Post-WW II US-orchestrated new world order transformed sovereign Western European countries into virtual US colonies.

Their status remains unchanged today, their sovereign independence more myth than reality – serving Washington’s geopolitical interests, even when harming their own.

Since the Trump regime’s May 8 withdrawal from the JCPOA, followed by multiple rounds of stiff illegal sanctions on Iran, lofty EU rhetoric hasn’t been followed by firm policy decisions, strongly supported by all member states, denouncing US actions, refusing to go along with them.

It’s how the EU virtually always operates, yielding its sovereignty to a higher power headquartered in Washington, the shame of all member states.

They’re allied with endless illegal US wars of aggression, preemptively smashing one country after another, seeking dominance of planet earth, its member states, resources, and populations.

They’ve gone along with illegal US sanctions on Russia, Iran, Venezuela, and other countries, flagrant breaches of international law.

Their promises to continue normal relations with Iran, including purchases of its oil and related promises, appear more unfulfilled lofty rhetoric than firm policy.

US temporary waivers granted to 10 nations lets them continue buying Iranian energy until next May – EU states not included among countries exempted from observing US sanctions on Iranian oil and gas.

SWIFT disconnected Iranian banks from its international financial transactions system, bowing to Washington’s will.

Brussels’ pledge to create a “special purpose (financial transactions) vehicle (SPV) for European companies to circumvent SWIFT in dealings with Iran to bypass US financial sanctions failed to get support from any EU member state, killing the initiative, one unnamed European diplomat saying:

“No one has come forward at this stage. If we don’t have a host country, we have a very big problem. So much is riding on this that some way will need (to be found) for someone to host this. There is a lot of nervousness about what hosting an SPV means.”

Another unnamed EU diplomat was quoted, saying

“Austria…refused. It’s not dead, but it’s not going in the right direction. We are going to try again with Luxembourg, but we’re under no illusions.”

Fearing US punitive measures against them isn’t good enough. If major EU nations Britain, France, Germany and others refuse to go along with hostile US actions against Iran or any other countries, Washington is powerless to do anything about it.

EU/NATO nations are its most important allies. Punishing them for failure to obey its will would weaken US control over them – something even Trump regime hardliners aren’t likely to risk.

The way to counter US hegemonic aims is by refusal of key nations to go along with policies harming their own interests – clearly the case with US sanctions on Iran, Russia and other countries.

So far, Brussels and EU member states lack backbone enough to challenge Washington. As long as its subservience continues, the bloc will be allied with Washington against Iran.

Based on what’s happened since May 8 when Trump withdrew from the JCPOA, European Justice Commissioner Vera Jourova’s pledge to find a solution for continuing normal relations with Iran sounded like more of the same rhetoric without responsible follow-through, saying:

“We Europeans cannot accept that a foreign power, not even our closest friend and ally, takes decisions over our legitimate trade with another country,” adding:

The bloc won’t be cowed by US threats. Its months of stalling tactics indicate otherwise. It’s up to Russia, China, India, and other nations to lead in refusing to go along with US interests harming their own.

Until and unless proved otherwise, EU/NATO nations are US vassal states, obeying orders from Washington, abandoning their own sovereign rights – the way it’s been post WW II.

*

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.

Featured image is from Strategic Culture Foundation

Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in the United Kingdom

November 18th, 2018 by Philip Alston

The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy, it contains many areas of immense wealth, its capital is a leading centre of global finance, its entrepreneurs are innovative and agile, and despite the current political turmoil, it has a system of government that rightly remains the envy of much of the world. It thus seems patently unjust and contrary to British values that so many people are living in poverty. This is obvious to anyone who opens their eyes to see the immense growth in foodbanks and the queues waiting outside them, the people sleeping rough in the streets, the growth of homelessness, the sense of deep despair that leads even the Government to appoint a Minister for suicide prevention and civil society to report in depth on unheard of levels of loneliness and isolation. And local authorities, especially in England, which perform vital roles in providing a real social safety net have been gutted by a series of government policies. Libraries have closed in record numbers, community and youth centers have been shrunk and underfunded, public spaces and buildings including parks and recreation centers have been sold off. While the labour and housing markets provide the crucial backdrop, the focus of this report is on the contribution made by social security and related policies.

The results? 14 million people, a fifth of the population, live in poverty.

Four million of these are more than 50% below the poverty line,[1] and 1.5 million are destitute, unable to afford basic essentials.[2]

The widely respected Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts a 7% rise in child poverty between 2015 and 2022, and various sources predict child poverty rates of as high as 40%.3 For almost one in every two children to be poor in twenty-first century Britain is not just a disgrace, but a social calamity and an economic disaster, all rolled into one.

But the full picture of low-income well-being in the UK cannot be captured by statistics alone. Its manifestations are clear for all to see. The country’s most respected charitable groups, its leading think tanks, its parliamentary committees, independent authorities like the National Audit Office, and many others, have all drawn attention to the dramatic decline in the fortunes of the least well off in this country. But through it all, one actor has stubbornly resisted seeing the situation for what it is. The Government has remained determinedly in a state of denial. Even while devolved authorities in Scotland and Northern Ireland are frantically trying to devise ways to ‘mitigate’, or in other words counteract, at least the worst features of the Government’s benefits policy, Ministers insisted to me that all is well and running according to plan. Some tweaks to basic policy have reluctantly been made, but there has been a determined resistance to change in response to the many problems which so many people at all levels have brought to my attention. The good news is that many of the problems could readily be solved if the Government were to acknowledge the problems and consider some of the recommendations below.

In my travels across England, Wales, Scotland, and Northern Ireland I met with people living in poverty, whether old, young, disabled, in work or not. I talked with civil society, front line workers, work coaches, and officials from local, devolved, and UK governments; and visited community organizations, social housing, a Jobcentre, a food bank, an advice center, a library, and a primary school. I also met a range of Ministers in the central government and in Wales, as well as with the First Minister in Scotland. I spoke at length with politicians from all of the major political parties.

In the past two weeks I have talked with people who depend on food banks and charities for their next meal, who are sleeping on friends’ couches because they are homeless and don’t have a safe place for their children to sleep, who have sold sex for money or shelter, children who are growing up in poverty unsure of their future, young people who feel gangs are the only way out of destitution, and people with disabilities who are being told they need to go back to work or lose support, against their doctor’s orders.

I have also seen tremendous resilience, strength, and generosity, with neighbors supporting one another, councils seeking creative solutions, and charities stepping in to fill holes in government services. I also heard stories of deeply compassionate work coaches and of a regional Jobcenter director who had transformed the ethos in the relevant offices.

Although the provision of social security to those in need is a public service and a vital anchor to prevent people being pulled into poverty, the policies put in place since 2010 are usually discussed under the rubric of austerity. But this framing leads the inquiry in the wrong direction. In the area of poverty-related policy, the evidence points to the conclusion that the driving force has not been economic but rather a commitment to achieving radical social re-engineering. Successive governments have brought revolutionary change in both the system for delivering minimum levels of fairness and social justice to the British people, and especially in the values underpinning it. Key elements of the post-war Beveridge social contract are being overturned. In the process, some good outcomes have certainly been achieved, but great misery has also been inflicted unnecessarily, especially on the working poor, on single mothers struggling against mighty odds, on people with disabilities who are already marginalized, and on millions of children who are being locked into a cycle of poverty from which most will have great difficulty escaping.

Most of the political debate around social well-being in the UK has focused only on the goals sought to be achieved. These goals are in many respects admirable, even though some have been controversial. They include a commitment to place employment at the heart of anti-poverty policy, a quest for greater efficiency and cost savings, a determination to simplify an excessively complicated and unwieldy benefits system, a desire to increase the uptake of benefits by those entitled, removing the ‘welfare cliff’ that deterred beneficiaries from seeking work, and a desire to provide more skills training.

But Universal Credit and the other far-reaching changes to the role of government in supporting people in distress are almost always ‘sold’ as being part of an unavoidable program of fiscal ‘austerity’, needed to save the country from bankruptcy. In fact, however, the reforms have almost certainly cost the country far more than their proponents will admit. The many billions advertised as having been extracted from the benefits system since 2010 have been offset by the additional resources required to fund emergency services by families and the community, by local government, by doctors and hospital accident and emergency centres, and even by the ever- shrinking and under-funded police force.

Leaving the economics of change to one side, it is the underlying values and the ethos shaping the design and implementation of specific measures that have generated the greatest problems. The government has made no secret of its determination to change the value system to focus more on individual responsibility, to place major limits on government support, and to pursue a single-minded, and some have claimed simple-minded, focus on getting people into employment at all costs. Many aspects of this program are legitimate matters for political contestation, but it is the mentality that has informed many of the reforms that has brought the most misery and wrought the most harm to the fabric of British society. British compassion for those who are suffering has been replaced by a punitive, mean-spirited, and often callous approach apparently designed to instill discipline where it is least useful, to impose a rigid order on the lives of those least capable of coping with today’s world, and elevating the goal of enforcing blind compliance over a genuine concern to improve the well-being of those at the lowest levels of British society. I provide various examples later in this statement.

To read the full statement, click 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Extreme Poverty and Human Rights in the United Kingdom
  • Tags:

Selected Articles: US-NATO Megalomania

November 18th, 2018 by Global Research News

Global Research has over 50,000 subscribers to our Newsletter.

Our objective is to recruit one thousand committed “volunteers” among our 50,000 Newsletter subscribers to support the distribution of Global Research articles (email lists, social media, crossposts). 

Do not send us money. Under Plan A, we call upon our readers to donate 5 minutes a day to Global Research.

Global Research Volunteer Members can contact us at [email protected] for consultations and guidelines.

If, however, you are pressed for time in the course of a busy day, consider Plan B, Consider Making a Donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member

*     *     *

America’s Permanent-War Complex

By Gareth Porter, November 18, 2018

What President Dwight D. Eisenhower dubbed the “military-industrial complex” has been constantly evolving over the decades, adjusting to shifts in the economic and political system as well as international events.

More American Troops to Afghanistan, To Keep the Chinese Out? Lithium and the Battle for Afghanistan’s Mineral Riches

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 18, 2018

Unknown to the broader public, Afghanistan has significant oil, natural gas and strategic raw material resources, not to mention opium, a multibillion dollar industry which feeds America’s illegal heroin market.

Video: Italy: A Whole US/NATO Strategic Military Base, “Global NATO”

By Manlio Dinucci, November 17, 2018

Manlio Dinucci in this carefully documented Pandora TV production focuses on US-NATO military deployment in Italy and around the World in what might described as “Global NATO”.

Release of Top Secret CIA Document Reveals Deeper Medical Complicity in Torture Program

By Physicians for Human Rights, November 17, 2018

With the release of a previously top secret document – made public thanks to a legal victory by the ACLU – disclosing the role of the Office of Medical Services (OMS) in the CIA’s torture program, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reminds health professionals that torture, in all its forms, is one of the most serious human rights violations and is absolutely prohibited under U.S. and international law, and that any collusion in its implementation – from planning through monitoring – is a gross violation of professional ethics.

United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars: $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated

By Prof. Neta C. Crawford, November 17, 2018

The United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post-9/11 war veterans (see Table 1).

Here’s What You’ll Pay for Neocon Wars: $5,900,000,000,000

By Kurt Nimmo, November 16, 2018

More evidence the “war on terror,” now shifted over to a New Cold War against Russia and China, is nothing if not a money-maker for the merchants of death and the usury banksters. 

*

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 United States opposed on Friday for the first time an annual draft resolution at the United Nations calling on Israel to rescind its authority in the occupied Golan Heights, drawing praise from Israeli officials.

The Golan Heights, Syrian territory illegally occupied and subsequently annexed by Israel, forms a strategic plateau between Israel and Syria of about 1,200 square km.

It was part of Syria until Israel captured it in the 1967 Middle East War. Israel moved settlers into the area and annexed the territory in 1981 in a move not recognised internationally.

The United States has abstained in previous years on the “Occupied Syrian Golan” resolution, which declares Israel’s decision to impose its jurisdiction in the area “null and void,” but US Ambassador to the United Nations Nikki Haley said on Thursday that Washington would vote against the resolution.

“The United States will no longer abstain when the United Nations engages in its useless annual vote on the Golan Heights,” Haley, who will be leaving her post by the end of the year, said in a statement.

“The resolution is plainly biased against Israel. Further, the atrocities the Syrian regime continues to commit prove its lack of fitness to govern anyone,” her statement said.

Despite the US opposition, a UN General Assembly committee approved the draft resolution on Friday with 151 votes in favour and 14 abstentions. Only Israel joined the United States in voting no. The General Assembly is due to formally adopt the resolution next month.

The US ambassador to Israel, David Friedman, said in September he expects Israel to keep the Golan Heights in perpetuity.

Since early in Donald Trump’s presidency, Israel has lobbied for formal US endorsement of its control of the Golan.

Trump has recognised Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, breaking with other world powers, though his national security adviser, John Bolton, told Reuters in August that a similar Golan move was not under discussion.

Israel has repeatedly bombed military targets in Syria since the start of the civil war in 2011. Damascus also has accused the Israeli government of harbouring and supporting hardline rebels, whom it labels as terrorists, near the Golan Heights.

In the late 2000s, secret talks began between Syria and Israel that reportedly included the possibility Israel would return the area to Syria in exchange for a peace deal.

Negotiations collapsed when Israel launched its war in Gaza in 2009.

Hundreds of thousands of Syrians fled the Golan into other parts of Syria in the aftermath of the 1967 war. The population of the region is now a mix of Syrian Arabs and Israeli settlers.

Until 2012, the vast majority of Golan Syrians – who are mostly Druze – refused offers of Israeli citizenship. However, the Syrian civil war has led to many applying for citizenship.

*

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: Israel’s Merkava Tank in the Golan Heights. (By ChameleonsEye /Shutterstock)

The CIA has leaked against Jared Kushner and Trump that Mohammed Bin Salman (MBS), the Saudi crown prince, ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul.

President Trump had asked the CIA to do an assessment of the murder. Apparently, from the leak to the US press, part of the evidence came from National Security Agency wiretaps of the Saudi Embassy in Washington, DC. They caught Khalid Bin Salman, the crown prince’s brother and Saudi ambassador to the US, telling Khashoggi that it would be fine for him to pick up the paperwork needed for his marriage to his Turkish fiancee from the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. Either Prince Khalid was in on the plot to murder Khashoggi, or he was duped by his brother to lull the dissident journalist into a false sense of security. He called Khashoggi on instructions from his brother, MBS.

Trump had asked for the report, but it is unlikely that he wanted it made public. The CIA is deliberately leaking it. Since the agency is aware that Mohammed Bin Salman is teflon inside Saudi Arabia, it seems probable that the target of the leak is in the US. The member of the administration closest to MBS is Jared Kushner, though Trump himself has admitted that he wants the sale of US arms to MBS more than he wants Khashoggi’s killer brought to justice. The CIA may be attempting to discredit Kushner and to detach Trump from his alliance with the crown prince.

The Saudi government has attempted to whitewash the murder. First it denied the killing. Then it blamed low-level rogue intelligence agents. Then it sentenced the latter to death so as to make sure they do not talk. The Saudis deny that Mohammed Bin Salman ordered that Khashoggi be whacked, which is laughable, since no one would dare do such a thing without his orders. It is an absolute monarchy, after all.

*

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

Abolish US/NATO Military Bases

November 18th, 2018 by Nancy Price

The First International Conference Against US/NATO Military Bases will be held November 16-18, 2018, in Dublin, Ireland. The conference is jointly organized by the Peace and Neutrality Alliance (PANA), Ireland, and the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases, USA.

WILPF-US is one of the founding organizations of the Coalition Against US Foreign Military Bases, USA  that organized a conference in Baltimore, January 12-14, 2018, where a resolution was passed to organize an unprecedented and historic global conference.

An important article, “The Foundation For International Justice is Anti-Imperialism” makes clear why this global conference is so urgently urgently needed: it will provide the opportunity for peace groups from the many countries participating to present the situation in their country and region, and to join together to outline next steps toward global justice and peace. The list of Sponsoring Organizations from all corners of the world grows longer each day.

Here’s what you can do:

  1. Take a look at the basic outline and themes of the Conference Program. The program is under development, so please check back regularly for updated information on speakers and speaker biographies.
  2.  Please read the Global Unity Statement and endorse the Global Unity Statement. Please share with your friends on Facebook and Twitter.
  3. Please post the attached flyer at public places and forward to friends, colleagues, and organizations asking that they go to www.nousnatobases.org to read and sign the Global Unity Statement.
  4. Registration is now open. Here is registration information and the registration form.

A sliding registration fee has been set up in order to make it possible for people of different levels of income to participate.

As you can imagine, this conference is not only expensive to put on, but we want to raise sufficient funds to be able to offer scholarships and financial support to make it possible for those coming from a long distance or who have less financial resources to be a speaker or to attend. Since several hours on Day 2 are devoted to discussion and planning for “next steps,” it is crucial to have people attending from anti-war/anti-imperialism and peace groups from as many countries as possible.

Please consider making a generous tax-exempt donation to this unprecedented and historic global peace conference. Just go to www.nousnatobases.org and see the “Donate” button on the right-hand side of the homepage.

*

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

Legendary Marlon Brando was interviewed on The Dick Cavett Show 6/12/1973 after he refused to accept the Oscar at 45th Academy Awards®, 1973 to protest the treatment of American Indians. Our kind of hero – should be a celebrity rule! Where are the actors like him in present day Hollywood?

“I think awards in this country at this time are inappropriate to be received or given until the condition of the American Indian is drastically altered. If we are not our brother’s keeper, at least let us not be his executioner.”  — Marlon Brando (1924 – 2004)

Marlon Brando was an extraordinary human being and one of the first actor-activists to march for Black American and American Indian rights. He spoke out against racism often and forcefully. He marched in demonstrations. And he gave money to civil rights groups.

For the 45th Annual Academy Awards® in 1973, Liv Ullmann and Roger Moore presented the award and inspiring Marlon Brando (April 3, 1924 – July 1, 2004) did not attend and refused to accept the Oscar for his performance in The Godfather. American Indian Apache Sacheen Littlefeather represented him at the ceremony.

She appeared in full Apache clothing and stated that owing to the “poor treatment of American Indians in the film industry”, Brando would not accept the award. –THAT IS HOW CELIBRITIES SHOULD SUPPORT!–

At this time, the 1973 standoff at Wounded Knee occurred, causing rising tensions between the government and American Indian activists. The event grabbed the attention of the US and the world media. This was considered a major event and victory for the movement by its supporters and participants.

Brando’s speech was written during the siege at Wounded Knee led by the American Indian Movement (which started in late February 1973), for delivery at the Oscar ceremonies. As mentioned above, Brando himself did not attend the event, and refused the Oscar. Sacheen Littlefeather, who attempted to deliver the speech, was able to read only a part of it (hence, the “unfinished” in the title below) before being booed from the stage.

We need more celebrities following Marlon Brando’s stand for social justice. An inspiring man who stood tall against injustice. Who is following that example today?

*

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

Hell Hath No Fury Like Raging California Wildfires

November 18th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Months of unprecedented California wildfires keep raging – the most destructive and deadly in state history, so far around 1.7 million acres destroyed.

Through Saturday, 76 fatalities were reported, nearly 1,300 others missing – the number rising from 265 on Friday. Official numbers keep increasing. The death toll already likely exceeds 1,000. Countless bodies remain to be discovered.

As of November 11, an astonishing 7,579 fires are burning, according to the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection and the National Interagency Fire Center – costing around $3 billion in destruction and damage so far.

According to Physicians for Social Responsibility (PSR), smoke and ash from wildfires likely spread radiological and chemical contamination already in soil and vegetation near the Santa Susana Field Laboratory, (SSFL) – a statement by Dr. Robert Dodge saying:

“We know what substances are on the site and how hazardous they are. We’re talking about incredibly dangerous radionuclides and toxic chemicals such a trichloroethylene, perchlorate, dioxins and heavy metals.”

“These toxic materials are in SSFL’s soil and vegetation, and when it burns and becomes airborne in smoke and ash, there is a real possibility of heightened exposure for area residents.”

California’s Department of Toxic Substance Control said it found no evidence of radioactive or other hazardous materials in affected areas.

PSR slammed the statement, calling it “irresponsible to claim that SSFL contamination was not spread further by the fire(s).”

SSFL was involved in testing rocket engines and nuclear energy research. In 1959, one of its nuclear reactors had a partial meltdown.

Communities nears its facilities have battled for decontamination, residents blaming serious illnesses on contamination from SSFL operations.

Dense smoke called “the dirtiest air in the world” threatens areas near raging blazes, a major potential health hazard if contaminants spread over parts of the state.

Santa Ana winds up to 50 MPH keep spreading flames while firefighters battle them, “a disheartening situation,” said Butte County sheriff Kory Honea.

Blazes affect areas north of Sacramento and southern parts of the state in Los Angeles and Ventura counties.

According to the Union of Concerned Scientists,

“(t)he effects of global warming on temperature, precipitation levels, and soil moisture are turning many of our forests into kindling during wildfire season,” adding:

“As the climate warms, moisture and precipitation levels are changing, with wet areas becoming wetter and dry areas becoming drier.”

“Higher spring and summer temperatures and earlier spring snowmelt typically cause soils to be drier for longer, increasing the likelihood of drought and a longer wildfire season, particularly in the western United States.”

“(H)ot dry conditions also increase the likelihood that wildfires will be more intense and long-burning once they are started by lightning strikes or human error.”

“The costs of wildfires, in terms of risks to human life and health, property damage, and state and federal dollars, are devastating, and they are only likely to increase unless we better address the risks of wildfires and reduce our activities that lead to further climate change.”

Since the 1980s, the frequency and duration of wildfires increased. Further climate change ahead elevates the potential for more devastating blazes in US western areas and in other countries.

“As the world warms, we can expect more wildfires,” the UCS stressed. In California alone, millions of homes in coastal and inland areas are potentially threatened.

Environmental and health costs threaten affected areas and their residents, increasing the risk of widespread respiratory and other diseases.

Loss of vegetation increases the chance for destructive flash floods in low-lying areas during rainy season.

Human activity is largely responsible for what’s going on. If environmentally destructive behavior continues, things ahead will likely be much worse than already.

It’s why government-mandated changes are vital, including the shift from fossil fuels and nuclear energy producing greenhouse gases to clean renewable green sources.

Asked about whether climate change bears responsibility for California wildfires, Trump said devastation he saw hasn’t changed his view on the issue, adding:

“Things are changing. And I think, most importantly, we’re doing things about. We’re going to make it better. We’re going to make it a lot better. And it’s going to happen as quickly as it can possibly happen.”

He blames “a lot of factors” for California blazes, earlier blaming poor state forest management is for continuing wildfires, adding:

“With proper forest management, we can stop the devastation constantly going on in California.” He failed to explain that around 60% of state forest areas are federally managed.

International Association of Fire Fighters president Harold Schaitberger slammed Trump, calling his remarks “reckless and insulting to the firefighters and people being affected.”

As long as he and many others in Washington are dismissive of climate change and other environmental factors affecting wildfires and other natural disasters, they’ll continue and likely worsen.

*

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.

Featured image is from Earther – Gizmodo

Manlio Dinucci in this carefully documented Pandora TV production focuses on US-NATO military deployment in Italy and around the World in what might described as “Global NATO”.

Manlio Dinucci, distinguished Italian author, geopolitical analyst and geographer is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization CRG).

..

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Italy: A Whole US/NATO Strategic Military Base, “Global NATO”

Happy ThanksGetting Day. Poverty and Social Inequality in America

November 17th, 2018 by Philip A Farruggio

Yes, we need to finally absolve ourselves, as Amerikans, from the con job concerning Thanksgiving Day. All the ‘pomp and circumstance’ revolving around this holiday is just that, to quote Ebenezer Scrooge (one month early): Humbug!

Of course, even the southern Colonial slaves and Northern ‘indentured servants’ of that era would be thankful to just have a roof over their heads and enough to eat each day. Yet, it was only the slave masters and owners of property and capital who could kneel in their churches or bow in reflected prayer at their lavish dinner tables in true thanksgiving.

Amerika 2018 consists of well over 100 million of our citizens who are lucky just to stay head above water financially… perhaps a few paychecks from being out on the street… literally!

How many families who live next door to me and to YOU (or maybe YOU yourself the reader) who have to have two (or more?)  wage earners full time to just be able to function? How many single parents of even just one child need to live with their parents (if lucky to be able to) in order to function properly?

What about a single mom all on her own? Do the math: How can a single Mom with let us say just one child, who works a blue or even white collar full time job on one salary, be able to stay head above water on let us say the USA median salary for a woman ($ 39,900)? She most likely pays rent, and in my area of North Central Florida even a small two bedroom apt. goes for on average $ 1200 a month in a somewhat ‘safe’ low crime neighborhood.

With her take home pay of $ 725 plus her health insurance contribution (usually 50%) of $ 80 a week, the figure is now $ 645. She would most likely need a car to get around (my area is mostly ‘car driven’ with not the greatest mass transit) and let us say that for even a low end car her payments would be $ 225 monthly for a new car loan, bringing her take home figure to now $ 420. Factor in her car insurance of $ 100 a month, and her take home figure is now $ 320 a week. She and her child need some sort of cable television, and even the low end cable is going to be at least $ 50 a month… and her take home figure is now $ 270 a week. Her phone/internet cost, even at the low end, would have to be at least $ 80 a month, bringing her figure down to $ 190 a week. Then you have food costs for her and her child, clothing costs, gas for her car, and God forbid one of them gets sick, or needs dental work, which is not covered….

The CEOs of all the companies that this single mom pays her hard earned money to earn in excess of a minimum of $ 20 million a year. Some earn double that figure! Within their own companies these CEOs earn in excess of 300 times the pay of their average workers. These folks have lots to be thankful of next Thursday! Mind you: Where is the outrage?

Where is the outcry of millions of working stiffs to say ‘Something is wrong here!?’ This column is just about one tiny example of the unfairness of this current corporate/ capitalist system. Those CEOS and top execs  of Amerikan capitalism, who are even much less than what many label The ONE PERCENT, are paying federal taxes of a top rate of 37%. Now that is before their accountants cut it down to much lower figure than that. Mitt Romney, now a Senator from Utah, admitted a few years ago that he, as a mega mega millionaire, only paid at a rate of perhaps 15%. Please remember that when JFK was president, in 1961, the top tax bracket was at 90%.

Again, with a good accountant, those mega rich may have paid at a rate of maybe 50%. Yet, my late uncle, who was in the 81% bracket then, earning $ 140k a year, still was able to enjoy  two brand new twin Cadillacs for he and my aunt, his exclusive country club membership and a new home in the burbs.

Folks, for this Thanksgiving it is time for we hundreds of millions of working stiffs to begin to accept the need for Socialism. It may just be the only way for our great nation to turn the corner economically and morally. Reread some of the scriptures, for all of you who adhere (as this writer does) to the teachings of Jesus, and see what he said about the mega rich: Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.”

*

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 Crazy Bald Guy

The Legacy of Néstor García Iturbe, Cuban Intellectual

November 17th, 2018 by Arnold August

[Note from the author: Néstor García Iturbe, born in Havana, earned his BA in Political Science from the University of Havana and then his PhD in Science of History. In his long career, among other responsibilities, Iturbe was a member of the Scientific Council of the Higher Institute of International Relations Raúl Roa García (ISRI), Director of International Relations at the University of Havana and Advisor to the Cuban Mission at the United Nations in New York. He received numerous awards and wrote up to 10 books, mainly on Cuba–US relations. This obituary note was first published in La Jiribilla magazine (Cuba) on November 14, 2018.]

It is quite customary to say that when writers and intellectuals pass away, such as Néstor García Iturbe, their work remains with us. This is particularly true for Iturbe, whose career underlines this even further, even though it may not be acknowledged by everyone.

I have been reading his work for many years in the form of articles. His writing has always fascinated me, especially with regards to his specialties of Cuba–US relations and the political system in the US. We communicated through email and I appreciated him as being among revolutionary Cubans who do not carry illusions about US imperialism and its long-term objectives, whether in the form of Bush, Obama (with his “smooth tactics”) and Trump. 

Thus, when my book Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion was being presented at the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP) on November 18, 2015, I took a chance and invited Iturbe, even though I was sure he had more important things to do. To my surprise and delight, he showed up. What an honour for me! After the formal part, we exchanged signed books, his, entitled Estados Unidos, de Raíz (“United States, from the Roots”), and mine.

Not long after my next book on Cuba–US relations was published, in 2017, an important article titled “Money from Uncle Obama” was published, thanks to Iroel Sánchez and his unorthodox blog La pupila insomne (translated from the original Spanish by W.T. Whitney Jr.). It consisted of an excerpt from ISRI university thesis work by Aileén Carmenaty Sánchez, whose mentors were Iturbe and Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Hero of the Republic Cuba and Vice-rector of ISRI. I was so pleased to read this and to contribute to its publication in English and Spanish. The article hit me for a couple of reasons. The first was admittedly “selfish,” because it confirmed one of the main theses of my latest book. And second, most importantly, it was crucial that this reality of Cuba–US relations under Obama get out to the public in Cuba and the rest of the world. It was published at a time when it was not (and indeed it is still not) that “politically correct” to say anything negative about Obama. But, then again, Iturbe preferred principles to being “politically correct.”

Now, at the very time of his passing, this work – as well as his others – is more relevant than ever. Why? It is quite clear to me that the next president of the United States will be Barack Obama, though, of course, not formally. The favourite Democratic candidates looking for nomination and to almost surely defeat Trump in 2020 are Michelle Obama, Jo Biden, Elizabeth Warren and many others. Whichever it may be, my investigation has shown that Barack Obama will be the de facto president, with its relatively good side to Cuba–US relations, but also the dangerous aspect of subverting Cuba from within: seduction to replace aggression once again.

Let us use the work of Iturbe now to make sure naiveté does not further take root. I am quite sure he, his family, his colleagues in Cuba and his many admirers outside the Island would appreciate this.

*

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

This article was originally published on CounterPunch. Translated from Spanish.

Arnold August, a Canadian journalist and lecturer, is the author of Democracy in Cuba and the 1997–98 Elections and, more recently, Cuba and Its Neighbours: Democracy in Motion. Cuba’s neighbours under consideration are the U.S., Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador. Arnold can be followed on Twitter @Arnold_August.

 

Saudi sports diplomacy is proving to be a mirror image of the kingdom’s challenged domestic, regional and foreign policies.

Overlorded by sports czar Turki al-Sheikh, Saudi sports diplomacy, like the kingdom’s broader policies, has produced at best mixed results, suggesting that financial muscle coupled with varying degrees of coercion does not guarantee success.

Mr. Al-Sheikh, a 37-year old brash and often blunt former honorary president of Saudi soccer club Al Taawoun based in Buraidah, a stronghold of religious ultra-conservatism, and a former bodyguard of crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, is together with Saud al-Qahtani among the king-in-waiting’s closest associates.

Prince al-Waleed bin Talal, one of the kingdom’s wealthiest investors, acknowledged Mr. Al-Sheikh’s ranking in the Saudi hierarchy when he made a donation of more than a half-million dollars to Saudi soccer club Al Hilal FC weeks after having been released from detention.

Prince al-Waleed was one of the more recalcitrant detainees among the scores of members of the ruling family, prominent businessmen and senior officials who were detained a year ago in Riyadh’s Ritz Carlton Hotel as part of Prince Mohammed’s power and asset grab.

Prince Al-Waleed said on Twitter at the time that he was “responding to the invitation of my brother Turki al-Sheikh.”

Mr. Al-Qahtani, who was recently fired as Prince Mohammed’s menacing information czar in connection with the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul, was banned this week from travelling outside the kingdom. Mr. Al-Sheikh has not been linked to the Khashoggi murder.

Nevertheless, his sports diplomacy, exhibiting some of the brashness that has characterized Prince Mohammed as well as Mr Al-Qahtani’s approach, has largely failed to achieve its goals. If anything, it appears to have contributed to the kingdom’s growing list of setbacks.

Those goals included establishing Saudi Arabia as a powerhouse in regional and global soccer governance; countering Qatari sports diplomacy crowned by its hosting of the 2022 World Cup; projecting the kingdom in a more favourable light by hosting international sporting events; becoming a powerhouse in soccer-crazy Egypt, the Arab world’s most populous nation; and using the competition for the 2026 World Cup hosting rights to bully Morocco into supporting the Saudi-United Arab Emirates-led boycott of Qatar.

To be sure, with the exception of a cancelled tennis exhibition match in Jeddah between stars Rafa Nadal and Novak Djokovic, most scheduled sporting events, including this season’s opening Formula E race in December and the Italian Supercoppa between Juventus and AC Milan in January, are going ahead as planned despite a six-week old crisis sparked by the killing of Mr. Khashoggi.

Yet, if last month’s friendly soccer match in Jeddah between Brazil and Argentina and this month’s World Wrestling Entertainment’s (WWE) Crown Jewel showpiece are anything to go by, major sporting events are doing little to polish the kingdom’s image tarnished not only by the Khashoggi killing but also the war in Yemen that has sparked the world’s worst humanitarian crisis since World War Two. The sports events have so far failed to push Mr. Khashoggi and Yemen out of the headlines of major independent media.

Mainstream media coverage of Saudi sports has, moreover, focussed primarily on Saudi sports diplomacy’s struggle to make its mark internationally. One focus been the fact that Gianni Infantino, president of world soccer body FIFA, has run into opposition from the group’s European affiliate, UEFA, to his plan to endorse a US$25 billion plan for a new club tournament funded by the Saudi and UAE-backed Japanese conglomerate SoftBank.

If adopted, the plan would enhance Saudi and Emirati influence in global soccer governance to the potential detriment of Qatar, the host of the 2022 World Cup. Saudi Arabia and the UAE spearhead a 17-month old economic and diplomatic boycott of Qatar designed to force it to surrender its right to chart an independent course rather than align its policies with those of its Gulf brothers.

Saudi Arabia and the UAE have sought to engineer a situation in which Qatar is either deprived of its hosting rights or forced to share them with other states in the region, a possibility Mr. Infantino has said he was exploring.

Mr. Infantino has also said he was looking into implementing an expansion of the World Cup from 32 to 48 teams already in 2022 rather than only in 2026. An expansion of the Qatari World Cup would probably involve including others in the Gulf as hosts of the tournament. Qatari officials have all but ruled out sharing their hosting rights.

Another media focus has been alleged Saudi piracy aimed at undermining Qatar-owned BeIN Corp, the world’s biggest sports rights holder, including the rights to broadcast last summer’s Russia World Cup in the Arab world.

Mr. Al-Qahtani reportedly played a key role in the sudden emergence of BeoutQ, a bootleg operation beamed from Riyadh-based Arabsat that ripped live events from BeIN’s feed and broadcast the games without paying for rights. The Saudi government has denied any relationship to the pirate network.

The piracy has sparked international lawsuits, including international arbitration in which BeIN is seeking US1 billion in damages from Saudi Arabia. The company has also filed a case with the World Trade Organization.

FIFA has said it has taken steps to prepare for legal action in Saudi Arabia and is working alongside other sports rights owners that have been affected to protect their interests.

Mr. Al-Sheikh’s effort to create with funds widely believed to have been provided by Prince Mohammed an international Saudi sports portfolio that would project the kingdom as a regional power broker collapsed with fans, players and club executives in Egypt furious at the Saudi officials buying influence and using it to benefit Saudi rather than Egyptian clubs.

“No one, no one at all — with all due respect to Turki or no Turki … will be allowed to interfere in the club’s affairs,” said Mahmoud el-Khatib, chairman of Egyptian club Al Ahli SC, one of the Middle East’s most popular clubs with an estimated 50 million fans. Mr. Al-Sheikh had unsuccessfully tried to use his recently acquired honorary chairmanship of Al Ahli to take control of the club.

Al Ahli’s rejection of his power grab persuaded Mr. Al-Sheikh to resign in May and instead bankroll Al Ahli rival Pyramid FC. He invested US$33 million to acquire three top Brazilian players and launch a sports channel dedicated to the team.

The club’s fans, like their Al Ahli counterparts, nonetheless, denounced Mr. Al-Sheikh and the kingdom and insulted the Saudi official’s mother in crass terms during a match in September. Mr. Al-Sheikh decided to abandon his Egyptian adventure after President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi ignored his request to intervene. “Strange attacks from everywhere, and a new story every day. Why the headache?” Mr Al-Sheikh said on Facebook.

Mr. Al-Sheikh’s attempt to form a regional powerbase by creating a breakaway group of South Asian and Middle Eastern soccer federations beyond the confines of FIFA and the Asian Football Confederation (AFC) collapsed five months after the formation of the South-West Asian Football Federation (SWAFF) when seven South Asian nations pulled out with immediate effect.

The collapse of SWAFF and Mr. Al-Sheikh’s withdrawal from Egypt were preceded by his backing of the US-Canadian-Mexican bid for the 2026 World Cup against Morocco after he failed to bully the North Africans into supporting the boycott of Qatar.

Adopting a Saudi Arabia First approach, Mr. Al-Sheikh noted that the United States “is our biggest and strongest ally.” He recalled that when the World Cup was played in 1994 in nine American cities, the US “was one of our favourites. The fans were numerous, and the Saudi team achieved good results.”

That was Mr. Al-Sheikh’s position six months ago. Today, men like Prince Mohammed and Messrs. Al-Sheikh and Al-Qahtani are seething. US President Donald J. Trump is proving to be an unreliable ally. Not only is he pressuring the kingdom to come up with a credible explanation for Mr. Khashoggis’ killing, Mr. Trump is also seemingly backtracking on his promise to bring Iran to its knees by imposing crippling economic sanctions.

Saudi distrust is fuelled by the fact that Mr. Trump first asked the kingdom to raise oil production to compensate for lower crude exports from Iran and then without informing it made a 180-degree turn by offering buyers generous waivers that keep Iranian crude in the market instead of drive exports from Riyadh’s arch-rival down to zero.

Seemingly cut from the same cloth as Prince Mohammed, Mr. Al-Sheikh, drew his pro-American definition of Saudi Arabia First from the crown prince’s focus on the United States. Prince Mohammed, Mr. Al-Sheikh and other senior Saudi officials may be considering whether putting the kingdom’s eggs primarily in one basket remains the best strategy.

Whatever the case, Mr. Al-Sheikh’s sweep through regional and global sports has left Saudi leaders with little to leverage in the kingdom’s bid to pick up the pieces and improve its image tarnished first and foremost by Mr. Khashoggi’s killing but also by the trail the sports czar has left behind.

*

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: The Turbulent World of Middle East Soccer.

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.

Featured image is from the author

With the release of a previously top secret document – made public thanks to a legal victory by the ACLU – disclosing the role of the Office of Medical Services (OMS) in the CIA’s torture program, Physicians for Human Rights (PHR) reminds health professionals that torture, in all its forms, is one of the most serious human rights violations and is absolutely prohibited under U.S. and international law, and that any collusion in its implementation – from planning through monitoring – is a gross violation of professional ethics.

The 90-page document provides a chilling account of how CIA health professionals willingly participated in torture. The “Summary and Reflections” of an unnamed chief of CIA Medical Services narrates the decision-making process that led to health professionals signing off on, and participating in, interrogation and detention practices that clearly constituted torture. The document provides a cascade of self-justification and minimization of the risks and harm to detainees.

“While much of the information in this document was already known, the step-by-step internal process it details shows how health professionals continually acceded to the demands of those running the interrogation regime, relied on flawed legal interpretations of torture definitions,  and failed to live up to their duty to ‘do no harm,’” said Scott Allen, MD, FACP, professor emeritus at University of California Riverside School of Medicine and PHR medical advisor.

The document further describes how certain techniques, such as confinement in a coffin-sized box, forced nakedness, near-hypothermia, prolonged sleep deprivation, and waterboarding were not considered to be torture because they were deemed not to cause “prolonged (mental) harm lasting months or years.”  It is now clear that these determinations were based on the Office of Legal Counsel’s faulty interpretation of torture that elevated physical and mental pain thresholds and the condition of specific intent to cause such pain.

“The document makes the claim that OMS personnel served to protect detainees and ensure safe, legal, and effective interrogations, but provides no evidence that detainees were evaluated appropriately. In fact, it states that psychological assessments did not include the possibility of post-traumatic stress disorder, the most common psychological condition following torture. The document also fails to mention the OMS practice of forced rectal feeding, for which there is no medical indication and which represents a form of sexual assault” said PHR Senior Medical Advisor Vincent Iacopino, MD, PhD.

In addition, the document’s conclusion that the interrogation techniques did not cause long-lasting harm has been proven wrong. Some detainees subjected to these torture techniques who are still held in the Guantánamo Bay detention facility remain severely traumatized, according to PHR medical experts who have examined them. Detainees who have been evaluated after their release from Guantánamo, and elsewhere, also continue to show long-lasting harm, as described in reports such as PHR’s Broken Laws, Broken Lives.

The document refers to OMS practices being in compliance with American Psychological Association (APA) policies, but fails to acknowledge collusion between the APA, the CIA, and the Department of Defense in establishing those policies. These policies have since been abandoned. The document also attempts to defend against criticism of breaches of medical ethics by indicating that OMS participation was voluntary, that its practices were considered “legal” by the U.S. Department of Justice at the time, and that actionable intelligence was obtained and lives were saved. The author of the document rejects international medical ethical principles of “do no harm” as well as legal prohibitions against participation in torture by asserting that “saving lives” takes priority over respect for human dignity. We have learned since, from a 2014 Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report, that no actionable intelligence was ever obtained using “enhanced interrogation” techniques that could not otherwise have been gathered.

This document is a revealing self-indictment of U.S. torture practices and the critical role of CIA OMS personnel in participating in and concealing torture. It shows health professionals’ disregard for core ethical principles, including the World Medical Association’s Declaration of Tokyo, requiring that they remove themselves from all forms of participation in torture or ill-treatment.

“This document shows that within the CIA OMS culture in the post-9/11 years, there was a lack of understanding of the moral and ethical issues involved in the presence and cooperation of health professionals in interrogations and their willingness to preside over the deliberate infliction of pain on detainees,” Iacopino said. “The author of the document expresses continual concern for the physical safety of detainees, but he shows no qualms about OMS personnel participating in the interrogations that caused great pain and suffering to the detainees. This was an improper role for health professionals and OMS shows that it was blind or indifferent to ethical concerns raised by their participation,” he added.

Based on the new details in this document, PHR renews its call on the U.S. government, especially all CIA medical professionals, to take immediate action to make structural and procedural reforms to ensure that such human rights abuses – including the collusion and cover up of health professionals, in violation of their professional ethics – never happen again. As an organization of health professionals, PHR looks forward to those in positions of authority recognizing the important role played by doctors, psychologists, therapists, and others who practice medicine to ensure that torture tactics are never enabled by professionals whose primary obligation is to their patients, and that all agency operations respect the right to dignity and care for the individual.

Torture is absolutely prohibited under U.S. and international law at all times, and preventing the torture of those in custody is integral to the ethical duties and culture of health professionals. Torture violates everything that health professionals stand for and PHR will continue to advocate to ensure the U.S. government never engages in torture again.

*

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

Brazil Will Miss Cuban Doctors

November 17th, 2018 by Granma

The National Council of Municipal Health Secretaries and the National Front of Brazilian Mayors warned rightwing President-elect Jair Bolsonaro of the imminent, irreparable damage to the population’s health, as a consequence of Cuba leaving the More Doctors program.

In a joint statement, the two organizations lamented the suspension of the agreement between the Pan American Health organization and the Cuban government which allowed for the work of some 8,500 doctors from the island in Brazil.

Estimates indicate that 29 million Brazilians will be left without medical assistance after the partnership’s interruption. Thus, these bodies have requested a revision of the position taken by the new government, which has announced its intention to make drastic changes to the program’s regulations. The mayors and healthcare authorities called for maintaining current contract conditions, which were approved in 2016 by the Michel Temer administration and confirmed by the Supreme Federal Court in 2017.

“The abrupt cancelation of the current contracts implies a cruel impact on the entire population, especially the poorest. We cannot renounce the constitutional principle of making the right to health universal, or agree with this setback,” the statement indicated.

Cubans currently represent more than half of the doctors in the program, and the cancellation of their contracts would lead to a situation described by these organizations as disastrous, in at least 3,243 municipalities. Of the country’s 5,570 municipalities, 3,228 (79.5%) only have doctors provided by the program, and 90% of the services available to the indigenous population are provided by Cuban professionals.

The statement also notes that the More Doctors program is broadly supported by those served, indicating,

“Eighty-five percent say that health care has improved with the program. In the municipalities, it is also possible to verify the greater permanence of these professionals on the family health teams and their integration within the locales where they are assigned.”

The program was won by Brazilian municipalities, developed in response to the “Where is the doctor?” campaign led by the Mayors Front in 2013. At that time, local officials made clear the difficulties they faced in contracting and placing professionals in the country’s interior, and in poor communities on the outskirts of large cities.

The text notes that the abrupt interruption of cooperation with the Cuban government, focused on prevention at the primary level, will negatively impact the health system, increasing demands for doctors’ appointments at higher level institutions, and additionally aggravate regional inequalities.

“For the designated G100 (a group of cities with large vulnerable populations) the situation is even more devastating. With the goal of reducing the shortage of basic services in these cities, the G100 has been targeted and prioritized for the reception of these professionals.”

Dilma Rousseff stated,

“For the poor, this will be an irreparable loss.

“The end of the agreement was caused by the intemperate statements of President-elect Jair Bolsonaro, who ignores the diplomatic dimension that must prevail in relations between two countries,” continued the former President who launched the More Doctors program.

For the poorest, the end of the program will be a great loss in the short and long run. Tens of millions of Brazilians across the entire country will be without primary care, Rousseff stated, describing Bolsonaro’s decision as unilateral and disrespectful, “criticizing on Twitter the terms of the agreement signed during my administration and renewed, without modifications, by the government of President Temer,” she noted.

“He disregarded, with absolute arrogance, the diplomatic postures required in relations between countries The most serious, therefore, is that all of this has occurred without consulting the signatories of the agreement, the PAHO (Pan American Health Organization) and the Cuban Ministry of Public Health. His rash, authoritarian statements could even disturb doctors from other countries, participating to a lesser degree in the More Doctors Program.”

Rousseff recalled the President-elect’s statements that he would impose individual contracts on foreign participants in the program, require exams and the validation of credentials, and pay professionals directly, ignoring the Cuban government’s guarantee of a full salary for doctors.

“The demand to subject foreign doctors to an exam in Brazil can only be seen as a gesture of disrespect, xenophobia, and arrogance, directed toward health professionals from other countries. Especially since the (Cuban) Ministries of Public Health and Education supervise the work of all doctors and evaluate their performance,” she continued.

According to Rousseff, Bolsonaro’s affront to Cuban doctors, and those from other countries working in the program, is an attack on the Brazilian people, who will lose access to valuable, highly-skilled professionals providing primary care to the poorest sectors of the population.

“Moreover, this is an authoritarian attitude. It reveals incompetence, unilaterally breaking an agreement signed by a respected, internationally recognized health organization.

“The Brazilian population has benefited from the generous competence of Cuban doctors, who the Brazilian government should recognize for their fraternal solidarity. I convey a tribute to them, my gratitude. The work of these dedicated, generous professionals will be missed by Brazilians,” she concluded.

*

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 Granma

One has to admire the Canadian government’s manipulation of the media regarding its relationship with Saudi Arabia. Despite being partners with the Kingdom’s international crimes, the Liberals have managed to convince some gullible folks they are challenging Riyadh’s rights abuses.

By downplaying Ottawa’s support for violence in Yemen while amplifying Saudi reaction to an innocuous tweet the dominant media has wildly distorted the Trudeau government’s relationship to the monarchy.

In a story headlined “Trudeau says Canada has heard Turkish tape of Khashoggi murder”, Guardian diplomatic editor Patrick Wintour affirmed that “Canada has taken a tough line on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record for months.” Hogwash. Justin Trudeau’s government has okayed massive arms sales to the monarchy and largely ignored the Saudi’s devastating war in Yemen, which has left up to 80,000 dead, millions hungry and sparked a terrible cholera epidemic.

While Ottawa recently called for a ceasefire, the Liberals only direct condemnation  of the Saudi bombing in Yemen was an October 2016 statement. It noted, “the Saudi-led coalition must move forward now on its commitment to investigate this incident” after two airstrikes killed over 150  and wounded 500 during a funeral in Sana’a.

By contrast when the first person was killed from a rocket launched into the Saudi capital seven months ago, Chrystia Freeland stated,

Canada strongly condemns the ballistic missile attacks launched by Houthi rebels on Sunday, against four towns and cities in Saudi Arabia, including Riyadh’s international airport. The deliberate targeting of civilians is unacceptable.”

In her release Canada’s foreign minister also accepted the monarchy’s justification for waging war.

“There is a real risk of escalation if these kinds of attacks by Houthi rebels continue and if Iran keeps supplying weapons to the Houthis”, Freeland added.

Ottawa has also aligned itself with Riyadh’s war aims on other occasions. With the $15 billion LAV sale to the monarchy under a court challenge in late 2016, federal government lawyers described Saudi Arabia as “a key military ally who backs efforts of the international community to fight the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria and the instability in Yemen. The acquisition of these next-generation vehicles will help in those efforts, which are compatible with Canadian defence interests.” The Canadian Embassy’s website currently claims “the Saudi government plays an important role in promoting regional peace and stability.”

In recent years the Saudis have been the second biggest recipients of Canadian weaponry, which are frequently used in Yemen. As Anthony Fenton has documented in painstaking detail, hundreds of armoured vehicles made by Canadian company Streit Group in the UAE have been videoed in Yemen.Equipment from three other Canadian armoured vehicle makers – Terradyne, IAG Guardian and General Dynamics Land Systems Canada– was found with Saudi-backed forces in Yemen. Between May and July Canada exported $758.6 million worth of “tanks and other armored fighting vehicles” to the Saudis.

The Saudi coalition used Canadian-made rifles as well.“Canada helped fuel the war in Yemen by exporting more rifles to Saudi Arabia than it did to the U.S. ($7.15 million vs. $4.98 million)”, tweeted Fenton regarding export figures from July and August.

Some Saudi pilots that bombed Yemen were likely trained in Alberta and Saskatchewan. In recent years Saudi pilots have trained  with NATO’s Flying Training in Canada, which is run by the Canadian Forces and CAE. The Montreal-based flight simulator company also trained Royal Saudi Air Force pilots in the Middle East.

Training and arming the monarchy’s military while refusing to condemn its brutal war in Yemen shouldn’t be called a “tough line on Saudi Arabia’s human rights record.” Rather, Canada’s role should be understood for what it is: War profiteer and enabler of massive human rights abuses.

*

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

There never was any doubt about it all along. No one dares circumvent Saudi crown prince Mohammad bin Salman’s (MBS) authority over most everyone. 

Doing it risks ending up like Khashoggi.

MBS is de facto Saudi ruler. What he says goes on virtually all affairs of state, including decisions on life and death.

So-called Saudi courts do his bidding. So do all others in the kingdom except for his father king Salman – in poor health, why he effectively abdicated authority to his favorite son.

A previous article suggested MBS is damaged goods, too incompetent to succeed his father as king, perhaps unacceptable to the West – given repeated policy blunders, Khashoggi’s murder the latest example.

Since appointed crown prince in June 2017, MBS consolidated power by eliminating potential rivals, solidifying control over kingdom domestic and geopolitical affairs – including its economy, foreign relations, military, interior ministry, and intelligence/security apparatus.

Did his power grab overstep? Did it destabilize the kingdom? Was Khashoggi’s abduction and murder a glaring example of incompetence? Will it be his undoing?

It created an international uproar, continuing nearly seven weeks after the October 2 incident.

His elevation to power displaced Mohammad bin Nayef as heir to the Saudi throne, a Western intelligence favorite.

Some of Riyadh’s closest allies believe he’s too reckless and untrustworthy to lead the kingdom. The CIA and Britain’s MI6 may want him replaced.

With international guarantees for his safety, dissident prince Ahmad bin Abdulaziz, king Salman’s younger brother, returned to the kingdom from London.

Was it to challenge MBS as crown prince with CIA/MI6 support? Was it because both spy agencies want him replaced?

Will Abdulaziz succeed him as crown prince or be involved in selecting someone else to become future Saudi king?

According to the neocon/CIA-connected Washington Post, the NYT, Wall Street Journal, Reuters, and other major media, Langley concluded with high confidence, after examining relevant evidence, that MBS bears full responsibility for ordering Khashoggi’s elimination.

Claims by Saudi foreign minister Jubeir and other regime officials, absolving MBS for the murder, are fabricated like all other kingdom versions of what happened to Khashoggi.

It’s significant that the CIA refuted the White House and Riyadh in its conclusion about his murder, a major development.

Since the October 2 incident, Riyadh shifted from one phony explanation about his murder to another, clear evidence that nothing the regime says is credible.

The Wall Street Journal said the CIA’s conclusion about Khashoggi’s murder “may endanger President Trump’s efforts to protect ties with Prince Mohammed,” adding:

US officials familiar with the issue stress that Khashoggi’s murder “would not and could not have happened” without MBS’ involvement and authorization.

A statement by a spokesperson in Riyadh’s Washington embassy denied the CIA’s conclusion, saying “(t)he claims in this purported assessment are false. We have and continue to hear various theories without seeing the primary basis for these speculations.”

Langley, Trump’s spokeswoman, and the State Department declined to comment. Reuters said the CIA briefed briefed the White House and Congress on its assessment of what happened to Khashoggi.

Its conclusion is the most damning one so far, linking MBS directly to Khashoggi’s murder – what Trump, EU leaders, and others have gone all-out to prevent, wanting nothing interfering in dirty business as usual with the kingdom.

Damning intelligence comes from Turkish obtained audio recordings of what happened to Khashoggi inside Riyadh’s Istanbul consulate, along with Ankara’s forensic evidence.

Reports drip-fed what’s known to Turkish and international media almost daily since the killing, refuting fabricated Saudi explanations about the incident.

Over two weeks elapsed after Khashoggi’s October 2 disappearance before Riyadh admitted his elimination, one fabricated version of what happened after another.

None are credible – from an interrogation gone wrong to premeditated murder to killing him after failing to persuade him to return to the kingdom to saying he died from a lethal injection.

Turkish audio and forensic evidence refute all of the above – indicating Khashoggi was murdered straightaway after entering the Istanbul consulate, his body believed dismembered and dissolved in hydrofluoric acid.

He was suffocated to death by a bag over his head to cut off air. His final words were “I’m suffocating. Take this bag off my head.”

How Trump and other world leaders intend dealing with the CIA’s conclusion remains to be seen.

One thing is clear. The world community won’t let Khashoggi’s murder change longstanding relations with Riyadh – not as long as the kingdom is oil-rich and super-wealthy.

*

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 United States has appropriated and is obligated to spend an estimated $5.9 trillion (in current dollars) on the war on terror through Fiscal Year 2019, including direct war and war-related spending and obligations for future spending on post-9/11 war veterans (see Table 1).

This number differs substantially from the Pentagon’s estimates of the costs of the post-9/11 wars because it includes not only war appropriations made to the Department of Defense – spending in the war zones of Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and in other places the government designates as sites of “overseas contingency operations,” – but also includes spending across the federal government that is a consequence of these wars. Specifically, this is war-related spending by the Department of State, past and obligated spending for war veterans’ care, interest on the debt incurred to pay for the wars, and the prevention of and response to terrorism by the Department of Homeland Security.

If the US continues on its current path, war spending will continue to grow. The Pentagon currently projects $80 billion in Overseas Contingency Operations (OCO) spending through FY2023. Even if the wars are ended by 2023, the US would still be on track to spend an additional $808 billion (see Table 2) to total at least $6.7 trillion, not including future interest costs. Moreover, the costs of war will likely be greater than this because, unless the US immediately ends its deployments, the number of veterans associated with the post-9/11 wars will also grow. Veterans benefits and disability spending, and the cost of interest on borrowing to pay for the wars, will comprise an increasingly large share of the costs of the US post-9/11 wars.

Table 1, below, summarizes the direct war costs – the OCO budget – and war-related costs through FY2019. These include war-related increases in overall military spending, care for veterans, Homeland Security spending, and interest payments on borrowing for the wars. Including the other areas of war-related spending, the estimate for total US war-related spending allocated through FY2019 is $4.9 trillion.[3] But because the US is contractually and morally obligated to pay for the care of the post-9/11 veterans through their lifetimes, it is prudent to include the costs of care for existing post-9/11 veterans through the next several decades. This means that the US has spent or is obligated to spend $5.9 trillion in current dollars through FY2019.[4] Table 1 represents this bottom-line breakdown for spent and obligated costs.

Table 1. Summary of War Related Spending, in Billions of Current Dollars, Rounded to the Nearest Billion, FY2001- FY2019[5]

Figure 1. US Costs of War: $5.9 Billions of Current Dollars Spent and Obligated, through FY2019[10]

Further, the US military has no plans to end the post-9/11 wars in this fiscal year or the next. Rather, as the inclusion of future years spending estimates in the Pentagon’s budget indicates, the DOD anticipates military operations in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and Syria necessitating funding through at least FY2023. Thus, including anticipated OCO and other war-related spending, and the fact that the post-9/11 veterans will require care for the next several decades, I estimate that through FY2023, the US will spend and take on obligations to spend more than $6.7 trillion.

To read the full PDF report by Professor Neta C. Crawford, click 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on United States Budgetary Costs of the Post-9/11 Wars: $5.9 Trillion Spent and Obligated

NBC News maintains that four sources in US government agencies (probably the FBI and the State Department) told its reporters that the Trump White House is seeking ways to expel Turkish religious leader Fethullah Gulen. But the kicker is that Trump apparently is exploring the extradition as a bribe to shut Turkish president Tayyip Erdogan up about the murder of dissident journalist Jamal Khashoggi on the orders of crown prince Mohammed Bin Salman. The Saudis are now trying to pin the blame on lower-level operatives, whom they have sentenced to death. But Erdogan has been like a bulldog, insisting that Bin Salman ordered the hit (which is the only logical).

NBC says that career officials were absolutely furious when they figured out what was behind the White House requests. It is of course the ultimate in shamelessness for Trump to have a US green card holder sent to the gallows in Turkey in order to cover up the murder of another US green card holder murdered in the Saudi consulate.

Turkey maintains that Gulen’s Hizmet Movement is a front for terrorist activities and was behind the failed 2016 military coup attempt against Tayyip Erdogan. I think there is evidence that the group is a cult and that it did attempt to infiltrate key Turkish government institutions, in the way of the old Stalinist covert cells. But that all Gulenists are terrorists is pretty hard to believe; the group runs schools and universities and those institutions haven’t been violent (they have been shut down in Turkey proper). That the upper echelons of the leadership have been involved in shady goings-on is plausible (just as it is possible with regard to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, which is being treated by the al-Sisi government the way Ankara is now treating the Gulenists).

The US government has repeatedly denied such Turkish requests, and disputes that the evidence the Turkish government has provided to the FBI is sufficient to warrant Gulen’s extradition. (This datum in the NBC reporting is itself significant, since it means that Turkey has not been able to provide convincing documentation on the origins of the 2016 coup to US authorities.)

Erdogan’s campaign to unseat the crown prince has been extremely inconvenient for Trump. Trump has said that Saudi purchases of billions in US weaponry cannot be put in jeopardy over Khashoggi’s murder. Bin Salman is also the linchpin of the Trump administration’s anti-Iran coalition, and to the extent that he is permanently weakened by the fallout over Khashoggi, Iran is strengthened. Bin Salman only had part of the Gulf Cooperation Council (Kuwait, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates) with him on boycotting Iran. Oman and Qatar have refused to join in, and even Kuwait is soft on this issue. Egypt, Jordan and Morocco were aboard, but offered little practical support, and both Egypt and Jordan want improved relations with the pro-Iran government of Bashar al-Assad in Syria. With Bin Salman being ridiculed as “The Sawman” (Abu Minshar), like a cartoon villain, it is hard to see how he can lead a charge against Iran.

In fact, the strategy of flooding the market with extra oil has already backfired, harming the Saudi and other Arab producers’ bottom line, and Saudi Arabia has announced cutbacks for next month (cutbacks that will help Iran withstand the boycott, since it may sell less oil but get more per barrel).

Iraq, Syria, and Lebanon are pro-Iran and Qatar has correct relations with Tehran, plus Russia and China are with Iran. The European Union is trying to protect Iran and keep the 2015 nuclear deal. The US-backed Bin Salman’s success in the anti-Iran push was already in doubt before the murder of Khashoggi. Now it is in severe doubt.

Hence Trump’s desperate ploy, finally to shut Erdogan up about the crown prince and let the whole controversy die down if possible, so as to preserve Bin Salman as quarterback of the White House Middle East game.

A stronger phrase than abject shamelessness needs to be coined in order fully to characterize the cheapness of what the White House is apparently considering. (Note that the White House denies the NBC story; but four sources are pretty damning).

*

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

Juan Cole is the founder and chief editor of Informed Comment and Richard P. Mitchell Professor of History at the University of Michigan. He is author of, among many other books, Muhammad: Prophet of Peace amid the Clash of Empires. Follow him at @jricole.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Said Considering Extradition of Turkish Cleric to Quiet Erdogan on Khashoggi Murder

Empire’s Currency: The Lie

November 17th, 2018 by Mark Taliano

Empire’s currency is the Lie, which is why the Truth sounds bizarre to all but the well-informed. 

Largely unelected policymakers make the decisions in the West’s non-democracies, while fabricated narratives are amplified by politicians and colonial media.  

The transnational ruling class of oligarchs propagate diseconomies, dystopia, permanent war and terrorism.

Whereas Canada, for example, supports ISIS, al Qaeda, neo-Nazis[1], and criminal wars of aggression, most Canadians have been programmed to think that Canada is progressive. The Lie transcends and obliterates simple truths. Some Canadians and Americans would be horrified if they were confronted with the Truth. 

Consider, for example, ISIS. Whereas ISIS is thought to be the enemy, NATO policymakers have actually created what ISIS terrorists now call an “Islamic State” east of the Euphrates. This oil-rich “Islamic State”[2] has been on the NATO drawing boards for years. The blueprint takes the form of Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) document 14-L-0552.[3]

Some of the more salient points, as reported by Brad Hoff, are as follows:

  • Al-Qaeda drives the opposition in Syria
  • The West identifies with the opposition
  • The establishment of a “Salafist Principality” in Eastern Syria is “exactly” what the external powers supporting the opposition want (identified as “the West, Gulf Countries, and Turkey”) in order to weaken the Assad government

More graphically, the Western/ISIS created “Islamic State” looks like this.

NATO policymakers must be exuberant.

But this is only a partial success story.  NATO’s destruction of Libya[4] was an unblemished success story. Libya’s debt-free economy was destroyed and plundered, and now it will be beholden to International Financial Institutions and IMF (neoliberal) “economic medicine” which will privatize, enslave and further impoverish the country.  Big Finance, a hidden driver behind imperialism and NATO invasions, will profit immensely from Libya’s destruction.  

Globalized war and poverty is what the ruling classes have in store for all of us, beneath veils of lies. 

*

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.

Notes

1. Max Blumenthal, “Blowback: An Inside Look at How US-Funded Fascists in Ukraine Mentor US White Supremacists.” Mint Press News, 15 November, 2018.( https://www.mintpressnews.com/us-backed-fascist-azov-battalion-in-ukraine-is-training-and-radicalizing-american-white-supremacists/251951/ ) Accessed 16 November, 2018.

2. Facebook message from Lilly Martin to Mark Taliano, November, 2018.

3. Brad Hoff, “2012 Defense Intelligence Agency document: West will facilitate rise of Islamic State ‘in order to isolate the Syrian regime.’ “ Levant Report. 19 May, 2015. (https://levantreport.com/2015/05/19/2012-defense-intelligence-agency-document-west-will-facilitate-rise-of-islamic-state-in-order-to-isolate-the-syrian-regime/) Accessed 16 November, 2018.

 4. Prof. Michel Chossudovsky, “Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed.” Global Research. 14 November, 2018, 20 September 2011. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/destroying-a-country-s-standard-of-living-what-libya-had-achieved-what-has-been-destroyed/26686) Accessed 16 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

 

Os destruidores da Líbia, agora «pela Líbia»

November 17th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Um crescente (símbolo do islamismo) representado como um hemisfério estilizado que, ladeado por uma estrela e as palavras «for/with Libya» (para/com a Líbia), representa “um mundo que quer colocar-se ao lado da Líbia”: é o logotipo da “Conferência para a Líbia”, promovida pelo governo italiano, como mostra o tricolor na parte inferior do crescente/hemisfério. A Conferência Internacional desenrola-se nos dias 12 e 13 de Novembro, em Palermo, naquela Sicília que, há sete anos, foi a principal base de lançamento para a guerra com a qual a NATO, sob comando USA, demoliu o Estado líbio. Ela foi iniciada, financiando e armando na Líbia, sectores tribais e grupos islâmicos hostis ao governo de Trípoli e infiltrando no país, forças especiais, incluindo milhares de comandos catarianos, disfarçados de “rebeldes líbios”.

Era assim lançado, em Março de 2011, o ataque aéreo USA/NATO que durou 7 meses. A aviação realizou 30 mil missões, das quais 10 mil de ataque, empregando mais de 40 mil bombas e mísseis. A Itália, por vontade de um vasto arco político, da direita à esquerda, participava na guerra não só com a sua própria aviação e marinha, mas colocava à disposição das forças USA/NATO, 7 bases aéreas: Trapani, Sigonella, Pantelleria, Gioia del Colle, Amendola, Decimomannu e Aviano. Com a guerra de 2011, a NATO arrasava aquele Estado que, na margem sul do Mediterrâneo, em frente à Itália, tinha alcançado, embora com consideráveis ​​disparidades internas, “altos níveis de crescimento económico e desenvolvimento humano” (como documentava, em 2010, o Banco Mundial), superiores aos de outros países africanos. Testemunhavam-no, o facto de que tinham encontrado trabalho na Líbia, cerca de dois milhões de imigrantes, a maior parte, africanos. Ao mesmo tempo, a Líbia teria possibilitado, com os seus fundos soberanos, o nascimento, em África, de organismos económicos independentes e uma moeda africana. USA e França – provam-no os emails da Secretária de Estado, Hillary Clinton – concordaram em bloquear, antes de tudo, o plano de Gaddafi de criar uma moeda africana, em alternativa ao dólar e ao franco CFA, imposto pela França às suas 14 antigas colónias africanas.

Derrubado o Estado e Gaddafi assassinado, na situação caótica que se seguiu, iniciou-se, no plano internacional e interno, uma luta feroz para a divisão de um espólio enorme: as reservas petrolíferas (as maiores de África) e de gás natural; o imenso lençol freático núbio de água fóssil, o ouro branco em perspectiva mais precioso do que o ouro negro; o próprio território líbio, de primordial  importância geoestratégica; os fundos soberanos, cerca de 150 biliões de dólares investidos no exterior pelo Estado líbio, “congelados”, em 2011, nos principais bancos europeus e dos EUA. Por outras palavras, roubados. Por exemplo, dos 16 biliões de euros de fundos líbios “congelados”  no Euroclear Bank, na Bélgica e em Luxemburgo, apareceram apenas 10. “A partir de 2013 – documenta a RTBF (Rádio  TV francófona belga) – centenas de milhões de euros, provenientes desses fundos, foram enviados para a Líbia a fim de financiar a guerra civil que causou uma grave crise migratória”. Muitos imigrantes africanos, na Líbia, foram presos e torturados por milícias islâmicas. A Líbia tornou-se a principal rota de trânsito, nas mãos dos traficantes e dos  manipuladores internacionais, de um fluxo caótico migratório que, desde então no Mediterrâneo, tem provocado a cada ano, mais vítimas das bombas da NATO, lançadas em 2011.

Não podemos calar, como também fizeram os organizadores da anti-Cimeira de Palermo que, na origem desta tragédia humana, está a guerra USA/NATO que há sete anos desmantelou em África, um Estado na sua totalidade.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 13 de Novembro de 2018

Vidéo :

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Os destruidores da Líbia, agora «pela Líbia»

VIDEO: I distruttori della Libia ora «per la Libia»

November 17th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Una mezzaluna (simbolo dell’islamismo) raffigurata come uno stilizzato emisfero che, affiancato da una stella e le parole «for/with Libya» (per/con la Libia), rappresenta «un mondo che vuole porsi dalla parte della Libia»: è il logo della «Conferenza per la Libia» promossa dal governo italiano, come evidenzia il tricolore nella parte inferiore della mezzaluna/emisfero. La Conferenza internazionale si svolge il 12-13 novembre a Palermo, in quella Sicilia che sette anni fa è stata la principale base di lancio della guerra con cui la NATO sotto comando USA ha demolito lo Stato libico. Essa veniva iniziata finanziando e armando in Libia settori tribali e gruppi islamici ostili al governo di Tripoli e infiltrando nel paese forze speciali, tra cui migliaia di commandos qatariani camuffati da «ribelli libici».

Veniva quindi lanciato, nel marzo 2011, l’attacco aeronavale USA/NATO durato 7 mesi.  L’aviazione effettuava 30 mila missioni, di cui 10 mila di attacco, con impiego di oltre 40 mila bombe e missili. L’Italia, per volontà di un vasto arco politico dalla destra alla sinistra, partecipava alla guerra non solo con la propria aeronautica e marina, ma mettendo a disposizione delle forze USA/NATO 7 basi aeree: Trapani, Sigonella, Pantelleria, Gioia del Colle, Amendola, Decimomannu e Aviano. Con la guerra del 2011 la NATO demoliva  quello Stato che, sulla sponda sud del Mediterraneo di fronte all’Italia, aveva raggiunto, pur con notevoli disparità interne, «alti livelli di crescita economica e sviluppo umano» (come documentava nel 2010 la stessa Banca Mondiale), superiori a quelli degli altri paesi africani. Lo testimoniava il fatto che avevano trovato lavoro in Libia circa due milioni di immigrati, per lo più africani. Allo stesso tempo la Libia avrebbe reso possibile, con i suoi fondi sovrani, la nascita in Africa di organismi economici indipendenti e di una moneta africana. USA e Francia – provano le mail della segretaria di Stato Hillary Clinton – si erano accordati per bloccare anzitutto il piano di Gheddafi di creare una moneta africana, in alternativa al dollaro e al franco CFA imposto dalla Francia a 14 ex colonie africane.

Demolito lo Stato e assassinato Gheddafi, nella situazione caotica che ne è seguita è iniziata, sul piano internazionale e interno, una lotta al coltello per la spartizione di un enorme bottino: le riserve petrolifere, le maggiori dell’Africa, e di gas naturale; l’immensa falda nubiana di acqua fossile, l’oro bianco in prospettiva più prezioso dell’oro nero; lo stesso territorio libico di primaria importanza geostrategica; i fondi sovrani, circa 150 miliardi di dollari investiti all’estero dallo Stato libico, «congelati» nel 2011 nelle maggiori banche europee e statunitensi, in altre parole rapinati. Ad esempio, dei 16 miliardi di euro di fondi libici, bloccati nella Euroclear Bank in Belgio e Lussemburgo, ne sono spariti oltre 10. «Dal 2013 – documenta la RTBF (radiotelevisione francofona belga) – centinaia di milioni di euro, provenienti di tali fondi, sono stati inviati in Libia per finanziare la guerra civile che ha provocato una grave crisi migratoria». Molti immigrati africani in Libia sono stati imprigionati e torturati dalle milizie islamiche. La Libia è divenuta la principale via di transito, in mano a trafficanti e manovratori internazionali, di un caotico flusso migratorio che nel Mediterraneo ha provocato ogni anno più vittime delle bombe NATO del 2011.

Non si può tacere, come hanno fatto perfino gli organizzatori del controvertice di Palermo, che all’origine di questa tragedia umana c’è la guerra USA/NATO che sette anni fa ha demolito in Africa un intero Stato.

Manlio Dinucci

il manifesto, 13 novembre 2018

Video (PandoraTV):

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on VIDEO: I distruttori della Libia ora «per la Libia»

VIDEO: Die Zerstörer Libyens sind jetzt „für Libyen“

November 17th, 2018 by Manlio Dinucci

Ein Halbmond (ein Symbol des Islamismus), der wie eine stilisierte Erdhalbkugel gestaltet ist, die, flankiert von einem Stern und den Worten “für/mit Libyen”, eine Welt darstellt, die „auf der Seite Libyens sein will“ – das ist das Logo der von der italienischen Regierung organisierten „Konferenz für Libyen“, was durch die dreifarbige Flagge im unteren Teil des Halbmonds/der Halbkugel veranschaulicht wird.

Die Internationale Konferenz findet vom 12. bis 13. November in Palermo auf der Insel Sizilien statt, die noch vor sieben Jahren die wichtigste Basis war, von der aus die NATO unter dem Kommando der USA ihren Krieg zur Zerstörung des Staates Libyen begann. Der Krieg wurde vorbereitet, indem bestimmte Stammessektoren und islamistische Gruppen in Libyen finanziert und bewaffnet wurden, die der Regierung von Tripolis feindlich gesinnt waren, und indem Spezialeinheiten in das Land infiltriert wurden, darunter Tausende von katarischen Kommandos, die als „libysche Rebellen“ getarnt waren. Im März 2011 wurde dann der Luftwaffenangriff der USA und der NATO gestartet – er dauerte sieben Monate. Die Fliegertruppe flog 30.000 Einsätze, davon 10.000 Angriffe, und setzte mehr als 40.000 Bomben und Raketen ein.

Auf Wunsch einer großen politischen Gruppe, die sich von links nach rechts erstreckt, nahm auch Italien an dem Krieg teil, nicht nur durch den Einsatz seiner Fliegertruppe und seiner Marine, sondern auch durch das Angebot an die USA und die NATO, sieben Luftwaffenstützpunkte – Trapani, Sigonella, Pantelleria, Gioia del Colle, Amendola, Decimomannu und Aviano – zu nutzen.

Mit diesem Krieg im Jahr 2011 zerstörte die NATO den Staat Libyen, der sich am Südufer des Mittelmeeres gegenüber Italien befindet, einem Staat, der – zugegebenermaßen mit einigen bemerkenswerten internen Unterschieden – ein „hohes Maß an Wirtschaftswachstum und menschlicher Entwicklung“ erreicht hatte (wie die Weltbank selbst 2010 erklärte), „das dem der anderen afrikanischen Länder überlegen war“. Der Beweis dafür ist, dass fast zwei Millionen Einwanderer, die meisten davon Afrikaner, in Libyen Arbeit gefunden hatten. Gleichzeitig hatte Libyen mit seiner eigenen Staatskasse die Entwicklung unabhängiger Wirtschaftsorganisationen und einer afrikanischen Währung in Afrika ermöglicht.

Wie die E-Mails von [Ex-]Außenministerin Hillary Clinton beweisen, haben sich die USA und Frankreich darauf geeinigt, den Plan von Kadhafi, eine afrikanische Währung, eine Alternative zum Dollar und den CFA-Franc, den Frankreich 14 afrikanischen Ex-Kolonien auferlegt hat, um jeden Preis zu blockieren.

Nach der Zerstörung des Staates und der Ermordung von Mouamar Kadhafi begann in der darauf folgenden chaotischen Situation ein brutaler Kampf, sowohl intern als auch international, um die Beute – die riesigen Öl- und Erdgasreserven, die riesigen nubischen unterirdischen fossilen Wasserreserven – zu verteilen; dieses weiße Gold, aus einem Blickwinkel wertvoller als das schwarze Gold; das libysche Territorium selbst, von vorrangiger geostrategischer Bedeutung; der souveräne Staatsschatz, etwa 150 Milliarden Dollar, die vom libyschen Staat im Ausland investiert und 2011 bei den wichtigsten europäischen und US-amerikanischen Banken „eingefroren“ wurden oder mit anderen Worten – gestohlen. So sind beispielsweise von den 16 Milliarden Euro, die von der Euroclear Bank in Belgien und Luxemburg für libysche Vermögenswerte gesperrt wurden, mehr als 10 Milliarden verschwunden. „Seit 2013“, so der RTBF (RadioTelevision Francophone Belge), „wurden Hunderte von Millionen Euro aus diesem Vermögen nach Libyen geschickt, um den Bürgerkrieg zu finanzieren, der eine schwere Migrantenkrise auslöste“.

Viele afrikanische Einwanderer in Libyen wurden von islamischen Milizen gefangen genommen und gefoltert. Libyen, das sich nun in den Händen von Menschenhändlern und internationalen Manipulatoren befindet, wurde zum wichtigsten Transitland für eine chaotische Migrationsflut, die jedes Jahr im Mittelmeer mehr Opfer forderte als NATO-Bomben im Jahr 2011.

Wir können nicht schweigen, wie es selbst die Organisatoren des Gegengipfels in Palermo getan haben – die Wahrheit ist, dass der Ursprung dieser menschlichen Tragödie in den Kriegen der USA und der NATO liegt, die vor sieben Jahren einen ganzen Staat in Afrika zerstört haben.

Manlio Dinucci

Übersetzung: K.R.

il manifesto, 13.November 2018

 

 


Manlio Dinucci

Geograph und Geopolitiker. Letztes veröffentliche Werk: Laboratorio di geografia, Zanichelli 2014 ; Diario di viaggio, Zanichelli 2017 ; L’arte della guerra / Annali della strategia Usa/Nato 1990-2016, Zambon 2016, Guerra Nucleare. Il Giorno Prima 2017; Diario di guerra Asterios Editores 2018

VIDEO (PandoraTV) :

  • Posted in Deutsch
  • Comments Off on VIDEO: Die Zerstörer Libyens sind jetzt „für Libyen“

House Members Block Resolution to End Yemen War

November 16th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

The US led war in Yemen has been ongoing almost as long as the one in Afghanistan – because both Republicans and Democrats oppose resolution in all US war theaters.

On November 14 House Republicans blocked a resolution to end war in Yemen by ending US military support for Saudi Arabia and the UAE.

Yemen is America’s war, launched by Bush/Cheney, supported by Obama for eight years, by Trump for nearly two years.

The resolution called “Manage Our Wolves Act” included a Dem provision on Yemen, solely for political reasons, a grandstanding stunt, not one of conviction.

Dems are as pro-war on humanity as Republicans, unconcerned about the human cost, civilians harmed most in all war theaters – notably in Yemen, famine stalking millions because of endless war and blockade.

Dem Rep. Ro Khanna invoked the 1973 War Powers Act. Enacted to check presidential power to wage war without congressional approval – except under “national emergency (conditions) by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces” it hasn’t worked as intended.

It’s supposed to require presidents to notify Congress within 48 hours of committing armed forces to military action, forbidding them from remaining for more than 60 days in combat, a further 30-day withdrawal period granted – no longer without congressional authorization.

Since enacted into law, the measure was repeatedly violated by presidents, ignored by Congress, notably during the rape of Yugoslavia and endless post-9/11 wars of aggression against nations threatening no one.

Invoking the War Powers Act on Wednesday gave the Yemen resolution “privileged” status, allowing it to bypass the process involving legislation passing through committees before reaching the House and Senate floor.

Republicans stripped the resolution of status. Khanna was over the top calling the action “unprecedented in American history,” adding:

“What the majority is saying is that if the president of the United States and the speaker believe we should be in war, we should be at war.”

It’s how it’s largely been since WW II – with overwhelming bipartisan support. Both right wings of America’s one-party state support endless wars of aggression – including in Yemen for over 17 years.

The notion that Dems are concerned about Yemeni suffering and deaths flies in the face of their abhorrence of peace and stability anywhere – the same as Republicans.

The last US president against war, wanting all US forces out of Vietnam, was assassinated by the CIA. Jack Kennedy’s transformation from warrior to peacemaker cost him his life.

It’s a lesson not lost on successors. Go along with imperial wars or end up like JFK.

They all supported and continue to support endless US wars of aggression against nations threatening no one.

Khanna represents the strongly Dem California 17th congressional district – elected in November 2016, reelected on November 6, earlier serving as Obama’s deputy assistant Commerce Department secretary, supporting his regime’s imperial agenda.

It included terror-bombing seven countries, including Yemen. Khanna’s call for ending war in Yemen belies his earlier support – including for US naked aggression in multiple other theaters, likely supporting them now.

The vast majority of congressional members back Washington’s imperial agenda – why there’s no prospect of ending US wars.

Khanna was less than candid, saying

“(t)here’s not a single American who wouldn’t want the violence to end,” adding:

“I plead with my Republican colleagues. Please vote no on this resolution. Let’s have a debate. Let’s have a debate about the starvation and the killing going on there and do the right thing for our Constitution and our world.”

Most Americans are ignorant about US wars, where they’re waged and why. Virtually no anti-war movement exists.

On cable television where most Americans get no news/news, there’s practically no coverage of US imperial wars. When there is, it’s all propaganda all the time, leaving viewers disinformed and unaware of what’s going on.

Khanna’s alleged concern about what’s going on in Yemen rings disturbingly hollow.

What about the starving, suffering people in all other nations Washington continues to rape and destroy!

What about long-suffering Palestinians, especially terror-bombed Gazan, longstanding victims of Israeli apartheid viciousness!

What about lawless US sanctions on Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, Syria and other countries!

What about bipartisan congressional support for wanting virtually all sovereign independent governments forcefully replaced by pro-Western puppet rule!

What about undeclared homeland war against unwanted aliens, Muslims, and America’s most vulnerable citizens by punishing neoliberal harshness and raging inner city battlegrounds – claiming over 100,000 lives annually.

America’s agenda in Yemen is one similar others in many other countries.

The key issue virtually no one in Congress will touch is ending all US wars of aggression, not one alone, even figures like Khanna have no credibility urging because of his support for Washington’s imperial agenda.

*

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.

Featured image is from The Course Correction

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on House Members Block Resolution to End Yemen 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.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Video: Che Guevara Calls for “Good Relations with the US” (1964)
  • Tags:

More evidence the “war on terror,” now shifted over to a New Cold War against Russia and China, is nothing if not a money-maker for the merchants of death and the usury banksters. 

According to a study produced by Brown University, since the attacks of 9/11 the US has spent $5.9 trillion on wars designed to last indefinitely, or at least until the empire implodes. 

The Pentagon has lied to us for years, grossly underestimating the cost of its military operations against enemies largely manufactured by intelligence agencies. 

“That sort of vast expenditure is only the costs and obligations of the wars so far, and with little sign of them ending, they are only going to grow. In particular, a generation of wars is going to further add to the medical costs for veterans’ being consistently deployed abroad,” writes Jason Ditz. 

The report summarizes what many of us have known for quite some time—the wars are designed to last forever and represent an open-ended feeding trough for the “defense” industry. The authors note

there is no strategy for ending the wars. The fact that the US keeps spending huge sums for wars that, at least in Afghanistan, are in a stalemate, and in Iraq and Syria, are unresolved, is a long-term budgetary problem which will affect future generations. The government’s pattern of reporting only DOD war spending obscures the magnitude of spending since 9/11. The comprehensive analysis of post-9/11 federal war and war related spending conducted by the Costs of War Project is only one part of a greater assessment of the impact of these wars. The US economy will, in the long run, find it difficult to sustain this level of military and war-related spending and the deficits it produces.

Endless war and a financial scam worthy of a RICO investigation and perpetuated on the American people by the Federal Reserve and its cartel banks will not stop until the system collapses, an event that is far closer than many believe, that is to say the relatively small number of people aware of and warning about this eventuality. 

Trump has kept the Pentagon charade alive, acting as an international death merchant salesman of the month. His MAGA crowd apparently believes spending billions on redundant and often broken military hardware will make America something again, certainly not great. 

*

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: Another Day in the Empire.

Kurt Nimmo is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

The USSR’s Christmas 1979 intervention into Afghanistan was foreseen as a swift, near-costless and necessary conflict. Days after the military move, Soviet president Leonid Brezhnev assured his diplomat Anatoly Dobrynin that, “we will end this war in three or four weeks”. It continued for almost a decade in fact, outlasting by over six years Brezhnev himself, who died in November 1982.

A long war in Afghanistan quickened the USSR’s demise, a state of unparalleled vastness gradually deteriorating before the conflict, under years of Brezhnev’s detached leadership (1964-1982). The Soviet Union would crumble in 1991 without a shot being fired, such was the level of fragility that had set in.

Brezhnev’s prediction, that the Soviet-Afghan war would be over within a month, stood as another ill-judged estimation from a world leader. Many hundreds of thousands perished in the time following the Soviet invasion – of which Western and Arab oil dictator countries shared culpability – while millions more Afghan civilians fled the country.

Yet in some mitigation to the Soviets, Afghanistan was a nation situated at its very borders, sharing frontiers with the Soviet republics of Turkmen, Uzbek and Tajik, in central Asia. Brezhnev and his followers were concerned about growing American influence in one of the planet’s most important localities (Central Asia), laden with natural resources from oil and natural gas to uranium and iron ore.

By sending ground forces to Afghanistan, the Soviet leadership sought to provide backing for communists who claimed power in late April 1978, via a coup d’état. It was a calamitous decision by Brezhnev. There was not the support in Afghanistan to sustain communism, nor would there ever be – the Afghan community is deeply diverse and complex, comprising 14 ethnic groups in a mostly tribal society.

Inevitably, the Soviet intervention became a prolonged war, partially due to other foreign influence led by the United States. For large parts of the 1980s, Soviet armies were battling nationalists and terrorists sponsored not just by America and Britain, but supported too by West Germany, Pakistan and even China. The extremists were known as the Mujahideen, in which the Saudi-born Osama bin Laden was a member. America and Saudi Arabia gave the Mujahideen billions in aid, which was gratefully accepted.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, the fervently anti-Russian US National Security Advisor, has often been credited with luring the Soviets into a trap, handing them “its Vietnam War”. With president Jimmy Carter’s assistance, Brzezinski was indeed a guiding force in offering assistance to opponents of the pro-Soviet Afghan cabinet, intending to elicit a response from Moscow.

Brzezinski’s efforts would have come to nothing, had an ill Brezhnev possessed the wisdom to avoid interfering in Afghanistan, so complicated as that nation is. The Soviets irrationally feared a Western-leaning leadership taking hold at its borders – but a legitimate Afghan government will never be truly sympathetic towards America or Russia – as its population has not the cultural basis, or inclination, to be supportive of either.

Throughout the 21st century, America has embroiled herself in a seemingly endless conflict in Afghanistan, that it also surely cannot win. While Afghanistan was located in the USSR’s backyard so to speak, America is situated almost 7,000 miles from Afghan territory.

Washington has retained its involvement due to Afghanistan being an extremely resource-rich state, and positioned in a pivotal landmass. The Pentagon estimates there are hundreds of billions worth of untapped minerals there.

However, successive US administrations have failed to heed the lessons dealt to Russia a generation before. Conflicts like this based on grand ignorance and without righteous aims are destined to fail. US forces, which have committed war crimes on Afghan lands, will not be accepted by local peoples who favor even Taliban insurgents above them.

After 1945, all the land invasions America pursued have unfolded very different to how they were anticipated. During the Second World War, American units displayed strong fighting qualities against the formidable legions of Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany – despite Hitler asserting the American soldier was weak, decadent and would be flung back into the Atlantic Ocean.

Across the elapsing decades, major advancements in US military technology have impacted upon the psychological mindset of American troops. Where once the common soldier relied primarily upon the traditional rifle and bayonet, his post-1945 equivalent has increasingly been weighed down with all sorts of futuristic equipment and weaponry, far more destructive than before. The old-fashioned soldierly aim of attacking the enemy in the field, and thereby leaving civilians largely unharmed, is from a bygone age.

The moral decline induced by this so-called technological progression, is encapsulated by one of the more cowardly methods one can conceive: That of drone warfare. Through this process unsuspecting targets, perhaps innocent, are wiped out at the push of a button – those within a certain radius are also killed or wounded. The local population is left fearful and embittered, be it in Yemen, Pakistan and so on.

As early as the Korean and Vietnam wars, significant US military developments were on clear display; for instance with regard the mass introduction of the helicopter. During America’s assault on Vietnam especially, helicopters were used by the many thousands mostly through “counterinsurgency” operations.

The deployment of helicopters, like the Bell UH-1 Iroquois, was an indication of the technological fever besetting US political and military figures. Such was the immense noise a single helicopter produced, let alone a fleet, enemy soldiers for miles around had prior warning of the Americans’ arrival, and so could lie in wait. By war’s end, more than 5,000 US helicopters would be destroyed by North Vietnamese and National Liberation Front (NLF) forces, a major success for them.

Vietnam, situated in south-east Asia, lies in another critical domain and astride the lucrative South China Sea. The Americans feared Vietnam’s entire takeover by communism would precipitate a domino effect, that may have extended to the Philippines and Malaysia, leading to grave loss of control. After the US failed to prop up autocrats in South Vietnam like Ngo Dinh Diem, by mid-February 1965 president Lyndon B. Johnson approved plans to dramatically escalate the conflict; it included bombing raids on North Vietnam, soon followed by employment of much bigger numbers of foot soldiers.

Kennedy and McNamara (Source: Public Domain)

These decisions were also taken in part to maintain US credibility and prestige, an important but understated factor. In April 1965, US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said the war in Vietnam “would take more than six months, perhaps a year or two”. McNamara would be a strong advocate of the helicopter in somehow helping to subdue opposition forces. The American attack on Vietnam, and later neighboring Cambodia and Laos (Indochina), became the most severe aggression witnessed since Hitler’s invasion of the USSR. By the early 1970s, millions in this section of Indochina were killed, and countless others were either wounded or deformed.

America’s military released great quantities of poisonous chemicals across the region (between 1961 and 1971), affecting civilians by far the most, but also US soldiers. America drew inspiration from Britain in this regard. Again under Winston Churchill as prime minister, the British had initiated extensive chemical attacks during the early 1950s in Malaya, which were later covered up.

The absence of ethics relating to this form of warfare is difficult to behold. In Vietnam mainly, deaths and physical defects still occur because of the herbicides’ lingering contamination. The US’s early use of chemical warfare in South Vietnam immediately undermined their regional standing, ensuring leaders favorable to the West had little firm support.

As the war proceeded and spread, America would also unload 15 million tons of munitions altogether, over twice the total they consumed during World War II. Many bombs today remain unexploded unless they are stepped on. The US military further erected greatly expensive innovations in Indochina, like computer-coordinated electronic battlefields, and other mind-boggling inventions. To what end one can but guess; it ended in acrimonious failure.

At the cessation of hostilities, America’s global reputation was damaged, and would never completely recover. Yet the attack on Vietnam was not an outright defeat for the US. The threat of communism or nationalism stretching outward had been restricted; it was previously stymied by a covert and blood-soaked coup directed by the US and Britain in Indonesia further south.

The lessons, both ethical and emotional from these conflicts, were eventually forgotten and the “Vietnam Syndrome” overcome. Under George W. Bush as leader the US first attacked Afghanistan and, less than two years later, Iraq in March 2003. The land invasion of Iraq was another operation based on great naivety and myopia – an incursion into a separate faraway country which US leaders knew little about.

The principal reasons for assaulting Iraq included regaining full control over the nation’s massive oil reserves, while reasserting American hegemony and military power.

After Saddam Hussein was freshly ousted, in early May 2003 president Bush committed a major blunder when conducting a speech under a banner that read, “Mission Accomplished”. It transmitted a message that was manna to heaven for those bitterly against American occupation. As too was Bush’s insistence at the beginning of his oration that, “Major combat operations have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed”.

As with almost all wars the US occupation of Iraq went terribly awry, as its forces became bogged down thousands of miles from Washington. The Iraqi people were once more the victims, with hundreds of thousands dying in the following years, and its civil society splintered. Iraq is broken into various sects that are likely irreconcilable, most recently revealed by the country’s fractured elections in May this year.

*

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

Shane Quinn obtained an honors journalism degree. He is interested in writing primarily on foreign affairs, having been inspired by authors like Noam Chomsky. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from NEO

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War Very Rarely Unfolds as Planned. The Soviet-Afghan War

Jerusalem, deemed a holy city, and seen as trade item, bargaining chip and bartering tool over the centuries.  Sought by the major faiths, despoiled at stages by various empires, revived and chalice of poison in international law.  Australia’s Scott Morrison, charmless in his ignorance, has come to realise the problems of relocating the Australian embassy from Tel Aviv Jerusalem.   

International law, feeble as it is, sees the city as contested and for that reason, the subject of resolution only between the relevant parties in dispute.  As international law is a creature shunned and derided in Washington (unilateralism is in vogue), the Trump administration has made true a principle accepted by the US congress since 1995: that Israel’s capital be officially acknowledged as such. That the US embassy has taken root on land expropriated by Palestinian landholders is fittingly dark. 

Thousands of miles away, however, and Australia’s backwater, opportunity shop politicians were making a similar play prior to the by-election in the federal seat of Wentworth.  That particular bit of political real estate had been vacated by the former, and very much deposed Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull.  Suddenly, Jerusalem, or to be more precise, the interests of Jewry, mattered. (A large Jewish vote was potentially at stake in the affluent Sydney electorate.)  If Wentworth could be held, the cannibalising Liberal-National Coalition could still claim to have a barely breathing majority.  It was not to be. 

During the barnyard scuffles over whether the Australian embassy would be moved to Jerusalem, Morrison suggested he was more than open to the idea.  Then came loud voices of demurral from Australia’s neighbours, most notably Indonesia.  There was trade to worry about, not to mention the finalisation of a free trade agreement. 

As Senator Simon Birmingham, the minister tasked with the trade portfolio, noted in a press release at the end of August,

“Australia and Indonesia have successfully concluded negotiations on the Indonesia-Australia Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (IA-CEPA), deepening our economic and security cooperation with one of our major trading partners.” The only thing missing was the inked signature. 

The Jerusalem ploy by Morrison risked, if not scuppering the arrangement, then certainly delaying it.  Birmingham, showing the subtle awareness of a blunt, rude instrument, saw few problems.  (The Birmingham-Morrison double act is inoculated against the more nuanced signals of diplomacy.)  The agreement with Jakarta remained “on track for finalisation this year.” 

Morrison, betraying a similar obliviousness, saw little in the way of trouble.

“The Indonesian trade minister has made it clear on the public record.”

That clarity, based on remarks by Enggartiasto Lukita, was cautious but open-ended – that the agreement would be signed later this year. 

This self-interested reading was preferred to the sharper take by Indonesian Foreign Minister Retno Marsudi, who had made it clear that,

“Indonesia encourages Australia and other nations to continue to support the peace process and not conduct any action that could undermine the peace process and global security.”   

The leak of WhatsApp messages between Marsudi and her Australian counterpart, Senator Marise Payne, put pay to any suggestion that Jakarta was going to be mild mannered about the whole affair.  (Money may have no smell, but politics often reeks.)  One particular note of sourness on Marsudi’s part had been the timing of Morrison’s Jerusalem change of heart: Palestinian Foreign Minister Riyad al-Maliki was visiting Indonesia at the time.

Morrison, finding himself for the first time in the big league at an international meet in Singapore, has had to smooth things over, less with a fine comb than a jagged rake.  The reason was simple: Lukita had become more expressive on Jakarta’s position regarding the embassy move.  The deal “can be signed at any time but when you will sign it… depends on Australia’s position [on the embassy],” came the words to Indonesian media in Singapore on Tuesday.  Lukita also reminded reporters of Marsudi’s own warning: “if Australia insists on moving its embassy to Jerusalem, the signing will be delayed.”   

The meeting with Indonesian president Joko Widodo on the side of the East Asia Summit saw Morrison’s attempt to split the issue: the trade deal and embassy review could be considered separable.  “They were not conflated, they were not raised together in the meeting yesterday”.  Further conversations with Widodo and Marsudi had “been warm and very receptive.”  Nor did Morrison feel that his position contradicted the two-state policy. 

Some of Morrison’s inner circle seem to be cracking on the subject.  Signals of reassurance have been relayed.  Defence Industry Minister Steve Ciobo decided to reduce the issue of the embassy move to a matter of improbability.  In a conversation between Ciobo and Lukita at a recent defence event held in Indonesia, Ciobo came up with his assessment:

“About the possibility, I cannot say 100 percent we will move, but, I guess, the possibility is less than 5 percent.” 

When asked on Ciobo’s mathematically predictive remarks, Morrison dismissed them as not reflecting the government’s position.  “I am not aware of him even having said that.” The preferable method was dealing with the matter through “a Cabinet submission process”, a review that would be concluded by Christmas. Australia remained “sovereign in determining its foreign policy.” (Marvellous that someone believes that.) 

The line on asserting some fictional Australian sovereignty can also be found amongst other government members.  The way to Jerusalem is the way to affirm independence.  Senator Eric Abetz, chair of the parliamentary foreign affairs, defence and trade committee, has views typical of members who hail from the White Tribe of Asia. 

“If Indonesia really wants to dictate Aus [sic] foreign policy on the middle east,” he tweeted, “should we rethink the $360 million each year we give them in aid?  Instead, how about we calmly finalise this FTA which will lift many Indonesians out of poverty and assist Australian farmers and jobs.” 

Another meeting, this time with one of the region’s wiliest and at times ruthless leaders, was even more colourful than that with Widodo.  Morrison, Australia’s main bargain basement politician, received a schooling from Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad.  The nonagenarian, whose international credits include rebuffing the International Monetary Fund, mocking US presidents and occasional attacks of anti-Semitic rage, warned of violence.  Understand the causes of terrorism, he said sagely.  “Adding to the cause of terrorism is not going to be helpful.  I pointed that out.”  The Australian account of the meeting is similarly bereft of context to those of Indonesian officials: Mahathir surely did not mean Jerusalem and the embassy in his conversation.  Or did he?  

Morrison’s tangle is knotted and inextricable.  He has jettisoned decades of a bipartisan policy.  To now not go through with recognition will anger the Israelis and show him to be opportunistic and weak.  To also change midstream would suggest that Australian foreign policy is made in Jakarta, a true scoff at any notion that Canberra was sovereign in any meaningful sense.  Either way, Morrison is for turning. 

*

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]

Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra), the Turkistan Islamic Party, Jaish al-Izza and other so-called “opposition groups” continue to exploit the ceasefire in the Idlib de-escalation zone to launch attacks on the Syrian Arab Army (SAA) and its allies.

On November 14, they carried out two attacks on SAA positions in northern Hama from the direction of al-Lataminah. Both attacks were repelled and then described by pro-militant sources as an example of the ceasefire violations by the SAA.

On November 15, reports appeared that militants are gathering their sabotage-reconnaissance groups in hills near al-Lataminah to launch more attacks on the SAA. The security situation also remains complicated in northern Lattakia and southwestern Aleppo.

As the demilitarized zone agreement is not making progress as regards its full implementation, a military action is slowly appearing to be the only feasible measure, which can put an end to the ceasefire violations.

Reports on “mysterious helicopters” evacuating ISIS militants or providing them with supplies in Syria and Afghanistan continue to appear in various sources. Most recently, on November 13, the Syrian state news agency SANA claimed that US-led coalition helicopters evacuated several ISIS members in the village of al-Suwayda in Hasakah province near the border with Iraq and transported them to an unknown location.

Since 2017, such reports have repeatedly appeared in Syria and Afghanistan causing significant concern among local powers that the US and its allies cooperate with ISIS and are preparing to use the terrorist group as a tool against its regional and global competitors. The Pentagon rejects these accusations claiming that the US-led coalition makes no deals with ISIS.

On November 14, Avigdor Lieberman announced his resignation describing the Egyptian-mediated ceasefire with Hamas in the Gaza Strip as “a capitulation to terror”. Lieberman added that he fiercely objected to Israel’s allowing Qatar to deliver $15m in aid to Gaza last week.

Hamas called Lieberman’s resignation a “political victory for Gaza.” Hamas spokesperson Sami Abu Zuhri said that this development marked “recognition of defeat and failure to confront the Palestinian resistance”, adding that “Gaza’s steadfastness sent a political shockwave” through Israel.

It should be noted that Lieberman had been among those Israeli top officials, who had threatened to destroy S-300 air defense systems should Russia decide to supply them to the Syrian military. S-300 launchers and radars as well as other equipment to boost the capabilities of the Syrian Air Defense Forces (SADF) were supplied by Russia in early October. However, none of the Israeli threats have turned into reality so far. On the other hand, the Israeli Air Force has halted its airstrikes on targets in Syria, at least till now.

The recent setbacks in the conflicts in Gaza and Syria have put the Netanyahu government on the edge of a new political crisis. The unconditional support of any Israeli actions by the current US administration as well as Washington’s attempts to pressure the Palestinians and Iran to accept a de-facto surrender in favor of Tel Aviv only escalated the situation in the region. This escalation contributes neither to the security of Israeli citizens nor to the security of the region in general.

*

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

November 1918: Red Revolution in Strasbourg

November 16th, 2018 by Dr. Jacques R. Pauwels

In the context of the revolution that erupted in Germany as the country suffered defeat in November 1918, a revolutionary situation also arose in Strasbourg, capital of Alsace, a province that still belonged to the Reich at that time.

Inspired by the proclamation of a “free and socialist republic” in Berlin by Karl Liebknecht on the 9th of that month — and the proclamation, on November 8, of a Bavarian soviet republic (Räterepublik) in Munich, mutinous soldiers as well as civilians seeking radical political and social changes, mostly workers, established a Russian-style revolutionary council or “soviet” in the Alsatian capital and immediately introduced all sorts of radical democratic reforms, including abolition of censorship, wage increases, improved working conditions, the right to strike and to demonstrate, etc.

In addition, the revolutionaries declared that they wanted “nothing to do with the capitalist states” and desired to be neither German nor French but aspired to be able to live, thanks to the “triumph of the red flag,” in a “Republic of Alsace-Lorraine” (Republik Elsaß-Lothringen) that would be free, democratic and linguistically tolerant. A red flag fluttered from the lofty spire of the Alsatian capital, but the democratic project launched there resonated throughout the province: revolutionary movements simultaneously emerged in many other towns of the province, including Colmar, Mulhouse, Haguenau, Molsheim, Neuf-Brisach, Ribeauvillé, Saverne, and Sélestat. Red flags also appeared in the city of Metz, major city of the northern part of Alsace’s neighbouring province, Lorraine, likewise still part of the German Reich in 1918, though not for much longer.

In Strasbourg, the local bourgeoisie, overwhelmingly German-speaking, as well as the local social-democratic leaders, were horrified and decided that they preferred to be “French rather than red.” They appealed to the French army to “rush to Strasbourg as soon as possible” in order to put and end to “red rule” in the city. French troops entered Strasbourg a few days earlier than planned, namely on November 22, overthrew the soviet and cancelled all the democratic measures it had fathered. Strasbourg and the rest of Alsace (and the north of Lorraine) were unilaterally and unceremoniously annexed by France and subjected to a draconian process of “re-francisation”, including a prohibition of the use of the German and even Alsatian languages in education and in the public administration, the demotion of persons of insufficiently French origin to the status of second-class citizens, and the expulsion or ostracism of anyone suspected of disloyalty to France; the famous Doctor Albert Schweitzer was one of the victims of this sort of treatment. After their “liberation”, the Alsatians were less free than before and were no longer allowed to speak their own language, and many of them were (mis)treated as aliens in their own land. 

Meeting of the Strasbourg soviet on November 15, 1918(Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg 686107, CC BY 2.0, c/o Wikimedia Commons)

The case of Alsace illustrates the sad fact that, contrary to conventional wisdom, the Great War was not a “war for democracy” at all. Even the arguably most democratic of all belligerent powers, France, clearly did not fight for ideals such as democracy, justice, and the Wilsonian principles of self-determination; its victory represented the triumph of a fanatical and intolerant version of nationalism, a consolidation of authoritarian rule, and a setback for democracy.  

*

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

Jacques R. Pauwels is historian and political scientist, author of ‘The Myth of the Good War: America in the Second World War’ (James Lorimer, Toronto, 2002). His book is published in different languages: in English, Dutch, German, Spanish, Italian and French. Together with personalities like Ramsey Clark, Michael Parenti, William Blum, Robert Weil, Michel Collon, Peter Franssen and many others… he signed “The International Appeal against US-War”.

Featured image: Proclamation of the republic in Strasbourg on November 10, 1918 (Bibliothèque nationale et universitaire de Strasbourg 686071, c/o Wikimedia Commons)

China: A New Philosophy of Economics

November 16th, 2018 by Peter Koenig

China’s economic philosophy is a far cry from that of the west. 

The west consistently seeks to undermine the interests of their partners, be it for trade or political agreements; be it partners from the west, their smaller and weaker brothers; or from the east; or from the south – there is always an element of exploitation, of “one-upmanship”, of outdoing a partner, of domination. Equality and fairness are unknown by the west.

Or, when the concept was once known, at least by some countries and some people, it has been erased by indoctrinated neoliberal thinking – egocentricity, “me first”, and the sheer, all-permeating doctrine of “maximizing profits”; short-term thinking, instant gratification – or more extreme, making a killing today for a gamble or deal that takes place tomorrow. Futures trading – the epitome of manipulating economic values. Only in the capitalist world.

This has become a key feature of western commerce and trading. It’s manipulation and exploitation over ethics; it’s Profits Über Alles! – Doesn’t it sound like fascism? – Well it is. And if the partner doesn’t fall for the ruse, coercion becomes the name of the game – and if that doesn’t work the western military move in with bombs and tanks, seeking regime change – destroying the very country the west wants to dominate. That’s western brutal economics – full hegemony. No sharing.

China’s approach is quite different. It’s one of sharing, of participating, of mutual benefits. China invests trillions of dollars equivalent in developing countries – Asia, especially India and now also Pakistan, Africa, South America, largely for infrastructure projects, as well as mining of natural resources. Unlike the gains from western investments, the benefits of China’s investments are shared. China’s investment and mining concessions are not coerced, but fairly negotiated. China’s investment relationship with a partner country remains peaceful and is not ‘invasive’ and abusive, as are most of those of the west – which uses threats and guns to get what they want.

Of course, the west complains about Chinese investments, lying how abusive they are, when in reality the west is upset about Chinese competition in Africa and South America – Continents that are still considered part of the western domain, as they were colonized for about thousand years by western powers and empires – and as of today, African and Latin-American countries are neo-colonized, no longer (for now) with brute military force, but with even more ferocious financial strangulation, through sanctions, boycotts and embargos; all highly illegal by any international standards. But there aren’t any international laws that are upheld. International courts and judges are coerced to obey Washington’s dictates, or else… literally “or else”; and these are serious threats.

Take the case of West and Central Africa, former French colonies. The French West African zone includes eight countries: Benin, Burkina Faso, Guinea Bissau, Ivory Coast, Mali, Niger, Senegal, Togo; and the French Central African area comprises six countries – Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea and Gabon. All 14 countries have a common currency, the CFA franc (CFA = Communauté financière africaine – African Financial Community). 

They are two separate currencies, though always at parity and therefore interchangeable. The Western and Central African monetary union have separate central banks, the Banque Centrale des États de l’Afrique de l’Ouest, BCEAO, headquartered in Dakar, Senegal; and the Banque des États de l’Afrique Centrale, BEAC, in Yaoundé, Cameroun. Both currencies are guaranteed by the French treasury. This means in fact, that the economy of these 14 countries not only depends on France, but setting the value of the currency (at present one € = 655 CFA francs) is entirely the prerogative of the Banque de France (French Central Bank). This ultra-complicated setup between the two groups of former and new French colonies is not only a matter of French accounting, but foremost a means to confuse and distract the mostly innocent observer from a flagrant abusive reality.

With the French control over the West- and Central African currencies, the foreign trading capacity of these countries is reduced to what France will allow. France has a de facto monopoly on these countries’ production. Should France stop buying their “former-new” colonies goods, the countries go broke, as they have been unable to develop alternative markets under the French yoke. Thus, they are always at the mercy of France, the IMF, World Bank and the African Development Bank. – From labor slaves up to the early 1960s, they have become debt slaves of the neoliberal age. 

In addition, to back this French Treasury guarantee, 85% of the countries’ foreign exchange reserves are blocked by the French Central Bank and may only be used by the respective counties against specific permission – and – as a loan. – Imagine! – The “former” French colonies have to borrow their own money from the French Central Bank. Similar debt enslaving is going on in former British and Portuguese colonies, though, none of them is as abjectly abusive as are the French. 

Big wonder that Chinese investors are highly welcome in Africa. And knowing western manipulating and deranged mindsets, no wonder that China is demonized by the west as exploiting Africa to the bones, when exactly the contrary is the case. But almighty western lie-propaganda media has the brainwashed western populace believe China is stealing African natural resources. Chinese fairness is indeed tough competition against the usual western trickery and deceit.

In Africa, China is not only focusing on buying and trading natural resources, but on training and using local African brainpower to convert Africa from a western slave into an equal partner. For example, to boost African autonomy, China is using an approach, Ghadaffy intended to apply – entering the wireless phone system, conquering some of the market with efficient batteries, and providing cheaper and more efficient services than the west, hence directly competing with the western exploited African telephone market. Chinese phones also come with their own browsers, so that internet may eventually be accessed in the remotest places of Africa, providing a top tool for education. Challenging the EU and US dominated multi-billion-dollar market, is just one of the reasons Ghadaffy was miserably murdered by French-led NATO forces. Of course, China’s presence is a bit more difficult to kick than was Ghadaffy’s. 

This is just one more signal that China is in Africa – and Asia and Latin America – not just for the legendary American Quick Buck, but for genuine investments in long-term economic development which involves developing transportation networks, efficient and independent financial systems which may escape the western SWIFT and FED / Wall Street banking system through which US sanctions are imposed. This may involve the creation of government controlled blockchain currencies – see also Venezuela’s hydrocarbon-backed Petro – and linking African currencies to the Yuan and the eastern SCO (Shanghai Cooperation Organization) monetary system – freeing Africa from the dollar hegemony. With the help of China and Russia, Africa may, in fact, become the forerunner of crypto-currencies – and, in the case of west-and central Africa, the 14 countries would be able to gain financial autonomy, and to the chagrin of the French Central Bank, manage their own financial resources, breaking loose from under the little-talked about French yoke. It is quite conceivable that with Chinese development assistance Africa will become an important trading partner for the east, leaving western exploiting and abusing business and banking magnates behind in the dust.

The Overseas Private Investment Cooperation (OPIC), a US private lending as well as investment guarantee agency – is upset about US investors losing out to Chinese and wants US corporations to compete more aggressively – which is precisely what Africa rejects, America’s violent bombing approach to impose her trade and concession rules with the coercing help of the IMF and the World Bank. Africa is seeking – finally – sovereignty, deciding over her own financial and political destiny. This includes choosing investors and trading partners of their liking.

Many African and South American countries prefer China’s yuan-investments, rather than Washington’s US-dollar investments. Its ‘softer’ money coming from the Chinese. For China it’s also a way of diverting the world from the US-dollar, providing incentives for countries to divest their dollar reserves into yuan reserves. That’s is already happening at accelerating speed. 

China’s outlook at home and abroad is nothing less than spectacular. On the home front, they are building cutting-edge technology transport infrastructure, such as high-speed railways, for example, connecting Shanghai and Hangzhou, cutting travel time from one and a half hour in half. China’s high-speed bullet train connects for the first time Hong Kong with the mainland, cutting travel time Hong Kong to Beijing from 24 hours to 9 hours.

In October 2018, after nine years construction, President Xi Jinping opened the world’s longest sea crossing bridge, linking Hong Kong to Macau and the mainland Chinese city of Zhuhai. The bridge is 55 km long – about 20 times the length of San Francisco’s Golden Gate bridge. In urban development, existing and new multi-million people cities are planned, expanded and stamped out of the ground in less than a generation.

China has just built a US$ 2.1 billion AI (Artificial Intelligence) industrial park, and is not sleeping either on the environmental protection and development front, investing billions in research and development of alternative clean energies, especially solar power and its storage potential, next generation beyond lithium batteries, ranging from lithium solid state to electrolyte materials to graphene batteries and eventually to copper foam substrate. And that’s not the end of the line. Each battery technology offers increased capacity, safety and charging and discharging speed.  

On the domestic and international front, the Belt and Road (B and R) Initiative – the New Silk Road – is China’s President Xi’s phenomenal geo-economic initiative to connect the world from China with several transport routes and develop in a first step Western China, Eastern Russia, Central Asia and Eastern Europe – all the way to the frontiers of western Europe. This massive economic development program includes industrial parks, trade and cultural interchanges, research and development through existing universities and new science and learning centers. Maritime routes are also foreseen entering Africa through Kenya and Southern Europe and the Middle East via the Greek port of Piraeus and Iran – a southern route is also planned to enter the southern cone of Latin America.  

The endeavor is so huge, it has recently been inscribed into the Chinese Constitution. It will mobilize in the coming decades and possibly century trillions of yuan and dollar-equivalent of investments, mostly from China, Russia, the other SCO countries, as well as European partners  – and foremost the Beijing-based AIIB (Asian Infrastructure and Investment Bank) which has already 70 member countries, among them Australia, Canada, Western European nations and close to 20 prospective new countries; but not the United States of America.

This giant project, is of course, not without challenges. While the need for proof of “credit worthiness” by being tied to the IMF and World Bank of the eighties and nineties had since long faded into oblivion, China is still bound to the IMF and WB. – Why? – In my opinion it proves two things, The People’s Bank of China – the Chinese Central Bank – is still controlled by the FED and BIS (Bank for International Settlement, alias, central bank of all central banks), and a strong Fifth Column that doesn’t yield an inch of their power. The Chinese leadership could implement the necessary changes towards full financial sovereignty – but, why is that not happening? – Western threats and their secret services have become ever more sophisticated abduction and “neutralizing” machines over the past 70 years. 

The next question is what’s the Chinese lending limit to countries who have already or will subscribe to the Belt and Road Initiative to help them repay western debt and integrate into the new eastern economic model and monetary system? The question is relevant, because China’s money supply is based on China’s economic output; unlike western currencies which are purely fiat money (hot air). 

Also, how will ownership of foreign assets, i.e. infrastructure funded and perhaps built, dealt with? – Will they become Chinese property, increasing China’s capital base and flow of money? – Or would they be negotiated as long-term concessions, after which a country may repay to acquire sovereign ownership, or transfer part or all of the assets to China as a shareholder. These are relevant considerations, especially with regard to the huge B&R investments foreseen in the coming years. These decisions should be made autonomously by Chinese leadership, totally outside the influence of western monetary czars, like IMF and WB. 

Another issue which is steadily and increasingly cropping up in the west, of course to demonize China and discourage “western civilized” (sic) countries to associate themselves with socialist China – is China’s concept of “Social Credits”. It is largely based on what the west calls a dictatorial, freedom-robbing surveillance state – with cameras and face-recognition everywhere. Of course, totally ignoring the western own Orwellian Big Brother Surveillance and lie apparatus which calls itself democracy – and in fact is a democracy for then the elite of the plutocrats, gradually and by heavy propaganda brainwashing converting what’s left of ‘democracy’ into outright fascism – we, in the west, are almost there. And this, to the detriment of the “Silent Lambs” – as per Rainer Mausfeld’s latest book, in German, “Why are Lambs Silent” (German Westend-Verlag). Yes, that’s what we have become: “Silent Lambs”.

It is too easy to demonize China for attempting to create a more harmonious, cohesive and peaceful society. Granted, this surveillance in China as in the west, demolishes to a large extent individualism, individual thinking, thereby limiting human creativeness and freedom. This is a topic which the Chinese socialist government, independent of western critique, may have to address soon to keep precisely one of the key principles of Chinese society alive – ‘social cohesiveness’ and a sense of equality and freedom. 

What is the “Social Credit” system? – It is a digital footprint of everything the Chinese do, as private citizens, as corporate managers in production as well as banking, workers, food sellers, in order to basically create an ambiance of full transparency (that’s the goal – far from having been reached), so as to establish citizens’ and corporations’ “creditworthiness”, in financial terms, but also assessing crime elements, political inclinations, radicalism, to prevent potential terror acts (interestingly, in the case of most western terror acts, officials say the ‘terrorists’ were known to the police – which simply leaves you to conclude that they acted in connivance with the forces of order); and to enhance food safety in restaurants and by other food sellers. 

In other words, the aim is to establish corporate and individual “score cards” which will work as a rewards and punishment system, a “carrot and stick” approach. Depending on the crime or deviation from the rule, you may be reprimanded and get ‘debits’ – which you may wipe out by changing your behavior. Living under the spell of debits may limit, for example, your access to comfortable or speedy travel, better and speedier trains, air tickets, certain cultural events and more.

Yes, the idea of creating a stable domestic society has its drawbacks – surveillance – demolition of much of individualism, creativity, by implanting conformity. The government’s axiom is “we want a society where people don’t desire to break the rules, but the earliest stage is that they are afraid to break the rules.”  

In the end, the question is, will the “Social Credits” approach to societal living, meaning a total surveillance state with every data recorded into a network of total control, be beneficial or detrimental for the Chinese goal to push ahead with her extraordinary and mostly egalitarian economic development approach, transport and industrial infrastructure, scientific research and cultural exchange – called Belt and Road, alias the New Silk Road? – Only the future will tell; but the Chinese are not alone. They have solid partners in the SCO – and long-term economic development endeavors never work in linear values, but with the unknown of dynamics to which humans are uniquely adapted to adjust. 

*

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 Organizationaround the world in the fields of environment and water. He lectures at universities in the US, Europe and South America. He writes regularly for Global Research; ICH; RT; Sputnik; PressTV; The 21st Century; TeleSUR; The Vineyard of The Saker Blog, the New Eastern Outlook (NEO); and other internet sites. He is the author of Implosion – An Economic Thriller about War, Environmental Destruction and Corporate Greed – fiction based on facts and on 30 years of World Bank experience around the globe. He is also a co-author of The World Order and Revolution! – Essays from the Resistance. He is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Featured image is from NEO

The Cost of American Militarism and an Absence of Debate

November 16th, 2018 by Adeyinka Makinde

A recent report by Brown University’s Watson Institute of International and Public Affairs on the cost of America’s wars in the aftermath of 9/11 estimates a sum totalling $5.9 Trillion. It is a figure virtually identical to the $6 Trillion figure projected by Harvard University’s Kennedy School of Government in 2013 to be the eventual cost of waging wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yet, as with the case of the increased danger of a nuclear war that could be the fruit of strained relations developed over the past decade with the Russian Federation, there has been no public debate in the United States about why America embarked on a programme of militarism predicated on the waging of a so-called War on Terror.

Such debate would necessarily have to centre on the three following areas:

1. The “hijacking” (to use the term chosen by retired US Four Star General Wesley Clark) of American foreign policy in the aftermath of the September attacks by a group of neoconservatives operating within the administration of President George W. Bush who drew up a ‘hit-list’ of seven countries intended to be destroyed over a five year period.

It would have been expected that all such countries earmarked for destruction would have had a connection to the planning of the September attacks, or, at least, have been sympathetic to the values guiding the alleged perpetrators of the deadliest attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941. Yet Iraq, Libya and Syria were all secular Arab states implacably opposed to the Sunni Islamist ideology of al-Qaeda, and Iran is a Shia nation. The common denominator among these states including Lebanon, or more accurately, Hezbollah, the Iranian-backed Lebanese Shia militia, was an enmity with the State of Israel.

As Clark stated during a speech given in October 2007 at the Commonwealth Club of California in San Francisco, there was never a public debate on a policy which commenced with the invasion of Iraq and was intended to be completed with an attack on Iran.

2. The unchanging policy from the administrations led by Bush Jr to Barack Obama and now Donald Trump due to ‘Deep State’ actors wielding power outside of the separated organs of government. In a scholarly paper-turned-book entitled National Security and Double Government Michael J. Glennon, a professor of international law at Tufts University, has referred to the power usurping “Trumanite” institutions in contrast to the troika of “Madisonian” institutions of state, which he persuasively argues are no longer accountable in the way people think they are.

3. The corporate welfare culture surrounding the military industry as composed of the Pentagon and corporations such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Raytheon and others. The exorbitant costs involved with the development of the F-35 fighter plane which according to a number of US generals is pretty much “useless”, is emblematic of the inefficient weapons development regime that is more concerned with lining the pockets of corporations than with efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

The aforementioned, of course, do not mention the human cost: that of innocent civilian lives destroyed by military invasions, drone attacks and covert wars initiated by the United States. It also does not include the number of US service personnel killed, maimed and suffering from mental traumas.

All need to be factored into a comprehensive debate on why America’s sovereign debt has spiralled to uncontrollable levels, and also, why the moral standing of the United States among the international community of nations has been brought down to an all-time low.

*

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: Adeyinka Makinde.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from the author

New Israeli Military Escalation in the Gaza Strip: Israeli warplanes carried out dozens of airstrikes, launching 197 missiles at civilian buildings and military sites belonging to Palestinian Armed Groups.

2 Palestinian civilians were killed and 20 others were wounded, including 5 children and 4 women. Many civilian facilities, residential houses, and security sites were targeted and completely destroyed.

Shooting:

During the reporting period, Israeli forces killed 4 Palestinian civilians, including 2 killed during their participation in the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege Protests while the 2 others were killed during the escalation the Gaza Strip witnessed in the middle of the week.  Moreover, the Israeli forces wounded 172 civilians, including 27 children, 15 women and 4 paramedics.  In the West Bank, a person wounded succumbed to his wounds while Israeli forces wounded 17 Palestinian civilians, including 9 children and a paramedic.

The Gaza Strip has witnessed a military escalation, where the Israeli forces have unprecedentedly used warplanes and artillery shells since the 2014 offensive on the Gaza Strip.  This escalation has started after an Israeli special undercover unit “Mista’arvim” infiltrated the day before yesterday, 11 November 2018, Khan Younis in the Southern Gaza Strip and killed 7 members of the Palestinian armed groups, mainly a commander in al-Qassam Brigades from Khan Younis, creating a state of maximum alter among the Palestinian armed groups and tension among the Palestinian civilians.  This undercover operation was followed by barrages of rockets launched deep into the Israeli towns adjacent to the Gaza Strip.  Since Monday afternoon, 12 November 2018, and until the reporting period, upon a decision by the highest Israeli military and political echelons, the Israeli forces carried out intense airstrikes against many civilian facilities and residential houses in addition to sites belonging to the security services and others to the Palestinian armed groups, launching at least 40 missiles.  The Israeli artillery shelling also targeted the areas adjacent to the border fence with Israel.  Due to the hostilities, 2 civilians were killed and 20 others were wounded, including 5 children and 4 women in addition to the destruction and severe damage in many residential houses, other civilian facilities and security sites.

As part of using excessive force against the peaceful protests along the Gaza Strip borders, on 08 November 2018, the Israeli forces killed Mohammed Abu Sharbin (20) from Rafah City after wounding him with a bullet that hit his upper chest and exited his back during his participation in the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege protests in eastern al-Maghazi in the central Gaza Strip.  On 09 November 2018, the Israeli forces killed Rami Qahman (28) while participating in the Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege protests in al-Shawkah village, east of Rafah in the southern Gaza Strip after being wounded with a bullet to the neck.

In the same context, during the reporting period, the Israeli forces wounded 152 civilians, including 22 children, 11 women, and 4 paramedics.  Three of those wounded sustained serious injuries.

Injuries in the Gaza Strip between 08 and 13 November 2018 in Each City

As part of the Israeli airstrikes, the Israeli forces fired artillery shells at sites belonging to the Palestinian armed groups along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel.

As part of targeting the Palestinian fishermen in the sea, the Israeli forces continued to escalate their attacks against the Palestinian fishermen, indicating the on-going Israeli policy to target their livelihoods.

In the West Bank, medical sources at al-Istishari Specialist Hospital in al-Rihan Suburb declared the death of Mohammed Shreiteh (28) from al-Mazra’ah al-Gharbiyah, northwest of Ramallah, as he succumbed to wounds he sustained during his participation in the peaceful protests against settlements on 26 October 2018.  The above-mentioned had been wounded with a bullet to the front side of the head, fragmenting part of his brain.

in the same context, during the reporting period, the Israeli forces wounded 17 Palestinian civilians, including 9 children and a paramedic, in separate shooting incidents.

Incursions:

During the reporting period, Israeli forces conducted at least 65 military incursions into Palestinian communities in the West Bank. During those incursions, Israeli forces arrested at least 18 Palestinians, including 4 children.

Israeli Forces continued to create a Jewish Majority in occupied East Jerusalem:

As part of the Israeli house demolitions and notices, on 08 November 2018, the Israeli forces demolished a 200-square-meter residential house belonging to the family of ‘Ali al-Ja’bah in al-Za’im village, east of occupied East Jerusalem.  Moreover, they demolished a room and surrounding fence belonging to ‘Ali Abu Jom’ah in addition to removing the foundations of an under-construction house belonging to the family of Mohammed al-‘Omari.

Israeli Forces continued their settlement activities, and the settlers continued their attacks against Palestinian civilians and their property

As part of the Israeli settlers’ attacks against the Palestinians civilians and their property, PCHR’s fieldworkers in the West Bank documented 2 attacks carried out by settlers, in Salfit and Nablus.  The settlers wrote hostile slogans against Arabs on the walls and vehicles in addition to slashing tires of 17 vehicles in Kafr al-Deek village, west of Salfit.

Use of Force against Demonstrations in Protest against the U.S. President’s Decision to Recognize Jerusalem as the Capital of Israel:

Israeli forces continued its excessive use of lethal force against peaceful demonstration organized by Palestinian civilians in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and it was named as “The Great March of Return and Breaking Siege.” The demonstration was in protest against the U.S. President Donald Trump’s declaration to move the U.S. Embassy to it. According to PCHR fieldworkers’ observations, the border area witnessed large participation by Palestinian civilians as the Israeli forces continued to use upon highest military and political echelons excessive force against the peaceful demonstrators, though the demonstration were fully peaceful. The demonstration was as follows during the reporting period:

Gaza Strip:

In the Thirty-third week of the March of Return and Breaking Siege activities, Israeli forces killed 2 civilians and wounded 152 civilians, including 22 children, , 11 women and 4 paramedics. Doctors classified 3 civilian’s injuries as serious. The incidents were as follows:

  • The Central Gaza Strip: at approximately 16:30 on Thursday, 98 November 2018, Israeli soldiers stationed along the border fence between the Gaza Strip and Israel, east of al-Maghazi in the central Gaza Strip, opened fire at a group of Palestinian young men, who approached the border fence. As a result, Mohammed ‘Ala’a Mahmoud Abu Sharbin (20), from Rafah, was killed after he was hit with a live bullet that penetrated the upper side of chest and exited the back. Mohammed was transferred via a PRCS ambulance after it received coordination to a hospital where he arrived dead. The Israeli shooting and firing tear gas canisters, which continued until approximately 18:00, resulted in the injury of 21 civilians, including 6 children and 3 women. Sixteen of them were hit with live bullets and their shrapnel and 5 were hit with tear gas canisters.
  • The Northern Gaza Strip: 31 civilians, including 11 children, 2 women, a deaf young man and 3 paramedics, were wounded. Twenty four of them were hit with live bullets and their shrapnel, 1 was hit with a rubber bullet and 9 were hit with tear gas canisters. Doctors classified2 civilians’ injuries as serious. The wounded paramedics were identified as:
  1. Karem Mahmoud Rashed al-Dalow (37), a paramedic at the Palestinian Civil Defense from al-Remal neighborhood in Gaza City, was hit with a live bullet shrapnel to the neck;
  2. Saleh Faraj Saleh al-Remahi (27), a volunteer paramedic at the Palestinian Ministry of Health from Jabalia, was hit with a tear gas canister to the face; and
  3. Hutheifah Mahmoud Hasan Abu ‘Aitah (27), from Jabalia, was hit with a tear gas canister to the back.
  • In Gaza City: 55 civilians, including 5 women, were wounded. Twenty two of them were hit with live bullets and their shrapnel, 33 were hit with rubber bullets.
  • Khan Younis: Israeli forces’ shooting at demonstrators, which continued 18:00, resulted in the injury of 43 civilians, including 4 children and a paramedic. Twenty one of them were hit with live bullets and their shrapnel, 17 were hit with tear gas canisters and 5 were hit with rubber bullets. The wounded paramedic was identified as Falasteen Khalid Qdaih (21), a volunteer paramedic at Youth Pioneer of Peace medical Team, was hit with a live bullet to the left leg.
  • Rafah City: Israeli forces’ shooting, which continued until 17:00, resulted in the injury of 2 civilians, including a child, with live bullets. Medical sources at Gaza European Hospital in Khan Younis declared the death of one of them namely Rami Wa’el Eshaq Qahman (28), who succumbed to his wounds he sustained after being hit with a live bullet to the neck.
  • At approximately 11 November 2018, a Palestinian civilian was hit with a live bullet shrapnel to the head during his participation on the March of Return activities, east of al-Buraij refugee camp in the central Gaza Strip.

West Bank:

  • Following the Friday prayer on 09 November 2018, dozens of Palestinian civilians and international human rights defenders gathered on agricultural lands of “al-Resan” Mount area, west of Ras Karkar village, west of Ramallah in protest against the Israeli settlers’ attempt to seize and confiscate the land. When the civilians arrived at the abovementioned area, the Israeli soldiers fired live and rubber bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at the protestors. As a result, Feras Samarah (33), a paramedic at Palestine Red Crescent Society (PRCS), was hit with glass shrapnel of an ambulance where she was present after Israeli forces opened fire at the ambulance. The Israeli soldiers arrested Fares al-Sayed Nasser (30) and Mohammed Manthoum Abu ‘Ayash (23) after chasing and attacking them with their rifles.
  • At approximately 13:30 on Friday afternoon, 09November 2018, a group of Palestinian civilians moved from the center of Kufor Qadoum village, northeast of Qalqiliyah, into the eastern entrance to the village, which has been closed for 15 years in favor of the entrance to “Kedumim” settlement established on the village lands. The protestors chanted national slogans in the anniversary of the death of the late President, Yasser Arafat demanding end of occupation, condemning the Israeli forces’ crimes against Palestinian protestors along the eastern border of the Gaza Strip within “The Great March of Return and Breaking the Siege” activities. Minister Walid Assaf, head of the National Committee to Resist the Wall and Settlements, participated in the demonstration. The protestors threw stones at Israeli forces stationed behind sand barriers. The Israeli forces fired rubber bullets, sound bombs and tear gas canisters at them. They also raided and searched houses belonging to Jamal Saleh Jom’ah, Zhdi, Ahmed Shtaiwi and Khaldoun Abu Khalid ‘Obaid. The soldiers then topped the houses’ roofs and used them as watchtowers to monitor the protestors and fire rubber bullets and sound bombs. As a result, 4 civilians, were wounded, including child Sari Abdullah ‘Ali (10) who was hit with a rubber bullet to the right hand.

Civilian Succumbed to his Wounds:

  • At approximately 17:30 on Saturday, 10 November 2018, medical sources at the Istishari Arab Hospital in al-Raihan Suburb in the northern Gaza Strip, announced the death of Mohammed Ibrahim Shraiteh (28), succumbing to wounds he sustained during his participation in the peaceful demonstration against the Israeli forces on Friday, 26 October 2018, in al-Mazra’ah eastern village, northwest of the city. Mohammed was hit with a live bullet to front side of the forehead, causing a fragmentation to a part of the brain. Mohammed underwent 4 surgical operations in the abovementioned and he stayed in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) in a deep coma until his death.

Settlement activities and attacks by settlers against Palestinian civilians and property

Israeli forces’ attack:

  • At approximately 08:00 on Thursday, 08 November 2018, Israeli forces accompanied with a military vehicle and a vehicle of the Israeli Civil Administration moved into Kherbit al-Mofaqarrah, east of Yatta, south of Hebron. The Israeli Civil Administration officer handed Ahmed Mahmoud al-Hamamdah (45) a notice to evacuate his 5-dunum land under the pretext of State lands within 45 days. It should be noted that Kherbit al-Mofaqarrah is a residential compound.

Israeli settlers’ attack: 

  • At approximately 03:00 on Friday, 09 November 2018, a group of Israeli settlers moved into Kafur al-Deek village, west of Salfit, and then wrote hatred slogans against Arabs on walls and vehicles. They also punctured the tires of 17 vehicles. PCHR keeps the names of persons whose vehicles were damaged.
  • On Sunday, 11 November 2018, dozens of Israeli settlers with the Israeli forces’ protection moved into the Antiquities area in Sibistia village, northwest of Nablus. The village’s Council said that around 150 Israeli settlers accompanied with Israeli forces moved into the antiquities area in Sibistia village and stayed there for few hours before leaving. It should be noted that the Antiquities area in Sibistia village was under the Israeli incursions several times.

Recommendations to the International Community:

  1. PCHR calls upon the international community to respect the Security Council’s Resolution No. 2334 and to ensure that Israel respects it as well, in particular point 5 which obliges Israel not to deal with settlements as if they were part of Israel.
  2. PCHR calls upon the ICC to continue to investigate the Israeli crimes committed in the oPt, particularly the settlement crimes and grave violations in the Gaza Strip.
  3. PCHR Calls upon the European Union (EU) and all international bodies to boycott settlements and ban working and investing in them in application of their obligations according to international human rights law and international humanitarian law considering settlements as a war crime.
  4. PCHR calls upon the international community to use all available means to allow the Palestinian people to enjoy their right to self-determination through the establishment of the Palestinian State, which was recognized by the UN General Assembly with a vast majority, using all international legal mechanisms, including sanctions to end the occupation of the State of Palestine.
  5. PCHR calls upon the international community and United Nations to take all necessary measures to stop Israeli policies aimed at creating a Jewish demographic majority in Jerusalem and at voiding Palestine from its original inhabitants through deportations and house demolitions as a collective punishment, which violates international humanitarian law, amounting to a crime against humanity.
  6. PCHR calls upon the States Parties to the Rome Statute of the ICC to work hard to hold Israeli war criminals accountable.
  7. PCHR calls upon the High Contracting Parties to the Geneva Conventions to fulfill their obligations under article (1) of the Convention to ensure respect for the Conventions under all circumstances, and under articles (146) and (147) to search for and prosecute those responsible for committing grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions to ensure justice and remedy for Palestinian victims, especially in light of the almost complete denial of justice for them before the Israeli judiciary.
  8. PCHR calls for a prompt intervention to compel the Israeli authorities to lift the closure that obstructs the freedom of movement of goods and 1.8 million civilians that experience unprecedented economic, social, political and cultural hardships due to collective punishment policies and retaliatory action against civilians.
  9. PCHR calls upon the European Union to apply human rights standards embedded in the EU-Israel Association Agreement and to respect its obligations under the European Convention on Human Rights when dealing with Israel.
  10. PCHR calls upon the parties to international human rights instruments, especially the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), to pressurize Israel to comply with its provisions in the oPt and to compel it to incorporate the human rights situation in the oPt in its reports submitted to the relevant committees.
  11. PCHR calls upon the EU and international human rights bodies to pressurize the Israeli forces to stop their attacks against Palestinian fishermen and farmers, mainly in the border area.

*

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 IMEMC

Will they cancel the contract or won’t they? In order to understand Ottawa’s decision making process regarding General Dynamics’ massive arms deal with Saudi Arabia one must look closely at industry lobbyists.

While the Trudeau government is under substantial public pressure to rescind the $15 billion Light Armoured Vehicle sale, to do so would challenge the company and the broader corporate lobby.

Last week a senior analyst with the GD-financed Canadian Global Affairs Institute boldly defended the LAV sale.

There has been no behaviour by the Saudis to warrant cancelling this contract”, said David Perry to the London Free Press.

Perry must have missed the Kingdom’s violence in Yemen, repression in eastern Saudi Arabia and consulate murder in Istanbul.

Two weeks ago Perry told another interviewer that any move to reverse the LAV sale would have dire consequences.

There would be geopolitical implications. There would be a huge number of economic implications, both immediately and in the wider economy… cancelling this, I think, would be a big step because as far as I understand the way that we look at arms exports, it would effectively mean that we’ve changed the rules of the game.”

Amidst an earlier wave of criticism towards GD’s LAV sale, the Canadian Global Affairs Institute published a paper titled “Canada and Saudi Arabia: A Deeply Flawed but Necessary Partnership” that defended the $15-billion deal. At the time of its 2016 publication at least four of the institute’s “fellows” wrote columns justifying the sale, including an opinion piece by Perry published in the Globe and Mail Report on Business that was headlined “Without foreign sales, Canada’s defence industry would not survive.”

Probably Canada’s most prominent foreign policy think tank, Canadian Global Affairs Institute is a recipient of GD’s “generous” donations. Both GD Land Systems and GD Mission Systems are listed among its “supporters” in recent annual reports, but the exact sum they’ve given the institute isn’t public.

The Conference of Defence Associations Institute also openly supports GD’s LAV sale. Representatives of the Ottawa-based lobby/think tank have written commentaries justifying the LAV sale and a2016 analysis concluded that “our own Canadian national interests, economic and strategic, dictate that maintaining profitable political and trade relations with ‘friendly’ countries like Saudi Arabia, including arms sales, is the most rational option in a world of unpleasant choices.” Of course, the Conference of Defence Associations Institute also received GD money and its advisory board includes GD Canada’s senior director of strategy and government relations Kelly Williams.

Representing 150 top CEOs, the Business Council of Canada (formerly Canadian Council of Chief Executives) promoted a similar position.In a 2016 iPolitics column titled “We can’t always sell weapons to people we like” the corporate lobby group’s head, John Manley, wrote that LAVs are not “used in torture or persecution of women. We are selling military vehicles — basically fancy trucks.”

Another corporate lobby group applauded GD’s Saudi sale. In 2014 Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters president Jayson Myers labeled the LAV sale “an Olympic win for Canada and for Canadian manufacturers … All Canadians should be proud of this record achievement.”

The armament industry’s primary lobby group also backed GD’s sale to the Saudis. In 2014 Canadian Association of Defence and Security Industries president Tim Page celebrated the LAV sale as a “good day for Canada” and two years later its new president, Christyn Cianfarani, defended the deal from criticism, telling the press “we certainly don’t take positions on the judicial practices of other nations.” GD is a member of CADSI and GD Land Systems Vice President, Danny Deep, chairs its board. With an office near Parliament, CADSI lobbyists have likely spoken to government officials about reversing the Saudi LAV sale.

For its part, GD has been lobbying decision makers aggressively. According to an October 24 iPolitics article “General Dynamics Land Systems-Canada has filed almost a dozen communications requests with government officials in the last week.” Like other military companies, the London, Ontario, armoured vehicle maker maintains an Ottawa office to access government officials.

GD has contracted former military officials to lobby on its behalf and offered retired Canadian Forces leaders senior positions. Before becoming Defence Minister, Gordon O’Connor, a former Brigadier-General, represented GD as a lobbyist while GD Canada hired former Navy commodore Kelly Williams as senior director of strategy and government relations in 2012.

GD also advertises at events and in areas of the nation’s capital frequented by government officials. Similarly, it promotes its brand in publications read by Ottawa insiders.

If the government does not cancel the Saudi LAV sale it will be further proof of the corporate lobby’s political influence.

*

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 Homes Not Bombs

The Pentagon’s decision to downscale its footprint in Africa makes Russia’s military efforts there more important than ever. 

A Pentagon spokeswoman announced that the US will withdraw hundreds of troops from Africa in the next few years in order to focus more on directly challenging Russia and China, taking care to explain that this supposedly won’t impact the effectiveness of the US’ counter-terrorist operations on the continent. According to the official, the US will continue to advise and assist its African allies, meaning that not much will probably change on the ground as it relates to America’s ongoing activities there. 

That said, the withdrawal of hundreds of American troops from Africa could create the perception in some of the host countries that the US is downscaling its anti-terrorist commitments to them, thereby opening up the opportunity for Russia to continue flexing its military muscles there as it seeks to become a cost-effective security provider following the model that its pioneering in the Central African Republic. To concisely summarize a complex campaign, private military contractors (PMCs, or “mercenaries”) are operating in the war-torn country per UNSC approval and are aiding the national military in exchange for what some speculate might be profitable resource and reconstruction contracts that could turn Russia into a serious player in the Central African region and beyond. 

Coupled with its export of military equipment, Moscow’s “mercenary services” and post-war development plans form the basis of a new strategy of engagement with the continent, one which is greatly advanced by the notion that the country is a neutral “balancer” with no desire to compel its counterparts into any political concessions like the US and France are known for doing. Importantly, this makes Russia an exceptionally attractive partner for African states and their Chinese ally alike seeing as how the latter is in dire need of reliable security solutions to safeguard its Silk Road investments, albeit ones that avoid the trap of “mission creep” and don’t inadvertently feed into the US’ infowar narrative that some of Beijing’s global connectivity projects have secret military motivations behind them. 

For its part, Russia not only has an interest in replacing the US in Africa and exporting its Syrian-tested stabilization and “balancing” models there (though in this case through much more indirect and low-scale commitments), but it might also have more ambitious plans of partnering with China’s Silk Road all throughout the “Global South” via the security-related services that it could possibly provide to Beijing in exchange for obtaining a share  of its host countries’ markets in the spheres that Chinese companies already dominate. Should that be the strategy at play and it actually turns out to be successful, then Russia would be masterfully exploiting the US’ “Lead From Behind”strategy in Africa to pragmatically “Lead From the Front” in support of China there, which could potentially represent a game-changing twist in the way that the New Cold War unfolds in the “Global South”.

*

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.

Featured image is from US Army Africa / CC BY 2.0

Official ISIS documents, which have been obtained by the Russian RT TV, reveal that the terrorist group has financially motivated its fighters conducting attacks with chemical weapons.

According to the documents, many ISIS fighters received gold, silver and even cars for carrying out terrorist attacks. One of the documents reveals that this award program was created to encourage the terrorist group’s fighters to “fight the enemies.”

Head of the military documentation department of the Iraqi military intelligence department,  Lt. Col. Jaber Asaad, told RT’s correspondent that these documents are a clear evidence that ISIS used chemical weapons in Iraq.

“All this confirms that the group possessed chemical weapons that are banned throughout the world,” RT quoted the Iraqi officer as saying.

Lt. Col. Jaber Asaad also revealed that his department does have other ISIS documents, which contain full information about the terrorist group’s fighters in the city of Mosul, including personal details, when they joined the group, all of their movements and when and how they died.

Since 2014, many reports have accused the terrorist group of manufacturing and using chemical weapons, mainly mustard gas. The lethal chemical agent was reportedly used by the terrorists group during battles in the cities of Taza, Fallujah and Tikrit.

The U.S. and its allies rushed to accuse the Damascus government of carrying out every alleged chemical attack in Syria. However, they never called for an investigation into the chemical acitvities of ISIS, which raise many questions about their real goals.

*

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: Russian military inspect suspected chemical weapons workshop in Aleppo, November 14, 2016 © / Ruptly

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Money, Silver, Gold and Cars: ISIS Fighters Received “Bonuses” for Using Chemical Weapons – Report
  • Tags: , , ,

Julian Assange is an investigative journalist/whistleblower, publishing material supplied by sources believed to be credible, unidentified for their protection. 

WikiLeaks is not an intelligence operation. Nor is it connected to Russia or any other country. Claims otherwise are fabricated.

Assange earlier explained that WikiLeaks has the right “to publish newsworthy content. Consistent with the US Constitution, we publish material that we can confirm to be true…”

Notably since the Bush/Cheney regime, the US has been at war with individuals revealing dirty secrets about the imperial state.

Obama prosecuted more whistleblowers doing their job honorably than all his predecessors combined.

Trump considers leaking vital information everyone has a right to know a threat to national security.

He had senior White House staff members sign lifetime nondisclosure agreements, barring them from ever revealing so-called confidential information about their government service – violating their fundamental First Amendment rights, especially when it comes to revealing state-sponsored wrongdoing.

Since the 1970s, Congress repeatedly affirmed the right of civil servants to report what they believe are abuses of power, government corruption, rule of law violations, dangers to public health and safety, as well as other wrongdoing.

Journalism the way it should be is protected by the First Amendment. It’s the most important freedom. Without it all others are threatened.

Truth-telling in America today is endangered. Exposing government wrongdoing is courageous and essential. Obama waged war on press freedom and whistleblowing. Trump continues his outrageous practices.

When governments consider truth-telling independent journalists and whistleblowers threats to national security, tyranny replaces freedom.

In 2012, the Obama regime declared Julian Assange an enemy of the state, forcing him to take refuge in Ecuador’s London embassy to avoid unjust arrest, extradition to America, prosecution, and imprisonment to silence him – for the crime of truth-telling.

At the same time, a secret grand jury reportedly convened. A sealed indictment followed, allegedly accusing Assange of spying under the long ago outdated 1917 Espionage Act, enacted shortly after America’s entry into WW I.

It prohibited anyone from interfering with US military operations, supporting the nation’s enemies, promoting insubordination in the ranks, or obstructing military recruitment.

It remains the law of the land, used to charge, prosecute, convict and imprison Chelsea Manning unjustly, along with other unjust charges against her.

Assange faces the same fate if extradited to America. Anyone exposing US high crimes and/or other dirty secrets Washington wants suppressed is vulnerable.

Before elected president, Trump called Assange’s WikiLeaks “disgraceful,” saying the “death penalty” would be OK against its actions.

President-elect Trump said information published by WikiLeaks “had absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.”

John Bolton once said Edward Snowden “should swing from a tall oak tree.” He urged waging cyberwar on WikiLeaks.

Mike Pompeo earlier blasted Assange, calling WikiLeaks “a non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia,” adding:

“We have to recognize that we 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.

Trump’s Justice Department reportedly updated charges against Assange early last year. At the time, WikiLeaks tweeted the

“US admits it has charges to arrest Assange according to CNN.”

On Friday, US media reported that a sealed indictment charged Assange with undisclosed criminal offenses – even though no evidence suggests he committed any.

Assistant US Justice Department Attorney Kellen S. Dwyer revealed the indictment, saying it’s sealed “due to the sophistication of the defendant and the publicity surrounding the case,” adding:

“No other procedure is likely to keep confidential the fact that Assange has been charged.” The indictment “need(s) to remain sealed until Assange is arrested.”

US Attorney’s office in Eastern District of Virginia spokesman Joshua Stueve said

“(t)he court filing was made in error. That was not the intended name for this filing.”

FBI and special council Mueller spokespersons declined to comment on the issue. Precise charges are unknown, most likely similar to some against Chelsea Manning, including violations of the outdated 1917 Espionage Act, possibly aiding the enemy, a charge Manning avoided.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Trump regime may intend using charges to get Ecuador to expel Assange from its London embassy.

His lawyer Carlos Poveda believes a deal may have been struck between Ecuadorian President Lenin Moreno and the Trump and Theresa May regimes to extradite Assange to the US, saying:

“There has been a rapprochement between the United Kingdom, the United States and Ecuador,” adding:

“I believe that (the US and UK) have reached some agreement, and that is exactly why the special protocol (on home rules) was introduced, which is to justify Julian’s withdrawal (from the Ecuadorian embassy) to accelerate the process of ending his asylum and hand him over to the UK authorities” – for extradition to America.

Major unjust charges await him, Poveda saying “(i)t will not be a death penalty, but he may get a life sentence” – maybe without the possibility of parole.

Horrific US mistreatment of Chelsea Manning, other whistleblowers, and countless others wrongfully charged in America show the imperial state wants everyone in its crosshairs denied constitutionally and international law protected due process and equal protection.

Due process is constitutionally guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment, stating: “No person shall…be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.”

Equal protection applies to government at all levels, as required by the Fifth Amendment due process guarantee.

The protection applies to everyone within the borders of America. Presidents, Congress, state and local authorities cannot legally deny these rights to anyone.

Yet breaches of fundamental US and international law happen with disturbing regularity.

Assange committed no crimes. Yet he may end up another victim of egregious US injustice – the way all totalitarian states operate.

*

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 British Prime Minister Theresa May presented the draft of the so-called Brexit deal with the EU to the House of Commons. The three-hour long confrontation showed that she would never get this deal approved, not even by her party. The MPs robbed the agreement like a dead body. Nevertheless, she insisted multiple times, “to see it through” because it would serve British national interests. Although May’s presentation in parliament was a disaster, she kept very coolly and resilient.   

Close inspections reveal that this deal is a Greek gift to Great Britain and the British people. This deal will tie the UK forever and ever to the European Union. It’s absolute surrender to this anti-democratic European Union. Britain can’t negotiate individual trade agreements with any country, not even the United States. Such agreements stay an absolute prerogative of the EU! It’s precisely the opposite of what the British people have voted for on 23 June 2016. It’s not a complete reclamation of sovereignty but will degenerate the United Kingdom to a vassal state of the EU Commission. One has to ask, how Theresa May and her government could have approved such a horrible deal?

Many ministers and deputies resigned, the most famous one was the Brexit negotiator Dominic Raab. The latest opinion poll shows that less than 20 percent of the people back it. The EU got everything they ask for by May. The EU did not negotiate in good faith with the UK government. They stonewalled in every aspect of the process. The main aim of the EU was to demonstrate to the rest of the member states what comes up to a country that dares to leave this club.

This deal has no chance to get approved by the British parliament on 10 December. It’s dead in the water. May will face a no-confidence vote in her party. Neither the British people nor the conservative MPs have confidence in May anymore. She should be replaced by a Prime Minister who stands for a true Brexit and stands up to the EU Commission and its anti-democratic policy. The UK should get its full sovereignty and self-determination back and set an example to other countries who want to leave the EU. If the EU doesn’t make further elementary concessions, the UK should leave this crumbling European Union without a deal.

A separation from the EU would not lead to a disaster such as the German economic class wants the public to believe. They cry wolf to keep their financial and economic domination over Europe intact. The Brits can get along without the EU comfortably. Their exports amount into the EU only to seven percent of the total. Germany is much more dependent on the British market than vice versa. The British government could make good for the temporary dent in the export industry by stopping their amount to the EU. 

“Brexit means Brexit. Britain won’t remain half in, half out” of the EU, once Theresa May said. On this promise, May has still to deliver.

*

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. Ludwig Watzal is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Selected Articles: People Fight for Peace

November 16th, 2018 by Global Research News

Do you value the reporting and in-depth analysis we provide, free of charge, on a daily basis? Do you think this resource should be maintained and preserved as a research tool for future generations? Bringing you 24/7 updates from all over the globe has real costs associated with it. Please give what you can to help us meet these costs! Click below to donate or click here to become a member of Global Research.

We are very grateful for the support we received over the past sixteen years. We hope that you remain with us in our journey towards a world without war.

*     *     *

US

Midterm Elections Generate Further Polarization in the United States

By Abayomi Azikiwe, November 15, 2018

Trump played down the loss of the House and emphasized that the Senate would remain under Republican control. Nonetheless, there is a major shake-up in the cabinet of the Trump administration with the immediate departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions with more ousters being imminent. 

America Has No Peace Movement – Blame the ‘White Supremacists’

By Philip Giraldi, November 15, 2018

The United States of America has no peace movement even though the country has been mired in unwinnable wars since 2001 and opinion polls suggest that there is only lukewarm support among the public for what is taking place in Afghanistan and Syria.

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 “Victim Nations” Since World War II

By James A. Lucas, November 15, 2018

The largest WWII casualties  were China and the Soviet Union, 26 million in the Soviet Union,  China estimates its losses at approximately 20,000,000 deaths. Ironically, these two countries (allies of the US during WWII) which lost a large share of their population during WWII are now categorized as enemies of America, which are threatening the Western World.  A so-called preemptive war against China and Russia is currently contemplated. 

The Moral Fiber of Justin Trudeau. Palestine and the BDS Movement

By Kim Petersen, November 15, 2018

On 7 November, Trudeau stood in the House of Commons and railed against anti-Semitism and rightly so. Anti-Semitism, as with any form of racism or hatred expressed against any grouping, is anathema.

US Intel. Will Bring Assange to US in Chains

By Ann Garrison, November 15, 2018

WikiLeaks put government, corporations and even the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA and other intel agencies on notice that they could no longer count on operating in secret.

Destroying a Country’s Standard of Living: What Libya Had Achieved, What has been Destroyed

By Prof Michel Chossudovsky, November 14, 2018

Today, Libya as a country and a nation state has been destroyed. Under Nuremberg, the leaders of the NATO member states involved in the war on Libya are war criminals.

*

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 Flickr/CC

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: People Fight for Peace

Cold war with Russia and China could turning hot. The risk of unthinkable war between nuclear armed states is real.

According to the Washington Post,

“(i)f  China wants to avoid an all-out cold war with the United States and its partners, it must fundamentally change its behavior,” citing Mike Pence as the source of the view expressed.

It’s a policy position Beijing strongly rejects, wanting cooperative relations with all other nations, but unwilling to bow to unacceptable demands of any – especially nothing compromising its fundamental sovereign rights.

Pence is representing the Trump regime in Singapore at the November 11 – 15 Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) summit.

Major Sino/US political, economic, financial, trade and military differences persist, resolving them unlikely any time soon.

China’s Xi Jinping reportedly won’t meet Pence at the ASEAN summit. He’s scheduled to meet with Trump on the sidelines of the November 30/December 1 G20 summit in Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Prospects for a deal between both leaders, resolving longstanding differences are virtually nil. China rejects unacceptable US demands.

According to Pence, if Xi refuses to accept them, Washington will escalate political, economic, and perhaps military pressure on the country.

Washington’s Indo/Pacific strategy is all about seeking regional dominance by whatever it takes to achieve its aims – not an encouraging sign going forward.

According to a Washington prepared US-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC) report to Congress, China’s growing political, economic and military power “risk(s) the national security and economic interests of the United States, its allies, and its partners.”

It “risks” Washington’s ability to dominate the Indo/Pacific region unchallenged, wanting Russia and China marginalized, weakened, contained and isolated – a strategy doomed to fail.

The USCC report to be presented to Congress on Wednesday reportedly says China’s Belt and Road objectives include “bolstering energy security, expanding China’s military reach, and advancing its geopolitical influence by moving China to the center of the global order,” adding:

Beijing “will be quick to cast any pushback or legitimate criticism as fear, nationalism, protectionism, and racism against the Chinese people.”

China gains allies with carrots, not sticks, a winning strategy longterm:

In late October, Mike Pompeo threatened to “oppose” China economically, politically, militarily, and in bilateral trade, saying:

“Whether that’s a risk through the stealing of intellectual property or trade rules that are unfair or activity in the South China Sea or their continued expansion in space, and their efforts to develop their military, each of those actions has been met with a strong and vigorous response from the (US) and we’ll continue to do so,” adding:

Beijing’s strategy “presents risks to American interests, and we intend to oppose them at every turn.”

US policy involves pressuring other nations to deal with America, not China or Russia, economically, warning them against accepting investments from China and Russia in their countries, nor normalized trade relations, the same true for Iran.

Pompeo lied saying

“(w)hen China comes calling, it’s not always to the good of your citizens.”

Unlike one-way US investments, exploiting trading partners, Chinese investments benefit both sides equitably, why its gaining economic partners worldwide at Washington’s expense.

US efforts to undermine China, Russia, Iran, and other independent countries economically and in other ways are counterproductive. They haven’t worked before and won’t ahead. They make more enemies than allies longterm.

They’ll damage bilateral relations more than already, risking possible confrontation.

*

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.

Unwrapping Armageddon: The Erosion of Nuclear Arms Control

November 15th, 2018 by Conn Hallinan

The decision by the Trump administration to withdraw from the Intermediate Nuclear Force Agreement (INF) appears to be part of a broader strategy aimed at unwinding over 50 years of agreements to control and limit nuclear weapons, returning to an era characterized by the unbridled development weapons of mass destruction.

Terminating the INF treaty—which bans land-based cruise and ballistic missiles with a range of between 300 and 3400 miles— is not, in and of itself, a fatal blow to the network of treaties and agreements dating back to the 1963 treaty that ended atmospheric testing of nuclear weapons. But coupled with other actions—George W. Bush’s decision to withdraw from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty (ABM) in 2002 and the Obama administration’s program to upgrade the nuclear weapons infrastructure— the tapestry of agreements that has, at least in part, limited these terrifying creations, is looking increasingly frayed.

“Leaving the INF,” says Sergey Rogov of the Institute of U.S. and Canadian Studies, “could bring the whole structure of arms control crashing down.”

Lynn Rusten, the former senior director for arms control in the National Security Agency Council warns,

“This is opening the door to an all-out arms race.”

Washington’s rationale for exiting the INF Treaty is that the Russians deployed the 9M729 cruise missile that the US claims violates the agreement, although Moscow denies it and the evidence has not been made public. Russia countercharges that the US ABM system—Aegis Ashore—deployed in Romania and planned for Poland could be used to launch similar medium range missiles.

If this were a disagreement over weapon capability, inspections would settle the matter. But the White House—in particular National Security Advisor John Bolton—is less concerned with inspections than extracting the US from agreements that in any way restrain the use of American power, be it military or economic. Thus, Trump dumped the Iran nuclear agreement, not because Iran is building nuclear weapons or violating the agreement, but because the administration wants to use economic sanctions to pursue regime change in Teheran.

In some ways, the INF agreement is low hanging fruit. The 1987 treaty banned only land-based medium range missiles, not those launched by sea or air —where the Americans hold a strong edge—and it only covered the U.S. and Russia. Other nuclear-armed countries, particularly China, India, North Korea, Israel and Pakistan have deployed a number of medium range nuclear-armed missiles. One of the arguments Bolton makes for exiting the INF is that it would allow the US to counter China’s medium range missiles.

But if the concern was controlling intermediate range missiles, the obvious path would be to expand the treaty to other nations and include air and sea launched weapons. Not that that would be easy. China has lots of intermediate range missiles, because most its potential antagonists, like Japan or US bases in Asia, are within the range of such missiles. The same goes for Pakistan, India, and Israel.

Intermediate range weapons—sometimes called “theater” missiles—do not threaten the US mainland the way that similar US missiles threaten China and Russia. Beijing and Moscow can be destroyed by long-range intercontinental missiles, but also by theater missiles launched from ships or aircraft. One of the reasons that Europeans are so opposed to withdrawing from the INF is that, in the advent of nuclear war, medium-range missiles on their soil will make them a target.

But supposed violations of the treaty is not why Bolton and the people around him oppose the agreement. Bolton called for withdrawing from the INF Treaty three years before the Obama administration charged the Russians with cheating. Indeed, Bolton has opposed every effort to constrain nuclear weapons and has already announced that the Trump administration will not extend the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) when it expires in 2021.

START caps the number of US and Russian deployed nuclear weapons at 1550, no small number.

The Bush administration’s withdrawal from the 1972 ABM treaty in 2002 was the first major blow to the treaty framework. Anti-ballistic missiles are inherently destabilizing, because the easiest way to defeat such systems is to overwhelm them by expanding the number of launchers and warheads. Bolton—a longtime foe of the ABM agreement—recently bragged that dumping the treaty had no effect on arms control.

But the treaty’s demise has shelved START talks, and it was the ABM’s deployment in Eastern Europe—along with NATO’s expansion up to the Russian borders—that led to Moscow deploying the cruise missile now in dispute.

While Bolton and Trump are more aggressive about terminating agreements, it was the Obama administration’s decision to spend $1.6 trillion to upgrade and modernize US nuclear weapons that now endangers one of the central pillars of the nuclear treaty framework, the 1996 Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (CTBT).

That agreement ended the testing of nuclear weapons, slowing the development of new weapons, particularly miniaturization and warheads with minimal yields. The former would allow more warheads on each missile, the latter could increase the possibility of using nuclear weapons without setting off a full-scale nuclear exchange.

Nukes are tricky to design, so you don’t want to deploy one without testing it. The Americans have bypassed some of the obstacles created by the CTBT by using computers like the National Ignition Facility. The B-61 Mod 11 warhead, soon-to-be-deployed in Europe, was originally a city killer, but labs at Livermore, CA and Los Alamos and Sandia, NM turned it into a bunker buster, capable of taking out command and control centers buried deep in the ground.

Nevertheless, the military and the nuclear establishment—ranging from companies such as Lockheed Martin and Honeywell International to university research centers—have long felt hindered by the CTBT. Add the Trump administration’s hostility to anything that constrains US power and the CTBT may be next on the list.

Restarting nuclear testing will end any controls on weapons of mass destruction. And since Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) requires nuclear-armed powers to eventually disarm their weapons of mass destruction, that agreement may go as well. In a very short time countries like South Korea, Japan and Saudi Arabia will join the nuclear club, with South Africa and Brazil in the wings. The latter two countries researched producing nuclear weapons in the 1980s, and South Africa actually tested one.

The demise of the INF agreement will edge the world closer to nuclear war. Since medium range missiles shorten the warning time for a nuclear attack from 30 minutes to 10 minutes or less, countries will keep their weapons on a hair trigger. “Use them or lose them” is the philosophy that impels the tactics of nuclear war.

In the past year, Russia and NATO held very large military exercises on one another’s borders. Russian, US and Chinese fighter planes routinely play games of chicken. What happens when one of those “games” goes wrong?

The US and the Soviet Union came within minutes of an accidental war on at least two occasions, and, with so many actors and so many weapons, it will be only a matter of time before some country interprets a radar image incorrectly and goes to DEFCON 1—imminent nuclear war.

The INF Treaty came about because of strong opposition and huge demonstrations in Europe and the United States. That kind of pressure, coupled with a pledge by countries not to deploy such weapons, will be required again, lest the entire tapestry of agreements that kept the horror of nuclear war at bay vanish.

*

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

Medicare for All: An Idea Whose Time Has Come

November 15th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Marketplace medicine prioritizes profits over human health. In America, it leaves growing millions uninsured.

Most others are way underinsured because exponentially rising costs of coverage are unaffordable for most US households, double the cost in other developed nations, things worsening, not improving.

Long ago, insurance providing good coverage was affordable, polar opposite how things are today.

When I finished school in 1960, healthcare as a percent of GDP was 5.1%. In 2002, it was 15%, in 2017, 18%. By 2020, it’ll likely exceed 20%.

In inflation-adjusted 2010 dollars, average annual per capita US healthcare spending rose from $1,082 in 1960 to $10,348 in 2016, increasing more annually, average incomes failing to keep pace.

Prescription drugs were once cheap. Many now are exorbitant. Overall high healthcare costs force countless US households to adopt practices detrimental to good health.

At times they have to choose between paying rent or serving mortgages and high medical expenses – an intolerable choice in the world’s richest country or anywhere else.

Along with food, shelter and clothing, healthcare is a fundamental human right, not a commodity for sale to individuals able to afford it.

Article 22 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says every “(e)veryone, as a member of society, has a right to social security…” Every nation is obligated to provide it.

Article 25 states “(e)veryone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.”

Article 30 says “(n)othing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.”

Social justice is fundamental. Yet it’s fast eroding in America and the West, heading toward disappearing altogether. Neoliberal harshness supersedes it.

So does spending countless trillions of dollars on endless wars of aggression – making the world safe for Wall Street, Big Oil, America’s military/industrial/security complex, and other corporate interests – at the expense of ordinary people struggling to get by.

Time and again since the early 20th century, healthcare reform the way it should be fell woefully short, Obamacare the latest example, the program rife with inequities.

It made a dysfunctional system worse for countless millions, rationing healthcare, making it unaffordable for many households to enrich insurers, drug companies, and large hospital chains.

Universal single-payer coverage is a long overdue idea in the US. Most Americans and doctors support it.

It could save around $500 billion annually, according to Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP) – by eliminating insurer middlemen and the bureaucratic nightmare it creates for physicians and hospitals.

A PNHP working group of 39 physicians drafted a single-payer plan it calls “Beyond the Affordable Care Act,” far superior to the current system, providing coverage for all Americas – everyone in, no one left out, the way it should be.

Removing financial barriers to healthcare is its most important feature, PNHP saying:

“The plan would save enough on administrative overhead to provide comprehensive coverage to the uninsured and to upgrade coverage for everyone else, thus requiring no increase in total health spending.”

It includes “effective mechanisms to control costs, lowering the rate of medical inflation and making the health system sustainable for future generations. Significantly, it would restore free choice of clinician and hospital to all Americans.”

When ill, everyone wants and needs the best care possible to restore their health and vigor, to be able to live normal productive lives.

“Coverage would include outpatient and inpatient medical care as well as rehabilitation, mental health care, long-term care, dental services, and prescription drugs,” said PNHP, adding:

“(T)he plan improves on traditional Medicare’s benefits and expands coverage to all Americans. It would eliminate premiums, co-pays, deductibles, and co-insurance” – along with bureaucratic headaches for providers, freeing up time to be productively devoted to providing care for patients.

The program would be federally financed like Medicare – administered at the federal, state and local levels, eliminating private insurance no longer needed, replacing it with “a streamlined single-payer system.”

According to Government Accountability Office and Congressional Budget Office estimates, administrative/bureaucratic savings would free up enough funds to provide world-class healthcare for all Americans – without increasing total spending.

“The program would be paid for by combining current sources of government health spending into a single fund with modest new taxes that would be fully offset by reductions in premiums and out-of-pocket spending,” PNHP explained.

Universal single-payer coverage is an idea whose time has come, the only system working the way healthcare is supposed to be – providing high-quality care for everyone.

A Final Comment

Bloomberg News explained the dilemma countless US households face, relating the story of one family, typical of many others, forced to choose between paying for healthcare coverage, or other major expenses.

The husband in the family in question has an annual income of about $113,000, almost double the 2017 median US household income. Yet he’s struggling to get by financially because of exponentially rising healthcare costs.

He kept his good-paying job but lost healthcare coverage. He used to pay $260 monthly for insurance provided by his company.

It rose to $1,375 monthly. Along with servicing his mortgage, covering other household expenses, and facing high college tuition costs for his son, he’s faced with taking on debt or opting out of health insurance for some or all family members, hoping for the best.

Bloomberg said the family in question is “rocked by escalating health insurance costs,” seeing no hope for improvement.

The husband took on debt to try covering rising expenses. In 2016, his health insurer announced a 38% increase in premiums for 2017, escalating his monthly expense to nearly $1,900 – a near $23,000 after tax burden, increasing annually much faster than annual household income gains nationwide.

His daughter is about to start college. Despite his high income, he can’t cover expenses. He dropped family healthcare insurance, taking a big risk, leaving two of four members alone covered.

His monthly debt is increasing, along with maxing out credit-card debt to cover rising expenses. Millions of US families face the same dilemma. “If something happens to me, who’s going to pay the bills, he asked?”

The nation I grew up in no longer exists. Healthcare, higher education, and other major expenses were affordable unlike today.

I paid for nearly all my college and graduate work expenses myself with minimal family help, and without the burden of debt bondage from today’s student loan racket.

For a year before beginning my formal working life and receiving company insurance, I bought healthcare coverage in 1959 for $100 and change. It included what today would be called catastrophic coverage.

Those days are long gone. What was affordable long ago, no longer is for most US households.

The world’s richest country serves its privileged class exclusively – at the expense of most others.

*

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.

Libya – A Prime Example of Secularism Versus Extremist Islam

November 15th, 2018 by Richard Galustian

For years I and other commentators on MENA developments, have consistently written that Field Marshall Haftar is the only solution for Libya. And yet again the latest ridiculous Italian attempt to broker a solution after dozens of similar conferences took place. In the words of the former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi it was as “a resounding flop”.

Its been 7 years since the ‘unnatural’ revolution causing disgracefully regime change, brought about by the imperialist land and oil grab by the ‘great powers’ using unashamedly NATO.

If this chaos continues, Libya will inevitably split into two countries and very soon.

When the hell are the fools that inhabit the UN, EU and even Russia going to ‘get out’ of Libya?

To repeat the obvious; the only key figure in Libya is Khalifa Haftar.

For the record, he arrived in Palermo on Monday evening, but was not going to play their game; he barely participated in the conference.

The Italian government press office said Haftar was not having dinner with the other participants nor joining them for talks, though some of them heads of state or government. Haftar specifically opposed the presence of the Muslim Brotherhood champion, Qatar at the event .

Haftar clearly only attended because he had a few days before visited Moscow, who sent to Sicily, Russia’s Prime Minister, Dmitry Medvedev and because also of Egyptian President Sisi’s presence.

To repeat what has been stated countless times by serious commentators as opposed to mostly American corrupt, bought think tanks, the Libyan people reject Islamists and the Muslim Brotherhood – secularism must prevail. If it succeeded in Libya, it could catch on in other Islamic countries and reverse the extremist Islamic trends that produced ISIS, Al Qaeda and the repulsive murderess and despicable Wahhabi regime in Saudi.

After all it was the great Kamal Ataturk, before WW11, in Turkey that despatched and banished mullahs from political life, as by the way did Shah Reza Pahlavi of Persia.

Libya is but a symptom of the real issue and problem; the clash of civilisations.

Its time to send these Islamic fanatics back a thousand some years. Why are people afraid to state the bleeding obvious? Because our so called leaders are moral and physical cowards, unable to call a spade a spade, in an Orwellian age of political correctness.

If only we could send these savages in a time machine back to around the 8th century, when admittedly the Islamic empire extended from Iberia, modern Spain, in the west to the Indus river in the east, we could then get on with dealing with the complex problems of over population, global warming and the consequences of the technological age, artificial intelligence being the most worrisome.

A man called Phillip Husband expressed it, (partly paraphrasing his words) very well:

“Any form of dogmatism is incompatible with the modern world. The literal meaning of the word Islam is submission: submission, in this case, to a set of dogmas that were established 1400 years ago by an Arab who is considered by most Muslims to be al-Insaan al-Kaamil, the Perfect Man, whose example is to be followed in every possible way, even in the 21st century.

This being the case, it might be apparent that rigid followers of Islam will not feel quite at home in modern societies which tolerate things that Islam, pretends, hypocritically, to forbid: homosexuality, polytheism, atheism, blasphemy, alcohol, drugs, premarital sex, et al.

On the other hand, it is unfortunate that many Muslims come to the West with a sense of innate superiority. They’re happy to take advantage of the benefits of living in our societies which offer incomparably greater opportunities and living standards than their own Muslim countries, yet profess to despise the boozing, half-dressed fornicators who let them in. Not forgetting their absolutely unacceptable attitudes and treatment of women.

Further if they advocate overthrowing our societies in order to impose Sharia law: the fact that some Muslims actually support this position is what makes people in the West not wish further Muslim immigration into their countries, not to mention the terrorist attacks that have been carried out by people of this faith in recent years.”

Important to mention since the previous paragraph refers to terrorism, lest we forget, the greatest terrorists exists courtesy of States like America, Saudi and Israel, to mention but a few, not by these small band of die hard revolutionary terrorists groups.

Get real people. See the truth, say the truth which is more profound than our pathetic ‘big brother security call’ in the West ”See something, say something”.  All right then, we say this; we the people, see gross injustice and corruption, domestically and internationally by politicians and bureaucrats, and so what are we going to do about it?

Ballot or bullet..maybe we need both.

Enough is enough. Let’s decide and move forward, not be paralysed into non action.

Be done with political correctness and call a spade a spade, would be a start.

*

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

For any appeal to ethics and morality to have any legitimacy, the principles so enounced must be applied rigorously, without favor or prejudice, to all human beings whatever grouping they may be slotted into. In other words, favoritism and morality are an antithetical mixture.

The principle that holds morals apply equally to all humans seemingly eludes Canada’s prime minister Justin Trudeau.

On 7 November, Trudeau stood in the House of Commons and railed against anti-Semitism and rightly so. Anti-Semitism, as with any form of racism or hatred expressed against any grouping, is anathema.

Yet Trudeau’s taking up the cause of anti-Semitism by attacking the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement is transparently, logically, and morally flawed.

Trudeau correctly apologized for Canada’s turning away Jewish refugees in 1939. Trudeau followed up the apology bemusedly:

Anti-Semitism is far too present. Jewish students still feel unwelcomed and uncomfortable on some of our colleges and university campuses because of BDS-related intimidation.

And out of our entire community of nations, it is Israel whose right to exist is most widely and wrongly questioned.

Any form of racism in any iota is an iota too much. This applies to all groupings of humans. No one should be despised, looked down upon, or discriminated against merely by virtue of being attached to a group through birth or circumstances beyond one’s control. [1]

Yes, anti-Semitism exists. Probably every form of racism exists. It is deplorable to despise someone for the mere fact of being Jewish.

However, Zionism is a different animal. Political Zionism is racist to its core and highly discriminatory. Hence, if one is opposed to racism, then one must also speak out against racism by Jews against others. Some try to conflate anti-Zionism with anti-Semitism; however, this is palpably fallacious. Imagine if someone tried to argue that if a person is opposed to the KKK that that person must therefore be against all white people (which would include most Jews). It is patently ludicrous, and it speaks ill to the intellectual rigor of any individual who would make such a claim.

Trudeau made blanket assertions. He did not back up what he said. What did he mean by they “feel unwelcomed”? What is “BDS-related intimidation”? BDS is widely understood to be a non-violent means of attempting to end Israeli oppression of Palestinians.

Furthermore, even if there were intimidation, it would pale in comparison to the slow-motion genocide experienced by Palestinians, the open-air concentration camp maintained by Israel against Palestinians (in blatant contravention of the Geneva Conventions — thus being a war crime), and the myriad racist laws designed to humiliate Palestinians. BDS is a means for Palestinians to keep their heads up and resist with dignity. Trudeau attempts to take this dignity away from Palestinians.

One might even think after listening to Trudeau that Jews were being oppressed by Palestinians instead of vice versa. Renowned academic Noam Chomsky put the racism into a comparative framework:

Anti-Arab racism is, however, so widespread as to be unnoticeable; it is perhaps the only remaining form of racism to be regarded as legitimate. [2]

… Contempt for the Arab population is deeply rooted in Zionist thought. [3]

And what should one make of Trudeau’s proclamation that “it is Israel whose right to exist is most widely and wrongly questioned”? What about the state of Palestine? When has the government of Canada, and when has Trudeau, ever spoken sincerely of the right for a Palestinian state to exist?

Could Trudeau be unaware of how the Canadian state came to be? It is established on the territory of the First Nations, also through the dastardly crime of genocide. [4] What about the right of First Nations to a nation state or nation states?

Trudeau might do well to learn from anti-racism activist Tim Wise who explained the antipathy that Jewish Zionism arouses. [5]

Of course, Israel itself is a suicide culture, though they left this part out of my Hebrew School classes. What else could one call a nation erected amidst folks who don’t want you there, whose land you had to steal, if not a land rooted in a death wish? We may not blow ourselves up, but we sure as hell have come up with a creative way to put our individual and collective lives in danger — become usurpers of other people’s stuff: always a sure way to make people hate you. [6]

Human rights and opposition to racism are not pick-and-choose principles. To be regarded seriously and exude moral integrity, one must resolutely support the equal and fair application of human rights for all humans, and one must resolutely oppose racism against any group of 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.

Kim Petersen is a former co-editor of the Dissident Voice newsletter. He can be reached at: [email protected]. Twitter: @kimpetersen.

Notes

  1. For example, some mitigating circumstances might exist such as having been raised in a white-supremacist household.
  2. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: The United States, Israel, and the Palestinians (Haymarket Books): 550.
  3. Noam Chomsky, Fateful Triangle: 551.
  4. See, for example, Bruce Clark, Ongoing Genocide caused by Judicial Suppression of the “Existing” Aboriginal Rights (2018). Review. Tamara Starblanket, Suffer the Little Children: Genocide, Indigenous Nations and the Canadian State (Clarity Press, 2018). Review. Kerry Coast, The Colonial Present: The Rule of Ignorance and the Role of Law in British Columbia (Clarity Press and International Human Rights Association of American Minorities, 2013). Review. Tom Swanky, The Great Darkening: The True Story of Canada’s “War” of Extermination on the Pacific plus The Tsilhqot’in and other First Nations Resistance (Burnaby, BC: Dragon Heart Enterprises, 2012). Review.
  5. Yes, there are Christian Zionists as well. They are basically motivated by Scriptural interpretation rather than the racially based in-group supremacism of Jews. Also, it should be axiomatically understood that when one speaks of a group that the members of a group do not form a monolithic consciousness.
  6. In Adam Engel, A Conversation with Tim Wise, Counterpunch, 6 December 2003.

General in the Room: Trump Names Abizaid Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

November 15th, 2018 by Alison Tahmizian Meuse

President Donald Trump has announced his intent to nominate retired general John Abizaid as US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, marking the end of a nearly two-year vacancy, the White House said.  

As America’s longest-serving Central Command chief, Abizaid oversaw the Iraq War from 2003 to 2007. The West Point graduate, who according to The New York Times twice declined the diplomatic post, will now be competing with a longstanding backchannel between Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

Abizaid, who is of Lebanese descent and speaks Arabic, will bring an experienced hand to the relationship with Riyadh at a volatile time.

The bet by Kushner, a real estate developer, on Saudi Arabia’s brash young crown prince, has come under intense scrutiny following the murder of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Istanbul on October 2.

In the wake of the killing, initially brushed off as a disappearance by the Saudis, Turkey leaked a string of gruesome pieces of evidence suggesting otherwise and played an audio recording of the murder to the head of the CIA.

In the recording, a member of the Saudi hit squad says, “tell your boss,” the NYT reported Monday, citing US intelligence officials pointing to the crown prince as the presumed boss who could have ordered such an act inside a Saudi diplomatic mission.

The Saudis, who were forced to admit to the murder, have nonetheless maintained that the crown prince had no knowledge of the incident.

The murder, a sloppy attempt at a coverup, and Turkish ascendence to renewed regional leadership have hurt US efforts to isolate rival Iran. After threatening that not one liter of Iranian oil would be sold after the imposition of sanctions on November 5, the US was compelled to grant waivers to a number of countries — including Turkey.

The Saudi crown prince, promoted as the lynchpin of a grand new Middle East strategy by Kushner, has since had to lean heavily on his father’s influence to ride out the crisis and calm allies. The king and his heir recently wrapped up a domestic tour seemingly aimed at presenting a united front.

Trump’s appointment of a seasoned military man and Council on Foreign Relations member as envoy to Saudi Arabia after a 22-month vacancy may signal a shift — at least officially — away from the Kushner-MBS bromance.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on General in the Room: Trump Names Abizaid Ambassador to Saudi Arabia

Washington’s Weak Hand in Syria

November 15th, 2018 by Tony Cartalucci

With Damascus and its allies firmly in control of Syria’s largest cities and the vast majority of Syrian territory west of the Euphrates – not only has the US-led proxy war against the nation failed – with Russian and Iranian forces involved indefinitely – the return of additional territory under Damascus’ control seems all but inevitable.

However, the US still holds territory east of the Euphrates, and – as American policymakers like to gloat – much of Syria’s oil wealth falls within this territory illegally occupied by US troops.

There is also the northern city of Idlib and surrounding countryside – the future of which is still nebulous due to the presence of Turkish forces and Ankara’s ever-shifting agenda and alliances.

Each side involved in the proxy war has pursued a number of policies – diplomatic, political, and military in nature – to strengthen their positions before the war finally concludes.

For Damascus, Russia, and Iran – decisive military victories across western Syria have served as the central pillar of Syria’s victory over the foreign-backed militancy. Diplomatic efforts both within Syrian borders and beyond them continue and also play a significant role in ending the war in all of Syria’s favor – even including many groups involved in opposing the government now being offered amnesty and reconciliation.

The United States – stretched by global wars of aggression, decades-long military occupations, and significantly diminished geopolitical clout – finds itself depending more on political ploys than producing any meaningful military or diplomatic leverage.

Staged chemical weapon attacks and increasingly absurd and equally baseless accusations of human rights violations now stand in where American military might once stood.

The repetitive nature of such ploys feeds into a circular process that both exposes Washington’s impotence and serves to exasperate it. Despite this – Washington and its many functionaries across political, diplomatic, and information spheres – continue feeding into this process. Thus, while the US still has forces in Syria, and continuously seeks to not only sabotage peace in Syria – but infect Iran with the same strain of proxy war – patient persistence by Damascus and its allies will see to Washington’s complete failure both in Syria and the wider Middle East.

Seeking Humanitarian Leverage 

As America’s proxy war in Syria continues to unravel, Washington continues to seek what leverage it can. This includes headlines flooding news cycles attempting to blame the bloodshed in Syria on the current government headed by President Bashar al Assad, and depicting Damascus as ruled by a “brutal regime.” Washington hopes to poison the Syrian government’s image to the point that any political settlement involving President Assad’s continued rule is unthinkable.

Yet, with each ploy, the US and its allies simply reaffirm that not only was the opposition in Syria manufactured abroad as was the war they helped trigger in 2011, so too is the humanitarian component of America’s pretext for remaining involved in Syria.

The Independent’s article, “The brutality of the Syrian regime must be told,” is an apt example of this.

The article is written by Amina Khoulani – founder of “Families for Freedom” – one of many UK-based fronts posing as human rights advocacy groups – but is in reality just one of many components in the West’s propaganda war against Syria.

Families for Freedom’s website admits it is “supported” by Women Now for DevelopmentDawlaty, and The Syrian Campaign (PDF) – all in turn funded by Western corporate-funded foundations and the very Western governments who conspired to overthrow the Syrian government and were complicit in arming and funding militants sent into Syria to do so.

The article attempts to rewrite the history of the Syrian conflict, claiming that Khoulani and her family were merely peaceful activists and that by 2012, the Syrian military was rounding up her family and friends, and bombing cities to stop protests.

Khoulani claims:

Before the civil war in Syria started, I lived in a small city called Darayya on the outskirts of Damascus, with my husband, children and other close family.

I worked as a history teacher in a high school in the centre of Damascus, which I loved. And I was an activist with a huge passion for the protection of human rights. I always knew that Syria was controlled by an oppressive, brutal regime. Long before the uprising in 2011 the people of Syria had no human rights, no freedom of expression, and there was certainly no democracy in the country.

Forced disappearances and detentions had been the norm since the days of Hafez Assad, who ruled before his son Bashar took over in July 2000.

She would also claim:

On 20 August 2012 the Darayya massacre started. It lasted for six days. It was just after the Eid holiday. The regime blocked the access and exit routes to the city. It was then that the bombing started. They used mortars, missiles, all types of bombs – they didn’t care where they targeted.

In reality – even by the US State Department’s own admission – terrorist organizations like Jabhat Al Nusra were already active in every major Syrian city – including Khoulani’s – by the end of 2011. Syrian forces were not rounding up peaceful activists and bombing protesters – they were fighting armed terrorists and arresting those providing them material support.

The abuse of human rights advocacy illustrated by Khoulani’s propaganda campaign served a central role in the Syrian war since it began in 2011. By Washington’s own admissions, the proxy war against Syria was planned long before 2011, with militant groups groomed, armed, and funded as early as 2007. The 2011 “Arab Spring” was likewise planned and prepared for years before it finally “sprung.”

The protests merely served as a smokescreen for the start of foreign-sponsored armed subversion.

Claims of human rights abuses were used as a pretext by the US and its NATO allies to invade and destroy Libya that same year. A similar and what Washington had hoped would be a swift  repeat of the Libyan war was aimed at Syria. Many of the Western-armed militants who fought in Libya were even transferred to Syria, entering via Turkey and participated in the seizure of Idlib and much of Aleppo.

In essence, it was the United States and its allies who committed premeditated crimes against humanity – engineering a destructive war that has consumed all of Libya and much of Syria since 2011. Through the use of the West’s still potent media monopolies – public perception is still being shaped to believe that the victims of Washington’s serial acts of armed aggression are actually the perpetrators – that governments fighting backed against foreign-sponsored armed extremists are “brutal dictatorships” and terrorist organizations and those supporting them are “activists” and “freedom fighters.”

Articles like Khoulani’s appearing in the Independent seek still to shape public perception, to wring whatever leverage still remains from an otherwise tired, battered, and abused “humanitarian” pretext.

By continuing to expose these “human rights advocates,” who funds them, and to what end, it may be possible to protect the legitimacy of genuine human rights concerns and how the former poses as the greatest danger to the latter.

For the Syrian conflict, as it reaches its conclusion we can expect the US to continue rolling out political ploys particularly in the form of propaganda couched behind “humanitarian concerns.” Barring any drastic and risky military escalation – the US has few other cards left. Its “humanitarian” card is unlikely to wrest concessions in Washington’s favor and the continued, repetitive abuse of this card only further undermines this ploy elsewhere it is used by American policymakers.

*

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


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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Washington’s Weak Hand in Syria

US Intel. Will Bring Assange to US in Chains

November 15th, 2018 by Ann Garrison

It appears increasingly likely Wikileaks founder and publisher Julian Assange will wind up in the clutches of the U.S. government.

It’s hardly surprising, given that in ten years’ time, Wikileaks published more classified information than all other media combined. It exposed human rights abuses, government spying, torture, and war crimes on an unprecedented scale.

WikiLeaks put government, corporations and even the Pentagon, the FBI, the CIA and other intel agencies on notice that they could no longer count on operating in secret.

It created a trove of primary source material that serious journalists and researchers will mine for years to come. Its publications are accessible to readers who prefer primary sources to mostly mediated news.

Wikileaks so infuriates the USA’s most violent, corrupt, and criminal institutions that Hillary Clinton half-jokingly suggested drone-bombing Assange. Other U.S. politicians called for his execution by other means.

California’s 28th District Congressman Adam Schiff, who became the chair of the House Intelligence Committee when Democrats reclaimed the House, said he would speak to Assange “when he is in U.S. custody, not before.”

Schiff is a vociferous and supremely self-righteous leader of the Democratic Party’s “Resistance,” which sullies the name of the underground movement formed in France during World War II to fight Nazi Germany’s occupying forces and the collaborationist Vichy government.

The “Resistance” tolerates only one truth and one loyalty: Russia is the enemy, interfering in Syria, the Ukraine and even U.S. elections. Russia elected Trump with Wikileaks’ help, it says. Russia dares to position missiles on its own borders, it says, to respond to NATO’s missiles on the other side. The U.S. must build more missiles, more drones, more nuclear weapons, and every other sort of weapon to defend the European world against Russia and its ally China.

Moral and Racial Superiority

Moral and racial superiority entitles the U.S. to occupy the world with military bases, ringing any nation that challenges its hegemony with military aircraft, battleships, assault vehicles, and military surveillance. Moral and racial superiority entitles its spy state agencies to shut down access to information deviating from its narratives and therefore to arrest and extradite Julian Assange.

The Republican Party shares the same supremely intolerant nature as the Democrats, but differentiates itself by insisting that, although Russia is the enemy, Donald Trump did not collude with Russia to steal the 2016 presidential election.

The Republicans also want to silence the founder of Wikileaks and find a way to shut the organization down. Trump’s former CIA director, and now Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, has called Wikileaks a “non-state hostile intelligence service often abetted by state actors like Russia” and vowed to hunt Assange down.

Has Time Run Out?

Assange has been an asylee in Ecuador’s London Embassy for more than six years—since August 2012. Ecuador and the UK, however, are no closer to an agreement that would allow him safe passage out of the embassy. In a recent video conference, #Unity4J organizer Suzie Dawson said she fears Assange and those working to free him are running out of time:

“Right now time is not on our side. And I had someone today complaining because they want us to do a big, big action day march. When you do those types of actions it takes two or three months to organize. You need to have an organizing committee, you need to wallpaper the town, you need to have one date that you do it on, you need to do a ton of advertising. You need to get all the unions and various other organizations to sign on board, and then you have this one action day.

“Well, there’s a couple of problems with that. First of all, I don’t think we have three months right now. If we schedule a February giant march in support of Julian, I honestly don’t think we have until February. I hope I’m wrong. I hope that the actions we take in the short term, in the next days and weeks, will buy us that much time for Julian, but I don’t see it.”

CIA whistleblower John Kiriakou, who spent two years in prison for exposing the agency’s official use of torture, said if Assange walks out of the embassy without a guarantee of safe passage, he will be extradited to the U.S. in chains:

“We all know why the British have that embassy ringed. It’s to snatch him and to turn him over to the United States. If that happens, the CIA and the FBI are both going to be on that plane and they’re both going to be at least attempting to interrogate him all the way back home. They will bring him back to the United States in chains because that’s what they do.“

Dawson feels the FBI and CIA will interrogate and torture Assange to try to obtain information that would allow them to bring Wikileaks down. She has no doubt he’s been preparing for this eventuality for years. She believes he will have made sure the organization has adopted security codes and measures he himself doesn’t know and therefore can’t reveal—even if he’s tortured.

“They want to know about security files for example. They want to know about the inner processes and workings of Wikileaks. They want access to the knowledge that’s inside Julian’s brain. And they will torture him. And they will interrogate him in order to attempt to get that.

“Now I trust Julian to be smart enough to have made sure that even he doesn’t possess a lot of that knowledge. In my personal opinion, Julian has spent years planning for these various eventualities, but it won’t stop them from trying.”

Dawson aded intelligence agencies are eager to punish him: “At the end of the day they want to punish him for outing their corruption and their crimes. They’ve been waiting eight years to do it, and they will be rubbing their hands together with glee at the prospect of the UK detaining him and extraditing him to the USA.”

*

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.

Featured image is from WSWS

November 6 was a day in which people across the United States and indeed the world were watching for some indications of the future political prospects for the leading capitalist state.

It had been predicted that the House of Representatives would be lost by the Republicans to the Democrats. This was the outcome of the elections where Democrats could pick up approximately 40 seats outperforming the party of President Donald Trump.

Trump played down the loss of the House and emphasized that the Senate would remain under Republican control. Nonetheless, there is a major shake-up in the cabinet of the Trump administration with the immediate departure of Attorney General Jeff Sessions with more ousters being imminent. 

A large number of women, national oppressed people and younger politicians ran for public office while a significant number were elected. The results of the elections were in part due to the higher than normal turnout of voters for a midterm poll. 

With these new faces in Congress and the Senate it still remains to be seen what actual impact this will have on the overall political atmosphere prevailing in the U.S. Trump, whose 2016 campaign is still under investigation by a special counsel, continues his right wing, neo-fascist posture and agenda aimed at stoking fears of African Americans, Latinx people, Middle Easterners, immigrants, LGBTQ communities and anyone who does not agree with the policies of the current administration.

A series of high profile racial and political incidents occurred leading up to the midterms. 14 packages containing what appeared to be pipe bombs were addressed to two former Democratic presidents, a previous Secretary of State, a famous actor, the Manhattan building of Cable News Network (CNN), among others, with a return address containing the name of Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the former Chair of the Democratic National Committee (DNC).

On October 24 a white racist shot to death two African American seniors at a Kroger supermarket in a suburb of Louisville, Kentucky. Just minutes before this same assailant unsuccessfully attempted to gain entry into an African American church. Some three days later, another domestic terrorist entered the Tree of Life synagogue in the Squirrel Hill district of Pittsburgh and killed 11 Jewish worshippers. 

Both gunmen were imbued with hatred for various sectors of the population in the U.S. and internationally. Trump through his campaign rallies across the country has agitated for stricter immigration laws even sending thousands of troops to the southern border with Mexico. The president’s attitude towards African Americans, particularly women, has been expressed through his derogatory statements to journalists who were merely asking him critical questions about domestic issues.

The culmination of these violent acts and inflammatory rhetoric has created a socially tense atmosphere in the U.S. Although the official unemployment rate has declined sharply over the last two years (3.7%), a significant number of working families are continuing to suffer from poverty and economic marginalization. The ruling class is growing wealthier at the expense of the majority while a burgeoning federal budget deficit threatens the future stability of the country.

Voter Suppression, Institutional Racism and the Legacy of Slavery

Two gubernatorial and one senatorial race in the states of Georgia and Florida have become a focal point for millions throughout the country and the world. Democratic State Representative Stacey Abrams has refused to concede to former Republican Secretary of State Brian Kemp in Georgia where a narrow margin separates the contenders.

The Abrams campaign has objected to documented evidence of voter suppression targeting mainly African Americans and naturalized citizens. Abrams is demanding that all votes be counted, strongly believing that the gap between her and Kemp would deny him 50% of the vote necessitating a runoff election in early December. Kemp has already resigned as Secretary of State claiming victory and setting up a transition team.

An article by Khushbu Shah published in the Guardian on November 10 states that:

“In the three months leading up to election day more than 85,000 voters were purged from rolls under Kemp. During 2017 668,000 voters were purged, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Of those 2017 numbers, investigative reporter Greg Palast told Salon, 200,000 people left the state, died or moved out their district, making them legitimate cancellations. However, through litigation, he got the entire purge list. ’Of the 400,000 who supposedly moved, our experts will tell a court that 340,134 never moved – wrongly purged,’ Palast told the Guardian, saying people had been purged for not voting in an election or two.” 

Such a high degree of irregularity within the Secretary of State’s office should have prompted a Justice Department investigation. However, considering that former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who was fired from the Trump administration the day after the midterm elections, has been accused of being a racist for many years, it is not surprising that no administration intervention on the side of the disenfranchised has been forthcoming. In fact Trump has sided with the Republican candidates in Georgia and Florida, where similar charges have been made. 

 This same Guardian report continues noting:

“Furthermore from 2012 to 2016, 1.5 million voters were purged – more than 10% of all voters – from records, according to a 2018 report from the Brennan Center for Justice. In comparison, 750,000 were purged from 2008 to 2012…. On the first day of early voting a bus full of African American senior citizens on their way to a voting center were turned back. Organizers called it ‘live voter suppression.’…  The Guardian witnessed long lines in various parts of metro Atlanta, where the majority of counties lean Democrat. MIT’s Election Performance Index for 2016 suggested Georgia ranked 49th out of 50 for wait times to vote.”

Similar developments occurred in the state of Florida where African American Mayor of Tallahassee Andrew Gillum, the Democratic candidate for Governor, is in another undecided race against Republican Congressman Ron DeSantis. Voter suppression is a perennial systemic problem in Florida as well. 

In 2000 the presidential race between Democratic Vice President Al Gore and Republican Governor George Bush, Jr. was decided in Florida after a 5-4 Supreme Court decision ordered the state election commissions to stop counting the votes, giving the election to the Republican candidate. Broward County became a focal point of the 2000 election and this center of Democratic African American voters is once again being targeted for disruption by the right wing supporters of the Republican Party.

Carol Anderson of the Guardian wrote on November 14 saying:

“Florida is, once again, in an election debacle that is straining the bonds of credibility and democracy. Governor Rick Scott has actually called in the state police to investigate ‘voter fraud’ (none was found), then ordered the voting machines impounded in Broward county, all to protect his precarious lead in the US Senate race. A judge, however, emphatically blocked that last command.”

A referendum was passed in Florida on November 6 which restored the right to vote to 1.4 million people denied the franchise as a result of previous felony convictions. Nonetheless, these potential voters could not cast their ballots in the midterms. The recounts for Governor and the Senate will intensify the struggle generating more animosity from the right wing towards African Americans and other national minorities.

Impact on Domestic and Foreign Policy

Even with a majority Democratic House of Representatives the question remains as to which course the party will take as it relates to domestic and international affairs. Many Democratic politicians and their allies within the corporate media have focused attention on allegations of Russian governmental interference in the 2016 presidential elections which brought Trump to the White House. 

Yet this preoccupation with Russia’s influence and the U.S. electorate completely neglects the political bankruptcy of the Democratic campaign of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. During the administration of President Barack Obama the militarist policies of U.S. imperialism continued in full force leading to an escalation of Pentagon and NATO troops in Afghanistan; the destruction of the North African state of Libya in 2011, the most prosperous nation on the continent, resulting in the brutal assassination of Pan-Africanist leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi; an initiation of a counter-revolutionary war aimed at toppling the legitimate government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad which fueled the crises of migration and displacement, the worst since the conclusion of World War II, triggering the advent of neo-fascist regimes in Eastern Europe and the threat of the breaking up of the European Union (EU).   

On a domestic level after the ascendancy of Obama in 2008, the following midterm elections in 2010 saw a major swing to the right in both the Congress and the Senate. By 2014, the Democrats had loss both the House and Senate along with numerous state legislative bodies and governorships. 

During the period of 2009 through 2016, African Americans were subjected to greater levels of state violence and socio-economic depravation spawning rebellions in Ferguson, Baltimore, Milwaukee and Charlotte. There was the proliferation of racist organizations while the Democratic Party seemed helpless in countering the reactionary trend. 

The struggle for voting rights among African Americans extends back to the years following the Civil War (1861-1865). The defeat of Black Reconstruction after 1876 and extending through the remaining decades of the 19th century returned African Americans to conditions reminiscent of enslavement where state governments enacted segregation laws which were reinforced by a penal system which constitutionally within the framework of the 13th Amendment coupled with local laws could in fact subject detainees to involuntary servitude.

An enslavement policy in the state of Colorado was overturned by the voters in the midterms shining a light on this practice as it exists in the 21st century. Nevertheless, the prison system whose inmates are disproportionately African Americans, Latinx and poor is not being dismantled. 

How will the incoming Democratic Congress address these fundamental questions? Are they even capable of such a challenge considering that the leadership of both the Democratic and Republican parties represents the ruling capitalist class.

The political rights of African Americans must be defended as a principle within the concept of universal suffrage. Nonetheless, the genuine democratic aspirations of the nationally oppressed in the U.S. and their right to self-determination cannot be realized under the racist capitalist system. The capitalist system was built on the enslavement of African people and the extermination of the Indigenous nations in North America. Consequently, a revolutionary reconstruction of the contemporary dispensation must overturn the material basis for this centuries-long national oppression and economic exploitation in order that a truly democratic system comes into existence. 

*

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.

Israel Wins America’s 2018 Midterm Election

November 15th, 2018 by Philip Giraldi

Judging from the mainstream media, Israel was not a major issue in the midterm election but it sure did come up a lot when candidates for office were wooing Jewish or Evangelical voters. To cite only one example, Florida Congressman Ron DeSantis criticized his opponent Tallahassee Mayor Andrew Gillum during their gubernatorial race for receiving support from the Dream Defenders, a group favoring Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) against Israel, and giving a speech welcoming members of the Council on American-Islamic Relations to his city. DeSantis claimed in a video clip that “I can find anti-Semites around him, but it’s almost like ‘we don’t want to discuss that.’”

DeSantis, who sponsored the 2013 Palestinian Accountability Act which called for the withholding of U.S. aid to the Palestinian Authority until it recognizes Israel as a Jewish state, charged that Gillum would not be a “friend” of Israel. In 2017, he co-founded the Congressional Israel Victory Caucus, saying

“Israel is our strongest ally in the Middle East, as we share common national interests and possess similar national values. Israel is not the problem in the Middle East; it is the solution to many of the problems that bedevil the region. American policy must ensure that Israel emerges victorious against those who deny or threaten her existence.”

Earlier this year, DeSantis drafted a proposal calling on the U.S. to recognize Syria’s Golan Heights as an ‘integral part’ of the State of Israel.

DeSantis-Israel

DeSantis boasted about his presence in Jerusalem when the U.S. Embassy was moved to that city in May and has promised as governor to visit Israel’s illegal settlements on the West Bank, which he refers to by the preferred Israeli usage as “Judea and Samaria.” He threatens critics that “If you boycott Israel, the state of Florida will boycott you.”

One might note at a minimum that for Ron DeSantis and ambitious slimeballs like him it is all about Israel due to their own political self-interest, with nothing actually in the mix for either Florida or the United States. The uninformed public buys into the narrative because it doesn’t know any better thanks to the media’s heavy slant in favor of Israel, allowing uncritical support for the Jewish state to continue under the radar unchallenged. DeSantis, a former U.S. Navy lawyer, has demonstrated that he reveres Israel even more than his former comrades in arms. In his congressional district there are a number of survivors of the U.S.S. Liberty, which was attacked in international waters by Israel on June 8, 1967, killing 34 crewmen and injuring 171 more. They report that DeSantis has been completely unsympathetic to their requests that a commission of inquiry finally be convened to determine what actually happened on that day.

In fact, Americans have never had the option of voting on the “special relationship” that Israel enjoys with the United States as no Congressman would dare run against it lest they be smeared in the media and find themselves running against an extraordinarily well funded opponent benefitting from large donations coming from out of state sources. The list of prominent politicians “taken down” by Israel is lengthy, and includes Cynthia McKinney, Adlai Stevenson III, Paul Findley, Chuck Percy, William Fulbright, Roger Jepsen, and Pete McCloskey.

It is particularly ironic that as the midterm campaigns were drawing to a close there appeared some serious investigative journalism that demonstrates precisely how Israel and Jewish groups corrupt the political process in America to provide virtually unlimited support for anything and everything that the despicable Benjamin Netanyahu and his gang of war criminals seek to do. How the process has succeeded is best illustrated by the current Israeli government’s policy of “mowing the grass” in Gaza where it is using army snipers to kill unarmed Palestinian protesters. Washington not only does not protest against the in-your-face war crime, it aids and abets it with U.S. Ambassador David Friedman justifying the military response as measured and appropriate.

Another area where Washington chooses to look the other way is regarding Israel’s nuclear arsenal, believed to consist of two hundred warheads. Under U.S. law, any country that has an undeclared nuclear weapons arsenal cannot obtain American-made weapons and cannot received aid of any type. Congress and the White House pretend that the Israeli nuclear arsenal does not exist, in spite of the fact that the Israelis themselves have more than once implicitly acknowledged it and instead of cutting aid to Israel have instead increased it. It is currently $3.8 billion per year guaranteed for the next ten years, with extra money also available if needed. No other country benefits from such largesse and gives in return so little.

To be sure, the groundbreaking book The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy by professors Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer, which appeared in 2007, pulled no punches in describing how the Israel Lobby operates in the United States. It also made clear that the relationship with Israel serves no United States national interest whatsoever and exists solely because of the corruption of the political system and the media by principally Jewish individuals and groups that are dedicated to that task.

While acknowledging the great debt to Walt and Mearsheimer, it is one thing to read about something in a book and quite another thing to see it live, which is what the new evidence of Israeli interference consists of. Several years ago, the Qatari news service al-Jazeera commissioned two investigations. The first was on the activities of the Israeli Lobby in Britain and the second was on the lobby in the United States. The material consisted largely of meetings with members of Israel’s active lobby that were secretly filmed by journalists who were pretending to be supporters and who eventually managed to penetrate some of the organizations that were most active in promoting Israel’s interests.

The British expose, in two parts, aired in January, and was based on discussions and interviews that took place between June and November 2017. It demonstrated how the Israeli Embassy in London connived with government officials to “take down” parliamentarians and government ministers who were considered to be critical of the Jewish State. It also revealed how the Israeli Embassy was secretly subsidizing and advising private groups promoting Israeli interests, including associations of Members of Parliament (MPs).

The secret recording revealed how an Israeli Embassy diplomat/spy named Shai Masot connived with a senior civil servant to get rid of Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan, regarded as a supporter of an independent Palestinian state. To Masot’s additional query “Can I give you some MPs that I would suggest you would take down?” the civil servant suggested “…if you look hard enough, I’m sure there is something that they’re trying to hide…a little scandal maybe.” Another alleged pro-Arab member of Parliament Crispin Blunt was also identified and confirmed to be on a “hit list.”

It was also learned that Masot had been secretly subsidizing and advising two ostensibly independent groups, the parliamentary Conservative Friends of Israel (CFI) and the Labour Friends of Israel (LFI). Masot did, however, express concern that Israel’s control over incoming parliamentarians was not quite what it used to be:

“For years, every MP that joined the parliament joined the LFI. They’re not doing that any more in the Labour Party. CFI, they’re doing it automatically. All the 14 new MPs who got elected in the last elections did it automatically.”

The documentary was initially a sensation in Britain but then, predictably, it went away as Israel’s loyal host of media scriveners took charge. Masot was recalled to Israel and Prime Minister Teresa May, as good a friend to Jewish money and power as one is likely to find, decided to do nothing. Her characteristically toothless reaction to the suggestion that her government officials might be removed by the clandestine activity of a foreign country was:

“The Israeli ambassador has apologized…the U.K. has a strong relationship with Israel and we consider the matter closed.”

The four-part series by al-Jazeera on the Lobby in the U.S. was meanwhile temporarily spiked because the Qatari government was seeking to obtain the mediation of prominent American Jews to pressure the White House to help resolve its outstanding conflict with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates.

The documentary has remained in limbo but in the past two weeks it has surfaced and is now available. Its undercover investigative journalist, a British Jew named Tony Kleinfeld, quickly charmed his way into the inner circle of Israel’s supporters where he discovered a network of organizations that act as fronts for the Israeli government. Their activities include spying on supporters of Palestinian rights and disrupting demonstrations, with a particular focus on the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement (BDS), which Israel has particularly targeted. They also resorted to tactics like smearing critics by generating false accusations of sexual and personal misconduct, all of which was coordinated by Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs. The ministry’s director general is Sima Vaknin-Gil, a former senior officer with Israel’s military intelligence, and is staff consists mostly of former spies drawn from Israel’s various security agencies.

Later, Kleinfeld became involved with The Israel Project, which is a U.S. based Israeli government backed propaganda organ that claims to be “a non-partisan American educational organization dedicated to informing the media and public conversation about Israel and the Middle East.”

In a recorded conversation, Project employee Jordan Schachtel, explained the objectives and extent of a secret Facebook operation.

“We’re putting together a lot of pro-Israel media through various social media channels that aren’t The Israel Project’s channels. So we have a lot of side projects that we are trying to influence the public debate with. That’s why it’s a secretive thing, because we don’t want people to know that these side projects are associated with The Israel Project.”

In another episode, the Israel on Campus Coalition’s Jacob Baime, who claimed to have a $2 million budget, described coordinating with the Israeli government, with an approach “modeled on General Stanley McChrystal’s counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq…copied a lot from that strategy that has been working really well for us, actually” using “offensive information operations.” Baime described putting “up some anonymous website” along with targeted Facebook ads so that critics “either shut down or they spend time responding to it and investigating it, which is time they can’t spend attacking Israel. It’s psychological warfare, it drives them crazy.”

Kleinfeld also met with other groups. Foundation for Defense of Democracies was revealed as yet another agent of Israel’s Ministry of Strategic Affairs, its directors meeting regularly with Israeli Embassy staff in Washington. In spite of that the Treasury Department has not compelled it to register under the Foreign Agents Registration Act of 1938 (FARA). It is also registered with the IRS as a tax exempt 501(c)3 “charity.” Indeed, no Jewish organization active on behalf of Israel has ever had to register under FARA and most are classified as tax exempt charities or educational foundations. Interestingly, however, the FDD’s Jonathan Schanzer lamented in his recorded conversation with Kleinfeld that “anti-Semitism as a smear is not what is used to be.”

In another bizarre episode, Kleinfeld visited the neocon dominated Hoover Institute in California where he participated in a demonstration together with a group of bored young conservative think tankers compelled by their professors to protest against a Students for Justice in Palestine conference. The think tank fellows admit that they were “astroturfing” – rent-a-crowd activism to make a small demonstration appear much larger.

Another segment includes Israeli Lobby financier Adam Milstein, who is reported to be the principal funder of Canary Mission, which has targeted some 1,900 students and academics in its profiles since 2015, smearing them as “racist,” “anti-American” and “anti-Semitic.” Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition, boasts in the film that “Canary Mission is highly, highly effective to the extent that we monitor the Students for Justice in Palestine and their allies.”

In his recording, Milstein also talks about the need to “investigate” and “expose” critics of Israel, who Milstein claims are anti-Semites, as well as “anti-Christian” and “anti-freedom” activists who “terrorize us.” His foundation also funds numerous anti-Palestinian organizations, including the Israel on Campus Coalition, StandWithUs, CAMERA, the AMCHA Initiative and the FDD. Milstein also funds and is chairman of the board of the Israeli-American Council. An Israeli-born California based real estate developer, Milstein reportedly served time in federal prison after a 2009 conviction for tax evasion.

An Israeli spy at the University of California at Davis, Julia Reifkind also described to Kleinfeld how the system worked at the campus level. She used multiple fake Facebook accounts to monitor the activities of Students for Justice in Palestine. “I follow all the SJP accounts. I have some fake names. My name is Jay Bernard or something. It just sounds like an old white guy, which was the plan. I join all these groups.” The information she obtained was then passed on to her contact in the Embassy for forwarding on to Israel to be entered into their data base of enemies.

So, Israel was engaging in interfering in legitimate political activity and also generating fake news on the social media in both 2016 and 2018, the same accusation that has been leveled against Moscow, but Special Counsel Robert Mueller seems curiously uninterested. And beyond the al-Jazeera revelations, there is also the evidence that it was Israel that sought favors from the incoming Trump Administration in 2016, not Russia. So who was actually corrupting whom?

And then there are the more overt Israeli front groups like the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) with its $100 million annual budget and 200 employees, as well as the other special arrangements to pander to Israel and the powerful American Jews who have made it their mission to use the U.S. government as a mechanism to protect and nurture Israel. Last week in Los Angeles $60 million was raised by Hollywood’s finest for the Israel Defense Forces (IDF), “Their Job is to Look After Israel. Ours is to Look After Them,” the website proclaims. Last month, an additional $32 million was raised for the IDF in New York City. Donations are tax exempt, to support the armed forces of a country that is currently engaged in war crimes and that has a secret nuclear arsenal.

So, Israel was technically speaking not running in the 2018 election, but it was very much in the race. Jewish Democrats are already boasting how the presence of a couple of Israel critics in the House, who will be “reeducated” on the Middle East, will make no difference, that the party will be solid for the Jewish state with more Jewish congressmen than ever before. Indeed, the “special relationship” bond will be stronger than ever. Five committee chairmanships in the House of Representatives will be in the hands of passionate Israel firsters, including Adam Schiff at the Intelligence Committee and Eliot Engel at Foreign Affairs. On the Republican side, the House is already 100% in Israel’s pocket. And as part of the White House team we have John Bolton and Mike Pompeo. Donald Trump’s Ambassador to Israel David Friedman expressed the dual loyalty phenomenon best in a recent speech. The United States is his “country of citizenship” but Israel is the country he “loves so much.”

*

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.

We bring to the attention of Global Research Readers this incisive article by Philip Giraldi on the absence of an anti-war movement in the US.

The collapse of the anti-war movement  occurred in the wake of the invasion of Iraq.

One of the key reasons for the collapse of the peace movement is that virtually the entire mosaic of so-called progressive movements and NGOS is funded (with some exceptions) directly or indirectly by corporate foundations (Open Society Foundation, MacArthur, Ford, Rockefeller, et al) which indelibly support what is euphemistically called US foreign policy, i.e. America’s global military agenda which is portrayed as a “peace making undertaking” with a view to protecting the National Security of America and its allies. 

In recent years, major protest movements in the US, the EU and internationally are generously funded. The limits of dissent are set by their corporate sponsors.

Who funds the World Social Forum (WSF), #Occupy Wall Street, Democracy Now, #Black Lives Matter, Human Rights Watch, MoveOn, Carnegie Foundation for International Peace, Code Pink. etc. 

The idea is to retain the mosaic to prevent the emergence of a mass movement, ie. the “do it yourself” approach of constituent organizations, e.g. under the umbrella of the World Social Forum. In a bitter irony the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) Movement was in a sense funded by Wall Street. 

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, November 15, 2018

***

The United States of America has no peace movement even though the country has been mired in unwinnable wars since 2001 and opinion polls suggest that there is only lukewarm support among the public for what is taking place in Afghanistan and Syria. This is in part due to the fact that today’s corporate media virtually functions as a branch of government, which some might refer to as the Ministry of Lies, and it is disinclined to report on just how dystopic American foreign and national security policy has become. This leaves the public in the dark and allows the continued worldwide blundering by the US military to fly under the radar.

The irony is that America’s last three presidents quite plausibly can be regarded as having their margins of victory attributed to a peace vote. George W. Bush promised a more moderate foreign policy in his 2000 campaign, Obama pledged to undo much of the harsh response to 9/11 promulgated by Bush, and Donald Trump was seen as the less warlike candidate when compared to Hillary Clinton. So the public wants less war but the politicians’ promises to deliver have been little more than campaign chatter, meaning that the United States continues to be locked into the same cycle of seeking change through force of arms.

Just last week Secretary of State Mike Pompeo spoke to a BBC journalist and said Iran must do what Washington demands “if they want their people to eat.” Pompeo’s comments should have shocked the public, but they were not widely reported. If Pompeo spoke for the Administration, that means that Washington is now ready, willing and often able to starve civilians and deny them medicines as a foreign policy tool. Iran is now on the receiving end, but the US has also been supporting similar action by the Saudi Arabians in Yemen, which has resulted in widespread starvation, particularly among children. The current policy recalls former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright’s infamous comment that the deaths of 500,000 Iraqi children due to sanctions had been “worth it.”

America Has No Peace Movement – Blame the ‘White Supremacists’

Source: SCF

It is hard to believe that most Americans support Pompeo. To be sure, there are a number of groups in the United States that have the word “peace” or “antiwar” somewhere in their titles. Most would describe themselves as “progressive,” wherein lies the problem in pulling together a more broadly-based coalition that would make America’s warfare state a key target in the national election in 2020. Progressives, or, as they used to be called, liberals, are not like everyone else. Some commentators observing their antics describe them scathingly as “social justice warriors” or SJWs. That means that they have a mandate to oppose all the evils in the world, to include racism, sexism, limits on immigration and capitalism to name only a few. War is somewhere on the list but nowhere near the top.

SJWs have no comfort zone for dealing with anyone who does not fully buy into their blueprint for global rejuvenation. This means in turn that the antiwar movement, such as it is, is fragmented into a gaggle of groups with grievances that have little ability to establish cohesion with other organizations that might agree completely with their worldview. Folks like me, who are socially and politically conservative but antiwar, do not fit well with their priorities and would prefer to focus on the wars, but that option is not on offer without accepting a lot of sanctimonious garbage.

recent email from the US Campaign for Palestinian Rights illustrates precisely what is wrong. I would support the group based on my concern for justice for the Palestinians but have no interest in its ridiculous stereotyping of who is the enemy, i.e. the omnipresent evil “white supremacists” who are also male, Gentile and heterosexual. The email begins:

“In the past week, white supremacist gunmen murdered 11 worshippers at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh and two Black people in Louisville, and Trump announced his intention to try to erase trans, non-binary, and intersex folks… Our struggles for justice are inextricably linked: rejecting white supremacy means rejecting antisemitism, anti-Black racism, Zionism, Islamophobia, transphobia, and all forms of oppression. This is especially important knowing that many, many people carry overlapping identities and thus are marginalized at the intersection of overlapping oppressions.”

Yes, I know, it is impossible to understand what she is going on about unless one is educated in the progressive codewords. And also yes, the text could have been written by Monty Python. After that introduction the email goes on to provide some resources to “expand [one’s] knowledge,” including this gem:

Palestine as a Queer Struggle (video)
This webinar with Nada Elia, Falastine Dwikat, and Izzy Mustafa covers the intersecting struggles against heteropatriarchy and Zionism. With Trump’s most recent attack on trans, non-binary, and intersex folks, it’s imperative that we understand the importance of standing with queer and trans people in the US and in Palestine as they face multiple layers of oppression.” 

As war, in this case the slaughter of the Palestinians by the Jewish state, is the ultimate evil and it brings with it many other forms of suffering, it would seemingly not be asking too much to worry about it as a first priority before getting into the “multiple layers of oppression” that seem to bother lefties so much. But, alas, they cannot jettison that baggage and for that reason many “normal” people who want the wars to stop will not be participating in their protests. It’s a shame really, as joining together and fighting to stop the next war is well worth doing for every human being on this planet.

*

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 is a former CIA counter-terrorism specialist and military intelligence officer who served nineteen years overseas in Turkey, Italy, Germany, and Spain. He was the CIA Chief of Base for the Barcelona Olympics in 1992 and was one of the first Americans to enter Afghanistan in December 2001. Phil is Executive Director of the Council for the National Interest, a Washington-based advocacy group that seeks to encourage and promote a U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East that is consistent with American values and interests. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Featured image is from Popular Resistance

American behemoths such as Google, Facebook and other transnational corporations are now so big that ethics plays second fiddle to profit and legislators feel somehow emasculated to act in the public interest. Revolving doors obviously plays a role in the cesspit of modern day politics. These transnationals are breaking all the rules where anarchy by the rich and powerful is endemic to civil society.

While all attention is turned on the constitutional and political crisis Britain faces with Brexit, Britain’s mainstream media misses another important story. For Google, it is a good time to bury bad news.

Google has announced it will integrate a UK-based health company into its main organisation, igniting concerns that the tech giant will misuse NHS patient data that the health company had been given access to. Having promised it would never do this on ethical grounds, Google has just done the opposite.
It was only in July last year that data belonging to 1.6 million patients was illegally shared with Google after an NHS trust tested a medical app with the tech giant. The UK’s data protection watchdog found that a partnership between DeepMind and the NHS had violated privacy laws, not that it did anything to deter Google.

DeepMind, a company that develops artificial intelligence (AI), was purchased by Google in 2014 and will merge its health division with Google Health, a new venture focused on consolidating the tech giant’s health-related projects.

The partnership aims to turn DeepMind’s ‘Streams’ app into a fully-fledged “AI-powered assistant for nurses and doctors.”

The news has quite rightly caught the eye of privacy advocates and even government watchdogs. Patient’s hadn’t been told that their private medical data –which may have included details of drug abuse, abortions or HIV status–  would be crunched and analyzed by the Streams app.

DeepMind released a statement pledging to “do better” and established an independent review panel. Now, however, the absorption of DeepMind into Google has done away with that review panel and given Google direct control of patient data. Regardless, the tech giant now holds reams of patient data with no oversight.

We should not forget that Britain’s NHS is the biggest single buyer of pharmaceutical goods in Europe, which often sets the price across the EU and that in any trade deal with the USA, the NHS is up for grabs.

A spokesman for the Information Commission (ICO) told TechCrunch on Wednesday that the watchdog was “monitoring” the developments involving DeepMind’s absorption into Google, adding that its investigation from last year underscored the importance of “ensuring the original purpose for processing personal data.”

The restructuring appears to completely violate a pledge DeepMind made when it started working with the NHS. At the time, the company vowed that “data will never be connected to Google accounts or services.” 

News of the merger came less than a week after Google hired Geisinger Health CEO David Feinberg to oversee its various health initiatives, including DeepMind, Google Fit, and research and development organizations Verily and Calico. Verily’s projects include using machine learning to analyze patient data, while Calico has been granted a $1.5 billion budget to achieve the lofty goal of “curing death.”

So far, so Silicon Valley. But granting private companies, especially ones as omnipresent as Google, access to medical information could have dire consequences. Facebook is another company that feels having access to your private medical history is of value.

After Facebook was rocked by the Cambridge Analytica privacy scandal in March, it emerged in April that the company had sent a doctor to multiple top US hospitals in an effort to convince them to share patient data, including illness and prescription information.

Facebook’s project reportedly sought to collect anonymized personal details, which could be then matched up with user data from the social network. The stated goal was to help hospitals figure out which patients might need special care or treatment. While the project was abandoned, none of the patients involved had consented to sharing their data. It goes to demonstrate quite clearly the lawlessness of these organisations.

There is an overall trajectory we should all be concerned with. While understanding technology can be a good thing, in the hands of these transnationals literally anything could happen (who would have thought FB would allow micro-targeting to usurp democracy).  Allowing them access to private health information, along with social media and search data will eventually be used in a commercial social scoring system. For instance, a car insurer might increase your premium if social media data suggests you like socialising too much or that you’ve been searching a health issue or seeing a doctor about a health concern.

One thing is for sure. These technical titans need to be put on a leash and proper anti-competition laws established to break them up and create a more thriving competitor market than exists today. And like the EU, Britain should enforce hefty fines for their breaches of basic laws designed to protect us. However, in a country with the worst privacy laws in the democratic west, we can only expect these egregious invasions of privacy to continue. Google has not been stopped by the government in this latest action to steal our most private data without our consent.

*

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

Israel Always Initiates Violence in Occupied Palestine

November 14th, 2018 by Stephen Lendman

Western governments and supportive media go along with the deception, part of the diabolical plan to let Israel get away with mass murder and much more.

Since creation of the Jewish state, Palestinians have endured virtually every form of indignity, degradation, and crime against humanity imaginable. The world community consistently fails to hold Israel accountable for crimes against humanity.

Occupied Palestine is an isolated prison, besieged/densely populated Gaza the world’s largest open-air one. An entire population is being suffocated out of existence – a process Francis Boyle and Ilan Pappe call slow-motion genocide, ongoing for decades.

There’s not a sign of relief for one of the world’s most aggrieved people. Israeli viciousness is unrelenting.

Overnight Sunday and Monday into Tuesday, Israeli violence is the latest example of its undeclared war on Gaza. When Palestinians legally respond in self-defense, they’re falsely accused of terrorism.

The US and other Western countries support Israeli high crimes, calling them self-defense. Virtually defenseless Palestinians throughout the Territories are up against nuclear armed and dangerous Israel, its military one of the world’s most formidable, especially its sophisticated airpower.

The Trump regime is more one-sided for Israel than any of its predecessors, contemptuous of fundamental Palestinian rights.

Through its embassy in Israel, Canada expressed “full solidarity” with the Jewish state – demanding “Hamas…immediately stop targeting civilians,” ignoring IDF terror-bombing.

It’s been more intense than any time since Israeli aggression on Gaza in summer 2014, civilians always harmed most. The Jewish state considers them legitimate targets – even infants, young children, women, the elderly and infirm.

They’ve been killed, dozens wounded in Israel’s latest state terror attacks on the Strip. Palestinian media reported that aerial attacks and ground shelling continued ferociously overnight Monday.

Israeli warplanes targeted a college in Tal al-Hawa, a Gaza City hotel, leveling the five-story structure to the ground and damaging surrounding buildings, the Al-Aqsa TV station struck to silence its reporting about the carnage, as well as at least six multi-story buildings, and numerous other sites.

When Gazans responded to Israel’s hostile overnight Sunday commando raid, killing seven Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades members of Hamas’ armed wing, ferocious Israeli terror-bombing began – intensified when Gazans fired a reported 300 crude homemade rockets at Israeli territory.

An Israeli bus and apartment building were struck, one person reported killed, several others injured. Israel bears full responsibility for what’s going on like all previous times when violence erupted.

The vast majority of Palestinian rockets land harmlessly, some intercepted by Israel’s Iron Dome defense system. Many don’t explode on impact.

Direct hits on Israelis or structures are rare. Rockets are short-range and imprecise – polar opposite massive Israeli air and ground firepower. Its warplanes and ground-to-ground IDF missiles use laser guidance to strike targets with precision.

Israel’s medical service said 23 Israelis were treated for light injuries from shrapnel and smoke inhalation. Two others were critically wounded, one person killed.

On Tuesday, the Netanyahu regime’s security cabinet will meet to plot its next move, intense violence likely to continue.

UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres ignored Israeli aggression, urging the Jewish state and Palestinians “to exercise maximum restraint,” pretending both sides are equally matched, a shameful remark like many times before, showing dismissiveness toward long-suffering Gazans.

EU envoy to Israel Emanuele Giaufret was just as contemptuous, demanding a halt to “indiscriminate” rocket fire on Israel – ignoring IDF terror-bombing and ground shelling.

Netanyahu’s deputy minister/former Israeli envoy to Washington Michael Oren said

“(w)e expect the world to stand with us.”

IDF spokesperson Brig. Gen. Ronen Manelis said reservists are being ordered to active duty, calling them “vital forces, and if needed we’ll expand that” – perhaps indicating escalated conflict ahead.

Separately, the Netanyahu regime said it’s not discussing a possible ceasefire. Once Netanyahu security cabinet members meet, more information will likely follow on what’s coming next.

*

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.

Cutting Through the Lies: Peace Through Awareness and Action

November 14th, 2018 by Global Research

While we must always hold on to hope, true peace can only be achieved through awareness and action. According to Professor Peter Dale Scott: “The future of our threatened world urgently requires the strengthening of a global public opinion, to resist and overcome the wrongdoings of oppressive local powers.”

In a “post-truth” world, where the lie has become the truth, who can you trust? Unlike many other news sites, we encourage you to gather your world view from a diverse array of authors and form your own conclusions. In the spirit of truth and critical analysis of World events, please consider making a contribution to Global Research.  The more we stand together, the stronger we’ll be.

Donate online, by mail or by fax (click donate button):

Become a member of Global Research

Show your support by becoming a Global Research Member
(and also find out about our FREE BOOK offer!)

Browse our books, e-books and DVDs

Visit our newly updated Online Store to learn more about our publications. Click to browse our titles:

A note to donors in the United States:
Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents

Tax Receipts for deductible charitable contributions by US residents can be provided for donations to Global Research in excess of $400 through our fiscal sponsorship program. If you are a US resident and wish to make a donation of $400 or more, contact us at [email protected] (please indicate “US Donation” in the subject line) and we will send you the details. We are much indebted for your support.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cutting Through the Lies: Peace Through Awareness and Action

Selected Articles: Israel to Police European Coastlines

November 14th, 2018 by Global Research News

Dear Readers,

More than ever, Global Research needs your support. Our task as an independent media is to “Battle the Lie”.

“Lying” in mainstream journalism has become the “new normal”: mainstream journalists are pressured to comply. Some journalists refuse.

Lies, distortions and omissions are part of a multibillion dollar propaganda operation which sustains the “war narrative”.

While “Truth” is a powerful instrument, “the Lie” is generously funded by the lobby groups and corporate charities. And that is why we need the support of our readers.

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

When the Lie becomes the Truth, there is no turning backwards. 

Support Global Research.

*     *     *

What’s Mike Pence Talking About? The US and China Are Already in a Cold War!

By Andrew Korybko, November 14, 2018

Pence seemed to shock many observers who were taken aback by his ominous warning about an imminent “all-out cold war” between the US & China, but most people are either feigning surprise or truly haven’t been following the course of bilateral relations between these Great Powers close enough to understand that this is nothing more than a belatedly blunt statement of fact.

Telling NRA #ThisIsOurLane: Doctors’ Photos Show Blood-Soaked Reality of America’s Gun Madness

By Julia Conley, November 14, 2018

Offering visual proof that emergency room doctors are some of the United States’ top experts on the daily impact of insufficient gun regulations in communities across the country, physicians are sharing images of the blood and gore they regularly face when treating gunshot wounds.

Israel to Police European Coastlines: Protecting the Continent from Refugees?

By Peter Koenig, November 14, 2018

EU citizens are being brainwashed with neoliberal lie-propaganda into believing that they are living in the heart of democracy – that they are free and protected by police and military, 24/7. 

Escalation of Israeli Attacks against Gaza: Global Solidarity Campaign with the Palestinian People

By Salah Abdelati, November 14, 2018

Let us urgently work together in the biggest global solidarity campaign with the Palestinian people against the Israeli aggression on Gaza Strip, in order to boycott, alienate and hold accountable the Israeli occupation.

Video: The World War I Conspiracy

By James Corbett, November 14, 2018

What was World War One about? How did it start? Who won? And what did they win?

Now, 100 years after those final shots rang out, these questions still puzzle historians and laymen alike.

*

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Selected Articles: Israel to Police European Coastlines

New Arab Women-centered Films Are Not Just About Women

November 14th, 2018 by Barbara Nimri Aziz

Too often, we are overwhelmed with woeful tales, painful memoirs and worn analyses of Arab/Muslim women. Most depictions, whether we’re besieged in a war, or if we’re just trying to get by making small advances like women anywhere, we are invariably portrayed as hapless victims. We’re in need of succor, or reform, or rescue.

Writings by our own talented authors are popular if they reveal  exploitations or despairs or escapes. These feed enlightened sisters abroad who may feel better about themselves when they can pity others.

So I approach announcements of new releases—both these are from North Africa—with some apprehension. After screening the productions under review here, my fear dissolves.

Tunisia (through the films of Moufida Tlatli) and Egypt are highly regarded in the film world. Particularly Egypt with its glorious history of filmmaking and its distinguished line of actors proves its mettle in “Youm el-Setat” (A Day for Woman). This playful drama about serious issues becomes heartwarming and totally engaging in the hands of director Kamla Abu Zeki.

Three love stories and women’s eternal search for fulfillness is the focus of “Youm el-Setat”. The plot evolves around a neighborhood pool where a day a week is allocated for girls and ladies. Azza who initially appears simpleminded takes the first plunge. Eventually the whole neighborhood follows her and together they assert their solidarity and their rights. Scenes of their celebratory escapades are delightful; pool frolicking along with street encounters immerses us in that Cairo neighborhood. The story rises above place and religion, beyond covered or uncovered heads. Emerging romances threaded within this drama could happen anywhere.

Young Azza, it turns out, is not so simpleminded. She’s just naturally liberated! She’s attracts others with her naive joyfulness. Samiya too is a free-thinking woman from the moment we meet her although neighbors initially view her as a sassy whore. Her humor and honesty explode into courage and passion when, finally, she approaches Ahmed, a longtime sweetheart—both are by then middle-aged—to consummate their love. Laila, a forlorn young widow, belatedly joins others in the pool and awakens. Finally she can respond to the tenderness of the likable guy who as pool manager had launched this day for women. (A day for women becomes the ‘time for women’.)

It’s a film to swim along with.

“El Jaida” (The Jailer) by Tunisian director and actor Selma Baccar takes an altogether different approach to oppression and women’s determination to be free of patriarchal domination. In contrast with the Egyptian film, “El Jaida” is humorless. The lives of these Tunisian women seem irredeemable. Although defiant, they are an unhappy lot. The injustices they face are manifest in the family, but the story points elsewhere. Drawing on Tunisian historical experience, the film underscores how gender relations and politics intersect.

The story largely takes place in the 1950s when across the region the anti-colonial movement erupts. The story begins with a well-to-do housewife confronting her husband’s infidelity, then finds herself confined with others in jail. Initially adversaries, after learning each other’s stories, the women come together. While outside the prison’s walls, the nationalist movement to end French rule is gaining strength. The story abruptly shifts 50 years ahead to 2017. The occupiers are gone; so is the dictator. Baja, the film’s main character, has become a member of Tunisia’s new parliament where we find her reading the newly promulgated code establishing women’s equal rights in Tunisian law.

Both films premier in coming weeks at the New York Diaspora International Film Festival. For more than 25 years, ADIFF has been introducing to American audiences a taste of the extraordinary film making talent at work beyond American shores.

*

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

Barbara Nimri Aziz is a veteran anthropologist and radio journalist, also author of Heir to A Silent Song: Two Rebel Women of Nepal, published by Tribhuvan University, Nepal, and available through Barnes and Noble in the USA. She is a frequent contributor to Global Research and Asia-Pacific Research.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on New Arab Women-centered Films Are Not Just About Women
  • Tags: ,

Gaza Children’s Nightmares on the Rise

November 14th, 2018 by Norwegian Refugee Council

Children living in the Gaza Strip are experiencing unusually high rates of nightmares and are showing increasing signs of psychosocial deterioration as a result of the violent response to the Gaza protests, just over a month since they began.

56 per cent of Palestinian children surveyed by Norwegian Refugee Council (NRC) in March were suffering from traumatic nightmares. When repeating the survey preliminary findings indicate an increase to 60 per cent, a month into the Great Return March demonstrations during which more than 38 Palestinian protestors have been killed, including 4 children and 2 journalists. More than 6,400 Palestinians have been injured, including at least 530 children, many of whom are left with amputated limbs and permanent disabilities.

Principals from 20 schools interviewed by NRC reported a rise in symptoms of post-traumatic stress in children, including fears, anxiety, stress and nightmares. School principals attributed high levels of post-traumatic stress and low concentration at school to the violent response to the demonstrations. The principals ranked increased psychosocial support in schools as their top need right now.

“The continuous violence children witness in Gaza is disastrous for their mental well-being. A girl of 11 years has lived her whole life under blockade or siege, and seen three wars with massive loss of life and housing,” said NRC Secretary General Jan Egeland. “Now children are again faced with the horrifying prospect of losing family and friends, as many are killed and injured every week.”

NRC provides psychosocial support to children and training for teachers through its Better Learning Programme (BLP), developed in partnership with University of Tromsø in Norway. Part of the programme involves screening schoolchildren for nightmares, which are one of the most pertinent signs of psychological deterioration. The activities include training children to do breathing exercises and drawing their dreams.

“For the children we work with, the nightmares continue for months and years after the violence that causes them,” said Jon-Håkon Schultz, Professor in Educational Psychology at the University of Tromsø in Norway who has participated in the implementation of the BLP programme in Gaza since 2012.

He underlines that these nightmares are traumatic nightmares where the child wake up in fear.

“The current crisis also brings back previous trauma and is a direct threat to the children’s mental health and their development.”

NRC’s education programme coordinator in Gaza, Asa’d Ashour, said:

Children having nightmares are growing more impatient in school and unhappier with their lives, and they are unable to concentrate in class.”

Reham Qudaih, 14, was showing remarkable improvements in dealing with the trauma of the 2014 war on Gaza until her father was shot in the leg during the demonstrations. She is now having daily nightmares in which she dreams that her father is dead or had his leg amputated.

The widow of Jehad Abo Jamous – killed at the demonstrations – told NRC how her 4 children are waking up crying and screaming at night.

“They feel disconnected from everything and refuse to eat or drink,” Ghadeer said.

Mohammed Ayoub, 14, was getting psychosocial support through NRC’s programme in schools when he was killed at the demonstrations.

The sheer force being used against unarmed civilians has also alarmed doctors in Gaza’s hospitals who are receiving increasing numbers of people with bullet wounds, torn muscles and smashed bones.

Egeland said:

“We call on all protests to remain non-violent. Israel must stop the use of excessive and lethal force against protestors, and hold to account those responsible for use of such force.”

*

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 Norwegian Refugee Council

Pence’s ominous warning about an imminent “all-out cold war” between the US & China is only newsworthy because it bluntly, albeit belatedly, states the obvious.

Pence seemed to shock many observers who were taken aback by his ominous warning about an imminent “all-out cold war” between the US & China, but most people are either feigning surprise or truly haven’t been following the course of bilateral relations between these Great Powers close enough to understand that this is nothing more than a belatedly blunt statement of fact.

The US is keenly aware that China’s Belt & Road Initiative (BRI) is the single-greatest long-term threat to its global hegemonic position because of its potential to redirect trade routes away from the West and to the People’s Republic, thereby catalyzing a chain reaction of full-spectrum paradigm changes that will in turn accelerate the emerging Multipolar World Order. 

The Liberal-Globalist faction of the American permanent military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies (“deep state”) struggled to respond to this challenge and are sometimes accused of seeking an “accommodation” with China to “responsibility facilitate” this global systemic transition, while the Nationalist faction led by Trump and his ilk are strongly opposed to this trend and are pushing back against it with all their might.

This has seen the US utilize tariffs, sanctions, infowars, Hybrid Wars, the “Lead From Behind” stratagem, and conventional military means (e.g. patrolling the South China Sea) to push back against China’s gradual gains in a bid to retain and ultimately expand its hegemonic leadership. Seeing as how the US’ methods fall short of a direct kinetic response against China (“hot war”), the present state of affairs between the two is the textbook definition of a “cold war”, albeit one that occasionally flares up in third-party states or non-national domains (e.g. the financial and currency sectors) as a result of this multifaceted hybrid campaign.

Considering the objective reality of International Relations as it presently exists and the most likely trajectory that it’s expected to continue along for the indefinite future, Pence is simply preconditioning the global masses for a more overt intensification of the aforesaid processes that will make it impossible to ignore the ongoing New Cold War between the US and China over the fate of the world order.

*

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.

The People’s Defense Forces (HPG), a military wing of the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), claimed that it had attacked 6 military bases in the southern Turkish provinces of Hakkari and Sirnak on November 9 and November 10. The HPG stated that 17 Turkish soldiers were killed and 32 others were wounded as a result of the attack. 8 soldiers are also missing, according to the HPG.

It should be noted that early on November 10 that the PKK also carried out an attack on several targets inside and south of the capital of Sirnak province with seven armed unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). According to Turkish sources, the UAVs failed to reach their targets due to technical failures and possible jamming by the Turkish military.

The province of Sirnak borders both northern Syria and Iraq. An interesting thing is that the recent PKK attacks confirm multiple Turkish statements that Kurdish armed groups operating in these areas, mostly the People’s Protection Units (YPG), pose a direct threat to the Turkish national security.

On November 13, 4 members of YPG-affiliated security forces were killed in the northern Syrian town of Manbij. ISIS claimed responsibility for the attack via its news agency Amaq.

Manbij as well as the YPG-held areas east of the Euphrates River have been repeatedly described by Turkish leadership as a target of the upcoming anti-YPG operation. In late October, the Turkish Armed Forces (TAF) delivered several strikes on YPG positions near the town of Kobani and deployed additional troops and equipment in southern Turksih provinces bordering the YPG-held area.

In November, Saif Abu Bakr, Military Chief of the Turkish-backed militant group Hamza Division, declared that members of his group are ready to participate in a large-scale operation against the YPG east of the Euphrates.

The YPG is the core of the US-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF). The US support to the SDF is the reason of constant tensions between Ankara and Washington. For example, on November 12, Turkish Interior Minister Suleyman Soylu slammed the US “double-faced policy” towards Turkey addressing the continued US support to Kurdish armed groups in northern Syria. He also said that the US receives 20% of the YPG revenue from the oil fields seized in the war-torn country.

If the US continues its political and military support to the YPG and the group will consolidate its power over the Arab areas captured in northeastern Syria setting a foothold for further PKK attacks on targets in southern Turkey, the Ankara-Washington relations will likely deteriorate further.

*

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

Note: This article contains graphic images that some readers may find disturbing.

Offering visual proof that emergency room doctors are some of the United States’ top experts on the daily impact of insufficient gun regulations in communities across the country, physicians are sharing images of the blood and gore they regularly face when treating gunshot wounds.

Doctors first began posting the photos last week, shortly after the NRA criticized the medical community for pushing for legislative solutions to gun violence—suggesting that physicians are somehow less qualified than a lobbying organization to comment on a public health crisis that sent 700,000 Americans to emergency rooms over the course of a decade.

“Someone should tell self-important anti-gun doctors to stay in their lane,” the NRA tweeted.

Using the hashtag #ThisIsOurLane, doctors from all over the country posted photos of bloody hospital scrubs and operating rooms, showing the gruesome consequences of the NRA’s refusal to back even broadly popular gun control reforms like universal background checks.

Doctors also signed a letter condemning the NRA’s tweet and imploring the group to either step aside or join them in fighting the gun violence epidemic.

“It is long past time for us to acknowledge the epidemic is real, devastating, and has root causes that can be addressed to assuage the damage. We must ALL come together to find meaningful solutions to this very American problem,” wrote the physicians. “Our research efforts have been curtailed by your lobbying efforts to Congress…We extend our invitation for you to collaborate with us to find workable, effective strategies to diminish the death toll from suicide, homicide, domestic violence, and unintentional shootings for the thousands of Americans who will one day find themselves on the wrong side of a barrel of a gun.”

The photos and letter were posted in support of Dr. Judy Melinek, whose response to the NRA’s tweet last week went viral.

While the photos are disturbing to look at, some gun control advocates have argued that showing the horrific reality of the 67,000 gunshot wounds, 32,000 gun deaths that happen annually in the U.S. is a necessary step toward enacting far-reaching reforms.

Filmmaker and activist Michael Moore predicted that if photos of the crime scene at Sandy Hook Elementary School, where 26 people including 20 first-graders were killed in a mass shooting in 2012, had been leaked to the public, Americans would no longer tolerate the NRA’s control over lawmakers who fail to take action to curb gun violence.

“When the American people see what bullets from an assault rifle fired at close range do to a little child’s body, that’s the day the jig will be up for the NRA,” Moore said. “It will be the day the debate on gun control will come to an end. There will be nothing left to argue over. It will just be over. And every sane American will demand action.”

In an interview with the Huffington Post last year, trauma surgeon Dr. Amy Goldberg agreed, saying,

“As a country, we lost our teachable moment” when Americans moved on after mourning Sandy Hook from a distance.

“The country won’t be ready for it, but that’s what needs to happen,” Goldberg said of the release of autopsy photos of gunshot victims. “That’s the only chance at all for this to ever be reversed.”

*

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

Featured image: The aftermath of an operation on a gunshot wound victim at a Boston hospital. (Photo: via Twitter/Chris Bennett, MD)

This sounds like a bad joke. It ain’t. Its real. One fascist government helps another fascist government. Yes, I have written about fascism invading the west before – warning that the European Union (non-union) is being gradually, but ever faster turned into a fascist dictatorship under the guise of democratic protection of ‘Democracy’; and this by her unelected European Commission (EC) leaders (sic).

EU citizens are being brainwashed with neoliberal lie-propaganda into believing that they are living in the heart of democracy – that they are free and protected by police and military, 24/7. 

Indeed, such protection can be seen at almost every street corner in France’s major cities; France, the country that had the audacity to make the permanent state of emergency part of her Constitution. And others are dutifully following Macron’s example.

No wonder, EU member country governments have all been ‘put in place’ by fake elections, with the help of Cambridge Analytica and other social media tricks, by now well-known around the globe – and even the myriad MSM (mainstream media). It would be a strange coincidence, if practically all of the heads of EU states are following either neoliberal or neonazi doctrines. In any case, the difference are a few details. Most obvious neonazis are depicted with the denigrating term of populists, disregarding the fact that a populist is someone who is liked by the people. Wouldn’t that be democracy? 

The PM of Hungary, Victor Orbàn, and Poland’s far-right Andrzej Duda, fall into this category and soon Italy’s government, basically led by the far right, deputy PM, Matteo Salvini, who calls the shots in Italy, to the detriment of the Five-Star lead party, will follow suit. Everybody who refuses to bend to Brussels’ rules is a ‘populist’. It’s that simple. And it’s no coincidence.

Back to the head-story: An Israeli private military contractor, Elbit Systems Ltd, has been awarded a contract by the so-called EU, to Monitor European shores, as reported by the Palestine Chronicle. Israel’s private defense contractor has “won” a 68 million dollars two-year contract, renewable by another two years, to survey the Mediterranean Sea and most of European coastlines and to report to Brussels and the countries’ authorities. Universal surveillance and fascism are on the march – and running ever faster.

This ‘bidding process’ was for sure not an open competition. This was ‘one fascist hand washing the hand of another fascist. Yes, that’s as bad as we have become in Europe. And the populace has no clue, because they are comfortably seeing their freedom, their civil rights, their human rights, being eroded, ‘floated’ away, under the pretext of national security – and of course their own, the people’s security. – That’s what a few ‘false flag’ terrorist attacks can achieve – people scream for help, for police protection. The more the better. And who is better suited than a fascist state to respond to that call of desperation – to fulfill that fake role of protector?

Israel is known for having armed the Ukraine government which is integrated by Neo-Nazis. Israel’s purpose of policing the European coastlines is to prevent Palestine Gaza prisoners from escaping their horrible, horrible fate. Two million Palestinians need to be forcefully kept locked into this open-air concentration camp, being tortured, bombed, starved and finally killed. That’s what Zionist-Israel is all about. Mind you, that is not at all an anti-Semitic statement. There are millions of Israelis who disagree with this fascist policy. But they are being shut-up, they have no right to speak out – plus they are, like Europeans, constantly drip-by-steady-drip indoctrinated by lies, falsehoods and deceptions – that Palestinians are a danger for the survival of Israel. 

This is simply NOT TRUE. It is a flagrant lie – a lie sustained by the United States, whose interest is permanent conflict in the Middle East to control the Middle Easts rich resources – and Israel is an important ally – more than an ally. Thanks to Israel’s and AIPAC’s (American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, the strongest Washington lobby) endless flow of money to Washington’s politicians – Israel, as the paymaster of political campaigns of both parties of the US-One-Party system – calls the shots.

By Israel, is meant Zionist-led Israel, not the common people who want nothing more than peace and a friendly and harmonious relationship with Palestine; Israelis who are aware that they are actually camping on Palestine land – Israelis, who have not been blinded by those who have since 70 years purposefully distorted history, altered schoolbooks and pretend that this Holy Land is theirs, rather than a piece of land of mutual ownership, to be shared equally and with equal rights.

These Israelis, the vast majority, are not targeted with this article, or with the accusation of being fascists. It’s their dictator leadership, those who are in lock-step with the neofascist Trump Administration – and, well, those who call the shots in Washington, in all the so-called thinktanks (sic) that make US foreign policy. Neoliberal, cum neonazi Israel wants to eradicate Palestine, Iran, Syria, but they are in bed with the murderous Saudis – with the killers of tens of thousands of Yemeni children, with the brutal murderers of the entire Yemeni population through famine, destruction of water supply and sanitation systems, of lack-of-hygiene induced cholera and a myriad of other diseases.

Israel’s private defense contractor announced having won this monstrous surveillance contract, with the EU Maritime Safety Agency. They will patrol the Mediterranean Sea and Europe’s coastlines with drones and inform Europe’s authorities of ‘irregularities’, of refugee ships, of last-hope vessels carrying desperate people, escaping from western created misery in their lands. And Palestinian refugees are on the rise. They can no longer stand their abject fate under Israeli’s inescapable rules governing the Gaza Extermination Camp. Yes, that’s what Gaza has become. They seek refuge in Europe, paradoxically, they go to their hangman seeking shelter. But where else to go?  

So, these unmanned Israeli military aircraft will automatically signal the defense forces of Israel to intercept any attempt of escaping Palestinians – to bring them back to Gaza, to their open torture chamber, and – with for sure – further punishment to follow. – Gaza’s terror conditions have become the utter “normality” seen from the western populace, especially Europeans. They will just watch Palestinians being slaughtered into fear of escaping from their open-air prison, called Gaza. –

This past weekend’s latest Gaza military incursion, instigated by Israel’s War Minister, Avigdor Lieberman, a neonazi hawk of the worst kind, followed obviously by a Hamas response – which then triggered what was planned from the very beginning – Israeli batteries of rockets launched from Ashkelon and mass bombing of what’s left of the ruins called Gaza. – did you know that a large percentage of children in Gaza have amputated limbs? – What a future, even if peace was to break out one day. 

All the while Netanyahu conveniently was celebrating the Hypocrisy of the Century – the end of WWI with a bunch of hypocrites like him, Netanyahu – except for Putin, whose attendance of this fake celebration and naval-gazing I don’t understand. 

That’s what the west has become, or as renowned author and journalist Andre Vltchek, would say, they have colonized, enslaved and raped Asia, Africa and Latin America for at least a thousand years – why would you expect them to change? They have gotten away with murder for so long – why would they change?

Today, they continue with different, more sophisticated methods – its financial slavehood. It’s the epitome of shameless criminal neo-colonialism. The “two to four- year contract” of Israel’s defense contractor serves as a mere proxy for EU’s terror, inhumanity and lack of compassion. Mind you, the United States is just the heritage of Europeans migrated across the Atlantic.

The company, Elbit Systems Ltd, will provide European Union countries with maritime unmanned aircraft patrol services and in theory with nothing more -which is, of course, a flagrant lie. They will ex-contractually confiscate refugee boats, as miserably rickety as they may be, contributing to more refugee deaths. By September 2018, UNHCR, Mediterranean refugee transfers have been deadlier than ever this year, having reached more than 1,600 so far.

“Rocket News” reports, “in October, Israeli companies signed purchase agreements with the United Nations for the provision of water and security service to UN forces in Africa. Israel also “won” [quotes by author] a $777 million contract for the supply of India’s missile defenses, as well as [Israel] being revealed as a lead exporter of tools for spying on civilians being used by dictatorships or authoritarian governments around the world.”

Rocket News continues,

“Such deals and multi-million-dollar contracts over a variety of regions are seen as not only a benefit to the Israeli economy but also [as proof for] the reliability of its [Israel’s] services and the subsequent potential increase of its international credibility.”

According to the Western media, whatever Zionist-Israel does, the Chosen People, it’s for the good of Mother Earth. How long will it take until the populace inhabiting Mother Earth wakes up, screaming for fear and agony, bringing an end to this farce.

*

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 21st 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. 

Featured image is from Armada International

This Election Deepened America’s Tribal Divide

November 14th, 2018 by James J. Zogby

This election was the meanest, dirtiest and most disgraceful in my lifetime, and it will have consequences. Even before the results began to be reported on late Tuesday night, we already knew who the losers were going to be; the American people and our political culture. The damage done by President Donald Trump’s divisive rhetoric will be with us for a generation.

While Trump’s advisers had urged him to focus on the good news about the economy during the last few weeks of the election, he opted instead to preach a message of fear. His target was the “caravan” of refugees coming northward from Guatemala, hoping to find refuge from the violence and poverty of their homeland.

Reporters covering the rag-tag group of refugees found them largely to be mothers with their children and boys and girls in their early teens. In Trump’s speeches, however, they became more ominous “dangerous violent gang-members” with some “Middle Easterners” thrown in for good measure. They were “invaders” and the effort to enter our country was portrayed as an act of war. And so the president announced that he was sending troops to protect the border. As he continued to hype the threat posed by the “invasion”, the number of troops being sent increased from 2,000 to 5,000 to 15,000.

For three weeks Trump crisscrossed the country, speaking in rally after rally to mobilise his supporters to vote for Republican candidates. He warned of dire consequences if the Democrats won: He might be impeached, the country would be overrun by dangerous immigrants, the economy would collapse — despite the fact that the recovery and massive job creation began during former president Barack Obama’s term — and we would be less safe and taxed more. And by the way, should Democrats win, they will act violently against those who oppose them. The central message was always fear.

To drive this home, Trump’s team produced a TV ad that featured a frightening foul-mouthed rant by a convicted serial killer who committed his crimes while in the US illegally. The ad continued with footage of Latin Americans storming an unidentified fence. The message was clear: “These are the violent people Democrats want to let into our country. Be afraid, very afraid.”

The problem with the ad was that the killer in question had been deported by former president Bill Clinton, and had stolen his way back into the country and committed his crimes during George W. Bush administration. It was not the dishonesty of the ad, however, it was its overt racist appeal that caused the networks, including Trump’s favourite Fox News, to refuse to run it. Media executives called the ad the “most racist ad ever put forward by a campaign”.

To some extent, the appeal to fear worked. Despite some of the more bizarre and flagrantly distorted claims that Trump made during his post-election press conference, that people really like him, the election was a victory of historic proportions, that his polling numbers among black voters are great, etc., one observation that he made was true. His intervention during the last few weeks of the campaign did make a difference in boosting a few Republicans to victory.

Until Trump’s tour, the energy of this election was on the Democratic side. Trump’s appeal to fear and his dire warnings about the country being overrun by dangerous foreigners, and the violence and economic disaster that would accompany a Democratic victory, succeeded in energising Republican voters. But it did so at a cost to our democracy.

The final results of this election are still somewhat uncertain, as there are a few key races that are too close to call. Despite that, as it stands right now, it is clear that Democrats did well. They flipped the Congress from 235 Republicans and 193 Democrats to a Democratic-controlled body with 230 Democrats and 205 Republicans. Seven governorships changed from Republican to Democrat. And in down-ballot state legislative contests, Democrats added almost 300 seats to their ranks. Only in the US Senate, did the Republicans make slight gains, possibly adding two to their ranks.

Beyond the vote tallies and the final determination of who won and lost, my concern is that after two years of Trump and his behaviour in the final weeks of the campaign, the country is more polarised than ever. Looking at election day exit polls, what comes through is that while there are issue differences that separate Republicans and Democrats, more to the point are the splits between the two parties that appear to be driven more by demographics than by ideas.

On the Democratic side are young people, the college educated — especially women — and minority communities. Voting Republican are middle-aged, less educated working-class whites, gun owners and white “born-again Christians”. It is as if we have become two distinct tribes at war.

In fairness, the attacks in this war have been largely coming from one side. For decades now, Republicans have directed their messaging to white voters by stoking fears of blacks, Latinos, Muslims and Arabs. They have issued ominous warnings about drugs and crime, violence and immigration using code words to associate all of these with the above mentioned groups.

In response, Democrats have pushed back defending the groups under attack, mobilising them to vote for Democrats and offering reasoned policy prescriptions to address the issues. What Democrats have not done is develop a sustained national outreach campaign directed at the white working-class voters courted by Trump and the GOP. By abandoning them and focusing, at times almost exclusively on “their voters”, Democrats have left the white working class to Trump, indirectly contributing to the tribal war that defines our political culture.

Because I have no hope that in its current incarnation, we can expect the GOP to change, it is incumbent on Democrats to work to bridge the divides that have become so pronounced in the era of Trump. They will not have to stop doing anything. They will only need to pay attention to a substantial group of voters, whose economic and cultural insecurity and fear of the “other” have been exploited by Republicans. Not only will this “politics of addition” help Democrats win more elections, it will also contribute to healing the divide and making America governable again.

*

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

James J. Zogby is president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute.