente em todo o Afeganistão, e também tivemos atividades clandestinas para mulheres em todo o Afeganistão tais como cursos de alfabetização, e projetos de geração de renda.

Enquanto a RAWA foi formada para lutar pelos direitos e igualdade das mulheres, simplesmente acreditamos que essa meta é inatingível sem estarmos livres da ocupação e intervenção estrangeira, sem democracia, uma democracia real alcançada pela luta do povo e não pela zombaria que os EUA fazem dela desde 2001, mas com justiça social e secularismo. Este tem sido o lema da RAWA desde que foi formada, em 1977.

A RAWA voltou ao Afeganistão em 2001, após a relativa calma e continua operando em diferentes partes, mas clandestinamente. Nossos inimigos, os fundamentalistas, ainda são poderosos graças ao apoio do Ocidente, e ainda não podemos trabalhar abertamente. Não temos escritório oficial nem número de telefone, operamos sob diferentes nomes e nossos membros usam pseudônimos. A situação não mudou muito para nós e para movimentos semelhantes no Afeganistão.
inatingível sem liberdade, de ocupação / intervenção estrangeira, democracia, uma democracia real alcançada pela luta do povo e não a zombaria que os EUA fizeram dela desde 2001, justiça social e secularismo. Este tem sido o slogan da RAWA desde que foi formado em 1977.

A RAWA voltou para o Afeganistão em 2001, após a relativa calma e continua a operar em diferentes partes, mas no subsolo. Nossos inimigos, os fundamentalistas, ainda são poderosos graças ao apoio do Ocidente, e ainda não podemos trabalhar abertamente. Nós não temos um escritório oficial ou um número de telefone, operamos sob diferentes nomes e nossas membros usam pseudônimos. A situação não mudou muito para nós, nem para movimentos semelhantes no Afeganistão.

Dear Readers,

Our mandate has always been to provide our content free of charge. We want the truth to be spread far and wide and easily accessible to all. Our financial reality is another matter. To put it rather bluntly, without your assistance, Global Research’s future remains uncertain.

We’ve checked the figures and something doesn’t seem to add up. With almost 1 million monthly visits to our website, and just under 50,000 subscribers to our daily newsletter, over the past year we have received just 700 contributions in the form of donations and paying memberships. We are of course deeply grateful to all those who have come to our aid so far. However, if you value our work and have yet to do so, we strongly encourage you to make a contribution as financial support is crucial to the continuation of our activities at this stage. At the moment we do not cover our monthly costs.

We are doing everything in our power to remain on course, and with your help, we truly believe we can weather the storm. Please give what you can by clicking the donate or membership links below:

Our membership plans are:

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.

CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

Global Research Monthly Membership – $9.50/month

Global Research Annual Membership – $48.00/year

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

Global Research Monthly Membership – $5.00/month

(Students / Seniors / Low-Income)

All new members (monthly basis) will receive a FREE copy of this e-book (in PDF format) from Global Research, “Towards a WWIII Scenario: The Dangers of Nuclear War” by Michel Chossudovsky. CLICK TO BECOME A MEMBER!

Sustainer Member – $200.00/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 SUSTAINER!

“Um perigo, os mísseis russos” lança o alarme, o Secretário Geral da NATO, Jens Stoltenberg, numa entrevista ao ‘Corriere della Sera’, editado por Maurizio Caprara, três dias antes do “incidente” do Mar de Azov, que lança gasolina sobre a tensão, já incandescente, com a Rússia. “Não há mísseis novos na Europa. Mas mísseis russos, sim”, antecipa Stoltenberg, silenciando dois factos.

Primeiro: A partir de Março de 2020, o Estados Unidos vão começar a instalar em Itália, na Alemanha, Bélgica e Holanda (onde já estão instaladas bombas nucleares B-61), e provavelmente noutros países europeus, a primeira bomba nuclear com orientação de precisão do seu arsenal, a B61-12, principalmente, para utilizá-la contra a Rússia. A nova bomba está dotada de  capacidade penetrante para explodir no subsolo, de modo a destruir os bunkers do centro de comando, num primeiro ataque. Como reagiriam os Estados Unidos se a Rússia instalasse bombas nucleares no México, perto do seu território? Visto que a Itália e outros países, violando o Tratado de Não-Proliferação, colocam à disposição dos EUA, quer as bases, quer os pilotos e os aviões para o acolhimento de armas nucleares, a Europa estará exposta a um maior risco por estar na primeira linha do confronto crescente com Rússia.

Segundo: Em 2016, foi instalado na Roménia um novo sistema de mísseis dos EUA e está em construção, na Polónia, um sistema análogo. O mesmo sistema de mísseis está instalado em quatro navios de guerra que, colocados pela U.S. Navy na base espanhola de Rota, cruzam o Mar Negro e o Mar Báltico, perto do território russo. Quer as instalações terrestres, quer os navios, estão equipados com lançadores verticais MK 41, da Lockheed Martin, os quais – especifica essa mesma empresa construtora – podem lançar “mísseis para cada tarefa: sejam SM-3 contra mísseis balísticos, sejam Tomahawk de longo alcance, para o ataque a alvos terrestres”. Estes últimos, também podem ser armados com ogivas nucleares. Não podendo verificar quais os mísseis que, realmente, estão nos lançadores próximos do território russo, Moscovo considera que sejam mesmo mísseis de ataque nuclear, violando o Tratado INF,  que proíbe a instalação de mísseis de alcance intermédio e de curto alcance, com base no solo.

Stoltenberg acusa a Rússia de violar Tratado INF, lançando o aviso: “Não podemos aceitar que os tratados sejam violados impunemente”. Em 2014, sem apresentar qualquer prova, a Administração Obama acusou a Rússia de ter experimentado um míssil de cruzeiro (SSC-8) da categoria proibida pelo Tratado, anunciando que “os Estados Unidos estão a considerar a instalação, na Europa, de mísseis terrestres”, ou seja, o abandono do Tratado INF. O plano, apoiado pelos aliados europeus da NATO foi confirmado pela Administração Trump: no ano fiscal de 2018, o Congresso autorizou o financiamento de um programa de pesquisa e desenvolvimento de um míssil de cruzeiro lançado do solo, a partir de uma plataforma com mobilidade em estradas. Mísseis nucleares tipo euromísseis, distribuídos pelos USA, na Europa, na década de Oitenta e eliminados pelo Tratado INF, são capazes de atacar a Rússia, enquanto mísseis nucleares semelhantes, instalados  na Rússia, podem atingir a Europa, mas não os Estados Unidos. O mesmo Stoltenberg, referindo-se aos SSC-8 que a Rússia teria instalado no seu território, declara que eles são “capazes de alcançar a maior parte da Europa, mas não os Estados Unidos”. Assim, os Estados Unidos “defendem” a Europa.

Finalmente, a declaração grotesca de Stoltenberg que, ao atribuir à Rússia a “ideia muito perigosa de conflito nuclear limitado”, adverte: “Todas as armas nucleares são arriscadas, mas aquelas que podem diminuir o limiar para a sua utilização são-no particularmente.” É exactamente o aviso emitido pelos peritos militares e pelos cientistas dos EUA, sobre as bombas B61-12, que estão para ser introduzidas na Europa: “Armas nucleares de menor potência e mais precisas, aumentam a tentação de usá-las, até mesmo  num primeiro ataque, em vez de usá-las como retaliação ».

Por que é que ‘o Corriere’ não os entrevista?

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 27 de Novembro de 2018

Artigo em italiano :

Le bugie nucleari di Stoltenberg

Tradução : Luisa Vasconcellos

VIDEO (PandoraTV) :

«Un pericolo i missili russi»: lancia l’allarme il segretario generale della NATO Jens Stoltenberg in una intervista al Corriere della Sera, a cura di Maurizio Caprara, tre giorni prima dell’«incidente» del Mar d’Azov che getta benzina sulla già incandescente tensione con la Russia. «Non ci sono nuovi missili in Europa. Però missili russi sì», premette Stoltenberg, tacendo due fatti.

Primo: a partire dal marzo 2020 gli Stati uniti cominceranno a schierare in Italia, Germania, Belgio, Olanda (dove già sono schierate le bombe nucleari B-61), e probabilmente in altri paesi europei, la prima bomba nucleare a guida di precisione del loro arsenale, la B61-12, in funzione principalmente anti-Russia.  La nuova bomba è dotata di capacità penetrante per esplodere sottoterra, così da distruggere i bunker dei centri di comando in un first strike. Come reagirebbero gli Stati uniti se la Russia schierasse bombe nucleari in Messico, a ridosso del loro territorio? Poiché l’Italia e gli altri paesi, violando il Trattato di non-proliferazione, mettono a disposizione degli Usa sia basi sia piloti e aerei per lo schieramento di armi nucleari, l’Europa sarà esposta a maggiore rischio quale prima linea del crescente confronto con la Russia.

Secondo: un nuovo sistema missilistico USA è stato installati nel 2016 in Romania, e uno analogo è in corso di realizzazione in Polonia. Lo stesso sistema missilistico è installato su quattro navi da guerra che, dislocate dalla U.S. Navy nella base spagnola di Rota, incrociano nel Mar Nero e Mar Baltico a ridosso del territorio russo. Sia le installazioni terrestri che le navi sono dotate di lanciatori verticali Mk 41 della Lockheed Martin, i quali – specifica la stessa società costruttrice –  possono lanciare «missili per tutte le missioni: sia SM-3 per la difesa contro i missili balistici, sia Tomahawk a lungo raggio per l‘attacco a obiettivi terrestri», Questi ultimi possono essere armati anche di testata nucleare.  Non potendo verificare quali missili vi siano realmente nei lanciatori avvicinati al territorio russo, Mosca dà per scontato che vi siano anche missili da attacco nucleare, in violazione del Trattato Inf che proibisce l’installazione di missili a gittata intermedia e corta con base a terra.

Stoltenberg accusa invece la Russia di violare il Trattato INF, lanciando l’avvertimento «non possiamo accettare che i trattati siano violati impunemente» Nel 2014, l’amministrazione Obama ha accusato la Russia, senza portare alcuna prova, di aver sperimentato un missile da crociera (SSC-8) della categoria proibita dal Trattato, annunciando che «gli Stati uniti stanno considerando lo spiegamento in Europa di missili con base a terra», ossia l’abbandono del Trattato INF. Il piano, sostenuto dagli alleati europei della NATO è stato confermato dalla amministrazione Trump: nell’anno fiscale 2018 il Congresso ha autorizzato il finanziamento di un programma di ricerca e sviluppo di un missile da crociera lanciato da terra da piattaforma mobile su strada. Missili nucleari tipo gli euromissili, schierati dagli USA in Europa negli anni Ottanta ed eliminati dal Trattato INF, sono in grado di colpire la Russia, mentre analoghi missili nucleari schierati in Russia possono colpire l’Europa ma non gli USA. Lo stesso Stoltenberg, riferendosi agli SSC-8 che la Russia avrebbe schierato sul proprio territorio, dichiara che sono  «in grado di raggiungere gran parte dell’Europa, ma non gli Stati Uniti». Così gli Stati Uniti «difendono» l’Europa.

Grottesca infine l’affermazione di Stoltenberg che, attribuendo alla Russia «l’idea molto pericolosa di conflitti nucleari limitati», avverte: «Tutte le armi atomiche sono rischiose, ma quelle che possono abbassare la soglia per il loro uso lo sono particolarmente». È esattamente l’avvertimento lanciato da esperti militari e scienziati statunitensi a proposito delle B61-12 che stanno per essere schierate in Europa: «Armi nucleari di minore potenza e più precise aumentano la tentazione di usarle, perfino di usarle per primi invece che per rappresaglia».

Perché il Corriere non li intervista?

Manlio Dinucci

 il manifesto, 27 novembre 2018

VIDEO (PandoraTV) :

Have you heard the expression ‘climate change’? That lovely expression that suggests a holiday in a place with a more pleasant climate.

Unfortunately, only the rarest individual has the capacity to see through the elite-promulgated delusion that generated this benign expression and its twin notions that 1.5 degrees celsius (above the preindustrial level) is an acceptable upper limit for an increase in global temperature and that the timeframe for extinction-threatening outcomes of this ‘climate change’ is the ‘end of the century’.

If you believe that this 1.5 degree increase is achievable or even viable for sustaining life on Earth and that the ‘end of the century’ is our timeframe then you are the victim of your own fear, which is suppressing your capacity to seek out, analyze and comprehend the evidence that is readily available and to then behave powerfully in response to it. For an explanation, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’.

Therefore, your fear, rather than the climate catastrophe and other critical assaults on Earth’s biosphere, is the real problem.

The most casual perusal of the evidence in relation to what is happening to Earth’s biosphere – as distinct from the propaganda that is endlessly promulgated in the global elite’s corporate media – clearly indicates that the cataclysmic assault on our biosphere in a wide range of synergistic ways is now driving the sixth mass extinction event in Earth’s history and that, as a direct result of our relentless and rampaging destruction of habitat, it will take down humanity with it. Well within 10 years. See ‘Human Extinction by 2026? A Last Ditch Strategy to Fight for Human Survival’.

Now if your fear hasn’t already been triggered so that you ceased reading this article, let me offer the barest outline of the nature and extent of the assault on Earth’s biosphere and why the climate catastrophe is only one part of it which nonetheless needs to be seriously, rather than tokenistically, addressed, as is usually suggested whether by most climate lobby groups or, of course, elite-controlled governments and the IPCC.

But before ranging beyond the climate to highlight other threats to the biosphere, did you know that governments and corporations around the world are currently planning or have under construction 1,380 new coal plants?That’s right. 1,380 new coal plants. In 59 countries. See ‘NGOs Release List of World’s Top Coal Plant Developers’ and ‘2018 Coal Plant Developers List’.

For just a taste of the detail on this rapid coal expansion, try the report ‘Tsunami Warning: Can China’s Central Authorities Stop a Massive Surge in New Coal Plants Caused by Provincial Overpermitting?’ and ‘The World Needs to Quit Coal. Why Is It So Hard?’

So if we are deluding ourselves about coal, what about oil? Can we expect a dramatic reduction in oil use to compensate for the substantial increase in coal use? Well, according to the just-released report of the International Energy Agency (IEA), while there is some projected improvement in fuel economy for cars and a projected increase in the number of electric vehicles, cars only account for about one-quarter of the world’s oil consumption and there is no projected reduction in the oil used to fuel freight trucks, ships and airplanes; for heating; and to make plastics and other petrochemicals. ‘As a result, the agency expects global oil demand to keep rising through 2040.’

To summarize: the IEA report notes that global carbon dioxide emissions rose 1.6% in 2017 and are on track to climb again in 2018 and, on the current trajectory, emissions will keep rising until 2040. See ‘World Energy Outlook 2018’ and ‘Clean Energy Is Surging, but Not Fast Enough to Solve Global Warming’.

So, given that we are led to believe that there is supposed to be some sort of international consensus to limit the global temperature increase to 1.5 (which is far too high in any case) above the preindustrial level, why is this happening? Well, in relation to coal: ‘Powerful companies, backed by powerful governments, often in the form of subsidies, are in a rush to grow their markets before it is too late. Banks still profit from it. Big national electricity grids were designed for it.’ See ‘The World Needs to Quit Coal. Why Is It So Hard?’

And just to illustrate what those of us who are genuinely concerned are up against, if you want to read the latest breathtakingly delusional account of the state of the world’s climate which prodigiously underestimates the nature of the climate catastrophe and utterly fails to consider the synergistic impact of other critical environmental destruction, you can do so in the US government’s just-released report ‘Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States’ which is summarized here: ‘Fourth National Climate Assessment Volume II: Impacts, Risks, and Adaptation in the United States; Report-in-Brief’.

This report is presented in one of the global elite’s primary propaganda outlets as follows: ‘A major scientific report issued by 13 federal agencies on [23 November 2018] presents the starkest warnings to date of the consequences of climate change for the United States, predicting that if significant steps are not taken to rein in global warming, the damage will knock as much as 10 percent off the size of the American economy by century’s end.’ See ‘U.S. Climate Report Warns of Damaged Environment and Shrinking Economy’.

At this point I must confess that despite my substantial knowledge of human psychology and widespread human insanity (and the fear that drives it), certainly afflicting the global elite, sometimes even I am impressed with the level of delusion that elites can propagate and have so many believe. See ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

Image below: Goebbels giving a speech in Lustgarten, Berlin, August 1934. This hand gesture was used while delivering a warning or threat. (Source: CC BY-SA 3.0 de)

Still, as Joseph Goebbels, Nazi Minister of Propaganda and Public Enlightenment under Adolf Hitler once noted:

‘If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.’

What Goebbels didn’t know is that someone must be terrified – as we terrorize our children – so that they can be so victimized by propaganda as adults.

Anyway, apart from our destruction of Earth’s climate by burning coal and oil, not to mention gas, elites use geoengineering to wage war on Earth’s climate, environment and ultimately us. For the latest update on the geoengineering assault on Earth’s biosphere, listen to Dane Wigington’s latest superb ‘Geoengineering Watch Global Alert News, #172’ and read, watch and listen to the vast documentary record available on the Geoengineering Watch website which remind us how climate engineering is annihilating plants, toxifying soils and water, and destroying the ozone layer among many other outcomes. For a video explaining the role of geoengineering in the latest wildfires in California, see ‘Climate Engineering Total Desperation, Engineering Catastrophic Wildfires To Temporarily Cool Earth’.

All of the above is happening despite the existing temperature increase (about one degree) triggering the now-endless succession of deadly wildfires, droughts, cold snaps, floods, heat waves and catastrophic hurricanes (often in parts of the world where the corporate media can ignore them), as well as the out-of-control methane releases into the atmosphere that are occurring. See ‘7,000 underground gas bubbles poised to “explode” in Arctic’ and ‘Release of Arctic Methane “May Be Apocalyptic,” Study Warns’.

Moreover, these methane releases coupled with other ongoing climate impacts such as sea ice melt and permafrost thawing in the Arctic – summarized in ‘Will humans be extinct by 2026?’– which has led to the ‘Arctic’s strongest sea ice break[ing] up for first time on record’ and the dramatic weakening of the Gulf Stream – see ‘Anomalously weak Labrador Sea convection and Atlantic overturning during the past 150 years’, ‘Observed fingerprint of a weakening Atlantic Ocean overturning circulation’ and ‘Gulf Stream current at its weakest in 1,600 years, studies show’– threaten imminent human extinction.

So do you think we are even trying? Or are we tinkering around the edges of this accelerating catastrophe and deluding ourselves that we are doing enough?

But this is far from the end of it. There are other critical threats to Earth’s biosphere that horribly complicate the nature and extent of this catastrophe. What are these threats?

Well, to leave aside a series of threats only marginally less drastic, here are some of the key ones, all of which seriously degrade (or destroy outright) vital components of the interrelated ecosystems (‘the web of life’) that make life on Earth possible.

Rainforests

We are currently destroying the world’s rainforests, mainly by logging them for timber and burning them down to make way for cattle ranches or palm oil plantations. In an extensive academic study, more than 150 joint authors of a report advised that ‘most of the world’s >40,000 tropical tree species now qualify as globally threatened’. See ‘Estimating the global conservation status of more than 15,000 Amazonian tree species’.

Why are more than 40,000 tropical tree species threatened with extinction? Because ‘Upwards of 80,000 acres of rainforest are destroyed across the world each day, taking with them over 130 species of plants, animals and insects.’ See ‘Half of Amazon Tree Species Face Extinction’ and ‘Measuring the Daily Destruction of the World’s Rainforests’. If you missed that, it was 80,000 acres of rainforest destroyed each day.

Oceans

We are destroying the Earth’s oceans by dumping into them everything ranging from excess carbon dioxide and vast amounts of synthetic poisons to plastic and the radioactive contamination from Fukushima. The oceans absorb carbon dioxide as one manifestation of the climate catastrophe and, among other outcomes, this accelerates ocean acidification, adversely impacting coral reefs and the species that depend on these reefs.

In addition, a vast runoff of agricultural poisons, fossil fuels and other wastes is discharged into the ocean, adversely impacting life at all ocean depths – see ‘Staggering level of toxic chemicals found in creatures at the bottom of the sea, scientists say’– and generating ocean ‘dead zones’: regions that have too little oxygen to support marine organisms. See ‘Our Planet Is Exploding With Marine “Dead Zones”’.

Since the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in 2011, and despite the ongoing official coverup, vast quantities of radioactive materials are being ongoingly discharged into the Pacific Ocean, irradiating everything in its path. See ‘Fukushima: A Nuclear War without a War: The Unspoken Crisis of Worldwide Nuclear Radiation’.

Finally, you may not be aware that there are up to 70 ‘still functional’ nuclear weapons as well as nine nuclear reactors lying on the ocean floor as a result of accidents involving nuclear warships and submarines. See ‘Naval Nuclear Accidents: The Secret Story’ and ‘A Nuclear Needle in a Haystack: The Cold War’s Missing Atom Bombs’.

Soil

But not all of our destruction is as visible as our vanishing rainforests and contaminated oceans. Have you considered the Earth’s soil recently? Apart from depleting it, for example, by washing it away (sometimes in dramatic mudslides but usually unobtrusively) because we have logged the rainforest that held it in place, we also dump vast quantities of both inorganic and organic pollutants into it as well. Some of the main toxic substances in waste are inorganic constituents such as heavy metals, including cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, nickel and zinc. Mining and smelting activities and the spreading of metal-laden sewage sludge are the two main culprits responsible for the pollution of soils with heavy metals. See ‘Soil-net’.

Far more common, however, is our destruction of the soil with organic based pollutants associated with industrial chemicals. Thousands of synthetic chemicals reach the soil by direct or indirect means, often in the form of fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides and other poisons that destroy the soil, by reducing the nutrients and killing the microbes, in which we grow our food (which many people actually eat, at great cost to their health). See, for example, ‘Glyphosate effects on soil rhizosphere-associated bacterial communities’.

Using genetically modified organisms, and the chemical poisons on which they rely, exacerbate this problem terribly. But two other outcomes of the use of such poisons are that the depleted soil can no longer sequester carbon and the poisons also kill many of the beneficial insects, such as bees, that play a part in plant pollination and growth.

And, of course, military contamination and destruction of soil is prodigious ranging from the radioactive contamination of vast areas to the extensive and multifaceted chemical contamination that occurs at military bases.

Partly related to military violence but also a product of using nuclear power, humans generate vast amounts of waste from exploitation of the nuclear fuel cycle. This ranges from the pollution generated by mining uranium to the radioactive waste generated by producing nuclear power or firing a nuclear weapon. But it also includes the nuclear waste generated by accidents such as that at Chernobyl and Fukushima.

Again, for just a taste of the monumental nature of this problem, see ‘Emergency Declared at Nuclear Waste Site in Washington State’, ‘Disposing of Nuclear Waste is a Challenge for Humanity’ and ‘Three Years Since the Kitty Litter Disaster at Waste Isolation Pilot Plant’.

Like destroying the rainforests and oceans, destroying the soil is an ongoing investment in future extinctions. And so is our overconsumption and contamination of the Earth’s finite fresh water supply.

Fresh Water

Whether wetland, river, creek, lake or acquifer, Earth’s fresh water is under siege. Given corporate negligence, this includes all of the chemical poisons and heavy metals used in corporate farming and mining operations, as well as, in many cases around the world where rubbish removal is poorly organized, the sewage and all other forms of ‘domestic’ waste discharged from households. Contamination of the world’s creeks, rivers, lakes and wetlands is now so advanced that many are no longer able to fully support marine life. For one summary of the problem, see ‘Pollution in Our Waterways is Harming People and Animals – How Can You Stop This!’

Beyond this, however, Earth’s groundwater supplies (located in many underground aquifers such as the Ogallala Aquifer in the United States) are also being progressively contaminated by gasoline, oil and chemicals from leaking storage tanks; bacteria, viruses and household chemicals from faulty septic systems; hazardous wastes from abandoned and uncontrolled hazardous waste sites (of which there are over 20,000 in the USA alone); leaks from landfill items such as car battery acid, paint and household cleaners; and the pesticides, herbicides and other poisons used on farms and home gardens. See ‘Groundwater contamination’.

Moreover, while notably absent from the list above, these contaminants also include radioactive waste from nuclear tests – see ‘Groundwater drunk by BILLIONS of people may be contaminated by radioactive material spread across the world by nuclear testing in the 1950s’– and the chemical contamination caused by hydraulic fracturing (fracking) in search of shale gas, for which about 750 chemicals and components, some extremely toxic and carcinogenic like lead and benzene, have been used. See ‘Fracking chemicals’.

By the way, if you didn’t know it, our purchase and use of all of those hitech products – cars, computers, mobile phones, televisions… – coupled with our consumption of intensively-farmed animal products, all of which are produced using huge quantities of fresh, clean water, is rapidly depleting and degrading the remaining fresh water on Earth, as well as savagely exploiting the people from whose countries we take the strategic minerals and water necessary for such production. See, for example, ‘500 Years is Long Enough! Human Depravity in the Congo’.

War

In addition to the above (and many other biosphere-destroying activities not mentioned), relying on our ignorance and fearful complicity, elites have a budget of hundreds of billions of dollars annually – see the US budget for war in ‘Costs of Post-9/11 U.S. Wars to 2019: $5.9 Trillion’– to kill huge numbers of our fellow human beings but also to destroy vast areas of Earth’s biosphere through war and other military violence. See, for example, the Toxic Remnants of War Project and the film ‘Scarred Lands & Wounded Lives’.

Unfortunately, too few activists have the awareness and courage to acknowledge the role that war plays in destroying the climate and environment, and include anti-war efforts in their campaigns. Campaigns that will fail dismally, and spectacularly, if the threatened nuclear war should eventuate. See ‘The War to End War 100 Years On: An Evaluation and Reorientation of our Resistance to War’.

Extinction beckons

In summary, our multifaceted, monumental and unrelenting assault on Earth’s biosphere is generating an extinction rate of 200 species (plants, birds, animals, fish, amphibians, insects and reptiles) each daywith another 26,000 species already identified as ‘under threat’ – see ‘Red list research finds 26,000 global species under extinction threat’– with some prominent scholars explaining how even these figures mask a vital component of the rapidly accelerating catastrophe of species extinctions: the demise of local populations of a species. See ‘Biological annihilation via the ongoing sixth mass extinction signaled by vertebrate population losses and declines’.

For further evidence from the vast literature on this subject touching only on impacts in relation to insects and its subsequent impact on birds, see ‘Death and Extinction of the Bees’, ‘Insectageddon: farming is more catastrophic than climate breakdown’ and ‘“Decimated”: Germany’s birds disappear as insect abundance plummets 76%’.

So severe is this assault on the biosphere that recent research warns that the ‘alarming loss of insects will likely take down humanity before global warming hits maximum velocity…. The worldwide loss of insects is simply staggering with some reports of 75% up to 90%, happening much faster than the paleoclimate record rate of the past five major extinction events’. Without insects ‘burrowing, forming new soil, aerating soil, pollinating food crops…’ and providing food for many bird species, the biosphere simply collapses. See ‘Insect Decimation Upstages Global Warming’.

So what can we do?

If you are genuinely powerful, you can stop lobbying governments to tinker with their policies, for example, in the direction of renewable energy (which, alone, cannot solve the multiplicity of ecological crises).

Governments are not the problem. And they simply do as elites direct them in any case. (If you believe that voters decide governments and their policies, and that lobbying them is effective, then your fear is deluding you again.)

The real problem is you and me.We have swallowed one of the ‘big lies’ that Joseph Goebbels talked about: we have believed and acted on the capitalist imperative to endlessly overconsume so that economic growth can rise perpetually in our finite world: a planet that has ecological limits.

But, as I noted above, the big lie only works because our fear makes us believe delusion. Why? Because we were terrorized as children into accepting material goods as substitutes for our capacity to be our unique and powerful Self. See ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’.

The monstrous assault on Earth’s biosphere, that goes far beyond the climate catastrophe, is the outcome of each of us consuming more than we need and then fearfully deluding ourselves that it is necessary (or that the harm it caused was too little to matter or justified by some other consideration). Well, you can delude yourself as much as you like but it is still just that: a fearful delusion.

And the point is simply that you can choose differently and powerfully, if you have the courage. For a start, you can forego all air travel. You can travel without owning your own car. You can eat well without consuming meat or fish (and eating biodynamically/organically grown vegetarian/vegan food instead). In essence: If the demand for planet-destroying products is reduced, corporations will not produce them (and destroy the Earth in doing so).This is how the law of supply and demand works under capitalism.

Beyond these simple but vital measures, you can consider many other powerful options, particularly including (accelerated) participation in the fifteen-year strategy outlined in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ which provides a simple plan for people to systematically reduce their consumption, by at least 80%, involving both energy and resources of every kind – water, household energy, transport fuels, metals, meat, paper and plastic – while dramatically expanding their individual and community self-reliance in 16 areas, so that all environmental concerns are effectively addressed.

The Flame Tree Project was inspired by Mohandas K. Gandhi who identified the environmental crisis decades before it became an issue in the West, and who lived his own life in extraordinary simplicity and self-reliance, symbolized by his daily spinning of khadi. ‘Earth provides enough for every person’s need but not for every person’s greed.’ He also invited us to powerfully follow our conscience, reminding us that ‘Hesitating to act because others do not yet see the way only hinders progress.’

But, critically important though he believed personal action to be, Gandhi was also an extraordinary political strategist and he knew that we needed to do more than transform our own personal lives. We need to provide opportunities that compel others to consider doing the same.

So if your passion is campaigning for change, consider doing it strategically as outlined in Nonviolent Campaign Strategy. For example, see the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel and the list of strategic goals necessary to halt the climate catastrophe and end war. Choose one or a few goals appropriate to your circumstances and conduct a strategically-oriented nonviolent campaign, as explained on the same website, to achieve those goals.

Sound strategy is vital given the insanity driving elite behaviour (such as planning/building 1,380 new coal plants). As mentioned above, see ‘The Global Elite is Insane Revisited’.

If your fear makes it difficult to do things such as those suggested above, consider healing as explained in ‘Putting Feelings First’.

If you want your children to be able to respond powerfully in the face of the biosphere’s progressive collapse, consider making ‘My Promise to Children’.

And if you want to join the worldwide movement to end all violence against humans and the biosphere, you can do so by signing the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

The bottom line is this. You can systematically and rapidly reduce your personal consumption and, one way or another, mobilize others or nonviolently compel them to do the same. Or you can let your fear delude you that the ongoing destruction of Earth’s biosphere is somehow unrelated to your personal choices about consumption and the choices of those around you.

Extinction beckons. The choice is yours.

*

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

On Thursday 22 November 2018 Open Doors opened its doors! It is proving to be all that we hoped for. It is not simply that the grocery store has almost sold out after just a few days but it has been the enthusiasm and happiness of the people coming to the shop which has brought us the greatest pleasure.

The fact that we supply quality foods at the cheapest price is clearly crucial. Refugees, local Greeks and the few tourists still around all remark on our (low) prices. It hardly needs to be said that for those with little money this is very important.

But it is not just a matter of prices. We stock food from across the Middle East and beyond which is not available on Samos. It is simply wonderful to see so many of our customers delighting in the availability of foods which they have not seen since they left their homes. Whole families come into share this experience and take photographs of themselves by the shelves with their favourite foodstuffs.

Image on the right: Mohamed (left) from Gaza with Sofiane. Our first customer!

We spent some time considering what we should stock but we knew that we would need help from the users of the shop. We now have a long list of things we need to order! One small but important consequence has been  the presence of older refugee women who are rarely seen in the town centre but who clearly feel comfortable and safe in the shop and who relish the opportunity of being listened to as they tell us of the items we must try to stock.

As many customers have told us the shop is a small oasis of normality and unlike any other store on the island. They talk of the atmosphere of the shop; its welcome not the least for their children who are never hassled.

And of course the shop is beautiful; light and cheerful; paintings and photographs on the walls, plants and flowers. It speaks to dignity, to respect, to humanity, all issues which are almost absent in the Camp.

These are very early days. None of us have done anything like this before. We are facing some issues which are completely new to us like how do we cope with the winter storms that affect the ferries from Athens which carry our supplies? Will our pricing structure meet our overheads? Can we navigate all the bureaucracy of the Greek system which crushes so many small businesses? The months preparing for the opening have been well spent and we feel strong.

Finally, the shop needs to be seen in the context of Samos where the numbers in the camp have swelled to around 4,000. Where hundreds of refugees have been compelled to buy their flimsy tents and find a place in the olive trees around the camp. In the last 10 days the autumn rains have arrived. Already a shit hole of squalor the camp has considerably worsened as the rains and colder weather take effect. Nothing has been done yet again to prepare the Camp for the winter. Nothing has been done about the ongoing water and sanitation problems. Nothing has been done to control the rats and vermin. Nothing has been done about improving the quality of the food. Against this horror Open Doors is like a flicker of light – a candle in the wind- which we will nourish with all our effort.

*

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

This article was originally published on the author’s blog site: Samos Chronicles.

All images in this article are from Samos Chronicles

Hardly anyone noticed. The Trump administration quietly changed America’s long-held position on Syria’s strategic Golan Heights while attention was focused on the raucous political carnival in Washington. Though barely noticed, the policy change had enormous importance and will lead the United States into a lot of future Mideast misery.

The Golan Heights is a volcanic plateau that abuts Syria, Israel, Jordan and Lebanon. The plateau rises abruptly from the plain of Galilee, providing dominance of the entire region. To the north, Mt Hermon rises to over 9,000 feet (2,814 meters); the plateau slopes down at its southern extremity.

Golan provides the headwaters of the Jordan River and 15-20% of Israel’s water from its snow-capped north. Israeli artillery atop Golan can hit Damascus and its airport. Electronic intelligence systems on Golan look down onto southern Syria, intercepting all communications and detecting troop movements.

The plateau is quite fascinating. I have walked most of the Israeli-held side, observing dug-in tanks, artillery and small forts surrounded by anti-tank ditches. Burned out wrecks of Syrian tanks and armor litter the countryside. I’ve also walked the Syrian side and explored the wrecked Syrian town of Kuneitra that was leveled by the Israelis in 1967.

Israel seized Golan in the 1967 Arab-Israeli War and annexed the plateau in 1981. Almost all of Golan’s Arab population was driven out by the Israelis. The UN and US demanded that Israel return Golan to its rightful owner, Syria. After 1981, Israel moved over 20,000 settlers onto Golan to cement its control of the strategic heights and its water sources.

During the 1973 Arab-Israeli War, Syrian forces came close to pushing Israeli forces off Golan. Both sides suffered heavy casualties. For still unknown reasons, the Syrian armored offensive abruptly halted just as it reached the western edge of the plateau overlooking northern Israel.

My understanding is that Soviet recon satellites saw Israel deploying its nuclear bombs and missiles from their cave shelters. Moscow warned ally Syria that it risked nuclear attack by Israel unless its forces halted their advance so the Syrian offensive stopped on the verge of tactical success. This allowed Israel to concentrate enough reserve armored divisions to successfully counter-attack and drive Syria from the heights.

Since 1973, America’s policy has been to demand Israel relinquish Golan while quietly allowing US tax deductible funds to expand Jewish settlements on the plateau. Israel even reportedly offered to return Golan in exchange for a peace deal with Syria, but the secret terms of the deal were too onerous for Damascus.

The Trump administration abruptly changed US Mideast policy. First, it announced the US Embassy would move from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, meaning that it rejected the idea of a Palestinian state with its capital in the old city of Jerusalem. Now, the White House has quietly accepted permanent Israeli control of Golan, though it violates international law and past US policy.

It’s clear that US Mideast policy is firmly under the control of the neocons aligned to Israel’s expansionist far right parties. In fact, it is impossible to see any difference between the policies of Israel’s hard rightwing leader, Benyamin Netanyahu, and President Donald Trump. They are joined at the hip. A coterie of pro-Israel lawyers and property developers from New York City have completely taken control of Mideast policy.

More important, what the change in US Golan policy means is that Trump & Co are giving a green light to further Israeli territorial expansion. Now that Washington, which decries Russia’s much more justified annexation of Crimea, has approved the illegal annexation of Golan, what could be next? Likely further chunks of southern Syria, an invasion of Lebanon and annexation of its water resources.

Saudi Arabia and its little ally, the United Arab Emirates, have already been given a green light by Washington to carve out strongholds in Yemen and along the strategic Red Sea coast. This is the Mideast ‘peace’ settlement that candidate Trump promised; an increasingly close alliance with the Mideast’s most reactionary states, notably the murderous Saudi regime. This bodes ill for the United States.

*

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

On November 25, the Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) Border Service was forced to open fire on and damage Ukrainian warships, which were carrying out hostile actions and advancing in Russian territorial waters in the Black Sea off Crimea.

After the short close-quarter firefight, two Ukrainian ships were taken towed and one ship escorted by Russian forces to the Russian port of Kerch. The Ukrainian side said that 6 service members had been injured in the incident. The Russian side says that 3 Ukrainian servicemen had been slightly injured. They received medical help and there is no threat to their lives.

The data available from both sides, Ukrainian and Russian, demonstrates that the Ukrainian warships intentionally entered Russian territorial waters and were moving more deeply into them. Such a military action with the to be expected loud political coverage is not possible without a direct order from the Ukrainian top military-political leadership.

From the beginning, the Ukrainian side claimed that it informed the Russian side about the planned displacement of its ships into the Sea of Azov through the Kerch Strait. The Russian side says that there has been no request on this issue.

Even if the Ukrainian side had indeed somehow informed the Russians, it still needed to wait for an answer and permission from the Russian authorities. As the further developments showed, the Ukrainian side had received no answer/permission from the Russian side.

The existence or absence of the Ukrainian request to the Russians is irrelevant. The fact is that the Ukrainian warships violated Russian territorial waters threatening navigation in the area and provoking the Russian side.

For more than 5 hours, the Russian side had been avoiding any action to stop and block warships of the de-facto “unfriendly state” in its territorial waters. Only at about 19:00 local time, the FSB Border Service did employ real measures to put an end to the hostile actions of the warships of the de-facto “unfriendly state” in Russian territorial waters.

Summing up the existing data, it can be concluded that:

• When the Ukrainian warships entered Russian territorial waters, there was an attempt to block the advance of the Ukrainian naval group. One of the ships of the FSB Border Service provoked a maritime collision incident with a Ukrainian ship by putting its own hull on the vector of the Ukrainian warship’s advance.
• Within the next few hours, there was a close escort of the Ukrainian ships by the Russian naval group. Apparently, both the groups were inside or near Russian marginal waters.
• In a couple of hours, there was a firefight incident between the Russian and Ukrainian naval groups.
• The Ukrainian Navy recognizes that the incident happened near the borderline of the Russian 12-nautical miles zone.
• The Ukrainian naval group was completely dominated by the Russian naval group.
• There were casualties among Ukrainian service members.
• Warships of the Ukrainian naval group suffered damages.
• The Ukrainian naval group was blocked and then escorted/towed by the Russian naval group to Kerch.

There is no doubt that the leadership of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, particularly Commander-In-Chief Petro Poroshenko, gave the order to stage an action, which could cause casualties among at least military personnel. The command and servicemen of the Ukrainian Navy made every possible effort to fulfil this order.

The Russian side seemed to try to avoid an armed clash and likely attempted to solve this crisis via military-diplomatic channels for at least several hours. However, it failed to do this.

The existing data allows us to conclude that the current Ukrainian political leadership bears most of the responsibility for the November 25 maritime incident.

As to what developments we should expect in the following days, we can expect that.

The Ukrainian government will employ its propaganda and oppressive power to boost the image of Russia as the aggressive foe of Ukraine. This will lead to the escalation of tensions in the conflict zone in eastern Ukraine as well as tensions in the contact zone between Russian and Ukrainian forces in the Black Sea and the Sea of Azov.

If this fails, this incident could lead to a full discreditation of the current Ukrainian political leadership, particularly President Poroshenko, and his US supervisors.

It is important to note that overnight on November 26 the situation started escalating in eastern Ukraine  where the Ukrainian Armed Forces opened a massive artillery fire on villages and towns controlled by the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) at 21:48 local time.  This could indicate that the Poroshenko regime is intentionally fueling military tensions in the region in order to start a new conflict.

Overnight on November 26, Poroshenko held a meeting with the military cabinet and announced the introduction of martial law. Furthermore, the Ukrainian Armed Forces were brought to “full” combat readiness.

The introduction of martial law allows the delay of the 2019 presidential election in Ukraine, which is currently set to be held on March 31, 2019. According to polls, Poroshenko would be highly likely to lose his presidential post were the election to take place now. The armed conflict and martial law may allow him to change the situation in his favor.

Such a conflict would also allow Ukraine’s “Western partners” to boost their military presence in the country and nearby regions thus further destabilizing the situation.

*

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

The US and China now approach the cliff of a real trade war. Tariffs in the hundreds of billions of dollars have been announced, but not yet implemented except for $50 billion on carefully selected mutual imports designed to have minimal impact on the economies. That is about to change come January 1, 2019. As the date approaches the China-US pending trade war is taking on elements and appearances of a potential new cold war as well; Technology issues–in particular those impacting new generation military technologies–have come to the fore in the US-China trade negotiations (under the cover phrase of ‘intellectual property’). US hardliners in the negotiations (Lighthizer, Navarro, Bolton) are closely allied with the Pentagon, military contractors, and US companies being challenged by China’s rising competence in AI, cybersecurity, and 5G wireless–i.e. the key military technologies of the future.

The upcoming G20 summit in Buenos Aires will include a meeting one on one between Trump and China’s president, Xi. Will they come to an agreement in principal and turn from the pending trade war and another cold war? Or will the meeting result in a general ‘look good’ announcement for the media as they fail to agree, and as the anti-China neocon-Pentagon-military industrial complex in the US prevail and drive the US in 2019 toward a bona fide trade war and Cold War 2.0 between the US and China.

Listen to my last week’s Alternative Visions radio show of November 26, 2018 during which I dedicate the show to discussing the issues. And listen to my upcoming next show where the Buenos Aires G 20 meeting will be the subject.

*

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

Jack Rasmus is author of the forthcoming 2019 book, ‘The Scourge of Neoliberalism: US Policy from Reagan to Trump’, Clarity Press, and the recently published ‘Central Bankers at the End of Their Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Coming Depression’, Clarity 2017. He hosts the Alternative Visions radio show on the Progressive Radio Network. His twitter handle is @drjackrasmus and his website, http://kyklosproductions.com. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Russia has seized three Ukrainian military vessels violating its territory near Russia’s newly completed Crimean Bridge. The incident is a clear provocation carried out by Kiev and possibly engineered by Kiev’s Western sponsors – particularly those in Washington and London.

Ukrainian military vessels are in fact permitted to pass from the Black Sea into the Sea of Azov provided they notify Russian authorities beforehand. The Sea of Azov – according to a joint agreement signed by Kiev and Moscow in 2003 – is considered internal waters of both Ukraine and Russia.

With the completion of the Crimean Bridge connecting Russian Crimea to the rest of Russian territory across the Strait of Kerch, security measures have understandably increased.

According to Russian state media, Ukrainian military vessels have previously observed agreed upon protocol when transiting the Strait of Kerch with military vessels. For the sake of provocation, they chose not to this time.

TASS would explain in its article titled, “All three Ukrainian Navy vessels that violated Russia’s border detained in Black Sea,” that:

The FSB [Russian Federal Security Service] stressed that Ukraine was aware of the procedure for warships’ passage through Russia’s territorial sea and Kerch-Yenikale Canal. “They have already used that procedure for innocent passage,” it said.  

This incident is just the latest amid growing tensions in the Sea of Azov.

Tensions in the Sea of Azov are not New 

Tensions have been brewing since Ukraine’s NATO-backed regime seized power in 2014. Articles across the Western media and NATO-sponsored conferences predating the most recent clash near the Strait of Kerch have obsessed over shredding past treaties signed by both Kiev and Moscow regarding the use of the Sea of Azov – as well as Ukraine’s militarization of the Sea particularly in regards to reasserting some illusion of control over Russian Crimea.

In August of this year, US State Department’s Radio Free Europe Radio Liberty (RFE/RL) in an article titled, “Sea Of Troubles: Azov Emerging As ‘Tinderbox’ In Russia-Ukraine Conflict,” would admit that Ukraine was building up a military presence and not only called the 2003 agreement regarding the joint use of the Sea of Azov “controversial,” but also admitted that there have been calls within Ukraine to “rip it up.”

In October of this year, the “New Europe Center – a US government-funded (pages 32 and 33, .pdf) front that claims to “increase support of Ukraine’s European and Euro-Atlantic prospects among opinion leaders and officials of the EU and the NATO” – held an event titled, “Treaty with Russia on Azov: How Should Ukraine Act?“

The New Europe Center would summarize claiming:

Kyiv should comprehensively explore the issue of denunciation of the Agreement between the Russian Federation and the Ukraine on cooperation in the use of the sea of Azov and the strait of Kerch since 2003, but on the whole this agreement does not correspond to Ukrainian interests.

The consensus among US-funded “experts” was that Kiev should denounce the agreement but had no means to follow through in its desire to pressure Russia out of the the Sea of Azov or change the current status quo in any meaningful way upon denouncing the agreement.

It should be remembered that joint use of the Sea of Azov and all the economic and strategic benefits of doing so were enjoyed by Ukraine fully until the coup in 2014. Through a series of self-inflicted wounds the new regime in Kiev has purposefully driven out Russian business interests, crippled itself as an energy transit point from Russia to the rest of Europe, and has now complicated its own access to the Sea of Azov – all simply to spite Russia for Washington’s sake and to no benefit to either Ukraine or even those ruling from Kiev.

The existence of the Crimean Bridge itself – which is indeed limiting the number and size of cargo vessels able to transit to Ukrainian and Russian ports in the Sea of Azov – would not have been necessary had Kiev not elected to play proxy for Washington, London, and Brussels.

Why is Ukraine Declaring Martial Law Only Now? 

Ukrainian president Petro Poroshenko has used the incident to propose martial law. The Guardian in an article titled, “Ukraine president proposes martial law after Russia seizes ships,” would claim:

Ukrainian MPs were to vote on Monday on President Petro Poroshenko’s proposal following an emergency war cabinet on Sunday night. Poroshenko said the move was intended for defensive purposes and would not imply a declaration of war.

It is perplexing – however – as to why Poroshenko is proposing martial law within Ukraine now, for an incident that happened out at sea, and especially so considering Poroshenko, others in Kiev, and their Western backers consistently claiming over the years that Ukraine is already hosting a supposed Russian invasion in its eastern most oblasts.

Poroshenko during his 2018 UN General Assembly speech would go as far as calling for a UN peacekeeping mission to restore Ukraine’s territorial integrity from what he explicitly called “Russian aggression,” RFE/RL would report.

Thus – either Poroshenko is lying about Russian aggression – otherwise why wouldn’t Ukraine already have long been under martial law – or Poroshenko’s government has staged this provocation in the Strait of Kerch specifically to declare martial law for his and his Western sponsors’ own self-serving political reasons.

To What End? 

For Poroshenko, martial law means delaying elections he stands to lose in if held on schedule.

For Kiev’s Western sponsors, such an escalation theoretically places pressure on Moscow particularly at a time when US interests in Syria have suffered permanent setbacks due to Russia’s intervention there. It also invites further excuses to level sanctions against Russia, and possibly even opens the door to a greater US-UK-European military presence within Ukrainian territory itself.

NATO’s corporate-financier funded think tank – the Atlantic Council – in a post titled, “Russia-Ukraine Feud Heats Up the Sea of Azov: Echoes of Russia’s War with Georgia?” would prescribe a list of responses it hoped to see in reaction to what was essentially a Ukrainian provocation.

Such responses included selling Ukraine military hardware – much to the excitement of the Atlantic Council’s many defense industry sponsors including Raytheon and Lockheed Martin, the dispatching of US warships to the Sea of Azov – which is recognized by both Ukraine and Russia as “internal waters,” not “international waters,” and a proposed “complete asset freeze on at least on major Russian bank,” until Ukraine is allowed to carry on with its militarization of the Sea of Azov.

Such provocations – however – are already a sign of supreme weakness both on Ukraine’s part and that of Ukraine’s Western sponsors including NATO.

There is also the fact that the current regime occupying Kiev was brought to power not through elections, but through a violent coup organized and underwritten by Washington, Wall Street, London, and Brussels.

Attempts to claim Russia’s reaction to the 2014 coup is in breech of Ukraine’s sovereignty or that the repatriation of Crimea to Russia is a violation of Ukraine’s territorial integrity when regime change in Kiev in 2014 itself already eliminated both – has exhausted the credibility the West needs to complete this latest leg of its agenda in Ukraine.

Washington’s international order – predicated on “might makes right” now backfires as Washington finds it is no longer the “mightiest.” However, a reckless, waning hegemon is the most dangerous variety. Ukraine and its Western sponsors lack the diplomatic, economic, and military means to pressure Russia in any sort of measured, incremental manner – leaving only reckless thrusts and thus the possible provocation of a truly catastrophic conflict as an alternative.

For Russia, time is on its side. More than securing its interests and protecting the people of  the Russian Federation and those using the Sea of Azov, including those residing in Russian Crimea – Moscow faces the full-time occupation of parrying Washington’s wild thrusts and preventing aggressive and increasingly deadly geopolitical competition from transforming into catastrophic war.

*

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

Seemingly out of nowhere, Ukraine nearly declared war on Russia over the weekend after a confrontation in the Kerch Strait, which straddles Crimea and the Russian mainland, between Ukrainian naval boats and Russian authorities that resulted in Russia seizing three Ukrainian navy vessels and 24 Ukrainian sailors.

Ukraine has accused Russian ships — with no provocation — of ramming a Ukrainian tugboat and opening fire on Ukrainian gunships, injuring six Ukrainian sailors. Russian authorities have justified those acts by claiming that the ships were illegally in Russian waters at the time, did not follow normal protocols for passing the strait, and made “dangerous maneuvers” in close proximity to Russian vessels. Russia has claimed to have evidence that the incident was a “prepared and orchestrated” provocation on the part of the Ukrainian government and also stated that it would make this evidence public in the near future.

As a result of the incident, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council was announced by the U.S. ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley, which took place early Monday and saw Haley slam Russia for its actions in the Kerch Strait. During the meeting, Haley called Russia’s actions “arrogant” and “outrageous” and said that the event makes the normalization of U.S./Russia ties “impossible.”

In contrast, the European Union called for “restraint” on both sides and urged both Ukraine and Russia to take all steps necessary to “de-escalate” the tense situation. Yet, like the U.S., the EU accused Russia of violating Ukraine’s sovereignty through its recent actions in the Kerch Strait.

In response, Ukraine’s government – which has been supported by the West since it came to power in a 2014 coup – has taken extreme measures and has moved to declare martial law in areas of Ukraine bordering Russia, which will take effect on November 28 and is expected to continue through late January.

The declaration of martial law has been criticized, given that Ukrainian elections are expected to take place this coming March. Current Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko is widely expected to lose that election, given his failed economic policies and burgeoning corruption scandals, leading his critics to suggest that the declaration of martial law is a thinly disguised attempt to maintain his hold on power.

This is likely part of the motivation given that Poroshenko is lagging in the polls and several mainstream analysts have noted that the pretext for martial law – the alleged ramming of a tugboat – does not warrant the implementation of such a drastic policy. Furthermore, the text of the decree declaring martial law states that the people’s right to “elect or be elected” could be suspended under martial law if it is still in effect at the time of elections.

The push for martial law in Ukraine was preceded by calls by Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council to declare war on Russia. That council is headed by Oleksandr Turchynov, who played a significant role in the 2014 coup and is closely linked to disgraced former Ukrainian Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko. He has claimed that Russia is “at war” with Ukraine on several occasions since 2014.

Though Ukraine’s declaration of war on Russia has not yet materialized, it still remains a strong possibility. Indeed, Poroshenko – in his televised address stating his approval of martial law nationwide – said that Ukrainian intelligence services provided him information showing that Russia is preparing a major ground attack targeting Ukraine and that martial law was necessary to ensure security. Poroshenko did not make this intel public or elaborate on it in any way other than waving a small stack of papers he claimed contained written proof of the alleged planned “invasion.”

Ukraine unlikely to be freelancing

This is both important and troubling for several reasons. First, it is widely recognized that Ukraine’s military is poorly equipped to fight a major war against Russia. Ukraine’s government would not declare war over the alleged ramming of a tugboat, particularly if it was widely expected to lose. Thus, if and when Ukraine declares war against Russia, it seems certain that it is counting on other countries to come to its aid and join the fight.

In that event, it is almost certain that the U.S. would aid Ukraine in a future war with Russia, given that the U.S. is largely responsible for putting the current Ukrainian government in power and has poured millions of dollars into funding and training the Ukrainian military and even controversial Neo-Nazi militias that compose part of Ukraine’s National Guard. In addition, Ukrainian politicians have stated in the past that they would expect U.S. military support if Ukraine and Russia ever went to war.

NATO’s involvement in such a war seems likely as well, given that NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg recently warned that “Russia has to understand that its actions have consequences.” Though he did not elaborate specifically on what those consequences would be, his comments come amid NATO’s unprecedented military buildup along Russia’s Western border that followed Crimea’s decision to become part of Russia in 2014.

Furthermore, it has been noted for years that the U.S. and NATO have been preparing for a large-scale war with Russia, a fact supported by the U.S.’ current National Defense Strategy. The U.S./Russia proxy conflicts in both Syria and Ukraine have been cited in the past as likely catalysts for such a war.

U.S. moves its proxy war around

That last point makes the timing of this incident and the ensuing tensions between Ukraine and Russia particularly noteworthy. Indeed, past incidents that have seen tensions surge between Ukraine and Russia over Crimea have been preceded by developments that negatively affected the U.S.’ involvement in its other proxy conflict with Russia in Syria.

For instance, as MintPress reported last August, the Trump administration’s decision to stop arming radical Wahhabist militants in Syria was soon followed by the administration’s decision to provide lethal arms to the Ukrainian government — after it became clear that the U.S.’ likelihood of winning its proxy war in Syria by overthrowing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad had become very slim.

MintPress noted at the time:

With the curtain closing in Syria, Washington needs a new proxy war. Given that containing Russia is the ultimate goal –as it is with China– what better way to step up the pressure than by sending lethal arms to a rabidly anti-Russian, U.S.-backed government in Kiev that is determined to ethnically cleanse Russians? Ukraine, after all, is right on Russia’s border; and the Crimea region, which Poroshenko is determined to return to his control, is now a part of Russia.”

Now, we are seeing a repeat of those same circumstances. In Syria, the U.S. has failed in its efforts to prevent a Syrian military operation against the Idlib province, which is now undeniably ruled by Syria’s al Qaeda branch, currently operating under the name Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS). With HTS having launched a chemical-weapons attack against Syrian civilians in government-controlled Aleppo this past Saturday, any future U.S. call to threaten the Syrian government over military action in Idlib would stand on even shakier ground.

With the Syrian government now preparing to launch a major assault against the terrorist-controlled province, the U.S. is likely desperate for international attention to be focused on another conflict, particularly one it can use to advance its broader geopolitical goal of “containing” Russia.

Conveniently for the U.S., the recent tensions in Ukraine have taken media attention away from the al Qaeda-launched chemical-weapons attack and allowed the U.S. government to avoid commenting on the issue entirely, as Ukrainian concerns have dominated the UN Security Council’s attention. As has been the case in the past, it seems that the U.S.’ botched proxy war in Syria will see Washington seek to revive the proxy war in Ukraine, given that countering Russia is the focus of the U.S. military’s current National Defense Strategy.

*

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

Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann’s Truth in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently lives with her family in southern Chile. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from The Moscow Times

In the fall of 2012, 20-year-old Damian Clairmont of Calgary received a new Canadian passport. He received it despite the fact the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) had been monitoring him and knew he intended to fly to Turkey and then go into Syria to join an armed extremist organization, according to information his mother, Christianne Boudreau, was told by CSIS agents.

In sharp contrast, in the spring of 2016, the Canadian government forced Boudreau to surrender her Canadian passport. Unlike her son, who had been indoctrinated then recruited to join a terrorist group, since her son’s death, Boudreau has worked with other parents internationally to create and promote educational programs to counter extremism.

Dr. Daniel Koehler, director of the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies, described her role:

“Christianne Boudreau was one of the first mothers to speak out publicly against violent radicalization with her own painful personal experience of losing her son Damian. Together with Christianne, I built up a network of affected parents around the world – the Mothers for Life Network, which currently includes about 150 families from 11 countries. It is the only international parental self-help group addressing the needs of those parents. I also trained Christianne to be a family counsellor to help other parents of children undergoing violent radicalization.”

Mothers for Life works with the important goal of countering extremist ideology and violence that has exploded in the West as well as the Middle East. It uses human connections and sharing among families who have experienced radicalization, not just lectures and lofty seminars.

Boudreau has travelled and spoken at many places across Canada and internationally. She says the problem is not Islam or religion. A writer who covered Boudreau’s visit to the Islamic Institute of Toronto in an article titled “Christianne Boudreau’s visit to Toronto left us inspired,” reported: Chris was asked, “Do you blame Islam and Muslims for the death of your son? Everyone held their breath. I couldn’t look her in the eyes. ‘No, I don’t blame Muslims or Islam for what happened to my son. I blame misguidance and bad choices. It is ideology similar to that of gangs and cults. It is the same. They prey on young impressionable adolescents and exploit them.”

Boudreau has also criticized the intelligence service of her native Canada. When CSIS agents first contacted her in January 2013 and told her they had been monitoring Damian for nearly two years, she asked why they had not warned her about his real intentions. Why did they not prevent him from getting a new Canadian passport?

Blamed CSIS for not doing more 

Image on the right is from National Post

After Damian’s death, Boudreau said she thought CSIS had some responsibility for his actions and death. In May 2014, she wrote a letter to CSIS: “We, as a family, have a right to know what has happened, and how our system has failed us.”

She described her efforts to get answers, how a CSIS agent had asked her to stop speaking out and asking questions. Finally, almost six months later, CSIS director Michel Coulombe responded to her inquiries.

Coulombe did not answer her specific questions, yet concluded that “the service acted professionally and within its legislated mandate.”

Regarding the warning of a CSIS agent, Coulombe evaded the issue, saying: “We have found no indication of an attempt to interfere in your relationship with other parties.”

Regarding the disturbing consequences of radical indoctrination and violence, Coulombe said CSIS “is conducting research to better understand this phenomenon in Canada.”

This “research” is small comfort to a woman whose son was misled into joining a violent terrorist group, perhaps killing innocent Syrians and being killed himself.

Despite the CSIS subterfuge and request that she not speak publicly about the matter, Boudreau continued her work reaching out to other families, speaking out against radical extremism and violence.

Canada takes away Boudreau’s passport

Fifteen months later, in February 2016, Citizenship and Immigration Canada acted in a way that definitely restricted and interfered with “her relationship with other parties.” While Boudreau and her other son, Lucas, were visiting family in France, the Canadian government ordered her to surrender her Canadian passport. Boudreau and her son were stuck in France, dependent on the generosity of family, for the next 18 months.

Finally, in November 2017, when Lucas’s father was dying of cancer, the Canadian embassy in France provided temporary emergency documentation so that Boudreau and her son could return home to Calgary.

The official reason Canada took away her passport

Boudreau has tried repeatedly to get her passport back. The official reason it was taken away and cannot be returned is that she provided “false or misleading information” in the passport application for her son Lucas. The “false and misleading” information was that she did not include the name of Lucas’s father on the passport application and did not disclose court orders from 2004-2007 that defined the father’s visiting rights with the child, who was born in 2004.

Lucas’s birth certificate does not include the father’s name because the father wanted no responsibility, according to Boudreau. The applications for Lucas’ previous passports in 2007 and 2010 were filled out the same way without raising any objection by Citizenship and Immigration Canada. In addition, there was a court order and signed agreement between Boudreau and the father in January 2016 that confirmed a summer visit with the father.

‘Very few people have been denied passports’

Ray Boisvert, former head of CSIS counter-terrorism, was previously asked why CSIS did not prevent Damian Clairmont from receiving a passport if CSIS knew about his radicalization and intentions. Boisvert responded that denying a passport to a Canadian citizen was an infringement on freedom of movement and required solid evidence. “There have been very few people who have been denied passports because the threshold is so high. And rightfully so.”

If Boisvert’s assertion is true, then why has CIC acted so harshly against Boudreau? The violation in the passport application caused little or no harm. The complaint by the biological father was resolved in January 2016 by court order and agreement. This was not an issue of parental joint custody because Boudreau had been the sole parental custodian of the child since his birth.

Boudreau’s effectiveness in countering extremism

This decision is not only harming Boudreau and her children. It is also hurting the international campaign against extremism and violent radicalism.

As Koehler, the director of the German Institute on Radicalization and De-Radicalization Studies stated in correspondence, “(Boudreau)’s work depends on her ability to travel, meet with other parents, participate in workshops, educate about the threat of violent radicalization and help affected families around the world. She was a main driving force behind the Mothers for Life Network and her absence from these important activities have caused serious harm to global issue of helping families in need.”

Dr. Amar Amarasingam, senior research fellow at the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society at University of Waterloo, has said in support of Boudreau:

“Since the loss of her son Damian, Christianne Boudreau has been tirelessly working to try to prevent other young men and women from traveling abroad to fight. She traveled around the world to meet with other parents and families, gave talks and conducted workshops. Especially now, with ISIS fighters and families being captured by Kurdish forces and parents in Western countries trying to get in touch with them, (Boudreau)’s activism is much-needed. She is trusted by families the world over and would be an invaluable resource today. I’m not too familiar with the particulars of her case, but her ability to travel is fundamental to her work and I hope it gets sorted out soon.”

In 2016, as Boudreau was having her Canadian passport revoked, the CBC produced a documentary describing her good work. Producer Gail McIntyre and director/writer EileenThalenberg have recently written, “Christianne Boudreau was the focus of our film, A Jihadi in the Family, which was broadcast on CBC – TV in 2016. Over a period of two years, we covered her important work as founder and driving force behind the movement Mothers for Life. This organization was set up to support families and to inform educators, the public and policy-makers about the early signs of radicalization and how to prevent it. Her work in this area was far-reaching – uniting mothers in North America and Europe…. Without her passport, she is unable to continue with her high-profile work. This not only impacts anti-radicalization efforts, it severely affects her ability to support her herself and her son.”

Public Appeal to return Boudreau’s passport

Boudreau, who was born in Toronto, is still being denied a Canadian passport. She deals with the anguish of knowing her son died in a foreign land. She has the pain of not knowing what he might have done with others in the terrorist group. She has difficulty finding a job when employers easily see and identify her as the “jihadi’s mother.” She was punished by being left in a foreign country without a passport for a year and a half. She has been mentally and emotionally abused by Canadian government authorities. Why is this being done and who is benefiting from this?

A petition to “Return Christianne Boudreau’s Canadian Passport!” has been launched and can be seen here.

*

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

Rick Sterling is an independent journalist based in the San Francisco Bay area of California. He grew up in Vancouver and studied at Simon Fraser University. Since retiring as an engineer at UC Berkeley, he has researched and written about international relations, especially the Middle East. He can be contacted at [email protected].

Featured image is from rabble.ca

It was 2013, in Brazil President Dilma Rousseff was launching the program Mais Médicos (More Doctors) to establish Brazilian doctors and those from other nations in poor areas and remote settlements around the country, an initiative that thousands of Cuban professionals would join.

In Venezuela, at that time, right wing Presidential candidate Henrique Capriles regularly threatened Cuba, saying he would not “finance” our political model or “give” us oil, making the “disinterested” offer to Cuban doctors working there to “become citizens of a country where there is democracy.”

If this script appears familiar, that it has been repeated many times, you are right. What President-elect Jair Bolsonaro has just done – dynamiting the More Doctors program guaranteeing access to quality health care to millions of Brazilians – is no different from all other attacks by the regional right on Cuban international collaboration.

Bolsonaro calls the Cuban government “dictatorial,” while he openly defends the military dictatorship that between 1964 and 1985 ruled Brazil, where memories are still fresh of forced disappearances and assassinations, along with repression of any political opposition whatsoever. Seems like a bad omen for Brazil: A new President who does not understand exactly what a dictatorial regime is.

The déjà vu is confirmed when he says,

“I will offer political asylum to thousands of Cuba doctors who do not want to return to their country.”

It is not surprising that encouraging the desertion of Cuban doctors provides the backdrop to this position, in a context in which a highly qualified workforce is one of the country’s major strengths, and Cuban doctors, along with those from other nations trained here, promote a positive image of the nation and provide an example of South-South cooperation.

President Díaz-Canel congratulates the Latin American School of Medicine in its anniversary. Thousands of doctors from around the world have been trained here – including Brazilians, who face obstacles, created by the Medical Association in their country, like revalidation exams which control access to jobs. Photo: Twitter

This type of sabotage has a strong resemblance to the Parole Program for Cuban Medical Professionals, a migratory scheme cooked up by the U.S. government that was in effect until January 17 of last year. At that time, after a year of negotiations encouraged by the beginning of normalization of relations between Havana and Washington, an agreement was signed to guarantee regular, safe, and orderly migration, eliminating the Parole Program and the “wet foot-dry foot” policy. This was one of the last steps taken by President Barack Obama.

For more than a decade, the Parole Program created in 2006 by George W. Bush, encouraged Cuban health personnel working in third countries to abandon their missions and emigrate to the U.S. – a reprehensible practice that affected not only Cuba but the health programs of countries where they were working.

An Old, Well Known Formula

“The intention was clear: to damage Cuban cooperation with other countries; to reduce income in the form of payments for these programs; and to deprive the country of its the doctors and other medical professionals,” states Ernesto Domínguez López, professor at the University of Havana’s Center for Hemispheric Studies and the United States, in his article “Migration, brain drain, and international relations: The case of the United States and Cuba.”

For the researcher, the years during which these policies were implemented made them two of the most important components of U.S. migration policy toward Cuba, but he goes further.

“When we place this case within the much broader framework of the United States’ general immigration policy, we see that attracting educated foreigners to fill gaps in the U.S. workforce has been a traditional policy, reflected in the existence of the H1B visa. Under this regulation, scientists, engineers, and doctors have gone to work for institutions and companies in the U.S. – helping to maintain their privileged position throughout the world. This reality has become key to the U.S. economy and its universities,” states the researcher in the aforementioned article.

Domínguez reports that there are studies showing that the world’s richest countries have effectively implemented policies to absorb qualified immigrants, although research on the subject is still insufficient. “The area that has received the most permanent attention is the brain drain of medical professionals from poor countries. This is a particularly sensitive issue, due to its ethical and practical implications. In fact, the availability and quality of health care have a significant impact on essential health indicators, which are considered by prominent scholars as a fundamental source of inequality between countries.

“In its current state, the brain drain cannot be completely explained without a global analysis, which considers structural inequalities, migration networks, world politics, especially the asymmetries in the distribution of power, and even the hegemony of Western and cultural media. Industries that create images, perceptions and aspirations, thus distorting social interactions of different types,” writes Domínguez.

According to the researcher, arguments supporting this assertion are based on a fundamental idea: the brain drain, as part of a global migration pattern, is possible due to the levels of inequality between and within countries, as shown in multiple studies. These inequalities are not accidental, but structural components of the modern world order, understood as a result of the global hierarchy in distribution of power, wealth, and development,” he emphasizes in the article.Following this logic, any attempt to undermine and weaken one of the country’s most valuable resources – its professionals – is not fortuitous, or an isolated chance event.

Bolsonaro’s attack was also a clear signal of agreement with U.S. foreign policy, , not according to Cuba, but as noted by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for Western Hemisphere Affairs Kimberly Breier, who applauded the position taken by the future Brazilian head of state, which made necessary Cuba’s decision to withdraw its collaborators from the More Doctors program.

In Context

1. The law establishing the More Medical program is clear as to how the licenses of physicians are accredited and the role played by the Pan American Health Organization, the Ministry of Public Health, and Cuban universities of medical sciences in the process. Cuban collaborators took exams before traveling to Brazil and periodic tests during their stay, conducted by Brazil’s Ministry of Health.

2. The offer to revalidate the professional credentials of doctors who stay as individuals are deceptive because the country’s Medical Association opposes this. There are thousands of doctors in Brazil whose licenses have not been revalidated. For every 100 doctors who take the required exam, only eight pass. This is a conscious strategy to keep the private health market controlled, to guarantee enormous incomes – fewer doctors equals more money – hence the opposition from the beginning to the More Doctors program.

3. Cuban doctors provide services in places where Brazilian doctors, and those from other countries, do not want to work. They assume the dangers because of their vocation to save lives. They are in the places of greatest risk, in communities of extreme poverty, in favelas, and violent neighborhoods where even the police do not enter. They are in the 34 indigenous special districts and 700 municipalities that never before had seen a doctor. To date, the people and the government have protected them, but this protection will be withdrawn by the new government.

*

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

Featured image is from PanAm Post

There was a little bit of good news this month for those worried about a tidal wave of McMafia-style financial crime. A new UK government agency tasked with fighting it – the National Economic Crime Centre (NECC) – opened its doors.

I say “little” because financial crime is far more deeply rooted in our financial and political systems than we like to acknowledge.

From the LIBOR-rigging scandal to the offshore secrets of the Panama Papers and ‘dark money’ in the Brexit vote, it is everywhere. In my recent work with anti-corruption group Global Witness, I saw first-hand how ordinary people in some of the world’s poorest countries suffer the consequences of corruption and financial crime. We exposed suspicious mining and oil deals in Central Africa, in which over a billion dollars of desperately-needed public finances were lost offshore. The story is about the West as much as Africa. The deals were routed through a dizzying web of offshore shell companies in the British Virgin Islands, often linked to listed companies in London, Toronto and elsewhere. Even if the NECC is given enough resources and collaborates widely, it has got its work cut out.

One reason all this financial crime is tolerated is that thinkers who shine a light on its systemic nature have been erased from the record. Top of my list of neglected economic superstars is Professor Susan Strange of the London School of Economics, one of the founders of the field of international political economy. In a series of ground-breaking books – States and Markets, The Retreat of the State and Mad Money – Strange showed how epidemic levels of financial crime were a consequence of specific political decisions.

“This financial crime wave beginning in the 1970s and getting bigger in later years is not accidental,” Strange wrote.

It would have hardly been possible to design a system better suited than the global banking system to the needs of drug dealers and other illicit traders.

It would have hardly been possible to design a system, she said, “that was better suited than the global banking system to the needs of drug dealers and other illicit traders who want to conceal from the police the origin of their large illegal profits.”

For Strange, money laundering, tax evasion and public embezzlement were a result of the collapse in the 1970s of the post-war financial order. Here are four ways she showed how politics and the financial crime epidemic were intimately connected.

1) Money is global, regulation is national

There was nothing inevitable about financial globalisation, Strange said. It was born out of a series of political decisions. It means that global money can skip freely across borders beyond the reach of national laws and supervision. For smart operators tax, regulations, and compliance become a choice, not an obligation. Strange argued that international organisations lack the power to control global money, only coordination between the world’s major economies can rein it in.

2) Tax havens are an open invitation to embezzlement

Unless you have somewhere to stash the cash, the looting of public money and state enterprises can only go so far.

Tax havens give “open invitations”, Strange said, to corrupt politicians to steal from their people.

Tax havens give “open invitations”, Strange said, to corrupt politicians to steal from their people.

Banking secrecy in the havens allows money from tax evasion, drug trafficking and public embezzlement to mix together until they become indistinguishable from legitimate business.

3) Extravagant banker bonuses contaminate politics

For Strange the “obscenely large” bonuses paid to those in financial markets leads to a kind of “moral contamination”, she wrote which has “reinforced and accelerated the growth of the links between finance and politics”. Strange recognised that corruption and bribery were a problem in London and New York as well as Asia, Africa and Latin America. “Bribery and corruption in politics are not new at all. It is the scale and extent of it that have risen, along with the domination of finance over the real economy,” she wrote.

4) Money is political power

Globalisation has redefined politics, Strange argued. Political power is not just what happens in governments, but money and markets also have power. As legitimate and illegitimate private operators grow richer, they increase their power to shape the world system. States starved of tax revenues grow weaker and retreat, in a reinforcing spiral. National politics becomes captured by global money markets.

In the twenty years since Susan Strange’s death in 1998, these trends have only bedded down. Bankers’ bonuses have continued to skyrocket and in 2018 reached their pre-crisis peak.

Columbia University professor James S Henry estimates that in 2015 a scarcely imaginable $24 trillion to $36 trillion of the world’s financial wealth was held offshore. Much of that is money from legitimate businesses but contributes to a system where financial crime can prosper.

We cannot hope to get out of the morass of financial crime, and out-of-control financial markets, without understanding how they relate to one another. The genie of globalised money cannot be put back into the bottle, but Strange would argue that we should challenge banking secrecy, and through coordinated action of the world’s large economies close down tax havens.

Finance and crime was only one strand of her work, but it contributed to her unnerving, perhaps prophetic, conclusion that unless we rein in the financial system it could sweep away the entire Western liberal order. One only has to glance at the combination of financial chicanery and violent rhetoric that characterises the Trump presidency to see that her concerns could hardly be more contemporary.

Strange would tell us that we need more than a new government agency to turn back the tide of financial crime. We need nothing less than a new approach to political economy at national and global level.

*

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

The Network GMO Free Regions in Europe, comprised of 64 regional governments, have adopted the Berlin Declaration, that called for a European and global moratorium of Gene Drives and demanded that national governments as well as the EU take on this issue at the upcoming meeting of the 2018 Convention on Biological Diversity.

When presenting the declaration, the network’s President Dr. Beatrix Tappeser, said:

“Let us continue the precautionary approach, and maintain our GMO Free pathway, that has served the European Regions so well over the past decade. There needs to be more public investment in the agriculture people really want.”

The declaration ends:

“Considering the substantial concentration of market and research power in the seed and agrochemical business over the past decades, we see a need to increase the public engagement in maintaining and developing non-GM seed breeding, research and agricultural methods. Germ plasm of all plants and animals should be kept in the public domain and be maintained as one of the most valuable public goods of humankind. Public investment in agricultural research and development should guarantee that the whole range of options needed to address present and future challenges to agriculture, food production and resource management continue to remain at public disposal. We commit to contribute to a renaissance of public research and the development of public goods for future generations”.

The full text may be read here.

*

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

Today, Western Values Project (WVP) submitted a formal comment to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) requesting that they not grant the US Interior Department’s request to delete public records. Interior’s request comes as the department and Secretary Zinke have dragged their feet responding to and in some cases simply failed to provide responses to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. Today is the last day for the public to submit comments to NARA on Interior’s request.

Interior is seeking permission from NARA to permanently destroy a range of records relating to oil and gas leases sales, legal matters, mineral exploration permits, and fish and wildlife surveys, among other issues. WVP’s comment asserts that extensive record keeping is essential to holding Interior accountable by ensuring they are doing the public’s work properly and legally.

“This is pretty rich coming from someone who claimed he would run the most transparent Interior Department in his lifetime. But as Ryan Zinke’s future remains in question, we are not surprised by his attempt to rewrite history,” said Chris Saeger, Executive Director of Western Values Project. “It’s unacceptable that Interior is already turning their efforts to destroying documents when they can’t even respond to the public records requests they have coming in. Despite his claims to the contrary, Zinke is trying yet again to pull wool over the eyes of the American people by keeping the public in the dark while his department wages attacks on public lands and wildlife.”

WVP’s comment points out that since the beginning of the Trump administration, Secretary Zinke’s Interior Department has only fulfilled 10.53 percent of FOIA requests that WVP submitted. 132 FOIA requests that WVP has submitted to Interior are still outstanding, including FOIA requests that are 18 months old, dating all the way to May 2017.

The unfulfilled requests have forced WVP to sue the department, with multiplelawsuits still ongoing.

Earlier this year, Interior accidentally released thousands of pages in response to a FOIA request that were supposed to be redacted: the accidentally-revealed documents showed that as Zinke conducted his national monuments review, his staff “rejected material that would justify keeping protections in place” and instead looked for evidence that supported rolling back public lands protections.

Zinke has also kept the public in the dark by using a secret calendar and releasing incredibly vague calendars to the public.

Read Western Values Project’s full email to NARA here.

*

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

The war in Yemen is heading towards its fourth year, its only tangible result so far being the gradual destruction of the country and its people. 

Ostensibly, it is being fought to restore the rule of Yemen’s deposed president, Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi, who fled to Saudi Arabia in the wake of the 2014 Houthi takeover of Sanaa. The war is also intended to thwart Iran’s alleged plan to spread its control throughout Yemen using the Houthi rebels as proxies.

But the indiscriminate ferocity of the coalition’s onslaught on Yemen cannot be explained by these supposed motives. Why was it necessary to bomb the country back to the stone age and target its civilians, ensuring it will not recover for a century? To answer this question, one must understand Arabian history and Saudi Arabia’s small place in it.

Flourishing civilisations

In ancient times, Yemen was home to several flourishing civilisations. At least six kingdoms developed here from the 12th century BC onwards, based in Ma’in, Qataban, Hadramaut, Ausan, Saba and Himyar. The most prominent was the Sabaean kingdom, which lasted for 11 centuries and was one of the most important in the Near East.

Popular legend identifies it with the Queen of Sheba, and the kingdom of Saba is mentioned in the Quran. Its capital was in Marib, where the Sabaeans built a great dam that was a marvel of ancient engineering. They developed an advanced irrigation system through canal networks and a wealth of farmlands.

By 700 BC, the Sabaeans had spread their rule over most of South Arabia. The splendid civilisation they created was based on the spice trade in frankincense and myrrh, which they expanded through trading networks that reached as far as China, India and the Near East. To facilitate their trade, they built a series of colonies up the Red Sea route to the Near East, and were in control of the Bab al-Mandab exit to the Indian Ocean and the Horn of Africa. Remnants of Sabaean art and architecture have been found as far away as northern Ethiopia.

With the advent of Islam, Yemeni tribes played a major role in the Arab conquests of Egypt, Iraq, Persia and the Levant. By the 13th century, Yemen had a thriving Islamic culture, along with numerous madrassas and centres of Islamic learning. With this came the development of a distinctive architecture based almost entirely on local building materials, unique in the Arab region. Sanaa’s old city, dating from the first Christian century, is a prime example.

Steeped in history

What, in contrast to these legendary Yemeni achievements, did North Arabia, most of which makes up modern Saudi Arabia, have to offer that could remotely compare? Until the arrival of Islam in the seventh century, that part of Arabia was traditionally ruled by tribal chiefs, mostly isolated and obscure, and as such could never have rivalled the kingdoms of Yemen. Even after Islam, the splendours of Islamic civilisation were not created in North Arabia, but outside.

Despite being a modern construction in its current incarnation, Yemen is steeped in history. Today’s Saudi Arabia is a more thoroughly recent creation, only established in the 1930s, and the United Arab Emirates, its fellow coalition war partner, set up even more recently in 1971.

They have little history or secular culture that could hold a candle to the civilisations their bombing war is laying waste to. The Saud family’s Wahhabist-inspired destruction of historical buildings, tombs and monuments in Mecca and Medina set a dangerous precedent for what is happening in Yemen.

The war has led to widespread destitution and disease. The UN estimates that 14 million people, or half of Yemen’s population, are at risk of starvation. According to UNICEF, 1.8 million children are acutely malnutritioned, 400,000 of whom suffer from severe acute malnutrition.

The bombing has killed more than 10,000 people, left 22 million – most of Yemen’s population – in need of international aid, and provoked the largest cholera outbreak ever recorded. Half the country’s medical facilities have been destroyed in a coalition bombing campaign that has targeted civilian infrastructure, and often, civilians themselves.

Irreparable harm

The physical damage to Yemen’s infrastructure – its schools, hospitals and markets – has been severe, but at least they can be rebuilt in a time of peace. The same cannot be said of the irreparable harm done to Yemen’s historic architecture. UNESCO has documented the war’s devastating effects on Sanaa’s Old City, its mosques, bathhouses, and mud-brick houses with their distinctive, arched, gypsum-framed windows.

The same has happened to the Old City of Saada, the ancient Marib dam, the historic city of Baraqish, and Hadhramaut’s irreplaceable ancient tombs. These losses are permanent.

Surveying this disproportionate degree of death and destruction, one must wonder if the real motive for the Yemen war, just like the Saudis’ visceral hostility towards another great civilisation, Iran, is a deep-seated envy of the grandeur of these countries’ place in human history.

If so, bombing Yemen out of existence will not delete its glorious past, nor give Saudi Arabia what it never had.

*

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

Ghada Karmi is a Palestinian doctor, academic and author.

Featured image is from Felton Davis | CC BY 2.0

President Donald Trump’s recent statement on the Jamal Khashoggi killing by Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince might well be considered a metaphor for his foreign policy. Several commentators have suggested that the text appears to be something that Trump wrote himself without any adult supervision, similar to the poorly expressed random arguments presented in his tweeting only longer. That might be the case, but it would not be wise to dismiss the document as merely frivolous or misguided as it does in reality express the kind of thinking that has produced a foreign policy that seems to drift randomly to no real end, a kind of leaderless creative destruction of the United States as a world power.

Lord Palmerston, Prime Minister of Britain in the mid nineteenth century, famously said that

“Nations have no permanent friends or allies, they only have permanent interests.”

The United States currently has neither real friends nor any clearly defined interests. It is, however, infested with parasites that have convinced an at-drift America that their causes are identical to the interests of the United States. Leading the charge to reduce the U.S. to “bitch” status, as Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard has artfully put it, are Israel and Saudi Arabia, but there are many other countries, alliances and advocacy groups that have learned how to subvert and direct the “leader of the free world.”

Trump’s memo on the Saudis begins with the headline “The world is a very dangerous place!” Indeed, it is and behavior by the three occupants of the White House since 2000 is largely to blame. It is difficult to find a part of the world where an actual American interest is being served by Washington’s foreign and global security policies. Indeed, a national security policy that sees competitors and adversaries as enemies in a military sense has made nuclear war, unthinkable since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991, thinkable once again. The fact that no one is the media or in political circles is even talking about that terrible danger suggests that war has again become mainstreamed, tacitly benefiting from bipartisan acceptance of it as a viable foreign policy tool by the media, in the U.S. Congress and also in the White House.

The part of the world where American meddling coupled with ignorance has produced the worst result is inevitably the Middle East. Washington has been led by the nose by Israel and Saudi Arabia, currently working in sync, to have the United States destroy Iran even though the Iranians represent no threat whatsoever to Americans or any serious U.S. interests. The wildly skewed view of what is taking place in that region is reflected in Trump’s memo in the first paragraph, which reads:

“The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia in Yemen, trying to destabilize Iraq’s fragile attempt at democracy, supporting the terror group Hezbollah in Lebanon, propping up dictator Bashar Assad in Syria (who has killed millions of his own citizens), and much more. Likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and other innocent people throughout the Middle East. Iran states openly, and with great force, ‘Death to America!’ and ‘Death to Israel!’ Iran is considered ‘the world’s leading sponsor of terror.’”

Almost all of that is either patently untrue or grossly exaggerated, meaning that Trump’s profoundly ignorant statement is remarkable for the number of lies that it incorporates into 631 words which are wrapped around a central premise that the United States will always do whatever it wants wherever it wants just because it can. The war being waged by the Saudis against Yemen, which reportedly has killed as many as 80,000 children, is not a proxy struggle against Iran as Trump prefers to think. It is naked aggression bordering on genocide that is enabled by the United States under completely false pretenses. Iran did not start the war and plays almost no role in it apart from serving as a Saudi and Emirati excuse to justify the fighting. Other lies include that Bashar al-Assad of Syria has killed millions of his own citizens and that Saudi Arabia is fighting terrorism. Quite the contrary is true as the Saudis have been a major source of Islamic terrorism. And as for Iran being the “world’s leading sponsor of terrorism,” that honor currently belongs to the U.S., Israel and the Saudis.

The core of Trump’s thinking about Khashoggi and the Saudis comes down to Riyadh’s willingness to buy weapons to benefit America’s defense contractors and this one sentence: “The United States intends to remain a steadfast partner of Saudi Arabia to ensure the interests of our country, Israel and all other partners in the region.” Yes, once again it is Israel pulling Trump’s strings, with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu leading the charge to give Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman a pass on the gruesome murder of a legal resident of the United States who, once upon a time, might have actually had the U.S. government on his side.

The reckless calibrations employed to set American policies in other parts of the world are also playing out badly. Russia has been hounded relentlessly since the 2016 election, wasting the opportunity to establish a modus vivendi that Trump appeared to be offering in his campaign. Russian and American soldiers confront each other in Syria, where the U.S. has absolutely no real interests beyond supporting feckless Israel and Saudi Arabia in an unnecessary armed conflict that has already been lost. There is now talk of war coming from both Moscow and Washington while NATO in the middle has turned aggressive in an attempt to justify its existence. The bilateral relationship between the U.S. and Russia is now worse than it was towards the end of the Cold War while the expansion of NATO up to Russia’s doorstep has threatened the Kremlin’s vital interests without advancing any interest of the United States.

Afghanistan has become the longest war in U.S. history with no end in sight and China too has seen what began as a dispute over trade turned into something more vitriolic, a military rivalry over the South China Sea that could explode. And North Korea? A love fest between two leaders that is devoid of content.

One might also add Venezuela to the list, with the U.S. initiating sanctions over the state of the country’s internal politics and even considering, according to some in the media, a military intervention.

All of the White House’s actions have one thing in common and that is that they do not benefit Americans in any way unless one works for a weapons manufacturer, and that is not even taking into consideration the dead soldiers and civilians and the massive debt that has been incurred to intervene all over the world. One might also add that most of America’s interventions are built on deliberate lies by the government and its associated media, intended to increase tension and create a casus belli where none exists.

So what is to be done as it often seems that the best thing Trump has going for him is that he is not Hillary Clinton? First of all, a comprehensive rethink of what the real interests of the United States are in the world arena is past due. America is less safe now than it was in 2001 as it continues to make enemies with its blundering everywhere it goes. There are now four times as many designated terrorists as there were in 2001, active in 70 countries. One would quite plausibly soon arrive at George Washington’s dictum in his Farewell Address, counseling his countrymen to “observe good faith and justice towards all nations; cultivate peace and harmony with all.” And Washington might have somehow foreseen the poisonous relationships with Israel and the Saudis when he warned that “…a passionate attachment of one nation for another produces a variety of evils. Sympathy for the favorite nation, facilitating the illusion of an imaginary common interest in cases where no real common interest exists, and infusing into one the enmities of the other, betrays the former into a participation in the quarrels and wars of the latter without adequate inducement or justification.”

George Washington or any of the other Founders would be appalled to see an America with 800 military bases overseas, allegedly for self-defense. The transfer of wealth from taxpayers to the military industrial complex and related entities like Wall Street has been catastrophic. The United States does not need to protect Israel and Saudi Arabia, two countries that are armed to the teeth and well able to defend themselves. Nor does it have to be in Syria and Afghanistan. And, by the way, Russia is no longer the Soviet Union and NATO should be abolished.

If the United States were to withdraw its military from the Middle East and the rest of Asia tomorrow, it would be to nearly everyone’s benefit. If the armed forces were to be subsequently reduced to a level sufficient to defend the United States it would put money back in the pockets of Americans and end the continuous fearmongering through surfacing of “threats” by career militarists justifying the bloated budgets.

Will that produce the peaceable kingdom? Probably not, but there are signs that some in powerful positions are beginning to see the light. Senator Rand Paul’s courageous decision to place a “hold” on aid to Israel is long overdue as Israel is a liability to the United States and is also legally ineligible for aid due to its undeclared nuclear arsenal and its unwillingness to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The hysterical reactions of American Jews and Israel suggest that any redirection of U.S. Middle East policy will produce a hostile reaction from the Establishment, but even small steps in the right direction could initiate a gradual process of turning the United States into a more normal country in its relationships with the rest of the world rather than a universal predator and bully.

*

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

This article was originally published on The Unz Review.

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

Featured image is from The Unz Review

GR Editor’s note

This carefully researched article by Arkady Savitsky first published on November 24, (one day before the Kerch Strait Incident) outlines with foresight Britain’s so-called  “hydrographic survey” in the Black Sea which is slated to be carried out as of early next year. The stated objective is to:

“to demonstrate Britain’s support for Ukraine and ensure “freedom of navigation”.

In this regard, the Kerch Strait Incident acts as a pretext in support of an ongoing military project. In all likelihood it will be used to  “justify” US-UK-NATO deployments in the Black Sea Basin.

Is the Kerchen Incident part of a broader US-NATO “Responsibility to Protect (R2P) plan to “militarize the Black Sea”? According to Arkady Savitsky:

In September, Great Britain made known it planned to increase the warships’ presence in the Black Sea next year with increasingly frequent port calls to Odessa.

Ukraine’s government is ramping up tensions because President Petro Poroshenko is running for re-election in March 2019 on a national security platform. So he takes a tougher line on Azov. Those who rush to provide him with military assistance become accomplices in his adventurist actions that could have disastrous consequences.

The UK will bear responsibility for goading Kiev into taking a confrontational approach and turning the Azov Sea into a flashpoint that can spark at any minute.

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 27, 2018

***

Ukraine’s Constitutional Court green-lighted a bill on amending the country’s main law by enshrining into it the final goal of obtaining NATO and EU membership. The decision was announced the next day after the UK and Ukraine’s defense ministries made a joint statement, stressing the need to expand military cooperation. The defense chiefs agreed that Operation Orbital, the Army training program started in 2015, was a success to be continued at least till 2020. Instructors from the British Army, most of who have significant experience in participating in combat operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, have trained over 9,500 Ukrainian servicemen. An unspecified number of UK soldiers would be sent to train Ukrainian special forces and marines, in addition to the 100 personnel deployed currently in the country. 

A multi-role hydrographic survey ship will be deployed in the Black Sea next year to demonstrate Britain’s support for Ukraine and ensure “freedom of navigation”. HMS Echo is not a warship but it flies the naval ensign. In September, Great Britain made known it planned to increase the warships’ presence in the Black Sea next year with increasingly frequent port calls to Odessa.

NATO naval presence there is seen as provocative by Russia amid increasing tensions in the Azov Sea. A conflict appears to be imminent and the West has taken the side of Ukraine despite the fact that it was Kiev who has been provoking it. EU High Representative/Vice-President Federica Mogherini believes many vessels flying European Union flags were threatened to make Brussels consider “appropriate targeted measures” to be taken as a signal to Moscow.

The increase in UK military presence goes against the letter and spirit of Minsk accords, which state that the conflict in Ukraine should be managed through diplomatic and political means.

The US military already runs a maritime operations center located within Ukraine’s Ochakov naval facility designed to deliver flexible maritime support throughout the full range of military operations. Hundreds of US and Canadian military instructors are training Ukrainian personnel at the Yavoriv firing range. The US is to transfer two Oliver Hazard Perry-type frigates to Ukraine. The move will actually ensure constant NATO naval presence in the Black Sea going around the restrictions imposed by the Montreux Convention because the vessels will have America sailors onboard carrying out “training missions” and remain under US command, despite official sources saying otherwise. All in all, ten ships of that class are available for export. In September, the US Coast Guard transferred two Island-class cutters, armed with .50-caliber machine guns and 25mm deck guns. The transfers urge Kiev to challenge Moscow militarily.

Nobody in Washington or London asks why an industrialized nation and a large arms exporter, with abundant resources and fertile land should depend on foreign assistance unable to defend itself. Weapons are supplied and training is provided to the country, where corruption is rampant. Even the US State Department’s recent report says it is.  Popular protests are commonplace. The conflict in Donbass is used to distract the people from domestic woes. The frustration with Kiev’s reluctance to introduce much-needed reforms and curtail the political influence of the oligarchs is rapidly growing. The common people of Ukraine need political and economic reforms, not increased foreign military presence on their soil.

The only reason for the West to keep the failed Ukraine afloat is its obsequiousness and readiness to be converted into a springboard to threaten Russia with an aggression. Despite Ukraine’s multiple problems, the country has recently been rewarded with an official status in NATO. The 2018 North Atlantic Alliance’s summit confirmed its support for Ukraine’s full-fledged membership to make a mockery of the so called “NATO standards.”

The UK government is going through hard times. It has just achieved as a draft agreement on post-Brexit relations with the EU. The deal has a little chance to make it through the Commons. Nobody knows exactly how it will end up if the MPs say no. There may be no Brexit at all finally. Chancellor Philip Hammond believes

“If the deal is not approved by parliament, we will have a politically chaotic situation… In that chaos that would ensue, there may be no Brexit.”

Or there may be endless negotiations, reconciliation conferences, delays and postponements. It’ll be a large order for the government to stay. There are supporters of no-confidence vote in parliament. You never know how it’s all going to pan out.

Nothing unites a divided nation better than an [alleged] external threat, such as Russia. The Brexit deadline is March 29 to launch a 21-months transition period with Britain still a member. The events in Ukraine are needed to fuel the fire. Making people think that the UK is lending a helping hand to a poor nation under attack is a way to improve the government’s image and approval ratings. The cabinet members never tell their people that by rendering military assistance to Kiev their country becomes an accomplice to a conflict that has nothing to do with its national security or interests. The UK military aid eggs the Ukrainian government on to seek a military solution.

Russia is not watching idle. If the Minsk accords are washed out, it will have each and every reason to recognize the Lugansk and Donetsk self-proclaimed republics as independent states eligible for military cooperation agreements, including stationing Russian military bases on their soil, if their governments ask for it. No international law would be violated.

Ukraine’s government is ramping up tensions because President Petro Poroshenko is running for re-election in March 2019 on a national security platform. So he takes a tougher line on Azov. Those who rush to provide him with military assistance become accomplices in his adventurist actions that could have disastrous consequences. The UK will bear responsibility for goading Kiev into taking a confrontational approach and turning the Azov Sea into a flashpoint that can spark at any minute.

*

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

Arkady Savitsky is a military analyst based in St Petersburg, Russia.

Featured image is from SCF

Ukraine is a virtual US colony – the way it’s been since the Obama regime’s February 2014 coup, replacing democratic governance with fascist tyranny in Europe’s heartland.

Ukraine shares a near-1,500 mile land and sea border with the Russian Federation, the longest Western frontier with the country.

The regime running things is a hotbed of militarized extremism, waging war on its own people, committing appalling human rights abuses – with full support and encouragement from Washington and key NATO countries.

Stop NATO’s Rick Rozoff earlier explained that Ukraine is “the decisive linchpin in plans by the US and its NATO allies to effect a military cordon sanitaire, severing Russia from Europe” – part of a sinister plot, risking East/West confrontation.

Vladimir Putin earlier said

“(t)he appearance on our borders of a powerful military bloc…will be considered by Russia as a direct threat to our country’s security,” adding:

Russian missiles will target Ukraine if it joins NATO or allows Washington’s (solely for offense) missile defense shield to be installed in the country.

Two important developments are worrisome. US orchestrated and directed Kiev war on Donbass in the country’s southwest since March 2014 intensified.

Ukrainian forces began heavily shelling residential areas of the People’s Republic of Donetsk (DPR) in Donbass, the heaviest aggression in over a year.

It came after Kiev installed S-300 air defense systems along the Donbass border, at the same time as a likely US orchestrated CW false flag occurred in Aleppo, Syria, and a provocation by Ukrainian naval vessels in Russian Black Sea waters.

According to Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB), three Ukrainian vessels violated Russia’s state border (on Sunday)…another attempt of committing illegal activities in Russia’s territorial sea at 19:00 Moscow time on November 25,” adding:

“They did not respond to legitimate demands by the ships and boats of Russia’s FSB Border Guard Service escorting them to stop immediately and performed dangerous maneuvers.”

“(W)eapons were used to force the Ukrainian warships to stop.” The ships and their crew members were seized and detained. “Three wounded military servicemen of the Ukrainian armed forces received medical assistance.”

The Kremlin initiated a criminal investigation into the incident. Kiev understands proper navigation procedures for passing through Russian territorial waters, including the Kerch-Yenikale Canal.

The US installed Poroshenko regime followed innocent passage procedure before, not on Sunday, committing an unacceptable provocation.

Two more Ukrainian warships headed toward the same area, turning back before improperly and illegally entering Russian waters.

According to the FSB, “before making such dangerous and irresponsible decisions, the Kiev leadership should have thought about possible consequences of its actions.”

Russia has what it calls “irrefutable evidence” of the staged provocation – to be revealed soon.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Grigory Karasin slammed Kiev, calling the incident “premeditated.” Its aim was likely all about imposing martial law for 60 days ahead of March 2019 presidential elections, along with a pretext for imposing more illegal US sanctions on Russia.

“Obviously, it is easier for Poroshenko to carry out his election campaign amid this background,” Karasin explained, adding:

“Unfortunately, our worst fears have proved true. Kiev and the West have chosen the Sea of Azov as a region where Ukrainian provocative actions can promptly give results that are required in order to trigger an international scandal.”

Moscow called for an emergency Security Council meeting on Monday to discuss what it called “maintenance of international peace and security” – despite US/UK/French veto power preventing condemnation of what happened.

Russia no doubt will be blamed for the provocation committed against the country, a familiar pattern repeated many times before.

Kiev’s action violated Articles 19 and 21 of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea by entering Russian territorial waters without permission, along with failure to respond as required to legal Russian demands and conducting dangerous maneuvers.

Under a 2003 treaty, Russia and Ukraine have freedom of navigation rights in the Kerch Strait – providing defined rules are followed through the narrow waterway.

Requesting and receiving permission to sail through the Strait is required. Kiev acted extrajudicially, according to Moscow.

The Kerch Strait separates the Crimean Republic from the Russian mainland. Russian Federal Security Service forces are responsible for maintaining order along the country’s land and maritime borders.

Its officers repeatedly asked the Ukrainian vessels to leave Russian territorial waters, ignored by their commanders. The maritime area in question was temporarily closed to navigation for security reasons.

Video released by Moscow showed Ukrainian vessels maneuvering provocatively close to Russian ones.

An FSB statement said Russian warships opened fire after Ukrainian vessels repeatedly ignored “legal demands to stop” and leave the area.

They continued “performing dangerous maneuvers” – an illegal breach of required protocol. Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova slammed what happened saying:

Kiev “first stages a provocation, then plays power games, and  accuses” Russia for its own unacceptable provocation.

The incident begs the question. Did Trump regime hardliners, together with Pentagon commanders, orchestrate what happened? Was the incident staged as prelude for more tough US actions on Russia?

US forces are in Ukraine, training and directing its military, including its war of aggression on Donbass.

US media reacted to the Sunday incident as expected. The NYT said Ukraine’s navy “left little ambiguity in asserting that its ships had been attacked.”

The self-styled newspaper of record repeated the Big Lie about Russia annexing “the Crimean Peninsula in 2014,” its waterways where the Sunday incident occurred.

The neocon/CIA-connected Washington Post accused Russia of “opening fire on…Ukrainian…vessels…prevent(ing) (them) from entering the (Kerch) strait…injuring six sailors, before seizing two of the ships…”

The Wall Street Journal headlined “Russia Fires on Ukrainian Military Vessel Near Crimea…detain(ing) three Ukrainian naval ships…injuring three crew members.”

The White House has yet to react to the incident. Putin and Trump are expected to meet on the sidelines of this week’s Nov. 30-Dec.1 G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina – the incident surely to be discussed.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Turkey involved itself in Syria without having properly thought-through all eventualities, and one of these eventualities was Russian military intervention, in support of the Syrian people, which, as we know, materialised in September 2015.

As a result of Moscow having deployed its military forces to Syria, to assist with the liberation of the country from Wahhabist terrorists, this inevitably meant that Russia and Turkey were going to come into conflict with each other because the Turks have played a crucial role in supporting the terrorist groups operating on Syrian soil, including giving support to ISIS and Al-Qaeda.

And it was Turkey who threw the first punch in that face-off between Moscow and Ankara when, in November 2015, it shot down a Russian SU-24 aircraft, close to the Syrian-Turkish border, which was returning to base following a bombing mission against terrorists. However, Turkey punched above its weight and would soon pay dearly for this.

Firstly, Russia imposed biting sanctions on the Turkish economy. But, even more alarming for Ankara, was the Kremlin’s threat, in its private communication with the Turkish Government, to play its Kurdish card against the Turkish state. Turkey’s Achilles heel is the Kurds – those in Turkey, Syria and Iraq – and Moscow has historically maintained close ties with various Kurdish groups, especially the Marxist-Leninist Kurdistan Workers’ Party, or PKK.

For good measure, at the end of 2015, the Russians began supplying the PKK with even more weapons and, crucially, intelligence on the movements of Turkish army and gendarmerie convoys in south-eastern Turkey.

As a result of a spike in casualties amongst Turkish forces at the hands of the PKK from the end of 2015 to early 2016, on account of Russian actions, Ankara realised that it was at the mercy of Russia and the Kremlin was prepared to go all the way in igniting a war that would pit Turkey against the PKK, the Syrian Kurds and the Iraqi Kurds and which could result in Ankara losing swathes of its territory.

And there was no way for Turkey to strike back at Russia because the card which the Turks had played against the Russians during the 1990s, the Chechen one, was no longer an option, given that the Kremlin has long pacified not just Chechnya but Dagestan and Ingushetia, too.

So that is why Recep Tayyip Erdogan travelled to St Petersburg, in early 2016, and profusely apologised to Vladimir Putin for the shooting down of the Russian military aircraft months before. And ever since then, Russia has used the threat of playing its Kurdish card to force Turkey to scale down its support to the terrorists in Syria, limit its neo-Ottoman ambitions in the region and support Russian peace initiatives aimed at gradually ending the conflict in Syria.

Now, of course, Turkey still harbours ambitions for the north of Syria – namely, partition – and is still supporting the terrorists in Idlib but this is incomparable to Turkish goals and actions in Syria from 2012 to 2015. That is something for the Syrian people to rejoice over. So yes – the Turks still illegally maintain their forces in northern Syria but the Turkish position in the region is gradually weakening on account of Russia’s leverage over Turkey, which Ankara is unable to resist because of the Kremlin’s threat to play its Kurdish card, which would be catastrophic for the Turkish state, should the Russians play it.

*

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

Dr Marcus Papadopoulos is an expert on Russia and a commentator on Syria.

Featured image is from Oriental Review

Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno earlier said Julian Assange must eventually leave the country’s London embassy – at the time indicating it would be through dialogue.

According to an Inter-American Court of Human Rights ruling, asylum granted to anyone is irrevocable under international law. Nations are obliged to uphold asylum rights, including the right of safe passage to the country granting it.

Rule of law principles never stand in the way of US actions and aims.

Assange’s asylum is gravely threatened, ongoing since August 2012. Extradition to America is virtually certain if it’s illegally revoked.

A sealed indictment awaits him, revealed in mid-November. Obama declared him an enemy of the state. So did Trump regime hardliners – wanting him prosecuted for the crime of truth-telling, investigative journalism the way it’s supposed to be.

Whistleblowing, other forms of dissent, and truth-telling on vital issues are the highest forms of patriotism. Washington criminalized speech, media, and academic freedom when exposing major wrongdoing it wants suppressed.

Chelsea Manning, Assange and others like them deserve universal praise and support, including from world community leaders, international courts, and ordinary people everywhere.

Illegally revoking Assange’s asylum ahead of arresting and extraditing him to America could happen any time.

Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and former AG Jeff Sessions’ claims about Assange greatly harming US national security were fabricated.

So was falsely calling him “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” Pompeo’s earlier remark, adding:

“(W)e can no longer allow Assange and his colleagues the latitude to use free speech values against us” – a flagrant constitutional violation against anyone if enforced.

WikiLeaks publishes material believed to be true, supplied by reliable sources, unidentified for their protection. It’s not an intelligence operation. Nor it it connected to Russia or any other country.

All of the above is widely known – yet ignored by US hardliners and major media, failing to defend Assange’s fundamental rights under international and US constitutional law.

The latest on his status is further cause for concern. Moreno sacked his UK envoy Carlos Abad without explanation. Nor is it known who’s replacing him – WikiLeaks tweeting:

“Ecuador’s president has signed a decree terminating the ambassador to the United Kingdom, Carlos Abad. All diplomats known to Assange have now been terminated…transferred away from the embassy.”

Abad was involved in talks with Theresa May officials on resolving Assange’s situation, achieving nothing. One of his attorneys, Carlos Poveda, believes Ecuador and Britain may have agreed on a deal to extradite him to America.

Things seem inexorably heading in this direction. A tweet to WikiLeaks said

“Moreno has replaced judges and election officials. Anyone still loyal to former President @MashiRafael Correa must be purged. This is a silent pro-US coup.”

Another tweet called surrounding Assange with strangers “psychological torture,” removing people he trusts.

The latest shoe to drop was preventing his lawyers from entering Ecuador’s London embassy, according to WikiLeaks tweeting:

“BREAKING: Ecuador’s government has refused Julian Assange’s lawyers (UK lawyer @suigenerisjen & Spanish lawyer Aitor Martínez) access to him this weekend (although the embassy is manned 24/7) to prepare for his US court hearing on Tuesday.”

“The hearing is…in the national security court complex at Alexandria, Virginia.” It’s to “remove the secrecy order on the US charges against him.”

Chelsea Manning was brutally tortured and otherwise abused from 2010 – 2017 in confinement.

Wrongfully convicted in July 2013 for violations of the long ago outdated (1917) Espionage Act, Obama commuted her 35-year sentence before leaving office on January 18, 2017.

Similar harsh treatment she endured for years awaits Assange if extradited to America – including virtually certain longterm imprisonment.

*

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

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

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

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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

The UK’s granting of political asylum to “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) leader Hyrbyair Marri and its hosting of this fugitive means that Britain has blood on its hands for the latest terrorist attack that he masterminded against the Chinese consulate in Karachi, but while Islamabad might seek his extradition, there’s little that it can do to ensure London’s compliance unless it convinces Beijing to discretely support it.

The Pakistani authorities have officially charged “Balochistan Liberation Army” (BLA) leader Hyrbyair Marri and 12 others for last week’s terrorist attack against the Chinese consulate in Karachi, which the group’s fugitive UK-based leader is suspected of masterminding.

Marri received political asylum from the island nation in 2011 and has been living there since then, meaning that Britain has blood on its hands for the crime that he’s accused of cooking up while under their protection. This doesn’t necessarily mean that the British government had a role in carrying it out, but just that they’re nevertheless culpable for at the very least indirectly facilitating it by granting him a safe haven from which to organize it. Understandably, Islamabad might seek his extradition, but there’s little that it can do to ensure London’s compliance.

The UK officially regards the terrorist mastermind as being a “political refugee”, and it’ll probably stick to its guns by refusing to extradite him on that basis. Even though that would expose the West’s double standards towards terrorism, hard power is ultimately more important for its leaders than soft power, and London probably believes that it has more to gain by keeping him on its territory than sending him back home to face justice in Pakistan. In fact, it could be argued that the UK might believe that its non-compliance with Pakistan’s possibly forthcoming request could even improve some of its soft power in regards to strengthening its post-Brexit ties with the US and India, both of which also support the BLA and other anti-Pakistani terrorist groups in their own way.

Speaking of Brexit, it would be too scandalous in terms of the country’s already polarized domestic politics for its leaders to risk appearing as though they’re “accommodating” Pakistan, especially given the existing right-wing fury at the government’s apparent sell-out to Brussels over last weekend’s deal.

If anything, it would make Prime Minister May “look strong” and serve as a “convenient distraction” if her government loudly refuses to comply with any extradition request that Islamabad might make, which could show her constituents and even her Tory rivals that she won’t allow developing nations like Pakistan to “boss” her country around by “taking advantage” of its “perceived weakness” in the run-up to Brexit. One way or another, the British authorities will probably find a way to “justify” their refusal, all the while trying to reap political points at home.

The very high likelihood of this happening means that Pakistan must consider how to creatively respond to the UK’s insistence on hosting Marri and other BLA terrorists, ergo the suggestion to commence a sustained information campaign aimed at raising awareness about this all throughout the island nation and the world at large. The patriotic Overseas Pakistanis residing in the UK could greatly aid these efforts by organizing peaceful protests against the government’s hypocritical and immoral policy, as well as distributing leaflets and buying advertisements on buses and in other public places to inform as many people as possible about the UK’s indirect support of BLA terrorism. Concurrent with this, Islamabad could also raise the issue at the UN, as well as consistently make mention of the UK’s hosting of Marri and other terrorists whenever its media discusses the BLA.

Behind the scenes, Pakistani security officials can hold talks with their Chinese counterparts about the threat that UK-hosted BLA terrorists could pose to CPEC, encouraging Beijing to work through its own channels to pressure London into complying with Islamabad’s possibly extradition request. It can’t be taken for granted that this plan will succeed because China usually shirks away from doing anything that even remotely suggests that it’s “interfering” with its partners’ affairs, but the Marri case might be a notable exception because this terrorist masterminded an attack against its consulate and put its citizens’ lives at risk. If there ever was a reason for China to discretely get involved in a bilateral disagreement between two countries, then this is certainly it, and Beijing’s low-key involvement might actually get London to reconsider its refusal to extradite Marri to Islamabad.

*

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

This article was originally published on Eurasia Future.

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

Michael Hayden, the former director of the CIA and NSA has been hospitalised following a stroke. Predictably, well-wishes and praise has been pouring in from national-security journos, self-proclaimed #resistance members, and other figures from across US ‘liberal’ society:

Olivia Gazis is a producer and national-security ‘journalist’ with CBS:

Very sad news – General Michael Hayden, former head of CIA and NSA, has been hospitalized after suffering a stroke.

Get-well wishes and messages of encouragement are welcome at [email protected]. pic.twitter.com/Mwk6guYUKv

— Olivia Gazis (@Olivia_Gazis) November 23, 2018

Josh Marshall the publisher of the Talking Points Memo news site tweeted:

This is very rough to hear. Had the honor of meeting Hayden and his wife earlier this year when we recorded a podcast episode. Really wish him and his the best. https://t.co/LHFWfFm18c

— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) November 23, 2018

David press is a regular commentator in establishment press circles. He is the Chief Operating Officer of the popular Lawfare blog and former CIA intelligence officer:

My heart aches for Jeanine and the Hayden family.

But the many people whose lives are better because of this great man know that his energy and his goodness will fuel his recovery. We’re with you, General, as you’ve been there for us. pic.twitter.com/gPwtVm3eAK

— David Priess (@DavidPriess) November 23, 2018

Even actor Ron Perlman tweeted:

I, along with a grateful nation, pray for Mr Hayden’s speedy and full recovery. https://t.co/yOt6IZF3XB

— Ron Perlman (@perlmutations) November 23, 2018

The list goes on.

Whitewashing Hayden

Meanwhile, ‘liberal’ media outlets such as NBC, Associated Press, MSNBC, ABC, and CBS have all been offering boilerplate statements that ignore the man’s rather nefarious track-record as one of the most powerful people on the planet.

The former four star airforce general served as director of the National Security Agency (NSA) under former presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush and then as director of the CIA under Bush and then president Barack Obama.

As head of the CIA Hayden was totally unrepentant for the CIA torture programme which he inherited and continued, as well as the drone programme which has killed thousands of civilians.

As journalist Glenn Greenwald put it in 2013:

“The person who secretly implemented that illegal domestic spying program was retired Gen. Michael Hayden, then Bush’s NSA director.”

Greenwald continued:

“That’s the very same Michael Hayden who is now frequently presented by US television outlets as the authority and expert on the current NSA controversy – all without ever mentioning the central role he played in overseeing that illegal warrantless eavesdropping program.”

A director of US state terror

The New York Times published a 2,000 word article by Hayden in which he defended the explosion of terror policies by the US government post-9/11. Hayden wrote that:

“I think it fair to say that the targeted killing program has been the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict.”

This would be the same programme that philosopher and activist Noam Chomsky aptly called “the most extreme terrorist campaign of modern times”.

Even Mike Zenko of the hyper-establishment Council on Foreign Relations, found a “few troubling aspects” to Hayden’s continued defence of the drone programme:

“as director of the CIA Hayden personally authorized an estimated 48 drone strikes, which killed 532 people, 144 of whom were civilians.”

Only 2% killed were ‘high value targets’

On top of which, analyst Peter Bergen testified before the US senate in 2013 that only two percent of people killed by drones in Pakistan were senior Al-Qaeda leaders. And only six percent of those killed in Yemen were identified as ‘senior militants’. In other words the vast majority of people killed were either civilians or everyday ‘foot soldiers’ who posed absolutely no threat to the US or its allies.

Normalising the abhorrent

As part of The Intercept’s expose – The Drone Papers – award winning journalist Jeremy Scahill explains that Hayden pushed Obama to adopt these policies;

“Soon after he was elected president, Barack Obama was strongly urged by Michael Hayden, the outgoing CIA director, and his new top counterterrorism adviser, John Brennan, to adopt the way of the scalpel — small footprint counterterrorism operations and drone strikes. In one briefing, Hayden bluntly told Obama that covert action was the only way to confront al Qaeda and other terrorist groups plotting attacks against the U.S.”

It didn’t take Obama long to join the ranks of blood-soaked US presidents. As Scahill explains:

“In December 2009, the Obama administration signed off on its first covert airstrike in Yemen — a cruise missile attack that killed more than 40 people, most of them women and children. “

Zenko is a senior fellow at the CFR and has followed drone policies closely for many years.  Zenko lamented that:

“The Obama administration’s appearance of “reforms” presented in 2013 succeeded in permanently institutionalizing and normalizing what was—under Hayden’s early tenure at the CIA—a rarely used tactic.”

10 times more likely to kill civilians

Unfortunately it didn’t stop there. In a separate article on the ‘drone papers’ journalist at The Intercept Ryan Devereaux writes:

“Research by Larry Lewis, formerly a principal research scientist at the Center for Naval Analyses, supports that conclusion. Lewis spent years studying U.S. operations in Afghanistan, including raids, airstrikes, and jackpots, all with an eye to understanding why civilian casualties happen and how to better prevent them”.

In other words Lewis was working for the US government to assess the nature of the drone programmes that Hayden celebrates.

Deveraux explains that Lewis “uncovered” that US airstrikes:

“delivered by machines thought to be the most precise in the Pentagon’s arsenal… in Afghanistan were 10 times more likely to kill civilians than conventional aircraft”.

 “We assume that they’re surgical but they’re not”…

“Certainly in Afghanistan, in the time frame I looked at, the rate of civilian casualties was significantly higher for unmanned vehicles than it was for manned aircraft airstrikes. And that was a lot higher than raids.”

Far from being “the most precise and effective application of firepower in the history of armed conflict”, what Hayden helped to oversee was the unleashing of a perpetual terror-generating machine. A terror-generating machine that has been part of a wider faux ‘war on terror’ that has destroyed the lives of perfectly innocent hundreds of thousands of men, women and children.

It should then be unsurprising then that confirmed torturer and now director of the CIA Gina Haspel has expressed her well wishes for Hayden:

DCIA Haspel: On behalf of the men & women of CIA, I want to wish Gen. Hayden a speedy recovery. Mike’s long career of public service & commitment to national security continue to be an inspiration to all intelligence officers. Our thoughts are with Mike, Jeanine, & their family.

— CIA (@CIA) November 23, 2018

Embraced by Obama

As a matter of law Obama was obligated to initiated prosecutions against the Bush era war criminals, including those implicated in torture such as Haspel and Hayden. Instead, Obama involved the US in at least five more wars, expanded and institutionalised the National Security-Surveillance state, the drone wars and re-colonised the African continent with an ever expanding number of US military bases, soldiers, and special forces.

It may not be appropriate to celebrate the stroke of Mr Hayden, but nor should he be celebrated by those of us who genuinely support liberty, democracy and the Rule of Law.

A point made by journalists Glenn Greenwald:

I hope @GenMhayden fully recovers. Wishing ill on people is bad in many ways, especially for those who do it. But this event should not be exploited as an opportunity to convert him into an angel or hero. He ran Bush's post-9/11 CIA & NSA & presided over many evil & criminal acts https://t.co/H1SDsIMLeo

— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) November 24, 2018

and Ben Norton:

Liberal journalists are now praising former CIA and NSA Director Michael Hayden as a "Resistance"™ hero—but his own 2016 book shows his disdain for journos

He called @GGreenwald the devil and attacked Snowden, Seymour Hersh, Laura Poitras, and Jane Mayerhttps://t.co/oAZrNgWl8Y

— Ben Norton (@BenjaminNorton) November 23, 2018

#Resistance

The fact that Hayden is described as a ‘patriot’ and a ‘man of honour’  by the ‘liberal’ establishment exposes just how vacuous and shallow the ‘liberal’ establishment and their #hashtag resistance are. This includes the Democratic Party which has either endorsed, or failed to challenge, the worst policies of the Trump administration including its continuation of US imperial wars. Anyone under any illusions as to the nature of the Democratic Party should take a look at the work of journalist Patrick Martin at the World Socialist Website which revealed that the Democratic Party has been recruiting and backing a record number of ex-military and ex-CIA officials to its ranks. In fact, the latest ‘blue wave’ has seen no less than eleven veterans of the US military and the CIA. As journalist Patrick Martin explained to journalist Scott Horton these are merely the candidates who openly advertised their militarist backgrounds. There may be others who didn’t promote it as part of their candidacies. The point is, there are real heroes out there. Everyday men and women who challenge corruption, speak truth to power, and expose waste fraud and abuse. There is no reason to settle for a fake.

*

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

Mohamed Elmaazi obtained his LLB from SOAS and Masters in International and Comparative law from the American University in Cairo. He worked in human rights law for a number of years before shifting to journalism. He occasionally reports for The Real News Network and currently writes for Open Democracy and The Canary.

Canada’s NATO contributions are directly linked to the current diseconomy plaguing this country. Last year alone, Canada spent $32 billion on military spending, according to Public Accounts Canada, largely to bolster US imperialism abroad, to the detriment of humanity.

U.S-led NATO is an aggressive military alliance.  NATO members, including Canada, do not respect the rights of sovereignty and territorial integrity of target countries.  NATO’s negation of international law has been amply demonstrated throughout the “Regime Change” war on Syria, but also in a host of post WW2 invasions, including Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, and beyond.

Canada Peace Conference, November 2018. Presentation by Tamara Lorincz.

On the one hand, NATO membership drains public coffers, while on the other, it advances a criminal, toxic agenda which both restricts public options for a sustainable economy, and our ability to address real dangers facing Canada and humanity.  NATO fabricates the perception that it is ensuring our safety when in reality it is endangering us all.

Canada Peace Conference, November 2018. Presentation by Tamara Lorincz.

Whereas Canada and the world needs to address catastrophic climate change, the military is the top consumer of fossil fuels, and one of the biggest emitters of hazardous wastes.

Whereas Canada and the world needs Peace, NATO membership ensures the opposite.

Canada does need equal access to education and healthcare. We need community hospitals, equal access to affordable medications. We need public housing.  We need improved infrastructure, fast trains, fast ferries, well-paying jobs.  We need alternate energy infrastructure that addresses catastrophic global warming. We do not need war. Excessive military spending precludes our real needs and imposes war needs and the wants of international oligarch classes.

Robin Mathews describes Imperial globalization, a hidden driver behind NATO, in these words:

“ Imperial globalization is criminal manipulation of people and events for the profit of a few. It includes massive ‘disinformation’ about equality, benefits, social development, law, improved standards of living etc. the disinformation is spread by ‘authoritative’ news sources. In the hands of gigantic, wealthy, private corporations, globalization is a , process which works to erase sovereign democracies and replace them with ‘treaties’ sub-states, economic colonies ruled by faceless, offshore, often secret, unaccountable power.”[1]

NATO globalization, then is a cancer devouring us all, predicated on Lies.

We need to say No to globalizing NATO military bases, No to economic straightjackets and diseconomies, and Yes to self-determination and sustainable economies.

*

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

Mark Taliano is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG) and the author of Voices from Syria, Global Research Publishers, 2017.

Note

[1] Robin Mathews, “The Trans Pacific Partnership: Canada and Imperial Globalization – Part one.” American Herald Tribune. 20 May, 2016. (https://ahtribune.com/world/americas/916-ttp-canada.html) Accessed 25 November, 2018.

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

Most of those who have had a chance to witness Chinese internationalist mega-projects, clearly understand that the West is near to collapsing; it will never be able to compete with tremendous enthusiasm and progressive spirit of the most populous country on earth, which on top of it, is built on socialist principles (with Chinese characteristics).

Writing this essay in rural Laos, I just saw, literally an entire army of Chinese engineers and workers in action, building huge bridges and tunnels, connecting one of the poorest countries in Asia, to both China and Southeast Asia, erecting hospitals and schools, small factories for the rural population, airports and hydro-electric powerplants or in brief: putting the great majority of Laotian people out of poverty by providing them with both livelihood and infrastructure.

China does precisely this all over the world, from the tiny South Pacific island nations to African countries, plundered for centuries by Western colonialism and imperialism. It helps Latin American nations that are in need, and while it does all that, it is also quickly growing into a middle class, ecologically and culturally responsible nation; a nation which is likely to eradicate all extreme misery very soon, most likely by the year 2020.

The West is horrified!

This could easily be the end of its global order, and it could all actually happen much earlier than expected.

And so, it antagonizes, provokes China, in all imaginable ways possible, from the US military buildup in Asia Pacific, to encouraging several Southeast Asian countries plus Japan to politically and even militarily irritate the PRC. Anti-Chinese propaganda in the West and its client states has lately been reaching a cacophonic crescendo. China is attacked, as I recently described in my essays, from literally all sides; attacked for being ‘too Communist’, or ‘for not being Communist enough’.

The West, it seems, despises all the economic practices of China, be it central planning, ‘capitalist means for socialist ends’, or the unwavering desire of the new Chinese leadership to improve the standard of living of its people, instead of enriching multi-national corporations at the expense of the common citizens of the PRC.

It looks like a trade war, but it actually is not: like the ‘West versus Russia’, the ‘West versus China’ is an ideological war.

China, together with Russia, is effectively de-colonizing part of the world which used to be at the mercy and disposal of the West and its companies (as well as the companies of such client-states of the West as Japan and South Korea).

However it is being labelled, de-colonization is clearly taking place, as many poor and previously vulnerable countries worldwide are now seeking protection from Beijing and Moscow.

But to ‘add insult to injury’, parallel to de-colonialization, there is also ‘de-dollarization’, that is inspiring more and more nations, particularly those that are victims of Western embargos, and the unjust, often murderous sanctions. Venezuela is the latest such example.

The most reliable and stable ‘alternative’ currency that is being adopted by dozens of countries, for international transactions, is the Chinese Yuan (RMB).

*

The prosperity of the entire world, or call it ‘global prosperity’, is clearly not what the West desires. As far as Washington and London are concerned, the ‘surrounding’, peripheric world is there predominantly,to supply raw materials (like Indonesia), cheap labor (like Mexico), and guarantee that there is an obedient, indoctrinated population which sees absolutely nothing wrong with the present arrangement of the world.

Image on the right is from Atlanta Black Star

In his recent essay for the Canadian magazine Global Research titled “IMF – WB – WTO – Scaremongering Threats on De-Globalization and Tariffs – The Return to Sovereign Nations” a distinct Swiss economist and a colleague of mine, Peter Koenig, who used to work for the World Bank, wrote:

“As key representatives of the three chief villains of international finance and trade, the IMF, World Bank (WB) and the World Trade Organization (WTO) met on the lush resort island of Bali, Indonesia, they warned the world of dire consequences in terms of reduced international investments and decline of economic growth as a result of the ever-widening trade wars initiated and instigated by the Trump Administration. They criticized protectionism that might draw countries into decline of prosperity. The IMF cuts its global economic growth forecast for the current year and for 2019.

This is pure scaremongering based on nothing. In fact, economic growth of the past that claimed of having emanated from increased trade and investments has served a small minority and driven a widening wedge between rich and poor of both developing and industrialized countries. It’s interesting, how nobody ever talks about the internal distribution of GDP growth…” 

Peter Koenig further argues that globalization and ‘free trade’ are far from desirable for the majority of the countries on our planet. He is giving an example of China:

“Time and again it has been proven that countries that need and want to recover from economic fallouts do best by concentrating on and promoting their own internal socioeconomic capacities, with as little as possible outside interference. One of the most prominent cases in point is China. After China emerged on 1 October 1949 from centuries of western colonization and oppression by Chairman Mao’s creation of the People’s Republic of China (PRC), Mao and the Chinese Communist party first had to put a devastated ‘house in order’, a country ruined by disease, lack of education, suffering from hopeless famine as a result of shameless exploitation by western colons. In order to do that China remained practically closed to the outside world until about the mid- 1980’s. Only then, when China had overcome the rampant diseases and famine, built a countrywide education system and became a net exporter of grains and other agricultural products, China, by now totally self-sufficient, gradually opened its borders for international investments and trade. – And look where China is today. Only 30 years later, China has not only become the world’s number one economy, but also a world super power that can no longer be overrun by western imperialism.”

To be self-sufficient may be great for the people of every country on our planet, but it is definitely a ‘crime’ in the eyes of the West.

Now China is not only independent, but it dares to introduce to the entire world a totally new system, in which private companies are subservient to the interests of the state and the people. This is the total opposite to what is happening in the West (and its ‘client states’), where the governments are actually indebted to private companies, and where people exist mainly in order to generate huge corporate profits.

On top of it, China’s population is educated, enthusiastic, patriotic and incredibly productive.

As a result, China competes with the West, and it is easily winning the competition. It does it without plundering the world, without overthrowing foreign governments, and starving people.

This is seen by the United States as ‘unfair competition’. And it is being punished by sanctions, threats and provocations. Call it a ‘trade war’, but it actually isn’t.

And why unfair competition? Because China is refusing to ‘join’ and to play by the old imperialist rules dictated by the West, and also readily accepted by countries such as Japan and South Korea. China does not want to rule. And that scares the West.

*

In a way, both President Trump and the present leadership of China want to make their countries ‘great again’. However, both countries see greatness differently.

For the United States, to be ‘great’ is to control the world, once again, as it did right after WWII.

For China, to be great is to provide a high quality of living for its citizens, and for the citizens of most of the world. It also means, to have great culture, which China used to have for millennia, before the ‘era of humiliation’, and which was rebuilt and greatly improved from the 1949, onward.

*

A leading US philosopher, John Cobb Jr., in a book which we are writing together, recently pointed out:

“Ever since World War II, what the United States has done has been widely copied. Hence this country has had a great opportunity to lead the world.  For the most part, it has led in the wrong direction.  The United States and the whole world, including China, are paying, and will continue to pay, a high price.  But the days of American leadership are ending.  I would still like for the U.S. to engage in major reforms, but it is too late for these to change the world. We can rejoice that the American century is giving way to the Chinese century.”

Many do, but some don’t. The end of the American leadership, or call it the “American Century”, may scare people in various Western countries, particularly in Europe. Rightly so! Those days of unopposed Western economic dictatorship are over. Soon, perhaps, Europeans will have to really compete, and work hard for their money, instead of living high life relying on plunder of natural resources and cheap labor in their semi or neo-colonies.

While many in the West are scared, the situation is simultaneously rising hopes in all other parts of the world.

For China, not to yield to the US pressure, is to show that it is serious when it comes to its independence. The most populous nation on earth is ready to defend its interests, its people and its values.

It is far from being alone. From Russia to Iran, from Venezuela to South Africa, new and newer nations are going to stand by China, and by doing so, they will be defending their own independence and freedom.

*

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

This article was originally published on International Daily News in China.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter.

Featured image is from The Bullet

The idea of a standing European army, one dedicated to the specific needs of Europe as opposed to being an annex of another power is far from new.  In gestation alongside notions of European federalism and its defence have come the idea of a force filled with respective nation states that might have aims and ambitions different from those of Washington or Moscow.  Critics of the idea are never far away.

The companion concepts of European integration and defence have not had a smooth ride in transatlantic relations.  The twitchiness shown by various European leaders to the Trump administration’s approach to European defence has become obvious.  Trump’s tactic here has been to pile scorn upon the European army idea while insisting that NATO members pay their dues. He is also counting on the Euro-sceptics who fear that such an army would see Brussels dictating the tune of conscription to member-states.

The Armistice Day commemorations supplied another political opportunity to talk about armies – as if we did not have enough of them already.  Even if war should be avoided, the political leader will often find it irresistible to speak of preparedness for the next one.  The catastrophic freight of the Great War of 1914-1918 is still weighing down nations, but talk of being armed and ready for the next conflict refuses to go away.

France’s Emmanuel Macron, who finds himself in the doldrums of unpopularity at home, has embraced the idea of a continental army.  To Europe 1 radio, he explained that the object of European security had been compromised by decisions made by the Trump White House.

“When I see President Trump announcing that he’s quitting a major disarmament treaty which was formed after the 1980s Euro-missile crisis that hit Europe, who is the main victim?”

The question could have remained rhetorical, but Macron did not want to leave his audience in any nagging doubt:

“Europe and its security.”

The stakes had changed, and the United States had become more unsettling problem than solid protector.

“We have to protect ourselves with respect to China, Russia and even the United States of America.”

The comments were less directed at actual physical harm occasioned by traditional military combat than the skirmishes of the Internet waged on the digital frontier.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel is of like mind.  To a meeting of the European Parliament, she outlined how a “real, true European army” had to be created “so that we can tackle issues immediately on the ground.”  Other powers could not be relied upon to achieve this task.

 “Only a stronger Europe is going to be able to defend its values and interest worldwide, and the times when when we can rely on others are past.”

These comments might have been ill-advised but entirely logical: the notion of immutable, friendly alliances remains a stretched one, and the interests of states can diverge with violent suddenness.  Where there are problematic lies in the shift being insisted upon by Merkel and Macron: the idea that European “values” and its “identity” needs to be manifested in a standing army that might be both a guarantee of security and a promoter of Europe.

Given that much of Europe is in fractious dispute over the nature of such values, and what imperils them, this project is already stuttering before it finds form, an inchoate aspiration rather than a genuine prospect.  The wisdom of the sometimes sound and often diabolical Austrian diplomat of the Napoleonic era, Klemens von Metternich, comes to mind: coalitions and “all fraternizations” need a “strictly determinate aim” to unite them less they disintegrate.

Trump’s response was predictably adolescent in its fuming quality.  Macron “has just suggested that Europe build its own military in order to protect itself from the US, China and Russia.  Very insulting, but perhaps Europe should first pay its share of NATO, which the US subsidizes greatly!”

The view of shoring up Europe’s own defence in the absence of the United States is viewed as inconceivable for generations of politicians on the continent.  To do so in the absence of the excuse of keeping a US presence in Europe – NATO- is also seen as so improbable as to be unnatural.  Both Merkel and Macron insist that such an armed force would be a “supplement” to NATO, not its replacement nor its counter.

There are also operational matters.  Arguably, only Britain and France have deployable forces in actual instances of conflict, but they are, in the main, annexes of US-led operations.  In a manner heavy with condescension, strategists enthused by a continued role of a large hegemon in European affairs simply insist that Europe cannot go it alone, needing the gusts of wind from across the Atlantic to keep matters flying.  One such member of this fraternity of thought is Michael Shurkin of the RAND Corporation.

“By and large, all of them [the European powers] have militaries designed to work as a coalition run by the US.”

Dependency is, however, a condition that sits uneasily.  It seems an echo of charity; those who receive it are bound to, at some point, seek an alternative.  Even before Trump’s coming to power, thought was being given to the future of European defence.  A collection published in 2016 by the European Union Institute for Security Studies as part of its Chaillot Paper series is one such example.  The authors acknowledge the issues of a common external security policy (CSDP), which sees far more convergence between European states than a common defence policy.  CSDP, in any case, “suffers from a lack of commitment and a lack of resources, within its scope shifting increasingly towards border monitoring and training purposes.” What Merkel and Macron are suggesting is moving Europe towards a previously shunned idea of territorial defence.

Analysts such as James R. Holmes of the Naval War College see a European army as making good sense.  He does so from two perspectives: a suspicion of Russia, to which he attributes jaw dropping powers of embargo in any future conflict with Europe; and the declining influence of the United States.  Numbers of US personnel based in Europe are small relative to the Cold War deployment: some 62,000 or so.  The American merchant fleet has been depleted in terms of numbers.

The structural matters of such an army are so vague as to be considered untenable.  “The EU is not a country, it is not a state” remarks François Heisbourg, an adviser to the Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris.  No army, he claims, can exist without an executive branch.  The former British Prime Minister David Cameron has also previously argued that “suggestions of an EU army are fanciful: national security is a national competence”.

But armed forces filled with the nationals of other states have been typical of the Blue helmets of the United Nations, though their deployments a sketchy record.  Given the chaos of a Europe gazing over a yawning chasm, a single army is the last thing on the lips of Europe’s citizenry.  Trump might have to do more to push European leaders towards a more coherent security front.

*

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

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

In so far as it may have been assumed that the growing manifestations of global warming through extreme weather events will cause people to realize the reality and the implications of carbon emissions, this is only partly happening, due to ongoing attempts by large part of the mainstream media to attribute these events to natural causes, masking the existential threat posed by global climate disruption.

As conveyed by Noam Chomsky in connection with the US mid-term elections:

“Humanity faces two imminent existential threats: environmental catastrophe and nuclear war. These were virtually ignored in the campaign rhetoric and general coverage. There was plenty of criticism of the Trump administration, but scarcely a word about by far the most ominous positions the administration has taken: increasing the already dire threat of nuclear war, and racing to destroy the physical environment that organized human society needs in order to survive” (Noam Chomsky)

See this and this.

While the cover-up of the global climate and nuclear calamity may reflect pure ignorance, given the overwhelming scientific evidence and the intensifying hurricanes and fires the cover-up of the relations between these events and global warming assumes a criminal dimension unprecedented in human history.

History develops in cycles, wars are followed by periods of rebuilding, and every few decades a new generation forgets the lessons of the last collective bloodshed. As perceived by George Orwell in order to condition peoples’ minds to the next atrocity the language and meaning of words are changed, altering people’s way of thinking, cf. 2 + 2 = 5 if the party says so.

Homo sapiens, so called, is a technical genius with a mythology-possessed mind, believing in spirits, deities, the after-life and flying saucers, a condition possibly stemming as far back as the  mastering of fire by Homo erectus more than a million years ago (see this). Crouched around camp fires over long nights, watching the dancing flames, the species developed senses of imagination and of fear, nowadays equipped with the deadliest weapons.

It is since the dawn of the enlightenment that humanism and science have been rising above prejudices and witchcraft, in some parts of the world. The enlightenment, defined as “ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, advancing ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government and separation of church and state”, is nowadays in full retreat.

Recently messengers of hate and racism have been descending on public forums, while those who try to warn humanity of the climate and nuclear calamities are commonly barred from the mainstream media. As mourned by the late Patrick White, had a fraction of the tens of thousands of those attending sport carnivals participated in peace rallies, perhaps the world would have been different. But such ideas are less in evidence as the world moves back toward totalitarianism, whose basic tenets are expressed by demagogues with mass appeal, hate speech, racial vilification, anti-intellectualism, anti-science, and the promotion of war.

The untruths propagated by advocates of climate denial emerge in context of wider untruths, including pervasive commercial advertising, watched by millions and which nullify what schools and other educational institutions are trying to teach.

Newspeak terms translate for example into:

Truth = When a lie is told enough times

Fake News = The facts they do not want you to know

Democracy = When every dollar has an equal vote

Economic rationalism = When everything has a price, including the Earth

Sustainability = A cover-up term for business-as-usual

Open-ended growth = The psychology of a cancer cell

Morality = Might is right

Security = Multiple rearmament leading to war

Victory = A body bag count

At the heart of fascism is the explicit or inadvertent promotion of demise, of individuals or of collectives, the final stage of the Brahma-Vishnu-Shiva cycle, nowadays manifested by fatal technologies, including atmospheric carbon saturation and nuclear fission. Consciously or subconsciously fascism may not be too worried by the genocidal consequences of its ideology, perhaps assuming they and their rich benefactors may survive the consequences.

One feels a strong temptation to go bush and enjoy what remains of nature.

*

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

Dr Andrew Glikson, Earth and Paleo-climate science, Australia National University (ANU) School of Anthropology and Archaeology, ANU Planetary Science Institute, ANU Climate Change Institute, Honorary Associate Professor, Geothermal Energy Centre of Excellence, University of Queensland. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

A member of Scientists for Global Responsibility has drawn attention to a report by Peter Burt: Off the Leash: The Development of Autonomous Military Drones in the UK.

In a Guardian article, Jamie Doward points out that though the government insists it “does not possess fully autonomous weapons and has no intention of developing them”, since 2015, the UK has declined to support proposals put forward at the UN to ban them.

Israel Defense summarises:

”The report maps out the agencies, laboratories, and contractors undertaking research into drones and autonomous weapon technology in support of the Ministry of Defence, examines the risks arising from the weaponization of such technologies, and assesses government policy in this area”.

“We have already seen the development of drones in Britain which have advanced autonomous capabilities, such as the Taranis stealth drone developed by BAE Systems, and the development of a truly autonomous lethal drone in the foreseeable future is now a real possibility,” Burt said.

A spokesman for the MoD said:

“There is no intent within the MOD to develop weapon systems that operate entirely without human input. Our weapons will always be under human control as an absolute guarantee of oversight, authority and accountability.”

The BBC reported in November that at least 6,660 Yemeni civilians have been killed and 10,560 injured in the fighting, according to the United Nations.

It is hard to imagine fully autonomous weapons inflicting much more death and destruction than current technology under human control.

*

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

Featured image is from Drone Warfare