Global Research

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Medicare for all has had majority support in the United States for more than a decade. As more people become aware of the details, support is growing. An August 23rd poll, conducted by Reuters/Ipsos, found 70% of the public now supports Medicare for all. We see the potential for winning National Improved Medicare for All in the early 2020s if people continue to build the movement necessary to demand it.

Support Moves From Majority to Super-Majority, On the Way to National Consensus

This widespread support is occurring because health care is in a crisis in the United States that touches every family. A growing majority of doctors and medical students are urging Medicare for all because they are experiencing the negative impacts of a health insurance-dominated healthcare.

There is a large enough percentage of the population who understands the issue sufficiently that they are educating others about it. People know that national improved Medicare for all is a publicly-financed, privately-delivered system in which all people are enrolled and all medically necessary services are covered.

As a result of this spreading understanding, despite the media failing to tell the truth about Medicare for all, health profiteers lying about it and big business interests doing their best to stop progress toward a national consensus, people are not falling for the misinformation campaign. Efforts to mislead the public, as coverage of a recent Koch-funded research effort showed, are backfiring. People are pushing back against the false narrative and are forcing the media, in some instances, to tell the truth.

Now, majorities of voters in both major parties support Medicare for all. According to the new poll, support among Democrats is 84.5%, 4.8% percent do not know and only 10.7% oppose. It will be difficult to win the Democratic presidential nomination without supporting National Improved Medicare for All. Indeed, most of the serious contenders for the nomination are already co-sponsors of S 1804, the Medicare for All Act, in the Senate and two-thirds of Democrats in the House, are co-sponsors of HR 676, the gold standard bill called “The Expanded and Improved Medicare for all Act.” In many states, to win the Democratic nomination for US Senate or governor, as well as in many House districts, it is becoming essential for candidates to support National Improved Medicare for All.

On the Republican side, for the first time, a poll shows majority support for Medicare for all, 50.9%, 10.7% do not know and only 37.4% oppose.  If a Republican begins to champion the issue and explains it in terms that Republican voters can relate to, i.e. Medicare is US-invented healthcare that has worked for seniors since 1965 and has been copied around the world by countries to provide health care to all their citizens, that support will grow.

Medicare is the most cost-effective way to provide health care; one-payer reduces the bureaucracy and administrative costs of paying for health care and saves the nation trillions of dollars. Medicare is good for business as the cost of healthcare is set and businesses are no longer victims of unanticipated premium increases each year. A national single payer health care program allows US corporations to compete with corporations in other countries that have universal healthcare systems. Even the most capitalist countries around the world have national health plans that provide health care to everyone in their country because they recognize the efficiencies of a public system and the benefit of health security for workers and their families.

Democrats support 84.5%, do not know 4.8% and oppose 10.7%. Republicans support 50.9%, do not know 10.7%, and oppose 37.4%. All support 70.1%, do not know 9.3% and oppose 20.6%. Reuters/Ipsos, June and July 2018.  

The Tasks of the Movement to Win National Improved Medicare for All

The United States is currently in the phase of “Majority Times” for making national improved Medicare for all a reality. Our task right now is to build national political consensus, where the near-universal view is so strong that no politician of any party can oppose Medicare for all. Our second task is to build the power of the movement so it cannot be ignored. There needs to be a small percentage of the public who will be vibrant, aggressive and strategic in their advocacy so that people in power fear they will be called out in public for opposing the national consensus.

The job of the single-payer movement is not to elect Democrats or Republicans, it is to continue to change the political culture so no matter who is in office, they must enact National Improved Medicare for All (NIMA). We do that by educating ourselves and others about NIMA and showing our support visibly in media, such as letters to the editor, in community or activist groups to which we belong and through demonstrations.

The movement must be well educated on the essentials of National Improved Medicare for All so it cannot be taken off track by false non-solutions, a type of bait and switch that sounds like what we want but preserve the current problems. This includes plans like “Medicare Extra for All,” a public option, or proposals that protect the insurance industry in the disguise of Medicare Advantage or some other marketing name that they think can fool people.

Both parties have put in place policies that undermine current Medicare and Medicaid. That’s why we need to emphasize that the movement is working for national IMPROVED Medicare for all. Senior citizens and those with Medicare and Medicaid will have better healthcare, that costs them less when NIMA is put in place. National improved Medicare for all will cover all body parts, e.g. eyes, ears, teeth and mental health. It also means that long-term care will be coveredwith a priority on home or community-based care.

Businesses are an important part of building the movement. Unpredictable healthcare costs are one of the biggest problems that businesses of all sizes have to deal with. Each year, they are required to pay more for their employee’s health benefits and provide less coverage. The cost of premiums is consistently rising in unpredictable ways as are out-of-pocket costs, such as co-pays and deductibles. At the same time, insurance companies are narrowing their coverage and reducing the providers included in their networks. Business owners need to understand that national improved Medicare for all will be less expensive and more predictable for them.

The same is true for federal, state and local governments that pay the cost of health care for their workers. This is currently an uncontrollable expense for government at all levels. The recent teacher strikes had as a root problem the cost of healthcare. The same is true for police, firefighters, and all government workers. Single payer solves these healthcare costs for local governmentscreating a much-needed windfall of resources that could be used for other underfunded necessities.

If people who support National Improved Medicare for All work on these issues in a consistent, uncompromising and strategic way, we will achieve a national health program that will improve the lives of all people. Single payer health care would provide the same standard of care to all people, regardless of income or wealth. This will help to eliminate the great health disparities that exist now. Putting in place national improved Medicare for all will also do a great deal to decrease the unfairness of wealth inequality by providing every person the same opportunity for health and ending bankruptcies and loss of housing due to medical illness and debt.

For our health and for our economy, this is the time to put in place National Improved Medicare for All.

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from M-molly Adams from Flickr.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

During its 5,000 years in existence as a nation, China has created a cultural and technological legacy of global significance. Within the past century alone, China valiantly resisted and overcame the assaults of both Japan and the United States, taking a course free from the shackles of self-serving imperialism.

Yet unfortunately, in recent times, China has been inflicting increasing harm upon the planetary environment – playing a major role in the rapidly worsening climate situation. Since 2006, China has been the number one releaser of greenhouse gases that have irrevocably skewed the planet’s weather systems, inflicting widespread harm, with far worse forecasts lying ahead.

Indeed, no other country now comes close in its contribution to planet-altering climate change. Not even America, the second largest carbon producer in the world, and on an increasingly destructive environmental path under the Donald Trump administration. China releases over twice as much greenhouse gases as the US, the most powerful country in history. Indeed, China discharges more fossil fuel emissions than the US, India and Russia combined, the latter two being the third and fourth biggest carbon emitters.

In the past few decades, China has endured massive, self-inflicted environmental deterioration in government attempts to raise the population’s living standards. Since the “land reform” campaigns of the late 1970s, about 700 million rural Chinese have indeed been lifted from grinding poverty. This has been achieved, however, through sustained attacks upon the country’s vast ecosystems – accelerating industrialization – a critical turning point in the planet’s lifespan. China has witnessed great declines in its grasslands, wetlands, lakes, coral reefs, mangrove forests, etc., while over a quarter of the entire Chinese landmass has succumbed to desertification.

Improvements in the Chinese quality of life could have instead been formulated on more sustainable, eco-friendly means benefiting humans while greatly reducing damage to the environment. Even as reports of worsening climate change were mounting – tracing back at least two decades – little has been done to address the root causes of China’s climate crisis, its fossil fuel dependence which continues apace. The country has in recent times been paying a severe price for its environmental degradation.

China has the worst air quality of any country, containing the majority of the world’s most polluted cities. It is estimated that up to two million Chinese die each year as a result of consistent exposure to poisonous aerial fumes. Furthermore, China has significant water contamination problems with about 40% of the nation’s rivers suffering extensive pollution, due to agricultural and industrial waste.

China is the world’s biggest consumer of coal, last year burning over four times as much coal as second-place India, and more than five-fold that of the US. China is also clear in the distance as the world’s greatest coal producer. In addition, the Chinese are the biggest oil importers on earth and are the second largest consumers of oil (behind the US), while the country is the fourth greatest guzzler of gas. As we enter the end of the second decade of the 21st century, it is astonishing that China continues relying so heavily upon fossil fuels – tendencies which should have been seriously addressed and reduced many years before.

Trends so far in 2018 reveal China’s rising consumption of a variety of fossil fuels. Three months ago, the non-governmental organization Greenpeace outlined that,

“China’s carbon emissions have accelerated since the beginning of the year [2018]… Led by increased demand for coal, oil and gas, China’s carbon emissions for the first three months of 2018 were 4% higher than they were for the same period in 2017… Big spending on energy intensive industries persisted through 2017, meaning China has been backsliding on the climate progress it made earlier this decade, and the rest of the world must redouble efforts simply to ensure global carbon emissions don’t climb dramatically”.

Some admirable attempts in recent years by China, in leading the way with renewable energy investments and reforestation efforts, will be negated if the country does not tackle its fossil fuel dependence. This is above all crucial. A signatory of the Paris Climate Agreement, China’s full emissions for 2018 are forecast to rise by 5% on the previous year, the largest annual increase since 2011.

The Greenpeace report recognizes that, “For the decade up to 2013, China’s CO2 emissions were the dominant driver of global emissions growth, making it nearly impossible for global emissions to peak” and fall. With emissions again taking off at this critical juncture, Greenpeace pins the blame on the Chinese government for “running an aggressive stimulus program that has breathed life to smokestack industries, and set the clock back on the economic transformation and clean energy transition that are so crucial for the country’s future”.

By 2025 another colossus, neighboring India, will overtake China as the world’s most populous country. As mentioned, India is the planet’s third largest greenhouse gas emitter, and its fossil fuel imprint is steadily increasing, even after the nation recently signed up to the Paris Climate Agreement. Within the past two years alone, India’s greenhouse gases have increased by almost 10%. Indeed, since 1971 India’s carbon emissions have risen by over 1,000%.

Like China, India is unwilling to separate fossil fuel reliance from its economy, with the country being the second biggest coal burner in the world (behind China). Moreover, India is the planet’s third greatest oil consumer and third biggest importer of oil, being topped only by China and the US in both cases. With regard oil and coal, India’s trend for consumption of the lethal substances is rising. At this pivotal phase, it is again truly amazing to see that the major powers are actively accelerating the race to disaster.

India’s failures, along with that of the other major powers, are already impacting its people. Extreme weather events in the country are increasing. Earlier this month, after “once a century” monsoon rains, hundreds of people died in the southern Indian state of Kerala, with 1.3 million people displaced. Two-and-a-half times the normal level of rainfall fell, which matched the forecast of climate scientists predicting such a calamity. In reality, the “once a century” rains will likely be witnessed on numerous occasions, and in rising severity, during the years to come.

With India already among the hottest countries in the world, its general population is increasingly suffering from soaring heat and drought. A national record temperature of 123 degrees Fahrenheit (51 Celsius) was noted in May 2016 in the northern state of Rajasthan, a heat wave which killed over 1,600 people across India. This list of destructive side effects can be linked to India’s rising industrialization occurring in the second half of the 20th century, resulting in inevitable deterioration of its environment – loss of wetlands and lakes, deforestation, pollution of rivers and atmosphere, etc., which led to significant losses with regard the country’s globally important biodiversity.

The environmental decline is in many ways encapsulated by the travails of India’s majestic Bengal tiger, which numbered between 40,000 to 50,000 in the year 1900, but then fell to less than 2,000 tigers by 1972 (today, numbers are slightly more than 2,000 after extensive conservation efforts). An adult male tiger requires a territory covering 60 to 100 square kilometers, yet there have been no qualms confining these animals to zoos, when by all moral accounts such actions should long ago have been banned.

The issue of climate change itself has been in the public domain for six decades or more. In 1957 the American scientists, Roger Revelle and Hans Suess, co-authored a paper signalling the planet’s oceans would not absorb all the human-generated carbon emissions, as previously thought. The Revelle-Suess study instead suggested that the artificial carbon dioxide levels might create a “greenhouse effect” resulting in further global warming as the decades progressed.

These findings added weight to the opinions of Guy Stewart Callendar, an English inventor and steam engineer. As early as 1938 Callendar provided evidence that, over the previous half century, the world’s land temperatures had risen due to the ongoing human-driven emissions of carbon dioxide, dating to the Industrial Revolution. Callendar’s views at the time were met with skepticism and ridicule, but were later proved accurate.

The above assertions were further bolstered in 1961, when the American scientist Charles Keeling amassed evidence-based data proving that carbon emissions were considerably rising, due to human consumption of fossil fuels. The “Keeling Curve” had already been created in the late 1950s, a graph outlining the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the earth’s atmosphere, showing an upward curve ever since. In 1963, America’s National Science Foundation issued the first public warnings with regard the planet’s heating, and were delivered to president Lyndon B. Johnson that very year. As one can see, these critical warnings were well known by government leaders from an early stage.

Less than a decade later, in 1972, the eminent English meteorologist John Sawyer published his study titled, Man-made Carbon Dioxide and the ‘Greenhouse’ effect. In his work Sawyer predicted, accurately as time would prove, that:

“The increase of 25% CO2 expected by the end of the [20th] century therefore corresponds to an increase of 0.6 Celsius in the world temperature – an amount somewhat greater than the climatic variation of recent centuries”.

Now, it will be impossible to limit the globe’s heating to 2 Celsius, with global greenhouse gas levels having shot up by over 60% since 1990. Sawyer’s work was published in the long-running British scientific journal, Nature, so his findings were surely well known.

The above scientific studies provided clear warnings of what was to come if government strategies were not altered, and shifted away from the destructive influence of multinational corporations. This evidence-based data should have been inserted into government policy from the 1960s and 1970s onwards, reducing a threat that today has evolved into a proverbial monster. Instead, such works by Revelle, Suess and Sawyer were cast into obscurity, overlooked and forgotten, as the world’s carbon emissions continued their rise.

*

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.

Can you help us keep up the work we do? Namely, bring you the important news overlooked or censored by the mainstream media and fight the corporate and government propaganda, the purpose of which is, more than ever, to “fabricate consent” and advocate war for profit.

We thank all the readers who have contributed to our work by making donations or becoming members.

If you have the means to make a small or substantial donation to contribute to our fight for truth, peace and justice around the world, your gesture would be much appreciated.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Nepal’s anti-conversion law just came into effect.

The new restrictions were originally promulgated late last year and outlaw proselytization practices that are understood as implicitly targeting the historically Hindu country’s rapidly growing community of Christian evangelicals despite ostensibly being aimed at protecting the feelings of religious believers. A key component of the legislation decrees that

“No one should convert a person from one religion to another religion or profess their own religion and belief with similar intention by using or not using any means of attraction and by disturbing the religion or belief of any ethnic groups or community that’s been practiced since ancient times.”

In other words, it’s meant to preserve Hinduism in the face of aggressive Christian campaigning that has seen the country’s believers in Christ triple over the past decade as religious NGOs flooded into Nepal and allegedly took advantage of its socio-economically vulnerable population to spread the Gospel. The foreign-backed spread of Christianity has always been a sensitive issue in some Asian countries because of the legacy of imperialism and reliance on religious figures as “fifth columnists”, especially because of the potential that they have for disrupting the status quo in traditional societies and exploiting Christian tenets for “revolutionary” purposes.

What’s interesting about all of this is that Nepal’s present government isn’t comprised of Hindu traditionalists but of secular communists, though they understand the long-term challenge that foreign-backed religious minority organizations can pose to national stability. The claims that this amounts to religious favoritism and “going back to a Hindu Kingdom” are inaccurate because the ruling Chinese-friendly authorities aren’t by any stretch of the imagination biased towards India and its interests but are trying to delicately “balance” relations between their two Great Power neighbors. This law should therefore be understood as being driven by national security considerations instead of anything else.

Nevertheless, because it does indeed aim to counter the growing influence of foreign Christian NGOs in the country, it’s probably going to lead to more of an intensified infowar against the authorities that’s actually fueled by the government’s unprecedented Silk Road and military partnerships with China, not its supposed support of potentially Indian-influenced Hindus. The perception management gimmick is that a genuinely Chinese-friendly government is being attacked for supposedly being pro-Hindu in order to destabilize it and lead to political concessions that are actually in India’s interests, with Christians just being used as bait to attract as much international attention – and possibly, condemnation – as possible.

*

This article was originally published on Oriental Review.

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 the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In terms of human development potential, Morocco is a nation of immense promise. It is where gifted fortunes of nature (including agricultural) come together with dynamic social development Frameworks that could launch the country into a bottom-up haven in Africa and the Near East of community-managed projects and change.

Sadly, however, for the majority of people, the application of the country’s combined initiatives for development is not seeming consequential. The problem is that Morocco’s programs for national growth and development through people’s participation are not being orchestrated together. Integrating these programs would enable their mutual reinforcement to promote accelerated growth and success of development initiatives.

Commenting on the calls in Morocco, publicly by King Mohammed VI, that the nation must now reconsider its development model: I submit that it is specifically the model to implement the nation’s development model that requires the major reevaluation and overhaul.

These Moroccan Frameworks–among others, including those that intend to advance women’s and youth empowerment–set out to structurally guide local and national growth:

1) The Municipal Charter, amended in 2010, requires the creation of multi-year community development plans that are formed by people’s participation;

2) The National Initiative for Human Development was launched in 2005 to provide access to sub-nationally managed funding for multidimensional development projects; and

3) The Decentralization Roadmap, first unveiled in 2008, innovatively synthesizes three pathways–delegation, deconcentration, and devolution–to empower regions in development;

How can the three Frameworks better fulfill their individual purposes, and how can they relate with each other to create human development that is sustained by the local beneficiaries?

The first Framework, the Municipal Charter, requires locally elected representatives to assist participatory community planning in the determination of projects. This could and should be a major pathway for sustainable development to take hold, due to the fact that people’s participation (along with finance) is the key factor of sustainability.

Further, people-driven projects, instituted in the Municipal Charter, are necessary for sustainable development and actualization of the other Frameworks that compose the Moroccan model. However, in Morocco there is a constant challenge: elected members to municipal councils are typically not trained in facilitating participatory methods.

Catalyzing widespread, inclusive development projects, means first implementing experiential training programs for university students, school teachers, technicians, civil society members, elected officials, and local people, for example, to be active agents of participatory development. Through training-by-doing, the aforementioned municipal development plans can then reflect the actual will of the people in regards to the projects and future they most want.

The second Framework, Morocco’s National Initiative for Human Development, is a national fund for infrastructure projects, capacity-building, social and cultural revitalization, and job generating activities on sub-national levels. This fund should include a multi-billion-dollar budget over five years for participatory planning training and community-identified projects.

The NIHD should primarily help actualize the development projects designed according to the Municipal Charter. Indeed, the NIHD and the Municipal Charter can only be successful if they work in tandem. NIHD should help fund the participatory development plans embodied in the Charter, and finance projects that local people expressed they most need and want to implement.

A project planning meeting in Marrakech, with visiting community representatives from the nearby Al Haouz province (Photo by the High Atlas Foundation, 2018).

Third, the “Roadmap” of Moroccan decentralization–taken from the public statements of the King of Morocco since 2008–aims to utilize ongoing national level engagement (devolution) along with sub-national partnerships (deconcentration), to help implement community projects (delegation). In other words, the Moroccan pathway aims to rally national resources and partnerships for local development, which in principle is good for the sake of sustainability.

Without the Municipal Charter and the NIHD working together, however, adequate decentralized arrangements of public administrations will not be enduring. Overall in Morocco, decentralization is not significantly taking hold, which further adds to the suppression of new local development. The national level still generally decides the parameters, terms, cases, and situations for sub-regional actions.

As far as destabilizing political outcomes that may be a concern and caused by decentralization, as described in international cases, the following seems clear in regards to the Moroccan case, certainly based on my experience: the entire emphasis of people during community-based discussions centers on livelihoods and meeting immediate human needs. I have observed no basis for concerns that stem beyond these developmental factors.

Understandably, executing decentralization, particularly in regards to its pace, is a delicate process. The local level is stratified socio-economically, environmentally, and in regards to gender just as it is on the societal level and globally. Advancing decentralization quickly can be fraught with unhelpful consequences, such as entrenching further the locally affluent and political classes. However, genuine implementation of the Municipal Charter in close conjunction with the NIHD could create the needed participatory democratic conditions which would enable Morocco to eventually opt for an emerging form of communalization–or decentralized management to the municipal level.

The Moroccan Frameworks for development bear essentially what are needed in order for sustainable development for marginalized areas and groups to be catalyzed with enduring results. The Municipal Charter could provide the plans for projects that the NIHD may then help accomplish. Decentralized arrangements are subsequently built in that wake of community project implementation that involves multi-sectoral partnership.

Moroccan agriculture, with its enormous income-generating and environmental-enhancing potential, can and should be the engine for self-reliant financing of the people’s projects. Agriculture projects may also become identified and determined through the process of implementing the mandates of the Municipal Charter.

It is not the insufficiency of these Frameworks that accounts for the hardships that afflict Moroccan people, especially in rural areas. It is their inadequate implementation stemming from a considerable lack of their popular understanding and the skills that are needed in order to translate them into reality. I have found that all that is needed is to give men and women of all ages the chance to come together for community workshops that if followed through can ultimately deliver the projects that they and their families have hoped for far too long.

*

This article was originally published on High Atlas Foundation.

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The United States Donald Trump administration will announce a suspension of funding to the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian refugees (UNRWA) and the rejection of the right of return for Palestinian refugees.

According to Hebrew-language news outlets, the US administration is expected to announce its new policy early September, which would effectively cancel the right of return for Palestinians through several steps.

The US administration will start enforcing its new policy with recognizing the existence of only half a million Palestinian refugees, who are legitimately considered refugees, out of the total of 5.3 million Palestinian refugees, which were estimated by UNRWA, demanding the right of return.The US administration intends to form a plan in which it rejects the United Nations designation under which millions of descendants of the original refugees are also considered refugees. Sources also reported that the US administration’s new policy would “from its point of view, essentially cancels the right of return.”

Israeli MK, Israel Katz, commended on the reports of the US administration’s future announcement by saying “this measure joins the historic decision to transfer the US embassy to Jerusalem and as such annuls two UN resolutions.”

Israel rejects the Palestinian demand, fearing that Palestinians would destroy Israel’s “Jewish-majority” state after the arrival of millions of non-Jewish individuals.

Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the UN created UNWRA, to help resettle nearly 600,000 Palestinians after the war; UNRWA says that there are 5.3 million Palestinian refugees in the world.

UNRWA included descendants of the original Palestinian refugees in its total sum of refugees who fled or were expelled from their homes after the 1948 war, as well as those refugees who fled during the 1967 Six Day war.

*

Featured image is from Ma’an News Agency.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On October 21, 2015 the United Nations General  Assembly adopted Resolution 70/1:  The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, declaring that “We are determined to end poverty and hunger, in all their forms and dimensions, and to ensure that all human beings can fulfil their potential in dignity and equality and in a healthy environment.”  These 17 Goals, if achieved, and, indeed they can and should be achieved, would create an ideal world, essentially a paradise on earth.  However, in the past three years, 20% of the time allotted for achievement of these goals, not only are prospects for the achievement of these goals grim, as acknowledged by both the UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres and UN Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed, but no one willingly admits that the dismal prospect for reaching these goals is the result of a failure of courage by the United Nations Establishment, which, in kowtowing to the “interests” and dictates of its most powerful Western capitalist states, the USA, the UK and their allies, is betraying its mandate, betraying the majority of its member states, and  betraying the majority of the peoples of the world. 

In view of the fact that within this same United Nations the Security Council has authorized the military actions that have obliterated Iraq, Libya, and between 1950-1953 totally annihilated the DPRK, it is reasonable to assert that for the United Nations to even speak of “Sustainable Development Goals” while the United Nations Security Council is notorious for “destroying the infrastructure necessary to support human life” in the countries devastated by the military actions and sanctions the UN has authorized, is the worst form of hypocrisy and duplicity. At best, this is a form of schizoid policy making.  One can only consider that the United Nations’ aggressive public promotion of the 17 Sustainable Development Goals” is a figleaf, covering up the horrific damage inflicted by the UN Security Council, potentially one of the most dangerous organizations on the planet.  

The Security Council sanctions on Iraq were responsible for the deaths by starvation of 500,000 children in Iraq.  The resignation of Assistant Secretary General Denis Halliday, who characterized the sanction program as “genocide” exposes the deadly agenda masked by the very public promotion of the SDG’s as a fabrication of concern for human rights.

The Security Council sanctions inflicted on the DPRK since 2006 are an increasingly genocidal attempt to force regime change and collapse the socialistic system that has, since the birth of the DPRK,  been delivering those benefits promised by the SDG’s, and which the Security Council sanctions are eviscerating, in one of the most criminal actions in United Nations history.

One demonstration of the fact that the UN is not serious about reaching the “Sustainable Development Goals” by 2030 is the fact that, though there have been innumerable searches for ways to fund these SDG’s, at no point was there any serious consideration – or any consideration at all, given to transferring the exorbitant sums of money spent on the military, the trillions of dollars spent – or more accurately put, squandered – on development of nuclear weapons, and investing this money, instead, on human development, and fulfillment of the Sustainable Development Goals

Between July 16-18 the United Nations held the High-Level Political Forum on Sustainable Development, and in her opening speech on July 16, Deputy Secretary-General Amina Mohammed acknowledged that: 

“For the first time in a decade, the number of people who are undernourished has increased – from 777 million people in 2015 to 815 million in 2016 – fundamentally undermining our commitment to leaving no one behind….Poverty is becoming increasingly urban, with most of the world’s extreme poor projected to live in urban settings by 2035;  250 million more people in Africa have no access to clean fuels for cooking compared to 2015!!  We are seeing alarming decline in biodiversity, rising sea levels, coastal erosion, extreme weather conditions and increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases….At the same time we have not yet managed to unlock and direct the scale of the resources needed, towards the financing of the sustainable development agenda.”

On July 18 Secretary-General Guterres’ concluding remarks declared: 

“Your discussions have made clear that we are lagging or even backtracking in other areas that are fundamental to our shared pledge to leave no one behind…Investment in critical sustainable infrastructure remains entirely inadequate…At the same time, we face mounting challenges.  Runaway climate change.  A growing number of conflicts and inequality.  An erosion of human rights.  An unprecedented global humanitarian crisis and persistent pockets of poverty and hunger.”

On cannot be surprised by the downward trajectory for attainment of the SDG’s by 2030, since the United Nations has not been willing to risk those actions that would have unlocked the funds necessary for attainment of the 17 SDG’s, and at the same time, the barbaric Security Council sanctions on the DPRK are criminally obstructing that nation’s attainment of the Sustainable Development Goals, although, if the truth be told, that heroic nation has already attained many of the 17 SDG goals, despite the heinous sanctions inflicted to weaken their people and degrade their socialist infrastructure which has delivered so many humanitarian benefits to their people.   

The cowardice of the UN in failing to require that the resources squandered in bloated military budgets be instead redirected and productively devoted to humanitarian achievements is the more perplexing, now that even within the US government itself, Senator Ed Markey has introduced the SANE Act to drastically cut nuclear weapons programs and curtail nuclear modernization. 

“It is time we inserted some desperately-needed sanity into America’s budget priorities,” stated Senator Markey.  “We should fund education, not annihilation.” 

If the United Nations is serious about attaining the Sustainable Development Goals, they have a powerful source of support and alliance within the U.S. Senate itself.  Markey further stated: 

“If the United States wants other countries to reduce their nuclear arsenals and restrain their nuclear war plans, we must take the lead.  Instead of wasting billions of dollars on this dangerous new nuclear weapon that will do nothing to keep our nation safe, we should preserve America’s resources and pursue a global ban on nuclear cruise missiles.” 

One of the most truthful and moving addresses at the High-Level SDG Debate was delivered the afternoon of July 16, by Professor Jose Antonio Ocampo, Chairperson of the Committee for Development Policy.  The Report of the Committee states: 

“Extreme inequality persists within countries and cities as well as among countries….A generalized shift towards development that leaves no one behind requires the transformation of deeply rooted systems – economic and political systems, governance structures and business models – that are often based on unequal distributions of wealth and of decision-making power. ..It is also necessary to address the concentration of wealth, income and decision-making power at the top and break the link between economic and social exclusion and decision-making power.”

Professor Ocampo stated: 

“Too often, economic and political systems, governance structures and business models are based on extremely unequal distributions of wealth and decision-making power and this stands in the way of transformation to sustainable and resilient societies.  On the one hand segments of society that are excluded from the benefits of development are often also excluded from meaningful participation in decision-making, and are thus unlikely to see their interests safeguarded in policy and investment decisions.  On the other, the most influential groups can resist changes when they represent a threat or perceived threat to their interests.  Leaving no one behind requires breaking the link between economic and social exclusion and decision-making power.  This involves, among other measures, ensuring the respect, protection and fulfilment of human rights and reorienting institutions so that policy is driven from the bottom up by the needs of those who are deprived and disadvantaged.  ….At the international level, the deep inequalities that persist among countries are not sustainable….With the important goal of fighting poverty, development cooperation policies should also contribute to guaranteeing minimum social standards for all people, reducing international inequality and providing international public goods.”

*

Carla Stea is Global Research’s correspondent at the United Nations Headquarters, New York, N.Y.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Accusations of fake news across the political spectrum have transformed a very concerning issue into a weapon of delegitimization. A recent report published by the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) titled Who Said What? The Security Challenges of Modern Disinformation have conflated anti-globalization activists, who oppose military intervention, environmental destruction and global labour exploitation with conspiracy theorists and “foreign nationals” in the sharing of disinformation.

The report, which emerged out of a workshop organized by CSIS for the purposes of academic outreach, reflects a common attitude that state security and intelligence agencies have towards social and environmental justice activists—that of flippant dismissal and demonization. Though the spy agency claims that this report does not reflect an official position, it does reveal some logics underlying the surveillance of political activists. The report had obscured any of the workshops participants or the reports authors under the Chatham House Rule.

The immense popularity of social media and its omnipresence in how we communicate and share information has transformed the social and political landscape in ways that are only now being unveiled.

As a controversial experiment conducted by psychologists has demonstrated, people’s emotions can be remotely shaped through computer algorithms over social media platforms. Called “moral contagion,” psychologists working with Facebook secretly manipulated the news feeds of close to 700 000 Facebook users and silently influenced how they express emotions online. The idea of mass manipulation has recently overtaken the news cycle with the Cambridge Analytica leaks, revealing the role of socially hacking user’s political sensibilities to aid Trump’s election win. Clearly, there is a case for concern with how social media landscapes can be used as tools of surveillance and manipulation, this is especially concerning when groups use a combination of bots, social media exploits, and fake news to manipulate people on mass for political gain.

Edward Snowden aptly framed the situation in a recent tweet, “Business that make money by collecting and selling detailed records of private lives were once plainly described as “surveillance companies.” Their rebranding as “social media” it the most successful deception since the Department of War became the Department of Defense”. In other words, we’ve been duped. The tools we use to organize our social life are being used against us for profit, surveillance, and policing.

In the CSIS report, the authors collapse any distinction between activists, conspiracy theorists, and hostile foreign nationals into the category of “independent emergent activists” who are understood as “agents of disinformation”. This report asserts that activists distrustful of Western governments engage in the amplification of conspiracy theorists from the political left and right and are susceptible to being hijacked by foreign state disinformation organizations.

Instead of providing a nuanced approach to understanding emerging digital threats in our social media landscape, the report conflates the political lefts opposition to violent military interventions and the exploitation of the global south to online conspiracy theories. There is a big difference between asserting that foreign nationals are able to influence how activists share news stories and activists also being implicit in producing disinformation.

Political and military violence overseas are hardly half baked conspiracies, for an instance, there have been legitimate concerns with unceremonious killing of innocent civilians overseas via US drone strikes. According to an investigation run by The Bureau of Investigative Journalism, in a staggering 4,737 strikes to date, there have been between 737-1,551 civilians killed and barely any media coverage. Opposition to such violence inflicted by the Western World through the “war on terror” isn’t merely ideological activist “propaganda”, it is the expression of legitimate concerns that non-Western human life can so easily be rendered disposable by Western nation-states.

CSIS has muddied the water of the very issues it sought to address. At best, it provides vague and ambiguous background information that is unable to distinguish between activists and trolls. At worse, they have contributed to their own campaign of misinformation by not providing sober nuances of complex issues in social and environmental justice.

This is not surprising. It’s within the interests of Canadian state security and intelligence agencies to slander and dismantle the legitimacy of claims from activists. Both CSIS and the RCMP have a long history of spying on activists who are viewed as a threat to either the government or “critical infrastructure.”

With that said we can’t minimize the impacts of disinformation and fake news on our media landscape. These concerns signal the emergence of forms of media manipulation that can be deployed on mass while targeting an individual’s specific tastes and dispositions.

According to a report published by the Data & Society Research Institute, there is still no legal or political consensus on a definition for fake news or how to approach the issue. There are also concerns around the question of who gets to draw the distinctions around what is true and false, acceptable or propaganda. They offer a nuanced approach to understanding the context from which fake news emerges, and how we might collectively approach mediating its negative impacts. And most importantly, the do so in a way that is careful not to throw activists under the bus.

As the report observes,

“With ‘fake news,’ the risk is not necessarily that it will overtake real news, but that democracy itself might drown in information.”

If we are to approach this issue, we need to be careful not to fall into a state policing bias that privileges security concerns over the ability to engage in political dissent, whistleblowing, and holding the power to account.

*

Abigail Curlew is a PhD student of the sociology of surveillance at Carleton University, a freelance and independent journalist, and an feminist activist. She writes about (trans)feminism, surveillance, security, and the cultural politics of the Internet. Follow me on Medium: https://medium.com/@abigail.curlew

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The mass media and political leaders of the US have resorted to denouncing competitors and adversaries as spies engaged in criminal theft of vital political, economic and military know-how.

The spy-mania has spread every place and all the time, it has become an essential element in driving national criminal hearings, global economic warfare and military budgets.

In this paper we will analyze and discuss the use and abuse of spy-mongering by (1) identifying the accused countries which are targeted; (2) the instruments of the spy conspiracy; (3) the purpose of the ‘spy attacks’.

Spies, Spies Everywhere:  A Multi-Purpose Strategy

Washington’s ‘spy-strategy’ resorts to multiple targets, focusing on different sectors of activities.

Russia has been accused of poisoning adversaries, using overseas operatives in England.  The evidence is non-existent.  The accusation revolves around an instant lethal poison which in fact did not lead to death. 

No Russian operative was identified.  The only ‘evidence’ was that Russia possessed the poison- as did the US and other countries.  The events took place in England and the British government played a major role in pointing the finger toward Russia and in launching a global media campaign which was amplified in the US and in the EU.

The UK expelled Russian diplomats and threatened sanctions.  The Trump regime picked up the cudgels, increasing economic sanctions and demanding that Russia ‘confess’ to its ‘homicidal behavior’.  The poison plot resonated with the Democratic Party campaign against Trump , accusing Russia of meddling in the Presidential election, on Trump’s behalf. No evidence was presented.  But the less the evidence, the longer the investigation and the wider the conspiratorial net; it now includes overseas business people, students and diplomats.

US conspiracy officials targeted China, accusing the Chinese government of stealing US technology, scientific research and patents.  China’s billion dollar “Belt and Road” agreement with over sixty countries was presented as a  communist plot to dominate countries, grab their resources, generate debt dependency and to recruit overseas networks of covert operatives.  In fact, China’s plans were public, accepted by most of the US allies and …membership was even offered to the US.

Iran was accused of plotting to establish overseas terrorist military operations in Yemen, Iraq and Syria – targeting the US, Israel and Saudi Arabia.  No evidence was ever presented. In fact, massive US and EU supplied arms and advisors to  Saudi Arabia’s overt terror bombing of Houthi-led Yemen cities and populations.  Iran backed the Syrian government in opposition to the US backed armed mercenaries.  Iranian advisers in Syria were bombed by Israel – and never retaliated.

The US policy elite resort to conspiratorial plots and spying depends heavily on the mass media to repeat and elaborate on the charges endlessly, depending on self-identified experts and ex-pats from the targeted country.  In effect the media is the message.  Media-state collaboration is reinforced by the application of sanctions— the punishment proves guilt!

In the case of Russia, the conspirators demonize President Putin; he is ‘guilty’ because he was an ex-official of the police; he was accused of ‘seizing’ Crimea which voted to rejoin Russia.  In other words, plots are linked to unrelated activity, personality disorders and to US self-inflicted defeats! 

Labeling is another tool common to conspiracy plotters;  China is a ‘dictatorship’ intent on taking over the world— therefore, it could only defeat the US through spying and stealing secrets and assets from the US.

Iran is labelled a ‘terrorist state’ which allows the US to violate the international nuclear agreement and to support Israeli demands for economic sanctions.  No evidence is ever presented that Iran invaded or terrorized any state.

The Political Strategy Behind Conspiracy Terrorists

There are several important motives for the US government to resort to conspiracy plots.

By accusing countries of crimes, it hopes that the accused will respond by revealing their inability or unwillingness to engage in the action falsely attributed to them.  Pentagon plots put  adversaries on the defensive – spending time and energy answering to the US agenda rather than pursuing and advancing their own.

For example, the US claims that China is stealing economic technology to promote its superiority, is designed to pressure China to downplay or modify its long-term plan for strategic growth.  While China will not give general credence to US conspiracy practitioners, it has downplayed the slogans designed to motivate its scientists to “Make China Great’.

Likewise, the US conspiracy practitioners accusation that Iran is ‘meddling’ in Yemen and Syria is designed to distract world opinion from the US military support for Saudi Arabia’s terror bombing in Yemen and Israel’s missile attacks in Syria.

Plot accusations have had some effect in Syria.  Russia has demanded or asked Iran to withdraw fifty miles from the Israeli border.  Apparently Iran has lowered its support for Yemen.

Russia has been blanketed with unsubstantiated accusations of intervening in the Ukraine, which distracts attention from Washington’s support for the mob-led coup.

The UK claim that Russia planted a deadly poison, was concocted in order to distract attention from the Brexit fiasco and Prime Minister May’s effort to entice the US to sign a major trade agreement.

How Successful are Conspiratorial Politics?

The greatest success of the US conspiracy practitioners has been in convincing the US mass media to act as an arm of the CIA-Pentagon-Congressional and Presidential interventionist agenda.

Secondly, the conspiracy has had an impact on both political parties – especially the Democratic leadership, which has waged a political war accusing Trump of  plotting with Russia, to defeat Clinton in the presidential elections.  However, Democratic conspiracy advocates have sacrificed their popular electorate who are more interested in economic issues then in regime plots – and may lose to the Republicans in the fall 2018 Congressional elections.

Thirdly, the plot and spy line has some impact on the EU but not on their public.  Moreover, the EU is more concerned with President Trump’s trade war and  made overtures to Russia. 

Fourthly, China , Iran and Russia have moved closer economically in response to the conspiracy plots and trade wars.

Conclusion:  The Perils of Power Grabbers

Conspiratorial plots have a narrow audience, mostly the US mass media and elite . They seem to have a short-term impact in justifying sanctions and trade wars.  The media plotters having called wolf and proved nothing ,have lost credibility among a wide swath of the public.

Moreover, the conspiracy has not resulted in any basic shifts in the orientation of their adversaries, nor has it shaped the electoral agenda for the majority of US voters. 

The conspiracy advocates have discredited themselves by the transparency of their fabrications and the flimsiness of their evidence.  In the long-run, historians will provide a footnote on the bankruptcy of US foreign and domestic policy based on plots and conspiracies.

*

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

British Airways announced Thursday it plans to stop service to Tehran after its last scheduled flight on September 22. 

A British Airways (BA) spokesperson announced the move, which comes after the latest round US sanctions went into effect against Iran this month:

“We are suspending our London to Tehran service as the operation is currently not commercially viable.”

“We are sorry for any disruption this may cause to our customers’ travel plans and we are in discussions with our partner airlines to offer customers rebooking options,” the airline said further. “Alternatively, they will be offered a full refund or the opportunity to bring their flights forward,” the BA representative said.

Meanwhile Air France and KLM have also announced the cancellation all flights to Tehran, with the last Air France flight on Sept. 18. Air France had already drastically cut its operations to Iran as it transferred all connections to its low-cost airline Joon this summer, and was down to one flight per week from the prior usual of three.

And Dutch airline KLM had previously announced last month the suspension of all flights from Amsterdam, set to also take place in September.

They join a growing list of other major firms that have recently curbed or halted business in Iran include French energy giant Total, Germany’s Siemens, French and German automotive manufacturers PSA and Daimler, the world’s largest shipping firm Maersk, French aircraft manufacturer Airbus, Germany’s engineering and rail consortium Deutsche Bank, as well as the German insurer Allianz..

* * *

On August 7 the US imposed Phase 1 of a series of sanctions against Iran.

At a glance, these cover:

• Auto industry: Carmakers who also operate in the US market must pull out of Iran, currently the world’s 12th-largest car market.
• Gold and precious metals: Ban on selling these substances to Iran, which will cause difficulty for the country’s investors looking to safeguard their wealth against the falling rial.
• US banknotes: Stepping up pressure on Iran’s central bank as it attempts to stabilise its currency.
• Aviation: Cancellation of US sales of civil aviation planes and parts to upgrade Iran’s ageing commercial fleet.
• Other key industries: Ban on US imports of Iranian carpets, pistachios and farmed caviar.

And on November 7th phase 2 takes effect, mainly targeting Iran’s oil exports, which could prove the final death blow to Iran’s already downward spiraling economy.

*

All images in this article are from Zero Hedge.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Global Research is a small team that believes in the power of information and analysis to bring about far-reaching societal change including a world without war.

Truth in media is a powerful instrument. As long as we keep probing, asking questions, challenging media disinformation to find real understanding, then we are in a better position to participate in creating a better world in which truth and accountability trump greed and corruption.

*     *    *

Imperialism and Its Accomplices: The Question of Dictatorship and Democracy at Home and Abroad

By Prof. James Petras, August 27, 2018

One of the most striking world historic advances of western imperialism (in the US and the European Union) is the demise, disappearance and dissolution of large scale long-term anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist movements (AIM).

Israeli Spying on Trump? Interference in US Elections?

By Philip Giraldi, August 27, 2018

It is ironic that the Robert Mueller investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Donald Trump campaign continues to turn up nothing while the evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. political system continues to surface without any outrage being expressed by either the media or American politicians.

Quick America – Take Over Africa Before China Does!

By Phil Butler, August 27, 2018

The Donald Trump administration has finally appointed a State Department undersecretary to head up Africa policy. Tibor Nagy, the new assistant secretary of state, inherits an American imperialist attitude and big business dominated mess that can only get worse for Africans. While America and the world are busy with information overload, American lawmakers are about to take over Africa before the Chinese do.

Trump Regime Planning Another Chemical Weapons Attack False Flag in Syria

By Stephen Lendman, August 27, 2018

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said a false flag attack is coming to “imped(e) a normal settlement of the…fight against terrorism in Idlib.”

Samir Amin Is No More. But His Ideals Are Marching On

By Andre Vltchek and Said Mohammad, August 27, 2018

Venezuela’s Maduro has started a counter economical attack that changes the rule of the game for the global financial system. He was one of the few leaders who mourned Samir Amin in public. Do you think Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution was influenced by Amin’s ideas, especially his de-linking theory? Do you think that experiment will be allowed to succeed?

Corbyn Is Being Destroyed – Like Blowing Up a Bridge to Stop an Advancing Army

By Jonathan Cook, August 27, 2018

The latest “scandal” gripping Britain – or to be more accurate, British elites – is over the use of the term “Zionist” by the Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the opposition and possibly the country’s next prime minister.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Once again I return to Theresa May’s statement of 26^th May, in which she stated the following:

“In conclusion, as I have set out, no other country has a combination of the capability, the intent and the motive to carry out such an act.”

She then went on to claim:

“We have been led by evidence not by speculation.”

However, as I showed in Part 1 and Part 2, her statement to the Commons contained no actual evidence of motive or intent. Claims and assertions, but nothing more.

But what of capability? Looking through the statement, here are the key passages that might be said to fall into this category:

“As I set out for the House in my statements earlier this month, our world-leading experts at the Defence Science and Technology Laboratory at Porton Down positively identified the chemical used for this act as a Novichok – a military-grade nerve agent of a type developed by the Soviet Union.”

“And we have information indicating that within the last decade, Russia has investigated ways of delivering nerve agents probably for assassination – and as part of this programme has produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks.”

Her evidence, such that it is, therefore falls into two categories: firstly, capability with regard to the weapon allegedly used to poison the Skripals; secondly, capability with regard to method of delivery of the weapon.

There are three things to say with regard to the first category. To begin with, it is not quite the case that Porton Down scientists had “positively identified the chemical” as a “Novichok”. In the evidence presented to the High Court between 20^th – 22^nd March, here is how the Porton Down Chemical and Biological Analyst described the substance:

“Blood samples from Sergei Skripal and Yulia Skripal were analysed and the findings indicated exposure to a nerve agent or related compound. The samples tested positive for the presence of a Novichok class nerve agent or closely related agent[my emphasis].”

As you will notice, there is a degree of ambiguity in this statement which is not present in Mrs May’s statement made a few days later. Ought she not to have recognised this?

Secondly, it has been conclusively shown that a number of other countries either have produced, or know how to produce substances within the class of nerve agents that Mrs May referred to as “Novichoks”. The Czech Government has admitted producing a small quantity of the closely related substance, A-230; Iran has produced it, in compliance with the OPCW in 2016; The German Intelligence Agency, BND, was given the formula back in the 1990s, and they shared it with a number of other NATO countries, including the US and UK. The Edgewood Chemical and Biological Defense Command in Maryland, USA, recorded the formula back in 1998.

The point of this is not to point the finger at any of those countries. Merely to say that knowledge of and production of “Novichok” is by no means confined to one country. And in any case, according to one of the world’s leading experts in organic chemistry, David Collum, Professor of Organic Chemistry at Cornell University, it doesn’t even require a State party. He asserts that “any credible organic chemist could make Novichok nerve agents.”

The fact that other countries know how to produce “Novichoks”, and in some cases have produced it, shows the claim that its apparent use in Salisbury proves Russian culpability to be complete nonsense. It’s as silly as saying that a poisoning using VX points to Britain because VX is a type of nerve agent developed by Britain.

And thirdly, if the British Government did indeed have information that the Russian Government had a secret programme investigating ways of delivering nerve agents, and had produced and stockpiled small quantities of Novichoks, then it had an obligation to inform the OPCW under the Chemical Weapons Convention, which it apparently failed to do. Furthermore, as a State Party to the Convention, it should have raised objections in 2017, when the OPCW’s Director-General, Ahmet Üzümcü, declared the following:

“The completion of the verified destruction of Russia’s chemical weapons programme is a major milestone in the achievement of the goals of the Chemical Weapons Convention. I congratulate Russia and I commend all of their experts who were involved for their professionalism and dedication. I also express my appreciation to the States Parties that assisted the Russian Federation with its destruction program and thank the OPCW staff who verified the destruction.”

So much for Mrs May’s evidence of capability regarding the weapon, what of her evidence regarding the delivery?

When she stated that her Government had information that the Russian Government had investigated ways of delivering nerve agents, she was, I believe, referring to the alleged “assassin’s manual”, which the Government says it possesses, but will not show because it is classified, and which apparently contains information showing that Russian agents were trained in putting poison on door handles.

Three brief points about this:

1. It really is utter nonsense. Smearing poison on a door handle would be a frankly ludicrous way to target someone for assassination, since you could never be sure that your target would actually touch it (you never know, maybe a postman or a milkman or the man from Amazon might get there first).

2. Salisbury was treated to dozens of guys in Hazmat gear decontaminating certain parts of the city, since the substance in question was apparently so lethal that, according to Alastair Hay, Professor of Environmental Toxicology at the University of Leeds:

“A few millilitres would be sufficient to probably kill a good number of people.”

Are we really supposed to believe that the Russians have either:

a) Developed ways of putting this stuff on door handles without the requisite chemical protection and perhaps just a pair of Marigolds, or

b) Have people stupid enough to try.

3. But the biggest problem is this: The British Government was starting to pointing the finger at the Russian Government within a few days of the poisoning, and it was later stated that one of the reasons for this was the manual that they apparently possessed. But if they did indeed have this manual, and it was the reason for their apportioning of blame as early as 12th March:

a) Why was the door handle not the focus of the investigation from the very start?

b) When are those police officers who stood within feet of that door, and those who no doubt went in and out of the house using the door handle, going to sue Her Majesty’s Government for negligence and their failure to act on the intelligence they apparently had?

If there is indeed such a manual, my guess is that it was put together by a chap named Steele.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

While there was much fanfare and attention given to the July 3^rd launch of two Type 055 guided missile destroyers at the Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. (DISC) shipyard in Dalian, very little mention has been made of the many other warships that the PLAN has launched or commissioned since the beginning of the year.

Although the Type 055 DDG is the PLAN’s most powerful surface combatant, and the largest such vessel constructed by an Asian nation since World War II, they are one component in a steadily growing naval force structure. While the addition of three Type 055 DDGs this year, added to the first vessel in class which rolled into the water from Dalian just over a year ago in June of 2017, showcase China’s growing capabilities not only in producing powerful and modern warships, they also illustrate the maturity and  stunning capacity of the Chinese ship building industry. This industry has launched and/or commissioned 15 modern warships in just the first seven months of 2018.

Three More Type 055 Destroyers

This year is proving to be a big year for the PLAN. Of the fifteen vessels built so far in 2018, three have been the newest and most powerful surface warfare vessel in the Chinese arsenal, the Type 055 DDG. The world was stunned when China was able to complete the first of this new class in June of 2017. Sections of a second in this class were clearly visible in satellite imagery at the time. That vessel was launched in May of this year, but two more Type 055 destroyers were launched simultaneously on July 3^rd, just two months later. The 5^th and 6^th vessels in class are already in varying stages of construction.

Although initial reports had suggested that a total of six vessels had been ordered, it has been hinted that this number has been increased to eight. This number will most likely grow to at least 12 vessels by 2025, when the PLAN will be looking to expand its aircraft carrier program with the introduction of at least one carrier of the Type 002 class. It has yet to be determined if this new carrier (CV-18) will employ steam or electromagnetic catapults, but it will definitely be a CATOBAR carrier. PLAN aviators continue to practice CATOBAR take-off and landings at the Huangdicun Airbase in southern China. Chinese naval engineers have had a great deal of success in developing an Electromagnetic Aircraft Launching System (EMALS) that requires much less energy than the system currently utilized aboard the U.S. Navy’s Gerald Ford Class carrier. It remains to be decided if the Type 002 will be conventionally powered, or will make use of a nuclear reactor.

Regardless of the next generation carrier’s specific design specifications and capabilities, powerful surface warfare ships will be required to escort them in a larger aircraft carrier battle group formation. The Type 055 DDG will likely serve a similar role as the Ticonderoga Class CG of the U.S. Navy within the carrier strike groups (CSG), and will also be utilized as a command ship or heavy AAW and ASW platform in PLAN naval task forces or while supporting amphibious ready groups (ARG). The Type 055’s significant weapons payload, multifaceted offensive and defensive capabilities, and great range and endurance will aid Chinese efforts to protect and expand its maritime territories, protect its shipping lanes, and maintain its naval lines of communication.

Type 052D DDG Continued Growth

A number of photos that appeared both online and in the print media exhibiting the two newest Type 055 DDGs to be launched at the DISC shipyard in Dalian failed to mention that three brand new Type 052D destroyers also appeared in these same images. The Type 052D is a powerful guided missile destroyer in its own right, rivaling the U.S. Navy Arleigh Burke Class DDG. China launched the first Type 052D, the Kunming DDG-172 in 2014. There are currently 9 ships of the class in service, 2 undergoing sea trials, and a further two being fitted out. Three Type 052D DDGs have been commissioned in the first half of this year.

No less than five destroyers in various stages of fitting out are docked at the Dalian Shipbuilding Industry Co. (DISC) shipyard on July 3rd; three Type 052D and two Type 055 DDGs.

Although original rumors had hinted at 16 vessels being ordered, some inside sources now claim that the number has been increased significantly. It would seem reasonable that a total of 18 to 26 vessels may end up being built, dependent upon how ambitious the PLAN aircraft carrier program becomes. IHS Janes Defense Weekly reported on May 2^nd of this year that satellite imagery appeared to show a Type 052D under construction at the Jiangnan Changxingdao shipyard in Shanghai that had approximately 4 meters (13.1ft) added to its LOA. The after flight deck may have been lengthened to accommodate larger helicopters which would aid the vessel in its ASW role.

It remains to be seen if the above mentioned modification will enter serial production under a different designation, or will prove to be a concept testbed for fielding larger rotary wing assets at sea. It is important to note that China produced six Type052C Class DDGs from 2004 to 2015, and has produced thirteen of the much improved Type 052D Class DDGs in just four years, a six fold increase in annual production.

A Type 055D DDG docking with the aid of a tug at a PLAN naval base. The deck gun and forward 32 cell VLS are clearly visible. Although bearing some similarity to the U.S. Navy’s Arleigh Burke Class DDG, the Type 052D is more streamlined and esthetically pleasing. Its good looks likely equate to a much smaller radar signature.

More Frigates and Corvettes

While smaller warships do not enjoy the limelight of their larger peers, they can teach the observer a great deal about a nation’s maritime defense posture and priorities. While the Chinese shipbuilding industry has constructed and launched nineteen Type 052 DDGs of both variants, and four Type 055 DDGs from 2014 to the present, they have also turned out fourteen Type 054A Class guided missile frigates (total of 32 of all variants) and a no less than twenty Type 056A Class corvettes (total of 42 in class of all variants) over the same period of time.

The smaller warships traditionally perform a number of different roles in naval warfare. Firstly, they serve as coastal patrol craft. They are nimble and fast, heavily armed for their diminutive size, and are outfitted to be flexible enough to perform a multitude of different missions. Their small size equates to limited firepower and shorter range, but they are well suited to serve as picket ships and screening forces to task forces fielding larger and more powerful vessels when those fleets are operating within close range of home ports and naval facilities.

Three Type 056A Class corvettes tied-up alongside one another. The vessel in the middle is conducting a crew muster on the aft flight deck. Approximately half of the 42 vessels in the Type 056 class are of the upgraded Type 056A variant.

The Type 056A Class corvette is ideally suited to patrol China’s coasts, the maritime territories within China’s EEZ, as well as the island archipelagos of the Paracel and Spratly Islands. They will most likely begin patrol operations from the key island bases at Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, and Mischief Reef as the maritime logistics facilities on these islands are improved.

The Type 054A frigate is a well balance and powerful naval surface combatant for its size, and carries an ample arsenal of anti-aircraft, anti-ship, and anti-submarine weapons. It is an ideal escort vessel with a range of over 8,000 nautical miles. It is a traditional multi-purpose frigate, possessing the inherent ability to attack other surface ships, engage aircraft, and track and destroy submarines. It is this class of warship that the PLAN first sent to the Gulf of Aden in 2009 to serve in international anti-piracy duties. Eleven Type 05A frigates have served on anti-piracy duties in this region since that time.

The Type 054A Class Frigate is a flexible, yet powerful surface warfare asset that possesses significant range and the ability to engage in a multitude of operations. It is equipped with an aft hangar and flight deck, and carries either a Ka-28 or Harbin Z-9 helicopter depending on mission requirements. Type 054A FFGs will likely be deployed as part of naval flotillas stationed on a rotational basis at the PLAN naval base in Djibouti, and eventually at Gwadar, Pakistan. They will also be used to police the long maritime supply lines to and from China to strategic waterways near the Horn of Africa and the Straits of Hormuz, as well as continuing patrols in the South China and East China Seas.

Type 054A Yiyang, FFG-548. This vessel was constructed in 2010 and was the seventh vessel in class to be built. Note the 32 cell VLS forward of the superstructure, 76mm dual-purpose deck gun, and Type 87 anti-submarine rocket (ASROC) launchers just forward of the deck gun. Amidships are the twin 4 cell launchers for the C-803 anti-ship/land attack cruise missiles.

New Nuclear Submarines

Without a doubt one of the segments of Chinese defense strategy most shrouded in mystery are the attack submarines and ballistic missile submarines of the PLAN. They are very rarely a topic of discussion by government officials, either on or off the record. What is known is that the PLAN has a newer SSN and SSBN in service. China’s submarine technology has run behind that of both the United States and Russia for decades, but China has been rapidly closing the gap in recent years. It is no secret that Chinese espionage efforts to acquire U.S. submarine warfare technology have been very active, and quite successful over the past decade in particular.

The most capable nuclear attack submarine (SSN) in service with the PLAN is the Type 093B. A notable improvement over the Type 093, it has the capability to fire submarine launched cruise missiles (SLCM) while submerged via a dorsal mounted VLS. Like its predecessor, the Type 093, it retains the ability to fire SLCMs from its bow torpedo tubes. This is accomplished by using a specifically designed torpedo tube missile canister. It is not known how many Type 093B SSNs are currently in service, but most analysts, including those at the U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence, put the number at six. Of greater interest is the newer SSN that is either currently being fitted out or is undergoing sea trials later this year, the Type 095.

A pair of Type 093B SSNs. Of particular interest in this image are the improved hydrodynamics of the conning tower and the slight dorsal hump denoting the presence of a VLS for launching anti-ship and land attack cruise missiles.

The Type 095 is an SSN, but reportedly has a sizeable VLS (12-16 cells) which can fire a multitude of PLAN missiles including anti-ship cruise missiles (ASCM) and land attack cruise missiles (LACM). The U.S. Office of Naval Intelligence has classified the Type 095 as a nuclear attack guided missile submarine (SSGN) due to its large missile capacity. The Type 095 is thought to utilize pump-jet propulsion, make use of noise reducing technologies, and a hybrid pressure hull design.

The Type 095 is being constructed at the new Bohai Shipbuilding Heavy Industry Company (BSHIC) submarine manufacturing facility located in Huludao, in the Liaoning province. It is the largest submarine manufacturing facility in the world, with an assembly building measuring some 430,000 square feet (39,948 sq. meters). Completed in 2017, the main assembly hall can accommodate four submarines at any given time. The facility is totally enclosed, and operations cannot be viewed from the air or via satellite surveillance. This also allows manufacturing operations to continue year round regardless of weather conditions. The facility will be used to build all Type 095 SSN and Type 096 SSBN class submarines.

A satellite image of the BSHIC submarine manufacturing facility in Huludao in the province of Liaoning, China.

The Type 094 Jin Class nuclear ballistic missile submarine has also undergone a noticeable transformation, resulting in what has been renamed the Type 094A. Improvements to the new variant include a larger VLS aft of the conning tower, a more streamlined shape which produces less noise and cavitation while submerged, likely greater speed submerged (less hydrodynamic drag), and a new ballistic missile armament. The Type 094A is most likely equipped with the next generation JL-2A submarine launched ballistic missile (SLBM). The JL-2A is based on the DF-31, and has an estimated maximum range of 11,200 kilometers (6,960 miles). The JL-2A is likely equipped with a multiple independently targetable reentry vehicle (MIRV) warhead. The PLAN likely has between four and six Type 094/094A class SSBNs in service. These SSBNs serve as the third leg of the nuclear deterrent triad that China lacked for so many years, and the 094A offers China a viable second strike capability. The Type 096 SSBN currently being designed will offer notable improvements over the 094A SSBN, yet little is known about the project.

This rare image shows not only a Type 094A Class SSBN in the foreground, but also a Type 093B Class SSN in the background. The improved hydrodynamics of both vessels can be seen, especially in the conning towers that now lack windows. The large dorsal hump of the Type 094A houses the powerful JL-2A submarine launched ballistic missiles that have a range in excess of 11,200 kilometers.

The Sixth and Final Type 071 LPD?

The final Type 071 Class LPD of the original order of six vessels was launched at the Hudong-Zhonghua shipyard on January 20^th of this year. The fifth vessel was launched just 7 months prior. It remains unknown if the PLAN will decide to order additional LPDs of this class, or will concentrate instead on the larger Type 075 LHDs currently under construction at the same shipyard which constructed all six Type 071 LPDs.

It is logical to conclude that China may decide to build additional Type 071 LPDs, but this will depend perhaps on how long it takes to construct, launch and commission the first of the new class of LHDs. With six LPDs in service, after the final two vessels are finally commissioned, the PLAN will always have at least two of them ready to deploy as the backbone of a small Amphibious Ready Group (ARG). A PLAN ARG would likely consist of at least one Type 071 LPD, 2 Type 072 LSTs and a surface warfare escort of a mix of DDGs and FFGs.

These smaller amphibious warfare vessels lack the size and capability of bringing their own aviation strike element with them. The Type 071 can accommodate two helicopters on its large aft flight deck, and is equipped to house four helicopters in the adjacent hangar. The Type 072 LST can also accommodate one helicopter on its after flight deck. Lacking a VSTOL attack aircraft, the PLAN will most likely modify the Z-10 attack helicopter for naval use, with it serving a similar purpose as the U.S. Marine Corps AH-1Z Viper and Russian Ka-52k naval attack helicopters. China has already conducted take-off and landing tests with Z-10s on both the Type 071 LPD and 072A LST. The Type 075 LHD will undoubtedly have an attack element of at least eight to ten modified Z-10s.

It is clear that a larger amphibious warfare platform is a requirement for the PLAN in the immediate future. If the time it took China to design, build, launch and fit-out its first indigenous aircraft carrier is an indicator, we are likely looking at the first Type 075 to be launched sometime in 2020. Fitting out and sea trails will take an additional two years before the first vessel is commissioned. The LHD is without a doubt the most flexible and capable of all amphibious warfare platforms and the PLAN will need these vessels to be able to field viable ARGs to respond to challenges within its maritime territories and to project power at greater ranges along the full length and breadth of the Maritime Silk Road.

The All Important Support Vessels

China signaled to the world that it fully intended to field aircraft carrier battle groups (CBG) in the near future when it launched the first Type 901 Fast Combat Support Ship in December of 2015. Built by Guangzhou Shipyard International Company Ltd. (GSI), the first vessel in this class Hulun Hu (hull # 965), commissioned in September of 2017 after successful sea trials and UNREP trails, bears the distinction of being the only fast combat support ship fielded by a nation other than the United States, which operates the Sacramento and Supply Class vessels. These massive underway replenishment ships are designed to be able to meet the logistics needs of fast moving carrier battle/strike groups.

The Type 901 is a massive vessel, with a fully loaded displacement of 48,000 tons. It is equipped with five liquid bulk cargo transfer stations, three on the port side and two on the starboard side, and is also equipped for liquid transfers astern. They can refuel an aircraft carrier with fuel oil and aviation fuel to starboard while supplying fuel oil to surface warfare escorts to port. The disclosed cruising speed is in excess of 25 knots, which is likely understated. It is equipped with a large aircraft hangar and flight deck that can accommodate large Z-8 heavy transport helicopters which are well suited to aerial replenishment duties. A second Type 901 is currently in an advanced state of construction.

The massive size of the Type 901 is clearly on display in this image. The vessel tied up alongside Hulun Hu is a Type 640 Class auxiliary tanker.

The PLAN also operates the Type 903 and Type 903A Class fleet replenishment vessels. The Type 903 was greatly improved and took on the designation Type 903A with the first two examples commissioned in the summer of 2013. There are six Type 903A replenishment ships on active service, and a seventh currently in an advanced state of construction. These vessels have a fully loaded displacement of approximately 24,000 tons and can carry 10,500 tons of bunkers (fuel), 250 tons of potable water, and roughly 700 tons of dry cargo.

Type 903A Honghu, commissioned in July of 2016. The PLAN should take delivery of the seventh such vessel sometime in the middle of 2019. The PLAN increased production of this class of vessel since the first was commissioned in 2013. Four were commissioned in a span of just 8 months from December 2015 to July 2016.

Fleet replenishment vessels are a vital component of a blue water navy. They allow fleet task forces, carrier battle groups and amphibious ready groups to engage in complex missions thousands of miles from home ports and over extended periods of duration. They replenish fuel, food stores, fresh water and munitions to warships while underway, and can provide a rapid logistics solution to both naval and land forces deployed to far flung bases and garrisons. These vessels are indispensable to aircraft carrier battle groups engaged in long deployments.

The Big Picture, PLAN 2025

The rapid pace of warship construction by China is impressive from an engineering and manufacturing standpoint, but of greater interest is in understanding the motivation behind such an ambitious program. Why has the Chinese leadership decided that the PLAN must expand and acquire a full spectrum of naval warfare capabilities that it has previously lacked, and in such a short space of time? The answer to this question becomes clear after a short analysis of China’s geopolitical, economic and national security goals in the twenty-first century.

In many ways, China is engaged in a concerted effort to redefine the economic realities that have established the way the world exchanges goods and services, and distributes the product of human endeavors globally. The New Silk Road/Maritime Silk Road project seeks to once again make China the center of the economic world. China is already the largest economy in the world in terms of economic production, and is on pace to usurp the U.S. as the world’s largest economic consumer as well. Continued growth and prosperity depend upon cheap and efficient movement of energy resources and raw materials to China, and the cheap and efficient movement of finished goods from China. The overwhelming majority of these influxes and outflows transit the international waterways of the world. Continued prosperity and stability depend upon the security of these maritime lanes of trade. In strategic terms, these naval lines of communication must remain open. In times of strife and natural or man-made disaster, China must have the capacity to secure these lines of communication and to keep them open. The great naval strategist Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan, writing in 1893, then just a Captain, stated this concept very succinctly:

“Let us start from the fundamental truth, warranted by history, that the control of the seas, and especially along the great lines drawn by national interest or national commerce, is the chief among the merely material elements in the power and prosperity of nations. It is so because the sea is the world’s great medium of circulation. From this necessarily follows the principal that, as subsidiary to such control, it is imperative to take possession, when it can be done righteously, of such maritime positions as contribute to secure command.”

Although China has been the first and most determined nation to move in this direction, it is not alone. As China moves to build a new logistics system that aims to redirect the movement of information, energy, and economic goods that competes with the current established system dominated by the United States, the United States and its allies are determined to maintain the status quo. Some of these allies, such as India, are allies of necessity and are also attempting to maintain their independence. China has accepted the wisdom of long standing naval strategy, and has proven the most decisive in embracing these centuries old concepts.

This map illustrates established and potential naval bases of rivals in the Indian Ocean, South China Sea and Asia Pacific regions. The U.S. bases were established through imperialist expansion, war and the long running U.S.-U.K. alliance. India has moved to leverage its own cooperative relationship with the U.S.-U.K. alliance and also maintain a level of independence. China has moved to secure the maritime lines of communication to and from Africa and the Middle East. Bases in Gwadar and Kyaukpyu will prove indispensable if either the Straits of Malacca or Aden become impassable.

If China does not alter its current building projects by increasing or reducing orders, the PLAN will still be a highly transformed fighting force by 2025. The year 2025 will prove to be a milestone for the PLAN for many reasons. By 2025, China will likely be declaring its first Type 002 Class aircraft carrier operational. The Type 002 will be an EMALs assisted CATOBAR capable carrier that may likely be nuclear powered. At the same time, two other aircraft carriers, although recognized as developmental steps along the way to the Type 002, will also be in service. Based on the pace of pilot training and the procurement of aircraft over the past decade, the PLAN will have at least one more regiment of carrier strike aircraft in service, bringing the total to two regiments. China is already seeking to develop and field a carrier borne strike aircraft superior to the J-15, even though many of the J-15’s shortcoming will be rectified by the improved CATOBAR system of the new Type 002 carrier.

Liaoning CV-16 with its air wing of J-15s and rotary wing ASW and support aircraft, and a Type 054A frigate escort. A modest yet impressive start in carrier borne naval aviation, and definitely just the beginning.

The Plan will have 30 Type 054A Frigates, 18 Type 052D and 8 or more Type 055 Destroyers in service. Improvements upon the destroyers will likely occur in the intervening years. A total of 50 Type 056 Corvettes (28 of the Type 056A improved variant) will be policing the coastal waterways of China and its outlying island territories. These modern and capable surface warfare vessels will be supplemented by older vessels that China has been actively modernizing.

The PLAN will be able to transport an enlarged PLA Marine Corps to battle in its first Amphibious Ready Group, albeit with limited capabilities. The First Type 075 LHD will be undergoing operational training to test the capabilities of the vessel and familiarize sailors, marines and airmen with amphibious and air assault missions from such a complex and powerful platform. There will be six Type 071 LPDs in service, as well as 15 Type 072A LSTs. The majority of an additional 17 Type 072 LSTs of an earlier, yet sound design will still be in service. The recently expanded PLAMC, numbering approximately 100,000 men, a five-fold increase from 2017, will finally have the modern amphibious sealift capacity that it currently lacks. PLAMC marines will serve in duties deployed at sea and stationed at a growing number of Chinese sovereign island bases, or abroad at naval bases in foreign countries such as Pakistan and Djibouti.

By 2025, the PLAN will have a robust naval logistics arm available to support naval operations across the length and breadth of the Maritime Silk Road. Two Type 901 fast combat supports ships, and 9 Type 903A replenishment ships will be available at a minimum. Four Type 904 general stores issue vessels are currently in service to resupply island garrisons and offshore bases. This number may be increased in the intervening years.

Of equal interest is the question of just how the U.S. Navy will look in 2025. It will still be the largest and most powerful navy in terms of global reach and power projection; however, it is a military branch that seems to be without focus or direction. The PLAN has increasingly invested in high tech, powerful and flexible conventional warships that are also cost effective when compared to the new designs pursued by the U.S. Navy. Even the Type 002 aircraft carrier is a conservative design, with a limited mission foreseen for it, one which will minimize its weaknesses and make use of its strengths. It is telling that China has built the largest surface warfare ship since the U.S. commissioned the last Ticonderoga Class cruiser Port Royal CG-73 in 1994. The U.S. has no plans to replace the 22 Ticonderoga Class cruisers anytime soon, nor is there a replacement design to consider. The Gerald R. FordClass CVN-78 has proven to be a costly and disappointing investment so far. It will use the F-35 JSF and F-18 Super Hornet which lack the range to be a threat to peer adversaries. The Zumwalt Class DDG is a dead end failure and the troubled LCS program has proven to be less capable than the traditional multi-purpose frigate designs of other major navies.

Ticonderoga Class cruiser USS Lake Champlain CG-57. Decommissioning of these vessels will begin in 2019, with no viable replacement. The U.S. Navy command has proposed keeping half of the 22 vessels in service. Despite the largest defense budget of any nation in the world, and larger than that of Russia and China combined, the U.S. Navy cited budget constraints as a key factor in being unable of replacing the vessels.

While the U.S. has wasted its great wealth on failed designs, whose sole aim is to earn profits for a defense industry more interested in profit-generating waste than in producing weapons systems that balance capability, efficiency and cost effectiveness, China has done something quite different. China has produced cutting edge warships and aircraft for its navy that are largely improvements upon proven designs and technology. China has made major progress in missile technology, surpassing the U.S. in many respects. It has also reaped rewards from years of investment in research and development of advanced radar and even photon detection technologies. There is no doubt that China has gotten far more return on its investments in terms of its defense industry in comparison to the United States. For the military defense complex that rules the United States the goal is profit, not the defense and security of the nation.

From 2001 to the present, the United States military has morphed into a force obsessed with counterinsurgency and occupation, leaving it woefully unprepared for a conventional conflict with peer adversaries, such as Russia or China. The U.S. Navy has transformed into a global police force meant to be used as a stick to bludgeon any small nation that dares to disobey the diktats of Washington. Its powerful aircraft carrier strike groups (CSG) lack the air wing capable of striking the shores of powerful adversaries, rendering these great symbols of U.S. power impotent against any capable foe in a major conflict. The U.S. Navy is powerless to change the strategic situation in the South China Sea through military means, as China has already “crossed the Rubicon”. Imperial hubris, corruption and arrogance have done greater damage to the U.S. military than any foreign adversary has over the past 17 years.

The year 2025 will witness a PLAN in ascent and a U.S. Navy in decline. This is not to say that the U.S. Navy will not still be the preeminent naval power globally, but it will continue to be mired in a lack of strategic direction, focus and budgetary crisis. The PLAN will be guided by a clear strategic focus, increasing capabilities, and a robust shipbuilding and weapons acquisition program. There is no doubt that the PLAN will emerge as the second most powerful navy in the world, and will exert significant influence in both military and geostrategic terms.

*

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

All images in this article are from South Front unless otherwise stated.

This timely article was first published by Oriental Review and Global Research in April 2016

Do Russians want another war?

If you are Russian, you would be surprised by the question. Why would anyone want war (hot or cold)?

But if you are an American, and grew up fearing ‘bad Russians’ such question does not surprise you a bit. After all, the whole Cold War was based on the main assumption – Russians/Soviets want war!

Despite being allies during the World War II, the friendship between the Soviet Union and the United States was quickly replaced with an intense rivalry. Just one year after the victory over Nazi Germany, a new face of the Soviets was painted in the West – the ‘evil Russians’, who wanted one thing – world domination.

It would be absurd if it didn’t have such dire consequences – years of fear on the both sides of the Atlantic, and wasted resources, which could have been spent on normalizing people’s lives. 

After losing more than 20 million people in the World War II, and experiencing hunger and devastation of ruined industries and infrastructure, the last thing the Soviets wanted after the WWII was another war. It took the Soviet Union decades to rebuild the country. People lived in deep poverty and everyone was longing for a normal life. Yes, U.S.S.R. was building up defense industry – because it didn’t want to be attacked again. Offense was never the purpose!

How did the former allies become the adversaries?

The fear of the Soviet Union was initiated by Kennan’s ‘Long telegram’, sent on February 22 1946 from Moscow to James Byrnes in State Department, Washington D.C. The telegram was later reprinted as an article in Foreign Affairs, called ‘The Sources of Soviet Conduct’, where he pictured Russians as too “insecure and untrusting and too obsessed with protecting their borders.” A portion of Kennan’s ‘Long Telegram’ was selectively quoted to the public to make an image of evil Russia that is looking to take over the world.

Another part of telegram, stating that the Soviet Union is actually much weaker than the US and doesn’t pose a danger to America was omitted: “Gauged against Western World as a whole, Soviets are still by far the weaker force.” Not just “weaker” – the economy of Soviet Union after the war was a fraction of American economy. But that part got ignored – the telegram was enough to send Pentagon, and propaganda machine into motion. Building weapons is a profitable business, after all.

Ex British PM Winston Churchill delivering his Fulton speech on March 5, 1946.

On March 5, 1946, shortly after Kenan’s ‘Long Telegram’, Winston Churchill made his famous ‘Iron Curtain’ speech in Fulton, Missouri. Churchill proposed coordination of the Anglo-American military to halting the spread of Russian Communism, which he warned has become a “growing challenge and peril to Christian civilization.”

The former British Prime Minister, standing on the platform beside President Truman, warned that only through a military alliance of English-speaking nations can a clash of ideologies be prevented from bursting into a third world war. Despite agreeing in 1945 at Yalta Conference to post-war settlement, Churchill characterized Russia as dropping an ‘Iron Curtain’ in the middle of Europe in order to create ‘Spheres of Influence’.

The catchy phrases of the speech became the new language of the Cold War and created an image of Russia as an enemy of the West. Churchill insisted that the Soviets want war and they plan to conquer all of Europe. Former British Prime Minister warned that Moscow understands only force and that in order to stop Soviet ‘expansion’, the West has to unite around the United States, who has the necessary force (nuclear bomb).

Shortly after the United States demonstrated convincingly its nuclear capability in August 1945, the Soviet Union developed its own nuclear weapon, and the gloomy era of the arms race and fear-mongering on both sides would begin. The “Iron Curtain” speech at Fulton would turn former allies into enemies for many years to come.

Formation of NATO and Warsaw Pact

A year after Stalin died in 1953, the Kremlin asked to join NATO. In the declassified ‘note (Click to Download)’, dated April 1 1954, the Soviet government, asked Western leaders to “examine the matter of having the Soviet Union participate in the North Atlantic Treaty“, for which it received an answer that ‘the unrealistic nature of the proposal does not warrant discussion’.

Why did Soviets asked to join NATO? Naturally, Kremlin leaders believed that the alliance, uniting US and the Soviet Union in its fight against Germany could become a true security alliance. After the refusal, Russia had no choice but to establish its own security alliance, the Warsaw Pact, which was established in 1955.

In 2001, Kremlin’s request to join NATO once again was met with refusal from the alliance. Moscow again expected too much from so-called ‘strategic partnership’, which ended up to be in name only.

 Why are we fighting the new Cold War?

The period of time since Vladimir Putin’s first presidency till now has been marked by a slow buildup of tension between the United States and Russia to the point when the Cold War II became a new reality. The media is complicit in heightening the tension by deliberately omitting or distorting the information and creating an image of ‘totalitarian regime’ in Russia.

Instead of tracing the true source of events in Ukraine and Syria, the major Western news sources blame the responsibility on Kremlin, taking it as far as claiming that Russia is fueling the instability in the Middle East and Ukraine in order to spread chaos to Europe. Such claims are unfounded and the opposite is true: the instability on Russia’s borders can harm Russia more than Europe.

There are several reasons for the return of confrontation, but the main reason is that United States had failed to understand Russia’s willingness to cooperate with the West in the early 1990s. The U.S. continued to treat Russia with mistrust. Russia was treated as a looser, and an attempt for cooperation with the West was perceived as a sign of economic weakness. Russia was treated as a beggar, who was asking to be liked, to join “gentlemen’s clubs”. And it was accepted, with much condescension from those “civilized gentlemen” to sit at some of the fine tables, as long as awkward Russian bear was on a leash.

A typical primitive propaganda cartoon depicting “aggressive Russia” for Western public.

When bear started showing some teeth, and growling once in a while, gentlemen started to worry and wonder if they haven’t made a mistake of dealing with such an unrefined creature? They didn’t care that the bear meant no harm – beast is a beast and should be dealt with accordingly! So, the taming of the beast began.

Slowly, but surely, the image of ‘aggressive Russia’ started to emerge. And thanks to misinformation about real causes of war in Georgia and Ukraine we got a total culmination, what CNN, Washington Post and the New York Times were “predicting” all along – ‘resurgent Russia’.

How can we avoid a confrontation between the two nuclear superpowers when Washington is determined to continue its information warfare, in which it determined to portray Russia in bad light, no matter what Russia does?

Just like the Cold War I, the Cold War II has its ideological underpinning, except, now it is not about communism versus capitalism, it is about multipolarity versus unipolarity. It just happened Russia was not willing to be a part of unipolar world. It just happened to be against Russian national character to be serving a “higher master”. How did it dare to disobey? Well, the nuclear weapons came handy for standing up to protect its national pride and its national interest in face of America bluntly stepping into Russia’s spheres of interest.

Is current U.S. – Russia state of relations a result of the U.S. blindly following its own grand strategy at any cost? According to Wolfowitz doctrine states are not allowed to have their own national interests, and no one can stay in the way of US global preeminence:

“Our first objective is to prevent the re-emergence of a new rival, either on the territory of the former Soviet Union or elsewhere, that poses a threat on the order of that posed formerly by the Soviet Union.”

In respect to the Middle East and Southwest Asia, Wolfowitz doctrine does not hide its objective: “our overall objective is to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.”

The Wolfowitz doctrine clearly states that “We must maintain the mechanism for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.” Russia is definitely a stumbling block to American goal of “dominating a region whose resources would, under consolidated control, be sufficient to generate global power.”

Like generations of Cold War fighters before him, Wolfowitz warned against the possible threat posed by a resurgent Russia:

“We continue to recognize that collectively the conventional forces of the states formerly comprising the Soviet Union retain the most military potential in all of Eurasia; and we do not dismiss the risks to stability in Europe from a nationalist backlash in Russia or efforts to reincorporate into Russia the newly independent republics of Ukraine, Belarus, and possibly others….’We must, however, be mindful that democratic change in Russia is not irreversible, and that despite its current travails, Russia will remain the strongest military power in Eurasia and the only power in the world with the capability of destroying the United States.”

Despite the two decades of Russia’s attempts at assuring the United States that strategic partnership between the two states is possible and desirable, American leadership never took these assurances seriously. The Cold War mentality never left the U.S. foreign policy. NATO expansion and the wave of Color revolutions in the former Soviet Union only consolidated a mistrust of the United States in Russia.

John Pilger wrote:

“How many people are aware that a world war has begun? At present, it is a war of propaganda, of lies and distraction, but this can change instantaneously with the first mistaken order, the first missile.”

“In the last 18 months, the greatest build-up of military forces since World War Two — led by the United States — is taking place along Russia’s western frontier. Not since Hitler invaded the Soviet Union have foreign troops presented such a demonstrable threat to Russia.  Ukraine — once part of the Soviet Union — has become a CIA theme park. Having orchestrated a coup in Kiev, Washington effectively controls a regime that is next door and hostile to Russia: a regime rotten with Nazis, literally. Prominent parliamentary figures in Ukraine are the political descendants of the notorious OUN and UPA fascists. They openly praise Hitler and call for the persecution and expulsion of the Russian speaking minority. In Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia — next door to Russia — the U.S. military is deploying combat troops, tanks, heavy weapons. This extreme provocation of the world’s second nuclear power is met with silence in the West. “

We are back to fear and mistrust of each other as we were back in 1946. We already been at the brink of the nuclear war once, do we want to take another chance?

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In a move that was entirely predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a “chemical weapons attack”.

Two weeks ago we sent out a note (“All Hands on Deck!“) requesting your help in keeping the Global Research site afloat. Thanks to a number of you responding to our call, we are happy to say that this week the ship sails on! Your support means a lot to us, we sincerely thank you.

We sail on, but the waters remain unstable. If you have not done so, please consider supporting us on this journey by becoming a member or making a donation. Click below for more information:

Thank you for contributing to independent media!

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

It is ironic that the Robert Mueller investigation into possible collusion between the Russian government and the Donald Trump campaign continues to turn up nothing while the evidence of Israeli interference in the U.S. political system continues to surface without any outrage being expressed by either the media or American politicians.

The most recent revelation concerns a payment of $10,000 given to former Trump campaign advisor George Papadopoulos in an Israeli hotel room in July 2017. A self-described Israeli businessman named Charles Tawil provided the money at the meeting, which was set up after Tawil flew to the Greek island Mykonos, where he met Papadopoulos and invited him to come to Israel to discuss some possible business relating to an oil and gas project in the Aegean Sea. Papadopoulos had met Tawil through an Israeli “political strategist” David Ha’ivri, who is a hard-line Israeli settler with close ties to the government of Benjamin Netanyahu. Papadopoulos agree to do so, leaving his wife Simona in Greece.

Screenshot the Daily Caller, August 20, 2018

Papadopoulos took the money as a retainer and signed a contract for additional consulting services at $10,000 per month before he returned to Greece, where he gave the money to an attorney friend to hold. He shortly thereafter flew to Dulles International Airport near Washington, where he was arrested on May 27th and charged with giving false statements to the FBI. He was convicted in October and is due to be sentenced next week.

In an email, Ha’ivri explained how

“We discussed potential consultancy work for business in the Aegean, Cyprus and Middle East focusing on business related to gas and petroleum infrastructure because of Charles’ network of contacts and George’s specialization. The retainer would go firstly to cover [George’s] needs as he said that he had financial problems.”

Ha’ivri also described how the agreement quickly fell apart due to Papadopoulos’ “immaturity.” He concluded that “After that the whole story fell apart. Charles left back to Washington and the story was over.”

In an interview, Simona Papadopoulos identified several “shady characters” who she said approached her husband during and after the 2016 presidential campaign. She mentioned “someone we met in Mykonos, an Israeli person who flew to Mykonos to discuss business.” Papadopoulos was also approached by a number of other suspicious individuals who clearly were seeking to establish some kind of relationship with him, to include a Maltese named Joseph Mifsud, who might have had a Russian energy company connection; Sergei Millian, an alleged source for the notorious Steele dossier; and an FBI informant named Stefan Halper.

Tawil, who does not come up on normal records searches, is on Linkedin with zero biographical information. He claims to be the consultant for a company called Gestomar located in Silver Spring Maryland, which does not appear to exist. Papadopoulos reportedly believed him to be an Israeli spy and revealed the details of the contact to Robert Mueller, who appears to have done nothing with the information.

The approach to George Papadopoulos was typical spy tradecraft for recruiting a source. Papadopoulos was in financial difficulties, the agreement was to serve as a consultant for an unknown company by an individual using a cover name, and it was apparently presumed that the new spy would be able to report on details coming from inside the still-forming Trump government. Papadopoulos was introduced to the Mossad officer Tawil by Ha’ivri, who is well known in political circles and therefore credible and non-threatening. This is, of course, largely speculation but one has to wonder why the possible Israeli attempt to spy on the new Trump Administration has been so ignored.

In an earlier manifestation of Israelgate, former Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn also was eventually forced to admit that he had lied to the FBI about what was said during two telephone conversations with then Russian Ambassador to the United States Sergey Kislyak.

The two phone calls in question include absolutely nothing about possible collusion with Russia to change the outcome of the U.S. election, which allegedly was the raison d’etre behind the creation of Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel office in the first place. Both took place more than a month after the election and both were initiated by the Americans involved.

The first phone call to Kislyak, on December 22nd, was made by Flynn at the direction of Jared Kushner, who in turn had been approached by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Netanyahu had learned that the Obama Administration was going to abstain on a United Nations vote condemning the Israeli settlements policy, meaning that for the first time in years a U.N. resolution critical of Israel would pass without drawing a U.S. veto. Kushner, acting for Netanyahu, asked Flynn to contact each delegate from the various countries on the Security Council to delay or kill the resolution. Flynn agreed to do so, which included a call to the Russians. Kislyak took the call but did not agree to veto Security Council Resolution 2334, which passed unanimously on December 23rd.

Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner the White House’s point man on the Middle East. He and his family have extensive ties both to Israel and to Netanyahu personally, to include Netanyahu’s staying at the Kushner family home in New York. The Kushner Family Foundation has funded some of Israel’s illegal settlements and also a number of conservative political groups in that country. Jared has served as a director of that foundation and it is reported that he failed to disclose the relationship when he filled out his background investigation sheet for a security clearance. All of which suggests that if you are looking for possible foreign government collusion with the Trumpsters, look no further.

Kushner was, in fact, trying to clandestinely reverse a decision made by the legally constituted American government and he was doing so on behalf of Netanyahu. He asked the soon-to-be National Security Advisor to get the Russians to undermine and subvert what was being done by the still-in-power U.S. government in Washington headed by President Barack Obama. In legal terms, this could be construed as a “conspiracy against the United States” that the Mueller investigation has exploited against former Trump associate Paul Manafort.

Together the Papadopoulos and Flynn tales suggest that it was Israel, not Russia, that sought to both collude with and even spy on the Trump Administration, which should surprise no one. Unfortunately, in spite of the evidence, the possibility that the “interference” will ever be subject to any Congressional investigation remains extremely unlikely.

*

This article was originally published on American Herald Tribune.

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.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Syrian Arab News Agency reported on an impending false flag CW incident in Idlib province to be wrongfully blamed on government forces.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov said a false flag attack is coming to “imped(e) a normal settlement of the…fight against terrorism in Idlib.”

On Saturday, Russian Defense Ministry spokesman Igor Konashenkov explained what’s coming, what happened several times before, most recently last April in the Douma – a fake US/UK false flag incident, wrongfully blamed on Damascus, followed by US/UK/French warplanes terror-bombing Syrian targets, naked aggression based on a Big Lie.

Konashenkov said another provocation is imminent with “active participation of (US and UK) foreign specialists…to serve as a new pretext for missile and bomb strikes by the United States, Great Britain and France against Syria’s government and economic facilities,” adding:

Ahead of the US/UK-orchestrated false flag, Pentagon warships were deployed in the Persian Gulf, carrying cruise missiles, along with a B-1B strategic bomber sent from Udei airbase in Qatar, armed with AGM-158 JASSM air-to-surface missiles.

Hostile statements by senior US, UK and French officials warned of “their intention to respond in the most resolute way to the alleged chemical weapons use by the Syrian government” – signaling they intend terror-bombing Syrian targets in response to their planned false flag, complicit with al-Nusra and White Helmets terrorists they support on the ground.

These countries intend “another dramatic escalation of the situation in the Middle East, (aimed) at disrupting the peace process on the territory of Syria,” said Konashenkov, adding:

“According to information confirmed…by several independent sources,” US-supported al-Nusra terrorists intend conducting a false flag CW attack, wrongfully blamed on government forces.

Large amounts of chlorine gas delivered to the town of Jisr ash-Shugur in Idlib province apparently is the CW of choice for the latest planned incident.

According to AMN News, Russian warships were deployed off Syria’s coast ahead of likely US, UK, French terror-bombing following an expected CW false flag incident, wrongfully blamed on Damascus.

“This latest move by the Russian Navy comes just 24 hours after they sent three ships en route to the Port of Tartous in western Syria,” AMN News reported.

Large numbers of elite and other Syrian forces were deployed to Idlib province ahead of the upcoming offensive to free the territory of US-supported terrorists.

Separately, US State Department official William Roebuck met with Kurdish YPG fighters, infesting the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces, and US troops illegally occupying northeast Syrian territory.

“We are prepared to stay here” indefinitely (supporting Israel), he said – even after ISIS is defeated.

Syria’s Foreign Ministry blasted what it called Washington’s attempt “to fragmentize the region and impose Zionist hegemony on all its countries.”

Russia’s UN envoy Vasily Nebenzia said

“(w)e have amassed evidence that (heavy) weapons are being smuggled from outside (to ISIS and other terrorists), including through semi-legal organizations or even under protection of security agencies from other countries.”

Konashenkov explained that the imminent false flag incident will be filmed for distribution to Western and regional media – to show civilians allegedly suffering from exposure to “chemical munitions.”

What’s going on is further proof of  the Trump regime’s intention to continue waging endless war on Syria for regime change – obstructing all-out Russian conflict resolution efforts.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Said Mohammad, London-based journalist interviews Andre Vltchek for Al-Akhbar about Samir Amin and his legacy.

*

Said Mohammad: Thanks for accepting to do this interview on Samir Amin. I knew you two had met on different occasions and that you gave lectures with him. Can you tell us something about the person behind the ideas and how you remember him?

Andre Vltchek: Pleasure to be able to address your readers. The first time I met Samir Amin was in Beijing, during the First World Cultural Forum in 2015. Both of us were keynote speakers. The event was huge and strongly anti-imperialist; extremely exciting and intellectually refreshing. Samir was greatly respected by the Chinese hosts; his quiet voice shot intellectual missiles against capitalism and imperialism. When he spoke, there was total silence. Samir Amin, as a person? He was brilliant, quiet but determined, always true to his convictions, intellectually brave, warm to his comrades, merciless towards his enemies.

SM: Samir’s analysis of world capitalism, of a rich North maintaining its global hegemony through monopolising technology, access to natural resources, finance, global media and the means of mass destruction. Doesn’t that mean a challenge to the anti-imperialism activists in the North who may have to lose some of their societies’ privileges if the hegemony is to be broken?

AV: You are absolutely correct here. And that is perhaps why both Samir and I are so ‘unpopular’ in many so-called Western left-wing circles. Samir was born in Egypt but spent many years of his life in France. He knew, he understood perfectly well that in the West, there is almost no desire to give up privileges and strive for an egalitarian and just world. Many ‘progressive’ Western intellectuals are denouncing global injustice and Western (North) imperialism but are unwilling to struggle or even vote for an egalitarian planet. In a way, there is no real left in the West, anymore. The real left is internationalist. The Western left is only interested and struggles for privileges for its people (shorter working hours, better medical care, higher wages, etc.), mostly at the expense of the poor and semi-colonized world or call it the ‘South’.

SM: Venezuela’s Maduro has started a counter economical attack that changes the rule of the game for the global financial system. He was one of the few leaders who mourned Samir Amin in public. Do you think Venezuela’s Bolivarian revolution was influenced by Amin’s ideas, especially his de-linking theory? Do you think that experiment will be allowed to succeed?

AV: Yes, the Venezuelan revolution – El Proceso – was definitely influenced by Samir Amin. President Maduro admitted it openly. But I have reasons to believe that other countries, including Iran, Bolivia, but even Russia, have been looking carefully at the de-linking theory as well. In today’s world, it is actually a necessity, for many, if not for all non-Western nations. In his academic paper, A.K. Anwar summarized de-linking as: “…in the simplest sense of the term, demands a nationalist system that minimizes the dominance of external constraints on Third World economies and helps the exploited nations to implement their auto-centric development policies for the betterment of indigenous economy.” Of course, this is just a simplification. In reality, Samir Amin offered a way forward, a comprehensible blueprint for economically oppressed nations to liberate themselves and to use their resources for the most important goal: improving the lives of their people.

SM: Turkey is facing a major currency issue that is threatening the world economy with a new financial crisis. Once more, the neoliberal economies are broken beyond repair. Why do you think major countries in the South are not learning from the repeated lessons and try the de-linking approach?

AV: I think they are. I am very optimistic that they are. Turkey is of course one example, Iran another. Venezuela, Bolivia… Then there is Russia. I am sure we will now see great changes in Mexico, once the new administration is sworn in. In Brazil, the most important Latin American country, the left (PT) is poised to win, with Lula or, if the fascist elites will manage to keep him in jail, without him. The Latin American left is ‘real’, and it will not make the same mistakes as before. I work all over the world. Soon I will be making a documentary film in Mexico. I’m extremely optimistic. As far as
I am concerned, this is the end of Western hegemony. Look at Syria; look at Aleppo, which I call the ‘Arab Stalingrad’! Western imperialism can be stopped and it is being stopped. And all Arab countries are watching, some with hope, some (in the Gulf) in horror. Of course, Syria will be ‘de-linking’. It is already de-linked.

SM: How did Samir Amin see the populist wave taking over the West recently and the resurgence of fascism in less than 100 years from the wars that killed millions in the West in particular?

AV: Well, the Western wars actually killed many more people in non-Western countries than in the West itself, it is just not being discussed in Paris or London or Berlin. Just in the 20^th century, look at Congo, Namibia, sub-Continent or Southeast Asia, look at the Middle East. You see, here is a small disagreement that Samir and I had, and we discussed it, openly and publicly, in Moscow, at the end of 2015, when we addressed Russian left-wing intellectuals at the Mayakovski Theatre. Samir believed that all the evil comes from global capitalism. That it is direct result, a bi-product of capitalism. I have been arguing that it is what Carl Gustav Jung called the ‘pathological culture of the West’, that the Western culture is essentially sick, and that both imperialism and extreme forms of capitalism are the direct and logical result of such a culture. 

Samir Amin and I at Mayakovski Theatre in Moscow

SM: Despite all the capitalist measures taken by China and its deep integration in the global economy, Amin kept arguing about an incredibly significant experiment in that country. How do you explain that?

AV: You are right; that is what he kept arguing about, and I absolutely agree with him. China is an extremely successful Communist country, which has been experimenting with and pragmatically implementing some capitalist practices. However, it is what several thinkers that I trust, describe as “Communist ends, capitalist means”. Whilst in the West, big business controls the government, in China, the government dictates to the companies what, and how, should be produced for the good of the nation. Amin and I spent hours discussing China. What I just wrote is a simplification. There could be (and already are) huge books written on the Chinese system. Both of us were immensely impressed by this system. Both of us also understood how it is smeared, in the West (North) by both the mainstream and often by the left (which just cannot accept that an Asian, non-Western country, is capable of building a much better society than anything that was ever created in Europe and North America… and without plundering the rest of the world).

SM: Some say the Dubai model is a challenge to Amin’s theories. There is a city that has managed to force itself into the global economy via deeper integration vs. de-linking. How did Amin see this experiment and what lessons could be learned?

AV: We never discussed Dubai. But isn’t it clear that the Gulf is an anomaly? Its economy is built on oil and on cheap foreign labour, coming from the Indian sub-continent, the Philippines, Africa. This labour has very few rights. If some parts of the Gulf have no oil, they function as ‘service’ or banking centres for those who have it. I’m not sure it is a model applicable in other parts of the world.

SM: Many leading economies in the South like Russia, Iran and even China are forced in a way by the rich centre, to move into de-linking and alternatives. Yet, countries like that remain reluctant on going fully in that direction and they seem happy to resume integrating with the global system whenever given the chance. Did Amin offer an explanation?

Image on the right: Samir Amin in Moscow

AV: I think this was happening in the past, when there seemed to be no choice. Now there is a choice, and many countries are deciding to go down the path of de-linking. Now there are the BRICS, there is trading in local currencies like the Yuan and Rouble, there is the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank, New Development Bank (NDB). Amin used to believe in possible a Paris – Berlin – Moscow alliance against Washington. I think, before he passed away, he saw that both North America and Europe form one imperialist entity. And he recognized that there is growing resistance to the Western control of the world forming around the Beijing – Moscow alliance.

SM: Amin had criticized heavily, not only political Islam (Muslim Brotherhood), but also political Hinduism and Political Buddhism. It seems though in certain situations, political religion (Hezbollah and a few Latin American examples) was at the front foot in facing up to the imperialist forces. What was Samir’s thinking on this front.

AV: Amin criticized political Islam, full stop. And yes, he also criticized other religions. I believe that his ‘iconic’ definition is that: “Islamist militants are not actually interested in the discussion of dogmas which form religion, but on the contrary, are concerned about the ritual assertion of membership in the community. Such a world view is therefore not only distressing, as it conceals an immense poverty of thought, but it also justifies Imperialism’s strategy of substituting a “conflict of cultures” for a conflict between the liberal, imperialist centers and the backward, dominated peripheries.” I believe this is quite legitimate criticism, considering that the West was mainly to blame for this state of Islam. London particularly has been supporting and spreading Wahhabism. Both Washington and London kept overthrowing one socialist Muslim government after another, from Iran to Indonesia and Afghanistan, putting on throne the most regressive, brutal and greedy rulers, who have been using Islam as a cover for their collaboration with the West. That is what Samir criticized. That is also what I criticize. In my presence, he never lashed at Hezbollah, or Iran or Al-Sadr. Historically and culturally, Islam is a socialist religion. In many countries, in almost all of them, because of the West and its Saudi allies, Islam has been derailed, kidnapped and used against the people. I see it clearly in places such as Indonesia, or in the Gulf. One important point: Samir never criticized the essence of Islam, and he was terrified by the insane and hypocritical Islamophobia in the West. His criticism of “political Islam” and his respect for Muslim culture have to be emphasized.

SM: You have been to Iran recently, and wrote how the country is nothing like what we see in the mainstream media. What is your assessment of the Iranian regime’s ability to continue despite the hostilities of the West and would they one day be self-sufficient enough to turn their eyes away from the capitalist system?

AV: Iran is already a semi-socialist country, which has been greatly influenced by Venezuela and other progressive Latin American nations. That is something that we are not supposed to know. Iran is also putting great emphasis on social services, like healthcare, culture, education, public transportation. Teheran is shockingly elegant, clean and an impressive city, full of arts and culture. The people are educated and knowledgeable, and very open. Even now, Iran is moving closer and closer to Russia, left-wing Latin American countries, and China. The visa regime for Russian citizens has been abolished, and Iranians can travel visa-free to the Russian Federation. Many are now fascinated with China; when I was in Teheran, there was a Chinese film festival. Together with Russia, China, Cuba and Venezuela, Iran has become an important bastion of anti-imperialism.That is why it is hated in the West, of course.

Samir Amin and I preparing to give speeches in Moscow, 2015

SM: There was some hope that the working class in the West (Corbyn, Varoufakis …) might be able to challenge the neoliberal elites in their countries and thus create the conditions for more balanced relations with the South. Had Amin considered that to be a possibility?

AV: We discussed it in Moscow. Both of us agreed, at least there, that people like Varoufakis and Corbyn could improve the lives of the Brits or Greeks, but not necessarily lives of the Congolese and Afghans. 

SM: Amin considered himself a “Creative Marxist”. Very few in the left are still having illusions about the rigid Soviet Marxism, but how can one be a creative Marxist these days where classes are not clearly defined and the horizontal struggles (Race, feminism, Faith,….) are at the centre stage.

AV: The West ‘kidnapped’ ‘left-wing’, as it kidnapped Islam. ‘Interest groups’ and individualism fully infiltrated what used to be an internationalist and highly disciplined movement. In the West, what is called ‘left’, is now some kind of anarcho-syndicalism (a totally Western concept which could never be supported in such places as Asia), sprinkled with sexual orientation and gender identity. It is not a revolutionary block, very far from it. It is a ‘selfie-Left’ – total toothless nonsense. Creative Marxism is now in China, Latin America, and in other non-Western countries. Communism is definitely not dead, as they want you to believe in London, Paris or New York. It evolved, it is evolving. But its essence is the same – Internationalism, the mortal fight against Western imperialism, and equality for all. Amin clearly saw hope in Beijing and Moscow, and that is why he liked being there, and so do I.

SM: Amin hailing from the Third World but highly educated in the West, yet he did not fall into the trap of losing his skin and turn into a mouth-piece for the West, as many intellectuals have done. What qualities in the man were there, that helped him be that strong?

AV: Integrity, courage and love for humanity. A love much stronger than his self-interests!

SM: Do you believe the legacy of Amin has the staying power to remain influential for years to some?

AV: Yes, definitely. He was a great thinker, a true comrade, a Communist even in those years when the Western so-called ‘left’ opportunistically betrayed Communism. People like him, or Eduardo Galeano in Latin America, are the symbols of tremendous integrity and rock-solid revolutionary determination. Amin’s legacy will be revisited, sooner rather than later. Maybe not in the West: because the West and its horrific control over the planet will be soon over. But it will be visited by grateful billions, in all the other parts of the world, including his native Egypt, where they should erect his statue in the middle of Tahrir Square.

*

This article was originally published on Al-Akhbar in Arabic.

Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Three of his latest books are Revolutionary Optimism, Western Nihilism, a revolutionary novel “Aurora” and a bestselling work of political non-fiction: “Exposing Lies Of The Empire”. View his other books here. Watch Rwanda Gambit, his groundbreaking documentary about Rwanda and DRCongo and his film/dialogue with Noam Chomsky “On Western Terrorism”. Vltchek presently resides in East Asia and the Middle East, and continues to work around the world. He can be reached through his website and his Twitter. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research

All images in this article are from Andre Vltchek.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

President Mahmoud Abbas‘s spokesperson has said that recent US aid cuts to the West Bank and Gaza are designed to end his country’s claims to the disputed city of Jerusalem.

It comes a day after the US announced that it would end $200 million in aid to Palestinians, which Ramallah believes is an attempt to pile political pressure on the Palestinian Authority to cave-in to Israel and Washington’s demands.

Abbas’s spokesperson, Nabil Abu Rdeneh, told AP that the financial pressure is politically motivated, and that the US is fully aware that there can be no peace, if east Jerusalem does not become the capital of a future Palestinian state.

The US sparked outrage in the occupied Palestinian territories, when it broke with international diplomatic norms and moved its embassy to Jerusalem, thus backing Israel’s illegal claims to the disputed city as its capital.

The US sent a brief three paragraph notice first to lawmakers and then the media about its intentions to cut $200 million in desperately needed funding to the West Bank and Gaza.

It has been suggested the aid cuts were due to Hamas’ running of Gaza and payments by Ramallah to the Palestinian family members of those killed, injured or detained by Israel.

President Donald Trump‘s administration has claimed these payments “encourage terrorism” and demanded Abbas cancel the stipends, something the Palestinian president has refused to do.

It comes as the US government prepares to roll out a peace plan, which recent actions suggest will be heavily favourable to Israel.

Some is the US administration have said Trump’s recent aid cuts will be counter-productive.

“The US is ceding space to Hamas in Gaza,” tweeted Dave Harden, until recently the USAID director in the Palestinian territories.

“No security professional recommends an aid cut off in Gaza. None.”

Hanan Ashrawi, Palestinian Legislative Council member, told the agency that recent US moves are tantamount to blackmail.

“Well, very clearly the US cutting of aid to Palestine is a form of cheap blackmail and it shows a certain degree of moral and political bankruptcy,” he said.

“It is a way in which the US is further complicit in the Israeli occupation and is further punishing the Palestinians who are under occupation, and carrying out the wishes of Israel… So it is a form of political blackmail. And it is a form of implementing the Israeli plan to punish the Palestinians and to reward the occupier, Israel.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Donald Trump administration has finally appointed a State Department undersecretary to head up Africa policy. Tibor Nagy, the new assistant secretary of state, inherits an American imperialist attitude and big business dominated mess that can only get worse for Africans. While America and the world are busy with information overload, American lawmakers are about to take over Africa before the Chinese do.

All set to push through something called the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), Nagy gave the U.S. Senate what they all wanted to hear when he plugged the use the bipartisan Better Utilization of Investments Leading to Development (BUILD) Act now before legislators. Gone are the days when gentlemanly subterfuge was an art, U.S. bureaucrats, and career politicians tell it like it is in today’s age of arrogance and exceptionalism. Nagy is already trumpeting the Trumpist rough as a cob rhetoric and prophesying developmental aid to Africa geared to provide opportunities for U.S. businesses. No kidding, the new appointee just comes out and says this.

One Senator, Democrat Chris Coons from Delaware, made no secret about the strategic intentions of BUILD when he told the foreign relations committee that the IDFC, “would shape efforts to counterbalance China’s growing economic influence on the continent.” So, there it is. Coons, who co-sponsored the bill, cut a bazaar figure in the Senate. The former Republican whom some say is more amoral than Dick Cheney, is a hardliner like Lindsey Graham and John McCain where U.S. policy in is concerned. His views on the Ukraine and Syria proxy wars are almost homicidal. This is not surprising since Coons is owned by the Israeli lobby AIPAC. But, let’s move on to Nagy and the plan for Africa.

This bill essentially empowers the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which is everyone knows a CIA controlled operation, to fund and empower a the IDFC to bankroll the US. Hegemony and new colonialism in Africa. The legislation provides for the IDFC to absorb assets from the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC), a business connective that put the U.S. government and companies like Total and initiatives such as Power Africa. The whole process is a front for assisting big money in taking advantage of such industries as oil and gas, geothermal, hydro, wind, solar and biomass, as well as infrastructure projects. The mission of Tibor Nagy will be to implement the core and ancillary effects of BUILD. To better understand these renewed efforts in Africa and Nagy’s role, all we need to do is look at who is for and against BUILD.

Searching proponents of BUILD the Center for Global Development think tank in Washington popped up like the proverbial red flag. CGD is one of the most influential NGOs that focus on Africa, and a functioning arm of the West’s central bankers. Former World Bank Chief Economist, and Bill Clinton Treasury Secretary, Lawrence Summers has been the head of the think tank since 2014. I could roast Summers over the pit of burnt financial potential in volumes, but his advocacy and role in the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act, which led to the financial catastrophe of 2007-2008 is proof enough CGD has nothing good in store for Africa. Here’s CGD’s bid of support for BUILD.

Not many readers of NEO will be surprised to find the Brookings Institute at the top of a list of backers for this new Africa imperialism. “Building a robust US development finance institution” reads, by senior fellow George Ingram, reads like hedge fund billionaire George Soros wrote it before bed one night. Ingram is also a fellow at CGD, the chair of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition (USGLC) think tank, the Eurasia Foundation, and the Executive Council on Diplomacy, to name a few. Reading the USGLC’s mission objective, described as supporting, “a smart power approach of elevating diplomacy and development alongside defense in order to build a better, safer world,” there’s little ambiguity about the purpose of Ingram’s support for BUILD. Ingram is an interesting case, but let’s move forward.

Interestingly, the Heritage Foundation’s James M. Roberts and Brett Schaefer offer a clarifying dissent on the value of this BUILD legislation. By “clarifying” I mean revealing. First of all, the think tank scholars tell us that the Trump backed reorganization of the Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) is nothing more than a supersized and more austere financial lever of big business. Of course, this is not what the fellows intend to reveal, but if we assume all government-backed Africa aid is a strategy, then BUILD seems suspect. Read how the duo at Heritage tell us BUILD is a function of strategic interest against China:

“Moreover, the BUILD Act would not require any specific focus on countering Chinese investment and influence, which is the main reason why the Trump administration and conservatives would consider supporting the legislation in the first place.”

I guess think-tank brains figure ordinary citizens never read up on their big plans? Ever more frequently we find the American people and their interests taken over by these aristocratic philosopher kings. God knows what they’re planning in secret. But let’s move on.

James Jay Carafano is the director of the Douglas and Sarah Allison Center for Foreign Policy Studies and the deputy director of the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage Foundation. His ideas on BUILD dash my hopes Heritage Foundation would suppress U.S. imperialistic ideas. It turns out that Heritage is not against BUILD, they just want the new entity to help big business more. They want to take over Africa before China does! Carafano’s recent contribution at The Hill talks about what BUILD will and won’t do, which tells us what U.S. aid to Africa is all about:

“But it ignores other priorities, such as cutting budgets, supporting U.S. business, and providing an explicit mandate to counter America’s competitors (China, in particular).”

If the average American citizen had time to study, he or she would be appalled at what the crooks in Washington are up to. The dog and pony show looks like a bipartisan discussion in the corporate-owned newspapers. But Trump and the legislators are actually on the same page for helping the elite money make more elite money off privateering disguised as aid to needy people.

The Trump National Security Strategy (NSS) has surprisingly elevated China and Russia to the top spot as America’s greatest global security threat, which sent international terrorism into second place as our greatest fear. And Russia’s cooperation with Zambia and South Africa in the nuclear field have sent quivers of fear down the halls of U.S. hegemony. From the recent revelation that it was a CIA tip-off that led to the now legendary Nelson Mandela’s original arrest, to the more muted hints policy is all about greed by U.S. companies, our policies are as bad, if not worse, than the overt actions that caused the world wars. After all, what is the difference between material invasion and subversion and theft? I say the former is more honest, for one thing. This BUILD legislation looks like the elites building a bigger investment backed by Treasury certificates.

*

Phil Butler is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books. He writes exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook” where this article was originally published.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Trump administration took the first steps on Wednesday towards opening up 1.6 million acres of public land in California to fracking and oil drilling, The Sacramento Bee reported.

In a notice of intent published on the Federal Register Wednesday, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) said it would prepare an environmental impact statement on the use of fracking on 400,000 acres of public land and 1.2 million acres of mineral estate overseen by BLM in California counties including Fresno, San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara, The Hill reported.

Concerned citizens have 30 days from Wednesday to comment on the proposal.

The move would lift a five-year moratorium on leasing federal land in California to oil companies, The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) said in a statement.

It also comes less than a week after the Trump administration proposed revoking California’s waiver to set its own vehicle emissions standards under the Clean Air Act and just days after Trump blamed the state’s environmental policies for the record-breaking wildfires it is currently battling.

“It’s a coordinated attack on California by the Trump administration,” CBD senior attorney Clare Lakewood told The Hill.

No federal lands in the state have been leased to oil companies since 2013, when a federal judge found that the BLM had leased land in Monterey County without fully considering the environmental impact of fracking.

Environmentalists are concerned that fracking can increase the risk of earthquakes and contaminate groundwater, The Sacramento Bee reported.

The later risk is increased in California, a 2015 report from the California Council on Science and Technology found, because fracking in the state happens in areas with shallow depths close to groundwater and uses an especially high amount of toxic chemicals, The CBD reported.

Residents of San Luis Obispo are even considering a ballot measure this November that would ban new fracking operations and oil wells in parts of the county that are unincorporated, though it would have no impact on what happens on federal land, The Sacramento Bee reported.

One of the key movers behind that initiative, Charles Varni of the Coalition to Protect San Luis Obispo County, told The Sacramento Bee that he was angered by the BLM’s decision.

“We don’t want to see any expansion of oil and gas extraction in San Luis Obispo County,” he said. “We want to protect our groundwater resources for higher uses.”

Earthjustice attorney Greg Loarie said that, while he was glad that the BLM was investigating the impacts of fracking, he thought such an investigation was a little beside the point.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Reading the daily headlines, it’s easy to forget that the corollary of a civilization in precipitous decline is a world of creative ferment, a new world struggling to be born. If you could have a God’s-eye view of all the creative resistance rending the fabric of political oppression from the U.S. to Indonesia to Colombia, you would surely be persuaded that all hope is not lost. This conclusion is borne out in detail by a book published earlier this year, The Class Strikes Back: Self-Organised Workers’ Struggles in the Twenty-First Century, edited by Dario Azzellini and Michael G. Kraft. The chapters, each dedicated to a different case-study, survey inspiring democratic activism in thirteen countries across five continents. The reader is left with the impression that the global working class, while facing an uphill battle in its fight against imperialism, business and state repression, and conservative union bureaucracy, may yet triumph in the end, if only because of its remarkable perseverance generation after generation. Its overwhelming numerical strength, too, bodes well.

In their introduction, the editors concisely state the book’s purpose:

“this volume aims to examine how new, anti-bureaucratic forms of syndicalist, neo-syndicalist and autonomous workers’ organisation emerge in response to changing work and production relations in the twenty-first century.”

Traditional unions, which they observe have been “part of the institutional setting to maintain capitalism” (my italics), have deteriorated on a global scale. In their place have sprung up more radical and democratic forms of resistance, such as blockades, strikes, and workplace occupations and recuperations. Workers’ actions have even made decisive contributions to the toppling of governments, as in Egypt in 2011.

In this article I’ll summarize several of the most compelling case-studies. Unfortunately I’ll have to pass over many interesting chapters, including ones on the workers’ movement in Colombia, the solidarity economy and radical unionism in Indonesia, the sit-ins and ultimately the worker cooperative at a window factory in Chicago (about which I’ve written here), and the South African miners who were attacked by police and massacred in August 2012. The book is too rich to do justice to.

Greece

The crisis in Greece that followed the economic crash of 2008 and 2009 saw a savage regime of austerity imposed on the population, which resulted in a “diffuse precariousness” across the labor force. Conventional unionism and national collective bargaining have been among the victims of this neoliberal regime. And yet the general strikes that the trade union bureaucracy was compelled to declare early on, particularly between 2010 and 2012, were the most massive and combative of the past forty years. “Long battles with the police, crowds which refused to dissolve and regrouped again and again, the besieging for hours of the house of parliament, self-organisation and solidarity in order to cope with tear gas and take care of the wounded—all have become part of the normal image of demonstrations during strikes, replacing the nerveless parades of the past.”

Source: New Eastern Outlook

Outside the framework of conventional unionism there have arisen exciting new forms of struggle. Since early 2013, the Vio.Me factory has operated under worker self-management, after its initial owners abandoned the site. Aside from the lack of hierarchy, the job rotations, and the directly democratic structure of the business, one innovative practice has been to run the factory in cooperation with the local community and, indeed, the whole society. After taking over the factory the workers consulted their community about what they should produce; they were asked to stop making poisonous building chemicals and instead to manufacture biological, eco-friendly cleaning products. A “wide network of militants and local assemblies” around the country has supported the effort from the start, which has enabled even the distribution of the firm’s products to be done in a completely new way, “through an informal network of social spaces, solidarity structures, markets without intermediaries and cooperative groceries.” 

In general, labor struggles in Greece have become more intertwined with social movements. Early in the crisis, structures of mutual aid sprang up everywhere:

Throughout the country collectives have established community kitchens and peer-to-peer solidarity initiatives for the distribution of food, reconnected electricity that was cut down to low-income households, organised “without middlemen” the distribution of agricultural produce, established self-organised pharmacies, healthcare clinics and tutoring programmes and organised networks of direct action against house foreclosures.

Later on, grassroots initiatives became more political, in an effort to create institutions that would be long-lasting and relatively independent of capital and the government. The Greek squares movement of 2011 spread to almost every city and village in the country, leaving behind a legacy of local assemblies and social centers. It also “unleashed social forces which boosted the social and solidarity economy and the movements for the defence and the promotion of the commons.”

All this flowering of alternative institutions has not occurred without significant problems and defeats. There has been little success in establishing solid organizations of the unemployed, and grassroots labor struggles have failed to form durable structures that can challenge institutionalized unionism. Certain victories, nevertheless, have been impressive. Social movements were able to prevent the government’s privatization of public water corporations in 2014. Even more remarkably, after the government closed down the influential public broadcaster ERT in 2013, ERT employees, together with citizens and activists, took over the production of television and radio programs by occupying premises and infrastructure. For almost two years the self-managed ERT transmitted thousands of hours of broadcasting on the anti-austerity struggle, serving as an important resource for the resistance. When Syriza came to power in 2015, it reestablished the public broadcaster.

Worker and consumer cooperatives exist all over the country. Cooperative coffee shops and bookshops, for example, exist in most neighborhoods of Athens and Salonica, functioning “as the cells of the horizontal movements in urban space and the carriers of alternative values and culture.” Broadly speaking, labor identities are becoming more socialized, “because more embedded in local communities and grassroots struggles.” 

The Greek experience is of particular interest in that other Western countries, including the U.S., are likely to replicate important features of it in the coming years and decades, as economic crisis intensifies. We ought to study how Greek workers and communities have adapted and resisted, to learn from their failures and successes.

Egypt

The mass movement that felled Mubarak’s regime in 2011 received sympathetic coverage from the establishment media in the West, but the key role of workers’ collective action was, predictably, effaced. Strike waves after 2006 not only destabilized the regime but also gave rise to the April 6th Movement in 2008, which would go on to catalyze the 2011 rebellions. Even after the fall of Mubarak, the flood of labor actions didn’t let up.

As everywhere around the world, neoliberalism meant decades of pent-up grievances against working conditions, privatizations, low wages, and economic insecurity. Finally in December 2006, 24,000 textile workers went on strike at Misr Spinning. Within a few weeks, “similar strikes were spreading between public and private sector textile producers, and from there to civil servants, teachers, municipal refuse workers and transport workers.” In the next couple of years, many more strikes occurred, frequently taking the form of mass occupations of workplaces.

Workers even managed to form the first independent unions in more than fifty years, beginning with the Real Estate Tax Authority Union (RETAU), established in December 2008. The conservative and bureaucratic Egyptian Trade Union Federation was unable to cope with all the sit-ins, strikes, and waves of democratic organizing, and saw its influence over the labor movement wane. RETAU’s consolidation “accelerated the development of other independent unions and proto-union networks among teachers, public transport workers, postal workers and health technicians,” raising their expectations of what could be achieved through collective action.

After the steadily rising wave of worker and popular resistance crested with the resignation of Mubarak in early February 2011, labor actions didn’t cease. In fact, Mubarak’s fall was followed by “a new tidal wave of strikes and workplace occupations, with nearly 500 separate episodes of collective action by workers recorded in the month of February 2011 alone.” Strike waves ebbed and flowed over the following two years, and did much to undermine the military and Islamist governments that succeeded each other before the crisis of the summer of 2013, when, after Mohammed Morsi fell, a successful counterrevolutionary offensive was launched by the Armed Forces, the Ministry of the Interior, the judiciary, and the media. 

After the fall of Mubarak, a ferment of self-organization resulted in the founding of many new independent unions, which often engaged in intense battles for tathir, or the “cleansing” from management positions of the ruling party’s cronies. This was especially the case in public institutions. Public hospitals in Cairo, for example, “were the scene of attempts to assert workers’ control over management to a much greater degree than had been possible before the revolution.” These experiments weren’t always successful, but in a number of cases they did at least force the resignation of old directors and were able to establish, temporarily, democratic councils to oversee work.

In the end, the workers’ movement was unable to impose its demands on the agenda of national politics. Its leaders “did not score victories at that level on the question of raising the national minimum wage, or forcing a lasting retreat from privatization, or even of securing full legal recognition for the independent unions themselves.” Still, the authors comment that the nationwide revival of self-organization was an astonishing feat. “Factory and office workers created thousands of workplace organisations, despite conditions of acute repression and the lack of material resources. There have been few examples on this scale of a revival of popular organisation in the Arab world for decades.” Memories of these uprisings will not be erased easily, and will inspire the next generation of activists.

Venezuela

Venezuela differs from the other cases in that its Bolivarian revolution has entailed a commitment to elevating the position and the power of workers. So how successful has this process been? In recent years, of course, Venezuela’s severe economic crisis has undermined the Bolivarian process, with increases in poverty and less money going to social programs. But the achievements have not all been destroyed. The account in the book goes up to early 2016, well into the crisis years.

Until 2006, the Chavez government focused on promoting cooperatives (in addition to nationalizing the oil industry and expropriating large landowners). In nationalized medium-sized companies, for example, workers became co-owners with the state. Whereas Venezuela had had only 800 registered cooperatives in 1998, by mid-2010 it had 274,000, though only about a third were determined to be “operative.” It had been hoped that these businesses would produce for the satisfaction of social needs rather than profit-maximization, but the mixed-ownership model, according to which the state and private entrepreneurs could be co-owners with workers, vitiated these hopes.

By 2006 a new model was spreading, which was more communally based. Its political context was that “communal councils” began to be recognized as a fundamental structure of local self-government: in urban areas they encompassed 150 to 400 families, while in rural areas they included a minimum of 20 families. “The councils constitute a non-representational structure of direct participation, which exists alongside the elected representative bodies of constituted power. Several communal councils can come together to form a commune. By the end of 2015, over 40,000 communal councils and more than 1,200 communes existed.” Councils and communes can receive state funding for their projects, which now began to include community-controlled companies instead of cooperatives. “In these new communal companies, the workers come from the local communities; these communities are the ones who, through the structures of self-government…decide on what kind of companies are needed, what organisational form they will have and who should work in them.” 

In 2008 a new model for these companies emerged, the Communal Social Property Company (EPSC). “While different kinds of EPSCs can be found in the communities today, their principal areas of activity correspond with the most pressing needs of the barrios and rural communities: the production of food and construction materials, and the provision of transport services. Textile and agricultural production companies, bakeries and shoemakers, are also common.” Under the initiative of workers, even some state enterprises are partly under community control, at least regarding their distribution networks.

Despite Chavez’s commitment to workers’ control, it has not been easy to shift the orientation of a state and a private sector deeply hostile to workers. Workers’ councils and struggles for worker participation can be found in almost all state enterprises and many private ones—and workers have taken over hundreds of private businesses, sometimes after the state’s expropriation of the original owners—but even in the chavista state bureaucrats were apt to undermine the Bolivarian process. Whether through corruption, mismanagement, obstruction of financing to state companies with worker-presidents, or other means, ministerial bureaucracies and even corrupt unions impede workers’ control. In many state enterprises the situation is ambiguous: workers don’t control the company or even participate in management, but “they control parts of the production process, they decide on their own to whom they will give access to the plant, [and] they are in a full-scale conflict with the management.”

Despite all the advances made under Chavez, the fact is that the economy’s social relations of production have not really changed and capitalist exploitation remains the norm. Private interests are still too powerful and have too much influence over the government, promoting mismanagement and corruption. It is still a rentier economy. But a revolutionary process has begun and is being carried forward by communities and workers across the country. The transformation of a society from authoritarian to democratic does not happen overnight. 

Bosnia-Herzegovina

Like the rest of the post-Soviet world, Bosnia-Herzegovina has suffered terribly from the privatizations, asset-stripping, marketization, and rampant corruption that have attended its transition to capitalism since the mid-1990s. Unemployment and economic insecurity are at epidemic proportions. In 2014, workers in Tuzla, Bosnia’s third largest city, organized a massive mobilization against their deteriorating conditions, the first since the 1992–95 conflict. While the movement didn’t last, its legacy may inspire further mobilizations in the future.

The 2014 demonstrations were a response to the wretched situation of workers in a laundry detergent factory, DITA, which at one time had provided 1,400 jobs. After its privatization in 2005, things started to go downhill. The company paid them minimal wages, issued meal vouchers only in bonds rather than cash, and eventually stopped paying them pension funds and health insurance. In 2011 they began a long strike, but in December 2012 the firm closed, having ignored all their demands. 

Picketing the factory and filing lawsuits didn’t secure justice for the workers, so in February 2014 they teamed up with their counterparts from four other nearby factories to stage demonstrations in front of Tuzla’s canton court. All five workforces had similar demands: investigation of the questionable privatization processes that had destroyed their livelihoods; compensation for unpaid wages, health insurance, and pensions; and the restarting of production. Their demands didn’t get a very sympathetic hearing: during one of the demonstrations, riot police secured the entrance of the canton building and fired teargas and rubber bullets. This brutality only further inflamed the workers, who kept up their resistance the following couple of days. The number of demonstrators rose to 10,000 as students and other citizens joined the protests, finally setting the government buildings on fire.

Chiara Milan’s summary of the ensuing events is worth quoting:

The action [of burning government buildings] resonated throughout the country. Within days, rallies in solidarity with Tuzla’s workers took place across Bosnia-Herzegovina. Increasing discontent among the social groups suffering under government policies led tens of thousands to join in the main cities of BiH [i.e., Bosnia-Herzegovina]. Like a domino effect, the rage spread and the revolt escalated. On 7 February the government buildings of the cities of Mostar, Sarajevo, and Zenica were set ablaze by seething protesters. While politicians tried to hide the plummeting economic conditions of the country by constantly playing the ethnic card, the workers of Tuzla triggered wider social protests, arguing that rage and hunger do not recognise ethnic differences. The protests spawned a mass movement of solidarity that overcame the ethno-national divisions inside the country, travelling across the post-Yugoslav space. Rallies in support of the workers were reported in nearby Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia and Macedonia…

Soon, directly democratic assemblies called plenums were set up across the country. “The citizens gathered in leaderless, consensus-based assemblies where everybody had the right to one vote and nobody could speak on behalf of other people.” Each plenum had working groups addressing such issues as media, education and culture, and social problems. “Demands that arose during the plenums were collected and delivered to [these] working groups, in charge of reformulating them in a coherent way. Once reformulated, the demands typically returned to the plenum for a final vote [after which they were submitted to the cantonal government]. All the plenums were coordinated through an organisational body called interplenum…” 

A new labor union was also formed in the wake of the protests, called Solidarnost, which quickly reached 4,000 members from dozens of companies. It was intended as an alternative to the conventional unions that had so signally failed to protect the interests of their rank and file. While it didn’t succeed in winning the battle for the workers, it did keep fighting for years afterwards, as by staging weekly protests in front of the canton court.

The moment of collective outrage slowly faded away, especially after the flood that hit the country in May 2014 turned into a national emergency. The workers at the DITA factory, however, still did not give up: in March 2015 they occupied the factory and restarted the production of cleaning products, publicly appealing for international support. Shops and retail chains decided to sell the “recuperated factory’s” products, and groups of activists volunteered to help the workers optimize production. 

In general, Milan comments, the uprisings left a legacy of solidarity and activist networks, which challenge “the dominant rhetoric of ethnic hatred” and may be drawn on in future struggles.

*

The path forward for the working class in an age of neoliberal crisis is tortuous and uncertain. Given the near-collapse of mainstream trade unionism and many left-wing political parties, it’s necessary for people the world over to forge their own institutions, their own networks, to fight back against the rampaging elite and construct a new, more equitable society. The stories collected in The Class Strikes Back are an encouraging sign that workers everywhere are already waging the war, that democratic institutions can germinate in even the most crisis-ridden of societies, and that the ruling class’s hold on power is in fact, ultimately, rather tenuous. The next generation of activism is sure to bring major changes to a morally corrupt civilization.

*

Chris Wright has a Ph.D. in U.S. history from the University of Illinois at Chicago, and is the author of Notes of an Underground Humanist, Worker Cooperatives and Revolution: History and Possibilities in the United States, and Finding Our Compass: Reflections on a World in Crisis. His website is www.wrightswriting.com. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

One of the most striking world historic advances of western imperialism (in the US and the European Union) is the demise, disappearance and dissolution of large scale long-term anti-imperialist and anti-interventionist movements (AIM).

One of the major reasons for the debacle is the unwillingness or incapacity of AIM to confront electoral imperial elites engaged in regional wars against nationalist dictatorial or authoritarian regimes.

In this paper we will proceed by outlining the dimensions of the problem. Secondly, we will discuss the political economic consequences of the fateful policies taken by AIM. We will conclude by considering alternatives to the current impasse.

Dimensions of the Problem: Imperialism and the Conquest of Independent Dictatorial Regimes

Over the past three decades electoral imperial regimes led by the US have intervened, invaded and conquered several independent dictatorial or authoritarian regimes. They include Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria and the Ukraine. Except for the initial invasion of Iraq, there was virtually no mass AIM opposition.

During and after the imperial conquests, the AIM ignored the millions who were killed, uprooted and deracinated and the destruction of the socio-economic fabric of their societies. The AIM did not respond to the western imposition of colonial collaborators appointed to run the vassal regimes.

In the present time, western imperialism is engaged in a political and economic war to overthrow and/or dominate several authoritarian or crises wracked countries, including Turkey, Venezuela and Nicaragua. There is no, or little, opposition from western AIM. On the contrary many western intellectuals support imperial backed power grabs in the name of democracy.

Western imperialism is expanding its reach, deepening its intervention and heightening the human and material cost of the target people. There is a deafening silence, total absence (if not complicity) from what purport to be anti-imperialist movements and intellectuals.

What are the reasons for the AIM refusal to recognize and pursue democratic values? Why the absence of national solidarity and opposition to the depredations of the western powers? Why have some AIM leaders (and followers) embraced imperialist conquests as ‘liberation’? Why have some ethnic minorities of independent states even collaborated with the imperial powers, as in the case of the Kurds in Iraq, who speak of ‘democratic colonialism’.

Imperialism Dictatorship and the Demise of the AIM

Leaders of AIM have made false equivalence, equally opposing imperialist conquerors and authoritarian independent states.

Having made no distinction or worse, amalgamating the two, the AIM refuse to mobilize, organize, educate their political supporters. They do not express any solidarity with the conquered people nor defend their society and livelihood and resources.

AIM leaders fail to understand that imperial wars and conquests impose death sentences many times more severe and enduring then local rulers; their oppression, exploitation and destruction of the conquered people far surpasses the existing dictatorships.

There is no question that the imperialists destroyed the advanced living standards and cultural – scientific life in Iraq, Libya and Syria. The Taliban did not rule via the drug economy or destroy villages and dominate everyday life as has occurred after the US invasion and conquest.

Even if the AIM did not act to prevent the imperial intervention and invasions they did even less to respond after the facts of conquest.

Why? Because of the false equivalence – the people and their resistance did not act according to the protocols of the AIM leaders: the executers and the victims were equally responsible!

Some sectors of Western left and progressive intellectuals went even further, at least during the initial imperial invasions— they supported what they fantasized about ‘democratic control’ resulting from the imperial intervention (which they dubbed an ‘uprising’)! Obviously, the imperialists knew better – co-opting and discarding their accomplices on their way to conquest and destruction. AIM leaders washed their hands of both ‘imperialists’ and ‘dictatorships’ and abandoned those collaborators who provided a veneer of ‘democratic values’ to the ongoing imperial occupation…

The reasons for AIM to mobilize and challenge imperialism are many and profound and they go beyond solidarity with oppressed peoples.

For example, US imperialism is on a rampage, undermining or striving to overthrow elected governments in Turkey, Venezuela and Nicaragua. Washington has already promoted a client regime in Brazil and seeks to rig the forthcoming elections by arresting and disqualifying the leading candidate, the center-left leader Lula Da Silva.

President Trump has decreed economic sanctions against Turkey in order to deepen the economic crises and force Ankara to surrender its independent policy toward Iran and Russia.

Turkish anti-imperialist movements support the Erdogan regime against the US, even as they retain their independence to oppose his authoritarian policies. Nothing of the sort exists among the western AIM. Similar imperial policies are pursued in Nicaragua. In contrast to Turkey the liberal left (and millionaire ex-Sandinistas) support molotov cocktail throwing street fighters who are backed by the business elite and the Pentagon.

If elected president Daniel Ortega is overthrown, the elite will replace the current independent foreign policy with a typical banana republic version of US vassalage.

Imperial success in overthrowing national dictatorships has a domino effect – not a ‘democratic wave’ as liberals promise. Instead it serves to set in motion a series of new semi-colonies as is evident in the Middle East today.

Moreover, the lack of action by AIM leaders has led to their political demise and the rise of the ultra-right.

AIM leaders backed a self-style ‘progressive’, President Obama and refused to mobilize against the seven imperial wars he launched—killing millions and driving more in exile.

The demise of the progressives and the capitulation to Obama gave rise to the Trump pluto-populists.

Imperialist wars abroad strengthened the anti-working-class struggle at home. Profits skyrocketed, wages stagnated. Democrats and liberals embraced the CIA and FBI police state apparatus.

In the past, AIM denounced extractive capitalism and the plunder of overseas and domestic natural resources. Today only sporadic activity resists fracking and gas pipes.

Latin America’s indigenous communities resist US, Japanese and Canadian mining and oil companies polluting their air, water and farmland without US AIM solidarity.

In other words, the absence of AIM in solidarity struggles fragments any notion of international solidarity and the possibility of a united front between working people and anti-imperialists.

The remnants of the AIM remain on the sidelines, engaging in symbolic protests of little consequence.

Conclusion

The rise and decline of western anti-imperialism is, in part, a result of the failure of its leaders to oppose imperialist invasions against independent nations ruled by authoritarian regimes. Behind their democratic rhetoric AIM leaders partake of the ugly reality of imperial chauvinism. They prefer not to dirty their hands in a conflict between imperialist electoral regimes and anti-imperialist nationalist dictatorship.

Image on the right: Coup in Venezuela (Source: Land Destroyer Report)

Today the vast majority of the population of Iraq, Syria and Libya know that they lived far better under previous authoritarian rulers promoting a modernizing, national state then the current conditions under the destructive and savage occupation of western imperialism.

Western leftists who backed the imperial invasion as ‘democratic openings’ are silent and indifferent, as if the millions of deaths and massive immigration is not their responsibility.

The liberal humanitarians who supported the imperialist wars on the grounds of saving oppressed people from torture and toxic chemicals offer charity and humiliating rejection at the borders of the West. There is very little rethinking or reflection on how imperial wars are much worse than independent states. AIM leaders fail to realize that only the oppressed people can free themselves and not imperial armies, CIA coups and economic sanctions.

Whatever popular misgivings with their government, the vast majority of Turkish, Iranian, Venezuelan and Syrian people clearly stand opposed to the intervention of western imperialism and all of its claptrap about ‘democratic values’.

They have witnessed two decades of western destruction and savagery – and they know life is far better living and struggles against their local dictatorships. They ignore the western claim that they are the ‘only moral people’ and reject the progressive belief in equivalence between death and survival.

*

Award winning author Prof. James Petras is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Glencore, according to statista.com is the world’s largest mining company by revenues. As a way of introduction, here is what statista.com has to say about Glencore.

“Glencore-Xstrata is a public limited company founded in 1974 by Marc Rich whose headquarters are based in Baar, Switzerland and also has registered office based in Jersey, Channel Islands. Glencore-Xstrata is also a mining company whose headquarters are based in the United Kingdom. On May 2nd, 2013, the current company was established through a merger between Glencore and Xstrata. Glencore-Xstrata is the third largest family owned business in the world and was ranked number 10 on the list of Fortune Global 500 in 2015. Glencore Xstrata is the leading mining company in the world with estimated revenue earned in 2017 of $205 billion, on a rebound from 2015 (US$ 147billion) and compared to the best year so far, 2012 (US$237billion). Net earnings have skyrocketed in 2017 to US$ 5.8 billion, more than 4 times higher than in 2016 (US$ 1.4 billion).”

Screenshot Statista.com

The four next mining corporations in world ranking include BHP Billiton, Australia; British-Australian Rio Tinto; China state-owned Shenhua Energy, and Vale, Brazil. Their mining practices may not differ a lot from those of Glencore’s. However, what distinguishes Glencore is its particularly aggressive business style. Aggressive from all points of views – tax avoidance, corruption, total neglect for employees as well as communities they work in, non-responsiveness to critique.

Though it looks like Glencore’s aggressive business model is paying off. Glencore’s tax rate negotiated in Switzerland is next to zero. The Canton of Zug, where the city of Baar, seat of Glencore’s headquarters (HQ) is located, is the number one tax haven in Switzerland – Glencore pays 0.2% taxes on its net earnings. 

According to my own experience with mining companies in general, particularly those operating in Peru, corroborated by a former mayor of Espinar, as well as people working for Glencore and living in the vicinity of Glencore’s Alta Huata (Espinar) copper mine, the mine is neglecting any social and environmental laws or even humanitarian standards. Toxic effluents from their refining practices are largely untreated and simply released into water ways, poisoning the environment, including people, eventually killing them from cancer and other debilitating neurological disorders.

Screenshot: ObservadoresGlencore.com

Former mine workers interviewed said that once they got sick, likely from the mine’s toxins – foremost heavy metals in the water they ingested, or from inhaling fumes emanating from the refining processes – they were dismissed, without compensation or medical care.

People living in mine-surrounding communities suffer from a similar predicament – contaminated water and soil. And again, no compensation or care from Glencore. Average life expectancy in South America for a mine worker is about 49 years, about a third down from normal male life expectancy. Estimates from medical specialists in mine workers’ diseases in the Cajamarca region of Peru range from about 32 to 42.

This article looks specifically at an event which I witnessed and was able to interview victims about, at Glencore’s copper mine in Espinar, near Cusco, Peru, some 4,200 m above sea-level. Gold is a side product. Where there is copper, there is often gold to be found and vice-versa. The mining and refining of both metals is highly toxic, leaving poisonous heavy metals, such as mercury, cyanite, cadmium, arsenic, chromium, lead and many more disease-causing toxins in water, soil, and air, poisoning fauna, flora and humans. 

Source: Radio Bern RaBe

On April 3, 2018, a dozen or so indigenous unarmed, women – the poorest of the poor –protested with their bare hands in defense of their only water way left, a small stream. Glencore wanted to deviate it – totally illegally – for Glencore’s use. The women were attacked by police in full riot gear, beaten with batons. It is openly known that Glencore, like other mining corporations, literally buys the national or local police services for this type of abject brutality.

The Business and Human Rights Resources Center reports that Cusco communities allege beatings and violence by the police. The Business and Human Rights Resources Center asked Glencore for a response to these allegations. This is what Glencore had to say:

“…Glencore has had a presence in Peru since 2002 and since that time, we have worked closely with our host communities to maximize the benefits of our activities and minimize or avoid potential negative impacts.

On 3 April 2018, workers from the Antapaccay [Alta Huata, Espinar] copper operation were carrying out construction activities on a canal that is situated on the mine’s property. Antapaccay acquired this land in 2009.

During the constructions work, a small number of women illegally entered Antapaccay’s property and began to throw stones at the workers. Concerned for the safety of its employees and equipment Antapaccay contacted the Public Prosecutor’s Office in Espinar. Antapaccay is legally obliged to inform the Public Prosecutor’s Office in the event of social unrest.

The Public Prosecutor´s Office requested that the local police access Antapaccay’s property to restore order and peacefully withdraw the women.

Antapaccay prioritizes respect for human rights and upholds those of our people and our local communities. It aligns its security practices with the United Nations’ Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights, which addresses engagement with both public and private security providers.”

Of course, no word of police brutality. But Glencore admits that they were building a ‘canal’ [deviation of a small stream] which is what the women protested about. Even if this canal work was on Glencore’s property, that does not give Glencore any right to reroute the water way. Water is a public good and it’s the only still available water source these villagers have. Hence the protests.

The police were helped by Glencore’s own security forces. All this was recorded on video and in photos. Arriving the following day on location with a group of locals, we interviewed several of the victims. See also my earlier article on the subject.

*

As the above essay went to press, I wrote directly to Glencore’s CEO, Ivan Glasenberg, suggesting a personal meeting to discuss the event and the general circumstances that led to it. Mr. Glasenberg replied promptly through his director for Sustainable Development (sic), who proposed to meet – which we did, in a neutral place, a hotel lobby in Bern. The Glencore delegation consisted of the Sustainable Development director and her lawyer. – I was alone which was unfortunate, as I had no witness for what transpired during a roughly two-hour non-confrontational, rather peaceful dialogue. 

I recorded the substance of it in an Aide-Memoire, asking for their approval, comments or suggestions for change. The answer a few days later was a full rejection, saying none of the contents of the AM reflected our conversation. This is of course a flagrant lie. Under the circumstances, I decided to make the gist of our two-hour conversation public, as reflected in the Aide-Mémoire.

The conversation covered three key topics

1. Beating of unarmed indigenous women in Alta Huata, Espinar, Cusco Province, Peru, by Police and Glencore’s Security Forces – on 3 April 2018;
2. Glencore’s contamination of water, soil, air, flora, fauna and humans by toxic chemicals used in the mining process; and
3. Blood and urine samples – people who are sick from intoxication with mine effluents, working for the mine and / or living in the close vicinity of the mine, sought testing their blood and urine for heavy metals. They were never given the results from the tests from medical doctors, clinics and laboratories. Why?

Addressing point by point, starting with the Beating of unarmed women – the dozen or two bare-handed indigenous women were protesting in defense of their water against Glencore workers, wanting to deviate, actually steal the little stream for Glencore’s own use. They were brutally beaten by national police in government issued riot gear – imagine! – in riot gear – with the help of Glencore’s own security forces. This happened around noon on 3 April, when the women were alone, even more defenseless, while village men were working at the mine or in their small agricultural plots. 

Source: EJAtlas

Glencore Titaya, Observadores Glencore

According to several accounts from the local population as well as from people in the town of Espinar, Glencore intended to reroute the small stream providing the only water source for the six or so villages higher up on the mountain. This is further corroborated by the large pile of big-sized pipes, deposited on the land next to the small stream. A nearby gigantic earth moving machine and fresh tracks traversing the small water way were also clear signs that water deviation works were planned.

In the early morning hours of 4 April, we went to Glencore’s copper mine at Alta Huata, about 4,200m above sea level, to meet with the mistreated women and to interview them. Still affected by indignation and pain, some of them under tears, showed us their badly bruised body parts. Evidence of the police assault and aggression by Glencore’s security forces is available as independent testimony in the form of short videos and photographs.

Report in La Republica (April 5), see below:

An elderly woman (65) was beaten so severely, she was resting and moaning in a rickety stone shack which apparently was destroyed by Glencore’s bulldozers the week before and hastily rebuilt by the local population. The woman had pain all over her body, could not move, and got no medical attention, no pain medication – nothing – she was a ‘high risk’ case. Later, we learned, she was miraculously recovering with the care of the villagers.

The villagers told us they wanted to file a complaint with the local police which did not receive them. It is clear, if Glencore hired the police to do their dirty work, they, the police, will not receive the villagers’ complaint. It’s a revolving-door corruption at every level that is being practiced. I wonder whether Glencore’s boss, Mr. Glasenberg, is aware of it. If not, then at least this article which will be sent to him should remind him that he is complicit in serious crimes of his company by letting them happen.

During our meeting, the Glencore ‘sustainable development’ people said the workers were only doing repair work when the women appeared interfering with their job. Another flagrant lie, as attested by Glencore’s own response – see above. But how could they know? They are repeating what they are told by their people on the ground – and were unaware of Glencore’s response to the Business and Human Rights Resource Center?

Whenever they go to visit the area, we understand, they never set foot in the affected villages, to talk to the people or to the mayor, but only talk the inside-talk to Glencore insiders, another revolving door approach to resolving problems by being blind to them and keeping perpetuating the lies. The sustainable development people of Glencore’s also denied that Glencore had anything to do with the beating, that Glencore could not control the police. They dismissed the assertion, against all evidence on video, that Glencore’s security forces were also involved and, of course, that they actually called and hired the police in the first place.

Source: teleSUR

Later we talked to villagers who lived in the mine-surrounding areas. With anguish, sadness and even resignation, they told us that Contamination of water, soil, air, flora, fauna – and humans was evident. It appeared in the water ways and was reported in soil samples. Plants adjacent to water courses, rivers and effluents from the mine, were all contaminated by heavy metals, poisoning animals, as well as humans. Farm animals became sick and often died. This is amply recorded (available in Spanish only) by Ideario Sur.

Many inhabitants of the mine-surrounding communities, so we were told, including by the former mayor, were sick with cancer and other terminal diseases which were caused by contact with or ingestion of contaminated water or food. To purify water efficiently from heavy metals – cyanide, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium and more – a complex and expensive process is required. It’s called reverse osmosis. In most cases, mining companies do not use this process. In the case of Glencore and Espinar, reverse osmosis is not in use, leaving the effluent waters highly and dangerously polluted.

We talked to several people, some working for the mine, others just living in the immediate vicinity of the mine – say, in a radius of 1 to 5 km. All said, they felt sick; their bodies hurt, they had respiratory problems and many suspected having different types of cancers, mainly lung cancer. The disease rate increased the closer they lived to the mine.

One of the peasants said that young people in his neighborhood were dying “like flies” from cancer. He added that the average life expectancy of people living near the mine was drastically reduced. He also said, that most people by now are just resigned to their fate and were tired of protesting and being frustrated, because Glencore would not respond and do nothing for them. They felt helpless.

To top it off, Glencore’s Sustainable Development people said that Glencore received certification from the municipality that the effluents from their mine were clean and not contaminated by the mine, and that it was common knowledge that the water was not potable, ridiculously ascertaining that contamination occurred naturally in these mountainous streams. This abject manipulation of the truth would be laughable, if it weren’t so serious. But the people have no recourses to hire lawyers, and even if they would have the money to do so, no lawyer, no judge, no court would take on a case against Glencore. They are afraid to confront the mobsters from where the money flows – corruption at infinitum! Glencore’s sustainable development representatives rejected all responsibilities for the contamination and said they had no knowledge about the disease rates reported by the local population. They were never informed.

Well, if they didn’t know, they must know now. And Mr. Glasenberg would do well sending an HONEST delegation to Espinar to verify with neutral experts on location the veracity of this account and of the account of the victims. Question is, of course, will there be uncorrupt neutral experts daring to tell Glencore the truth? – And even if that were the case, what would Glasenberg do about it? Glasenberg is the key person. It’s a family business, one of the world’s largest – so if he wants to change the way Glencore does business, he can do it.

Who manages Glencore’s mines on the ground? – Mainly locals, we were told. In Espinar, Peru, it’s a Peruvian. This has two purposes. First, a Peruvian is familiar with the local ‘habits’ of how the ‘turntable’ turns, how to buy favors and how to threaten potential adversaries; and second, if something goes wrong – like in the present case of brutally beating of inoffensive women, deadly contamination and people dying from cancers caused by intoxication from mine effluents – they, at Swiss HQs can say, we didn’t know; nobody told us. The we didn’t now effect, seems to be effective, so effective, in fact, that the entire conversation of two hours was annihilated by the sustainable Glencore people. Even though the conversation took place as recorded, the sustainable people deny its contents.

We also talked with people, who lived in the vicinity of the mine, who are feeling ill for years and worsening, mostly the lungs, but also their respiratory and nervous system, yet mine management not only ignores them, but also prevents them, directly or indirectly, from getting their Blood and urine samples tested, paid for by the victims themselves. We were told that many of the people living in the communities near the mine, including the people who spoke with us, consulted doctors, clinics, hospitals, laboratories on their own, to get their blood and urine tested for heavy metals. They never received the test results back from these medical establishments. 

The truth is beyond suspicion – these medical facilities, are either bought by Glencore, or they fear Glencore to a point that they prefer not to hand out negative health results, of which they know from where they emanate. – The people also said that they get absolutely no medical support from Glencore. They pay their medical expenses from their own pockets – and yet, they are refused to see the test results.

Diseases stemming from heavy metals have often long gestation periods, i.e. cyanide and mercury do not necessarily lead to immediate symptoms, rather the impact may be slow, because heavy metals accumulate in the body and are not evacuated as other toxins may be. They affect over time the nervous system, respiratory tracks, the heart and often cause cancer – and lead to early death. It is well known, that mine workers in general in developing countries have a drastically reduced life expectancy, i.e. in some parts of Peru and Bolivia an average of around 35 years. 

The director of the Sustainable Development Department appeared to be shocked. She was unaware, she said and in an outburst of good will, she offered that any of the people who were sick and concerned may call her directly. Of course, none of this was even acknowledged once they received the Aide-Mémoire.

The moral of this story is multifold. There is Glencore, the largest mining corporation in the world, largely a family business, with Ivan Glasenberg, main shareholder, at the helm. He could personally intervene, stop the abuse and high crime, bringing about ‘as clean mining’ as there is, respecting environmental and social ethical rules, regardless of whether the country, where they operate, in this case Peru, is corrupt and can be bought. Glasenberg, the CEO, could become a shining example for ethics in mining which would bode well for the company as well as for the host country, Peru, and not least for their country of residence, Switzerland. The cost of implementing ethical environmental and social standards would hardly make a dent in Glencore’s net earnings, but the gains in positive reputation and improved image are priceless.

On the other hand, you have Switzerland that offers this UK-Swiss mining corporation their tax haven as residency. Yet, the Swiss Government does absolutely zilch, nothing, nada to impose and enforce certain standards of ethics to Glencore and other corporate sinners enjoying the Swiss tax paradise. Talking with people from a so-called Ethics Department (sic) in the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the hush answer was, if we are too strict with them, they will leave Switzerland – and as an after-thought, besides, they [these corporations] have their own standards of due diligence and we trust that they adhere to them. If they don’t, then it’s up to their host country, i.e. in this case Peru, to enforce their laws.

Here you have it. The Swiss Government, the paradise for banking and finance and corporate ‘well-being’, the epicenter of neoliberal economics, where privatization reigns, is knowingly and intimately complicit in the crimes committed by these corporations. No wonder, the lawmakers, the Swiss parliamentarians, are entitled to sit in as many corporate boards of directors they please – against all rules of ethics and ‘conflict-of-interest’ guidelines of OECD, of which Switzerland is a member. This built-in lobby of parliamentarians is making the laws in their favor, operating on a ‘legal basis’, not unlike a white-collar mafia.

*

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The United States has a long history of dominating international economic institutions and has been able to use that power in the past to control other governments and enrich its industries. At present, the United States is waging an economic World War targeting much of the world economy, including allies who refuse to comply with US mandates.

Among the nations included in the US economic war are China, Russia, Iran, Turkey, Venezuela, Nicaragua and North Korea. The European Union is being threatened with economic sanctions if it does not obey US demands to blockade the Iranian economy.

The US’ power and influence are waning. Measured by the real economy, i.e. people’s ability to purchase goods, the CIA’s World Factbook ranks China as the largest economy in the world, $4 trillion larger than the United States, which ranks third after the EU. Also in the top 20 are Russia, Turkey, and Iran.

US tools of economic domination are failing and are causing the country to be isolated as the rest of the world moves in a multi-polar direction. Countries are cutting the US out of their markets and building independence from US-dollar domination.

This is a time for the US to change its strategy, but the power elites and Pentagon do not seem to know any other way. Military spending continues to rise, now consuming 61% of federal discretionary spending. The social safety net is unraveling, leaving people in the US vulnerable to the impacts of a world economy that increasingly leaves the US out. It is up to us, the people, to organize and mobilize for a modern foreign policy and economy that takes the new global dynamics into account.

Fundamental Flaws In The US Economy Worsen

The global economic war the US has begun is already undermining the US economy. Rather than address decades of failed policies, the US is looking for a quick fix by taxing foreign goods and isn’t investing in building a sound economy. The US economy is not on firm ground.

Much of the real economy of the United States, producing goods, has gone overseas. Combined with new technology, this has resulted in the US losing 5 million jobs since 2000, after peaking in 1979.  Manipulated unemployment figures hide the reality but cannot be trusted as they do not count the long-term unemployed, discouraged and displaced workers or underemployed workers. They count people with part-time jobs as being fully employed. In addition, wages remain low as Pew reported this week, real wages have not increased since 1974.

US farms were forecast to reach a 12-year-low in profits in 2018, according to the Department of Agriculture. Now, the US agriculture sector is being further threatened by the Trump tariff trade war. For example, one third of US total soybean production, $14 billion-worth in 2017, was exported to China, but is now at risk due to retaliatory Chinese tariffs.

The millionaires and billionaires who run the government like to point to the raging stock market as a sign that the US economy is strong, but how real is that? This stock market is inflated because corporations are engaging in destructive stock buybacks, which hit a record $1 trillion this year. This increases the stock value even though no new goods are created. Stock-value inflation is causing a surge in CEO incomes without a similar increase for workers, widening the gaping wealth divide.

Source: Strategic Culture Foundation

Countries Respond by Creating New Alliances, Building Independence

US sanctions are causing countries to cut the United States out of their markets, conduct trade without US dollars, create alliances between sanctioned countries and build their independence from US dollar hegemony.

Venezuela is feeling the impacts of the US economic war especially because it has been combined with low oil prices and a poorly managed oil industry. Venezuela has overcome ongoing US-supported regime change operations: violent protests, massive propaganda against it, efforts to undermine its democracy, an assassination attempt against President Maduro by Colombia and the US, and threats of a military coup. The linchpin of the US strategy in Venezuela is the economic blockade by the US and western nations. Two weeks ago, on behalf of a Canadian mining corporation, a US court approved the seizure of Citgo’s assets in the United States. The economic war is causing hardship for Venezuelans and preventing access to food and medicine.

This week, Venezuela created the Sovereign Bolivar (Bs.S.), a new currency anchored to the cryptocurrency, Petro, and backed by Venezuela’s oil reserves. It is not tied to the US dollar in order to break the grip of US economic power and operate independently of US imperialism.

There is new a campaign against the Venezuela sanctions (Popular Resistance is participating in this campaign). The real threat to the United States will be if Venezuela shows other nations they can break from US economic domination.

Turkey is also taking actions to break from US dollar domination. Turkey’s economy is feeling the impact of a 20% US tariff on aluminum and 50% tariff on steel. The US is using economic distress against Turkey because the country is not freeing a US pastor, Andrew Brunson, who is accused of terror and espionage against Turkey. Peter Koenig writes,

“It is widely believed that Mr. Brunson’s alleged 23 years of ‘missionary work’ is but a smokescreen for spying.”

President Erdogan is looking for new trading partners, e.g., Russia, China, Iran, Ukraine and the EU, and “his country is planning issuing Yuan-denominated bonds to diversify Turkey’s economy, foremost the country’s reserves and gradually moving away from the dollar hegemony.” Last October, the Turkish and Iranian central banks formally agreed to trade in local currencies

Reuters reports, “Russia backs using national currencies, not the U.S. dollar, in its trade with Turkey.” Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said,

 “Identical processes have been happening in our relations with Iran. Not only with Turkey and Iran, we’re also arranging and already implementing payments in national currencies with the People’s Republic of China. I am confident that the grave abuse of the role of the U.S. dollar as a global reserve currency will result over time in the weakening and demise of its role.”

They also report there have already been settlements in national currencies between Russia and the BRICS countries, Brazil, India, China and South Africa.

The unilateral US withdrawal from the nuclear agreement with Iran and putting in place economic sanctions, without any legal justification, is further spurring independence from the United States. Koenig writes that Iran has embarked on developing a

“‘Resistance Economy,’” meaning de-dollarization of their economy and moving towards food and industrial self-sufficiency, as well as increased trading with eastern countries, China, Russia, the SCO [Shanghai Cooperation Organization] and other friendly and culturally aligned nations, like Pakistan.”

Iran was a topic of a friendly meeting between Vladimir Putin and Angela Merkel last week. Preserving the Iran nuclear deal is one area where Russia and Germany agree. They also agreed to continue the expansion of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which the US opposes. Forbes reports that the European Union said it is urging its businesses to continue investing in Iran. As the US threatens to sanction European companies, the EU promises to protect them. The EU is planning to provide economic aid, intended to fuel private sector growth and trade promotion in Iran. Russia is creating a regional payment network designed to blunt the impact of US sanctions. The US economic war on Iran is intended to prevent the integration of Eurasia, but it is actually spurring that integration.

The biggest economy in the world, China, is also fighting back against the US economic war with tariffs on the United States. China dominates Asian markets and is growing its economic influence in Europe, Africa, and Latin America. China is building relationships with countries hit by US sanctions. At the late July BRICS summit, President Xi called out unilateral actions by the United States and called for a new type of foreign policy urging a “BRICS plus”, i.e. the five BRICS members and other emerging markets/developing nations.

Image is by David Swanson

How will the US End the Spiral Of Military Bloat, Economic and Political Decline?

The recent passage of the John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, which provides an unprecedented $716 billion in Pentagon spending, shows the US is doubling down on its failed strategy of relying on militarism to avert the loss of power. The Pentagon’s 2017 Post-Primacy report recognized the decline of US military and economic hegemony and urged more spending on the military.

This year, the US announced a new national security strategy, which focuses on China and Russia, in recognition of the decline of unitary US power. The constant increases in military expenditures come amid “what late world-systems theorist Giovanni Arrighi called the ‘terminal crisis of U.S. hegemony.’”

We remember being concerned about US military spending when it represented 50% of the federal discretionary budget, now it is 61%. At what point will the US public say “Enough!”? Will it be when the Pentagon budget reaches 70%? 75%?

We need a strategy now to avert further harm being inflicted by a failing US empire and empire economy on people in the US and around the world. One opportunity to develop that is occurring this November. More than 250 organizations worked together this year to stop the military parade. Now that the parade has been stopped, organizers are planning next steps.

On November 10, the day the parade was scheduled, there will be a Peace Congress – a gathering of people from the many organizations in Washington, DC to map out a strategy and actions to end the wars at home and abroad. The Peace Congress is in its early stages of planning. If your organization is interested in participating, sign up at the NoTrumpMilitaryParade.us website.

We also have opportunities for mass mobilizations this fall, an #AntiwarAutumn, at the October 20-21 Women’s March on the Pentagon and the November 11 March to Reclaim Armistice Day.

And, if you are looking for tools to be more effective in your activism, check out the final class, “Tools for Movements,” in the Popular Resistance School course, “How Social Transformation Occurs.”

*

Kevin Zeese and Margaret Flowers co-direct Popular Resistance where this article was originally published.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The Trump regime and most all congressional members one-sidedly support Israel’s killing machine.

They’re uncaring about fundamental Palestinian rights, dismissive about their well-being and safety, partnering with Israel’s high crimes of war and against humanity – Occupied Palestine a virtual battleground, blockaded Gaza most of all.

Trump regime hardliners slashed essential to life humanitarian aid to long-suffering Palestinians in deference to Netanyahu regime harshness.

Earlier this year, they cut over $300 million in UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) aid,  providing vital services for millions of Palestinian refugees.

Under the so-called Taylor Force Act, US funds to Palestinians were cut by the amount the PLO pays to families of Palestinian political prisoners, individuals falsely called “terrorists” by the Netanyahu regime.

Most US funding to the PA goes for serving as Israel’s enforcer. Cutting any of it means Palestinians receiving aid will get less or nothing.

At the same time, Washington under Republicans and undemocratic Dems provides Israel’s killing machine with billions of dollars in largely military aid annually – used for occupation harshness, terror-bombing Syria, and other aggression.

On Friday, the Trump regime cut another $200 million in humanitarian aid to Palestinians – funds to be used for so-called “high priority projects elsewhere,” according to the State Department, saying:

Per Trump’s order, “we have undertaken a review of US assistance to the Palestinian Authority and in the West Bank and Gaza to ensure these funds are spent in accordance with US national interests and provide value to the US taxpayers,” adding:

“As a result of that review, at the direction of the president, we will redirect more than $200 million… originally planned for programs in the West Bank and Gaza.”

“This decision takes into account the challenges the international community faces in providing assistance in Gaza, where Hamas control endangers the lives of Gaza’s citizens and degrades an already dire humanitarian and economic situation.”

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes are complicit in waging slow-motion genocide against defenseless Palestinians, falsely blaming US/Israeli high crimes on Hamas.

The PA called the latest Trump regime harshness “cheap blackmail as a political tool.”

PLO Executive Committee member Hanan Ashwari said

“(t)he rights of the Palestinian people are not for sale.”

“There is no glory in constantly bullying and punishing a people under occupation. The US administration has already demonstrated meanness of spirit in its collusion with the Israeli occupation and its theft of land and resources.”

“Now it is exercising economic meanness by punishing the Palestinian victims of this occupation.”

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes are trying to pressure, intimidate, and bully Palestinians into formally abandoning their fundamental rights by agreeing to a no-peace/peace deal no responsible leadership would touch – as well as going along with the Trump regime’s illegal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital.

Essential services in blockaded Gaza are close to shutting down entirely for lack of enough humanitarian aid to keep them operating – including for medical and sanitation facilities, along with virtually everything else needed for health and well-being.

According to UN deputy special coordinator for the no-peace/peace process, and humanitarian coordinator for Occupied Palestine Jamie McGoldrick:

“We have now run out of funds and are delivering the final supplies in the next few days.”

“Without funds to enable ongoing deliveries, service providers will be forced to suspend, or heavily reduce, operations from early September, with potentially grave consequences.”

Food supplies are inadequate, little potable water available, healthcare gravely comprised. Shortages of everything make delivering it gravely compromised.

Without fuel for pumping stations, most Gazans are at risk from raw sewage toxins contaminating their surroundings.

UNWRA schools will have to close at end of September for lack of funding. PLO official Husam Zomlot blasted Trump regime harshness, calling it further “confirmation (of) fully embracing Netanyahu’s anti-peace agenda,” adding:

“Weaponizing humanitarian and developmental aid as political blackmail does not work.”

The PA suspended formal contact with the Trump regime months ago over its illegal recognition of Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital and its de facto opposition to Palestinian self-determination.

Trump lied saying they’ll be something “very good” for Palestinians by going along with his (no-peace) peace plan – calling for unconditional surrender to Israeli demands, including the abandonment of East Jerusalem as its exclusive capital.

His toughness is all about serving Israeli interests at the expense of Palestinian rights he doesn’t give a damn about.

The tougher he gets, the less he’s able to sway Palestinians to go along with his demands.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Syria is on the verge of a final and total victory over the ISIS terrorist group, Syrian ambassador to Russia Riyad Haddad said Saturday.

“We are on the verge of the final victory over the terrorism represented by Daesh [ISIS],” Haddad said during a meeting with the president of the South Ossetian republic in Tskhinvali.

The conflict between government forces, and jihadist terrorist groups has been ongoing in Syria since 2011. Since 2015, Russian forces have supported the Syrian army in its fight against terrorism. At the end of 2017, the defeat of ISIS in the Arab country was declared.

Government forces that have recently regained control over most previously terrorist-controlled territories are still conducting terrorist offensives in some parts of the country where ISIS still exists.

However, the ISIS terrorist group has been transformed into a clandestine network and currently has more than 20,000 members in Iraq and Syria, according to UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres in his report on the ISIS threat.

The text states that “despite continued efforts by countries undertaking measures to combat terrorism and prevent violent extremism that leads to terrorism, many problems remain to be resolved.”

“These problems are due to the continuous transformation of Daesh from a territory to the clandestine network,” the document says.

He notes that the core of this network is “weak” but still alive “in Iraq and the Syrian Arab Republic, with regional subsidiaries in the Middle East, Africa and Asia.”

Another troubling problem, he adds, is “the return and movement of foreign terrorists and members of their families.”

According to UN estimates, ISIS has a total of more than 20,000 members in Iraq and Syria, including foreign jihadists.

The report notes that the flow of foreign terrorists to ISIS in Iraq and Syria “has generally ended,” but what remains a serious problem is their return to their countries of origin, a process that takes “slower than the expected.”

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: Vuk Stefanović Karadžić

The article addresses a linguistically based project on Serbian ethnonational identity and a language-based political model for the creation of the Serbian united ethnonational state in the Balkans drafted by the most famous Serbian philologist Vuk Stefanović Karadžić in 1836 and further developed by Serbia’s statesman Ilija Garašanin in 1844. The most significant problem with respect to V. S. Karadžić’s “Срби сви и свуда“ (“Serbs All and Everywhere”) and I. Garašanin’s Начертаније (Outline) – two programmatic works in which the project of resolving the “Serbian Question” was developed in 1836/1844, is their interpretation and understanding of the historiographical traditions of different nations, especially those of Serbian and Croatian historians, philologists and political scientists. It provoked discussion and intellectual friction within the political ideology of the Balkan nations until the destruction of Yugoslavia (1991–1995) and after it.

The cardinal aim of this article is to investigate a linguistic aspect of the ideological framework in making both Serbian national identity and national state- building program created in the first half of the 19^th century by two different Serbian writers and public figures – V. S. Karadžić and I. Garašanin. In subsequent decades this “linguistic” framework of national identity became one of the cornerstones of the Serbian national ideology and foreign policy of Serbia. The question of national identity and the creation of a united national state occupied the first place on the agenda in the mind of the leading Serbian intellectuals and politicians in the first half of the 19^th century. Imbued by ideas of German Romanticism and the French Revolution, Serbian patriotic public actors set up a goal to create an ideological-political framework for Serbian national liberation from foreign occupation – the Roman Catholic Austrian Empire and the Islamic Ottoman Empire (Sultanate). Therefore, the present work investigates the linguistic model of national identification of the South Slavs designed by V. S. Karadžić in 1836 and the program for the restructuring of the political map of the Balkan Peninsula drafted by I. Garašanin in 1844.

There are three goals of this article:

1. To investigate how language influenced Serbian national ideologies in the first half of the 19th-century.
2. To discuss how V. S. Karadžić, the most influential Serbian 19th-century philologist, and I. Garašanin, the most important Serbian 19th century politician, answered the fundamental question of Serbian nationalism from the perspective of 19th century Romanticism, i.e., who are the Serbs and what are the borders of a united Serbian national state?
3. To define the structure of Serbian linguistic patriotic nationalism in the first half of the 19th century.

The works of both authors belong primarily to the history of South Slavic philology and nationalism, which unfortunately has not been given satisfactory attention by Yugoslav researchers in the last century, mainly because the topic of South Slavic nationalism (including the linguistic one) has been considered as ideologically “destructive” for Yugoslavia’s multiethnic union. Therefore, the studies of nationalism, national determination, and creation of national states, were either partially neglected or given subjective interpretations influenced by prevailing political views.[1] However, the 19^thand 20^th-century historical development of the South Slavs cannot be properly reconstructed without attempts to investigate objectively the development of South Slavic nationalism, especially the linguistic one. This article is a contribution to these attempts.

Historical Background

This section examines the historical conditions in which the Serbs as a nation lived at the time of V. S. Karadžić and I. Garašanin. In the early and middle part of the 19^thcentury, the historical and ethnical Serbian territories were divided between two states, the Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Empire. A greater number of ethnolinguistic Serbs inhabited the Ottoman Empire than the Austrian Empire.

The Serbs in the Ottoman Empire

The Ottoman Empire was the Muslim state governed by ethnic Turks from 1299 to 1923 under the Turkish ruling dynasty of the Ottomans (the Osmans). It was established by the founder of the dynasty Osman I in North-West Anatolia (Asia Minor) but soon expanded by his successors into the whole of Asia Minor and the largest portion of South-East Europe. At its height in around 1600, the Ottoman Empire included North Africa, the Middle East, Asia Minor, almost all of South-East Europe, the southern part of Central Europe, the East Mediterranean islands and Crimea. After the Great Vienna War of 1683−1699 the Ottoman Empire began to decline rapidly and in the 19^th century it became known in Europe as the “sick man at the Bosporus”. It eventually collapsed in 1923 after the Greco-Ottoman War of 1919−1923. The “Eastern Question” or the destiny of the European Ottoman possessions entered its final stage with the Serbian Revolution of 1804−1815 and the Greek Wars of Independence in 1821−1829.[2] Nevertheless, the Serbian rebels in 1804−1815 were the first to insist that the “Eastern Question” had to be resolved according to the principle of ethnic rights (or the nationality principle).[3]

The Ottoman possessions on the Balkan Peninsula consisted of several pashaliks, the largest administrative-territorial units in the Ottoman Empire;[4] the most important for future Serbian history was the Belgrade pashalik which was administratively subdivided into twelve nahijas, or districts.[5] The central and principal part of the Belgrade pashalik was the region of Šumadija (“Woodland”), where two insurrections against the Ottoman administration took place from 1804 to 1815; in subsequent years this pashalik became the core of an independent Serbia and later of Yugoslavia.

At the beginning of the 19^th century, the Belgrade pashalik was surrounded by the pashaliks of Niš, Leskovac, Novi Pazar, Sjenica and Zvornik, in which the ethnolinguistic Serbs of all denominations comprised an absolute majority. The Serbs also lived in the pashaliks of Herzegovina, Bosnia, and Scodra which did not border directly on the Belgrade pashalik. The Orthodox Christians of the de facto independent (from 1688) Montenegro (Crna Gora) declared themselves to be a part of the Serbian nation as well.[6] Montenegro was only nominally incorporated into the Ottoman administrative system with the governor or pasha, appointed by an Imperial Council, or Divan in Istanbul (Constantinople).[7]

It is important to note that the Serbian population was exclusively Orthodox Slavic in the Belgrade pashalik only, while in all other pashaliks Orthodox Serbs lived together with the South Slavic Muslims, Roman Catholics and Bulgarians, as well as with both Roman Catholic and Muslim ethnic Albanians (the Arbanashes)[8] and the Albanized Serbs in Kosovo-Metochia (the Arnauts).[9]

For the very reason of such ethnographic distribution of the ethnolinguistic Serbs and their mixing with the other ethnolinguistic groups in the Balkans, some historians have considered so-called Serbia proper to consist only of the territory of the Belgrade pashalik.[10] It is estimated that liberated Serbia during the First Insurrection (1804–1813) against the Ottoman authorities had about 500,000 inhabitants.[11] Yugoslav scholars have suggested that in the mid-19^th century there were, in the aggregate, approximately 2,000,000 Serbs under the Ottoman administration.[12]

Like the other subordinated Christians within the Muslim Ottoman Empire, the Serbs, according to the Serbian Orthodox Church, the South Slavic Orthodox Christian population who spoke the Štokavian speech/language[13] lived mainly in the villages and the countryside and were occupied with farming and cattle breeding. The Roman Catholic Croats from Bosnia-Herzegovina held the same social status as the Christian Orthodox Serbs.[14] Both the Serbs and the Croats within the Ottoman Empire belonged to the subordinated social strata of extra tax-payers – the raya (serfs).

During the Ottoman occupation, Bosnia-Herzegovina became a symbol of ethnic and religious mixing and co-existence of peoples in South-East Europe (1463−1878). At the beginning of the 19^th century, the South Slavic Muslims slightly outnumbered the Christian population in Bosnia-Herzegovina, while the Serbs substantially outnumbered the Croats in the same province.[15] According to French statistical records of 1809, around 700,000 Christians lived in Bosnia-Herzegovina: the Orthodox people were in a majority in West Bosnia and East Herzegovina, while the Roman Catholics were predominate in West Herzegovina.[16] Yugoslav historians estimated that the total population of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1865 numbered 1,278,850; the Orthodox 593,548, the Catholics 257,920, and the Muslims 419,628.[17]

The privileged administrative, legal and social status of the Muslims in contrast to the Christians became, apart from their religious diversity, the main source of conflicts and animosities among these three national (religious) groups on the territory of the South Slavic lands within the Ottoman Empire. According to Ottoman law and practice, only the Muslims as “Mohamed’s people” could obtain state office and privilege to move freely within the whole territory of the Ottoman Empire. In addition, the Muslims, in contrast to Christians, were not required to pay extra state taxes, like the harach and up to the mid-17^th century the most terrible tax – devshirme or “taxation in blood”.[18]

It is evident that faith was the crucial point of political ideology and national determination under the Ottoman Empire.[19] It was specifically religion that linked the Balkan Muslims of South Slavic origin to the Ottoman government, political ideology, and state interests. It was because of their new religion that the South Slavic Muslims were given the disparaging name as the Turks by their Christian compatriots. Undoubtedly, the Islamization of a certain part of the South Slavic population was one of the most remarkable achievements of the Ottoman administration.[20] For instance, the national affiliation in Bosnia-Herzegovina according to the Yugoslav census of 1991 was in percentages: 43,7 Muslims, 31,3 Serbs, 17,3 Croats, 7,0 “Yugoslavs” and others.[21]

The Serbs in the Austrian Empire

The multiethnic and multicultural Austrian Empire (1804−1867) was composed of the territories and peoples from whom the Habsburg emperors in Vienna demanded allegiance to the ex-Habsburg Monarchy. At the time when the Austrian Empire was the biggest Central European state in modern history, it occupied parts of the East and South-East Europe. It was ruled by the house of Habsburgs (originally from Switzerland) which was the most prominent European royal dynasty from the 15^th to the 20^thcentury. The founder of the dynasty’s power was Rudolf I (1273−1291) who began the family’s rule over Austria. The zenith of the Habsburg dynasty was reached under Charles I in the 16^th century. At the beginning of the 19^th century emperor Francis I ruled the Austrian Empire which consisted of the Habsburg hereditary lands of Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia and Transylvania in addition to Galicia, Dalmatia, Venetia, and Lombardy. In 1867 the Austrian Empire was transformed into Austria-Hungary or the Dual Monarchy and as such lasted until 1918. The biggest ethnolinguistic groups of the Austrian Empire were the Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, Slovaks, Slovenes, Serbs, Croats, Romanians, Poles, and Italians.[22]

In the first half of the 19^th century, a smaller number of Serbs lived in the Habsburg Austrian Empire (Austria-Hungary from 1867). They were settled in a non-military area in Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia and the Military Border region (Figure 2). This region was established on the Habsburg Monarchy’s border with the Ottoman Empire in the mid-16^th century and was divided into eleven military regiments. When the Austrian Empire gained the former Venetian lands of Dalmatia and Boka Kotorska[23] at the Congress of Vienna in 1815,[24] the number of the ethnolinguistic Christian Orthodox Serbian residents within the Austrian Empire increased significantly: in 1792 there were 667,247 Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy, while in 1847 the Serbian population in both civilian areas within Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia and the Military Border region reached 896,902.[25] In 1796 there were 51,071 Orthodox inhabitants, out of 256,000, in Dalmatia which at that time was under Venetian rule.[26] The Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy and from 1804 the Austrian Empire enjoyed their historical rights based on the privileges given to them by several Habsburg emperors. These privileges permitted them both ecclesiastic and educational autonomy. The exact obligations of the Serbs in the Military Border region were fixed in 1807 during the Napoleonic era.

Within the Habsburg Monarchy, the cultural center for the Serbs before the mid-18^thcentury was Vienna. It then shifted to Budapest because of intensified censorship in Vienna, and, in the end, it was transferred to Novi Sad in the early 19^th century.[27] The religious life of the Serbs in the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy was concentrated in ancient monasteries and churches. The Serbian Orthodox Church became a leading national institution preserving the national legend and historical memory of Serbia’s medieval statehood and a national language and alphabet of the Serbs. This was of particular importance in such ethnically mixed areas as Bosnia-Herzegovina, Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia.[28]

The Serbs were a divided nation not only politically but also from the point of view of church jurisdiction. The Serbs from the Ottoman Empire belonged to the Greek Patriarchate of Constantinople, having lost their autonomous church organization, the Patriarchate of Peć in 1766. At the same time, the Serbs from the Austrian Empire developed their own national autonomous church organization, the Metropolitanate of (Srem’s) Karlovci (1691−1848), which was supervised by the government of the Habsburg Monarchy and from 1804 the Austrian Empire.[29]

The main task of the Serbian Orthodox clergy in both the Ottoman Empire and the Habsburg Monarchy/Austrian Empire was to keep the Serbian (Christian Orthodox) nation from being converted to either Islam or Roman Catholicism. For this purpose, they created a theory according to which only the Christian Orthodox members of the South Slavic community who spoke the Štokavian dialect (i.e., the Serbian language) belonged to the Serbian nation. At the same time, the Serbian clergy proclaimed the Church Slavonic language and Old Cyrillic writing system as the cardinal symbols of the Serbian nationality in addition to the Christian Orthodoxy. The Cyrillic alphabet was of crucial importance to Serbs in the ethnically mixed areas. These letters became a remarkable symbol of their national identity, especially in Bosnia-Herzegovina, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Croatia.[30]

A Serbian type of the Church Slavonic language was the literary (book) language of medieval Serbia. However, this language had undergone significant changes from the 12^th to the 18^th century. Liturgical services were performed in such a language, which was designated as the Slavonic-Serbian literary language in the 18^th century.[31]

The Slavonic-Serbian literary language was significantly influenced in the 18^th century by the Russian redaction of the Church Slavonic language as a result of the impact of the Russian liturgical books which were used by the Serbian Christian Orthodox clergy. The process of bringing together the two types of the Church Slavonic language (the Russian and the Serb) was initiated in 1727, when the Moscow Holy Synod sent a mission to Srem’s Karlovci, the location of the headquarters of the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Habsburg Monarchy. The mission’s main achievement appears to have been the adoption of a Russified version of the Serbian type of Church Slavonic as the literary language of the Austrian Serbs. Therefore, the Serbs from the Habsburg Monarchy and later the Austrian Empire became more and more politically and culturally oriented toward the (Orthodox) Russian Empire and Serbia then toward (Roman Catholic and Protestant) Western Europe. When the mission completed its service in 1737 and went back to Moscow, the Serbian Christian Orthodox clergy maintained the attachment to Russian cultural and church traditions, as the only apparent way to keep the Austrian Serbs from the Germanization, Magyarization, Croatization, and conversion to Roman Catholicism. The cult of the 1389 Kosovo Battle and martyrdom of Serbia’s Prince Lazar Hrebeljanović for both Christendom and Serbdom played the cardinal role in the process of preserving Serbian national identity either in the Ottoman Empire or the Habsburg Monarchy/Austrian Empire.[32]

From the time of the Ottoman occupation of the Serbian people and lands in the 15^thcentury, the essence of Serbian political ideology was national liberation and revival of the national (pre-Ottoman) statehood.[33] The national dream of a free and united Serbian state began to be realized at the beginning of the 19^th century, with two Serbian insurrections against the Ottoman authorities in 1804–1813 and 1815.[34] The first political plan for the revival of the medieval Serbian state was drafted by Stevan Stratimirović, the Metropolitan of the Metropolitanate of (Srem’s) Karlovci, in 1804.[35]This was followed by a plan in 1808 by Russia’s deputy in Serbia, Konstantin K. Rodofinikin, and Serbia’s Secretary of the State Council, Ivan Jugović.[36]

The Serbian state was de facto re-established in 1815 and adopted its first modern Constitution in 1835.[37] The author of the Constitution, the Austrian Serb Dimitrije Davidović, used as a model the modern liberal-democratic Constitutions of Belgium and Switzerland. For this reason, Davidović’s Constitution of modern Serbia was labeled by the Russian Minister of Exterior as “a French garden in Serbia’s forest”.[38]

Prince Miloš Obrenović I (1815–1839) continued to develop a Serb national ideology of reviving the Serbian statehood, designing a plan to enlarge the ancient state by incorporating into the united Serbia all the lands of the Ottoman Empire that were inhabited by the ethnic Serb majority at that time, particularly Bosnia-Herzegovina, Sanjak (Raška) and Kosovo-Metochia.[39]

To be continued…

*

Dr. Vladislav B. Sotirović is Founder & Editor of POLICRATICUS-Electronic Magazine On Global Politics (www.global-politics.eu). Contact: [email protected]. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Notes

[1] On nationalism, see: Eric J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780(Cambridge−New York: Cambridge University Press, 1990); Steven Grosby, Nationalism: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford−New York: Oxford University Press, 2005); Umut Özkirimli, Theories of Nationalism: A Critical Introduction (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010); John Coakley, Nationalism, Ethnicity & the State: Making & Breaking Nations (Los Angeles−London: Sage Publications Ltd, 2012).

[2] On the “Eastern Question”, see: Matthew S. Anderson, The Eastern Question: 1774−1923 (St. Martin’s Press, 1966); Lucien J. Frary and Mara Kozelsky, eds., Russian-Ottoman Borderlands: The Eastern Question Reconsidered (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2014).

[3] Васиљ Поповић, Источно питање (Београд: Геца Кон, 1928), 119.

[4] On the Ottoman society and state organization, see: Norman Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition (New York, 1972); Halil Inalçik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300−1600 (New York, 1973); Lord Kinross, The Ottoman Centuries: The Rise and Fall of the Turkish Empire (New York: Morrow Quill Paperbacks, 1977); Jason Goodwin, Lords of the Horizons: A History of the Ottoman Empire (New York: Picador, 1998); Donald Quataert, The Ottoman Empire 1700−1922 (Cambridge−New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005); Caroline Finkel, Osman’s Dream; The Story of the Ottoman Empire 1300−1923 (New York: Basic Books, 2005);  Colin Imber, The Ottoman Empire (New York: Palgrave MacMillan, 2009); William Deans, History of the Ottoman Empire (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2014).

[5] For a discussion of the Belgrade pashalik at the eve of the Serbian Revolution, see: Душан Пантелић, Београдски пашалук пред први српски устанак (1794−1804)(Београд: Српска академија наука, 1949).

[6] On ethnic and national identity of the Montenegrins, see: Milisav Glomazić, Etničko i nacionalno biće Crnogoraca (Beograd: TRZ „Panpublik“, 1988).

[7] Leopold Ranke, A History of Servia and the Servian Revolution (New York, 1973), 8; Michael B. Petrovich, A History of Modern Serbia 1804−1918, Vol. 1 (New York−London, 1976), 20.

[8] The Western historiography and media intentionally for the political reasons are calling Kosovo-Metochia’s Arbanashes as the Albanians and at such a way giving moral legitimization to the creation of a Greater Albania. See, for instance: Pierre Pean, Sébastien Fontenelle, Kosovo: Une Guerre “Juste” pour Créer Etat Mafieux (Librairie Arthème Fayard, 2013).

[9] The Arnauts in Kosovo-Metochia were originally ethnolinguistic Serbs who became in the course of time Albanized and Islamized. It is estimated that in 1912 Arnauts comprised around one-third of the total Albanian-speaking population in Kosovo-Metochia. The process of Albanization of the Serbs in Kosovo-Metochia was, according to the relevant historical sources, most intensive in the 19^th century. On the Arnauts of Kosovo-Metochia and the process of Albanization of Kosovo-Metochia’s Orthodox Serbs, see: Душан Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија: Историја и идеологија (Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2007), 41−52.

[10] In my view, based on the ethnohistorical development of the Serb nation, only Kosovo-Metochia can be identified as the real Serbia proper. On Kosovo-Metochia’s role in Serbia’s and Serbian history, see: Радован Самарџић et al., Косово и Метохија у српској историји (Београд: СКЗ, 1989); Rade Mihaljčić, The Battle of Kosovo in History and in Popular Tradition (Beograd: BIGZ, 1989); Раде Михаљчић, Јунаци косовске легенде (Београд: БИГЗ, 1989); Душан Т. Батаковић, Косово и Метохија: Историја и идеологија (Београд: Чигоја штампа, 2007).

[11] The Serbian Revolution of 1804−1815 had two stages: 1) From the struggle for autonomy within the Ottoman Empire to the creation of the sovereign nation (1804−1807), and 2) From the state independence to the political-national autonomy in the Ottoman Empire (1807−1815): Милорад Екмечић, Дуго кретање између клања и орања. Историја Срба у новом веку (1492−1992) (Београд: Евро-Ђунти, 2010), 127−202.

[12] Ivan Božić, Sima Ćirković, Milorad Ekmečić, Vladimir Dedijer, Istorija Jugoslavije, “Stanovništvo u jugoslovenskim zemljama XIX veka,” (Beograd: Prosveta, 1973), table on page 289.

[13] Nikolaj Velimirović, Religion and Nationality in Serbia (London: BiblioLife, LLC, 1915); Vladislav B. Sotirović, “The Memorandum (1804) by the Karlovci Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović”, Serbian Studies. Journal of the North American Society for Serbian Studies (Vol. 24, Nos. 1−2, Bloomington, IN, 2012), 27−48.

[14] According to Croatian scholars, the Croats were the South Slavic Roman Catholic population who spoke the Croatian language composed by the western part of the Štokavian dialect, Kajkavian, and Čakavian dialects. On this issue, see more in: Milan Moguš, Povijest hrvatskoga književnoga jezika (Zagreb: Nakladni zavod Globus, 1993); Sima Ćirković, “Religious Factor in Forming of Cultural and National Identity”, Religion & War (Belgrade, 1994); Miro Kačić, Hrvatski i srpski. Zablude i krivotvorine (Zagreb: Zavod za lingvistiku Filozofskoga fakulteta Sveučilišta u Zagrebu, 1995); Mijo Lončarić, Hrvatski jezik (Opole: Uniwersztet Opolski-Instztut Filologii Polskiej, 1998). Compare with: Павле Ивић, О језику некадашњем и садашњем (Београд: БИГЗ−Јединство, 1990); Петар Милосављевић, Срби и њихов језик. Хрестоматија (Приштина: Народна и универзитетска библиотека, 1997); Петар Милосављевић, Српски филолошки програм (Београд: Требник, 2000).

[15] For a discussion on the ethnolinguistic origins of the Muslim population in Bosnia-Herzegovina, see: Иван Вуковић, Истина, Лазо М. Костић, Чија је Босна? (Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 1999); Лазо М. Костић, Наука утврђује народност Б-Х муслимана. Етнографска студија (Србиње−Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 2000).

[16] Владимир Стојанчевић et al., Историја српског народа. Пета књига. Први том. Од Првог устанка до Берлинског конгреса 1804−1878 (Београд: Српска књижевна задруга, 1981), 10−12.

[17] Božić et al., Istorija Jugoslavije, 293.

[18] The practice of devshirme had its literary examination by Ivo Andrić, a Serb from Bosnia-Herzegovina and the only Yugoslav Nobel prize winner (in 1961) for literature for his historical novel The Bridge over Drina (1945): Иво Андрић, На Дрини ћуприја(Београд: Књига-комерц, 1997).

[19] Itzkowitz, Ottoman Empire and Islamic Tradition; Inalçik, The Ottoman Empire: The Classical Age, 1300−1600.

[20] For a discussion of the historical development of the Muslims of Bosnia-Herzegovina, see: Robert J. Donia and John V. A. Fine, Jr., Bosnia and Hercegovina: A Tradition Betrayed (New York: Columbia University Press, 1994); Mark Pinson, ed., TheMuslims of Bosnia–Herzegovina. Their Historic Development from the Middle Ages tothe Dissolution of Yugoslavia (Harvard (USA): Harvard Middle Eastern Monographs XXVIII, 1996).

[21] Tim Judah, The Serbs. History, Myth & the Destruction of Yugoslavia (New Haven−London: Yale University Press, 1997), 317. About national composition of other Yugoslav provinces from 1918 to 1991, ibid., 311–317.

[22] For the history of the Austrian Empire and Habsburg Monarchy, see: Robert A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526−1918 (Berkeley−Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1974); Alan J. P. Taylor, The Habsburg Monarchy 1809−1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary (London−New York: Penguin Books, 1990); Jean Bérenger, A History of the Habsburg Empire 1700−1918(London−New York: Longman, 1997); Benjamin Curtis, The Habsburgs: The History of a Dynasty (London−New York: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013); Sidney Whitman, A Short History of the Austrian Empire From the Earliest Times to 1898 (Didactic Press, 2014); Simon Winder, Danubia: A Personal History of Habsburg Europe  (Basingstoke−Oxford: Picador, 2014).

[23] On the history of Venice, see: William H. McNeill, Venice: The Hinge of Europe, 1081−1797 (Chicago−London: The University of Chicago Press, 1986); John J. Norwich, A History of Venice (New York: Vintage Books, 1989); Thomas F. Madden, Venice: A New History (New York: Viking, 2012).

[24] On the Congress of Vienna, see: Mark Jarret, The Congress of Vienna and its legacy: War and Great Power Diplomacy after Napoleon (London−New York: I.B.Tauris, 2014).

[25] On this issue see more in: Ђорђе Николајевић, „Епархија православна у Далмацији“, Српско-далматински магазин (бр. 15, Задар, 1850).

[26] Екмечић, Дуго кретање између клања и орања, 179.

[27] For discussion of the Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Austrian Empire, see: Алекса Ивић, Историја Срба у Војводини (Нови Сад, 1929); Душан Ј. Поповић, Срби у Војводини (Нови Сад: Матица српска, 1990); Славко Гавриловић, Срби у Хабсбуршкој Монархији (1792−1849) (Нови Сад: Матица српска, 1994); Василије Ђ. Крестић, Историја Срба у Хрватској и Славонији 1848−1914 (Београд, 1995); Лазо М. Костић, Српска Војводина и њене мањине (Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 1999); Дејан Микавица, Српска Војводина у Хабзбуршкој Монархији 1690−1920. Историја идеје о држави и аутономији пречанских Срба (Нови Сад: 2005); Радослав И. Чубрило et al., Српска Крајина (Београд: Матић, 2011).

[28] Those ethnically mixed territories have been and are the cardinal cause of the interethnic conflicts between the Serbs and Croats: Лазо М. Костић, Спорнетериторије Срба и Хрвата (Београд: Досије, 1990). Especially it was a case with the ex-Austrian Military Border.

[29] On the Serbian Orthodox Church in the Habsburg Monarchy and the Austrian Empire, see: Радослав Грујић, „Автокефалност Карловачке митрополије“, Гласник историјског друштва у Новом Саду (II/3, Нови Сад, 1929), 365−379.

[30] On the importance of the Cyrillic script and the Serbian language for the Serb national identity in historical perspective, see: Лазо М. Костић, Ћирилица и Српство/О српском језику/Вук и Немци (Нови Сад: Добрица књига, 1999).

[31] Alexander Albin, “The Creation of the Slaveno-Serbski Literary Language”, The Slavonic and East European Review (XLVIII/113), 483−492.

[32] On the issue of the legend of the Kosovo Battle of 1389, see: Раде Михаљчић, Јунаци Косовске легенде (Београд: БИГЗ, 1989). On the history of the Serbs in the late Middle Ages, see: Јованка Калић, Срби у позном средњем веку. Друго издање(Београд: ЈП Службени лист СРЈ, 2001).

[33] For a discussion of the historical development of modern political thought among the Serbs, see: Чубриловић, Историја политичке мисли у Србији XIX века; Симеуновић, Из ризнице отаџбинских идеја.

[34] On this issue, see: Мирослав Р. Ђорђевић, Србија у устанку 1804−1813 (Београд: Рад, 1979); Радош Љушић, Вожд Карађорђе, 1 (Смедеревска Паланка: ИнвестЕкспорт, 1993); Радош Љушић, Вожд Карађорђе, 2 (Београд−Горњи Милановац: Војна књига, 1995).

[35] On this issue, see: Vladislav B. Sotirović on the Memorandum (1804) by the Karlovci Metropolitan Stevan Stratimirović (Oriental Review, 2018)

[36] Meriage P. Lawrence, “The First Serbian Uprising (1804−1813): National Revival or a Search for Regional Security”, Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism (4/1, 1976), 187−205.

[37] Serbia as an independent state was officially recognized by Europe in 1878 at the Berlin Congress. On political history of Serbia from 1804 to 1813, see: Мирослав Ђорђевић, Политичка историја Србије XIX и XX века. Књига прва (1804−1813)(Београд: Просвета, 1956).

[38] On this issue, see: Михаило Гавриловић, Из нове српске историје (Београд: Уједињење А.Д., 1926); Владимир Стојанчевић, Милош Обреновић и његово доба(Београд: Завод за уџбенике и наставна средства, 1990), 270−280.

[39] For details, see: Владимир Стојанчевић, „Кнез Милош према Порти и народним покретима у Турској 1828−29“, Зборник историјског музеја Србије (6, Београд, 1969). On the Principality of Serbia at the time of Prince Miloš Obrenović I, see: Радош Љушић, Кнежевина Србија (1830−1839) (Београд: САНУ, 1986).

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

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.

*     *     *

Trump Regime to Formally Reject Palestinians’ Right of Return

By Stephen Lendman, August 26, 2018

Adopted near the end of Israel’s 1948 war, UN Resolution 194 resolved that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible” – Article 11.

Dewayne Johnson vs. Monsanto: Hidden Dangers in Weed Killer Giant. More than 5000 Lawsuits against Monsanto

By Gregory A. Cade, August 26, 2018

In March 2015, a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, known as IARC, to evaluate the carcinogenicity of five herbicides and insecticides, among these- the most heavily used herbicide in the world, glyphosate.  The study concluded that this chemical is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals. IARC also reasoned that there was strong proof for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations. 

Trade Wars: Is There an Off-Ramp? Towards a Global Catastrophe?

By Askiah Adam, August 25, 2018

That an economic world war has already started is beyond dispute. Whether it is Washington or Trump who has lost it is immaterial but between the sanctions imposed on several countries and prohibitive tariffs inflicted on friends and foes alike most are warning against a catastrophe, not just for those directly involved, but the world generally.    

Who is Nikola Tesla?

By Nikola Tesla and Prof Michel Chossudovsky, August 25, 2018

They have heard of the Tesla electric car, but  generally the broader public is unfamiliar with Nikola Tesla, the Serbian scientist and his pathbreaking inventions in electricity and wireless technology.

Many of his inventions were stolen by US corporations.

Monsanto Liable for Agent Orange Damage, Vietnam Reiterates

By Khanh Lynh, August 25, 2018

Monsanto was one of the producers of Agent Orange, a defoliant used by U.S. troops to strip Vietnamese forces of ground cover and food. Between 1961 and 1971 the U.S. Army sprayed some 80 million liters of Agent Orange over 30,000 square miles of southern Vietnam.

Permanent War and Poverty. Acting on Behalf of Washington, the UN is Undermining the Restoration of Syria’s Economy

By Mark Taliano, August 25, 2018

Whereas the steady flow of Syrian refugees back to their homeland is an on-going humanitarian success story, reports now indicate that the UN is blocking its own agencies from participating in the restoration of Syria’s economy.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

On August 23 NATO announced that a Canadian officer, Major-General Fortin, will be the new commander of NATO forces in Iraq for the continuation of what the invading and occupation forces call a “training mission.” Previous objections to the presence of foreign forces in Iraq by the Iraqi government were more or less ignored by the United States and its jackboots, and by Canada, one of the little poodles always running along side the top bulldog with its tail up and tongue out, so any objections now will count for nothing.

These two nations, well, we can call the US a nation, Canada a shell of one, claim to act in the interests of peace and security in Iraq and the Middle East. But the Iraqis know what colonialism is. They have resisted it since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire in 1921; against the British, the French, the Americans and now Canada, which continues its role in the American colonial system as part of the enforcement unit.

The invasion and occupation of Iraq was, the world knows, a war of aggression, a war crime, and this crime continues so long as the occupation continues. Everyone connected with that aggression and occupation are war criminals and this of course includes the members of the Canadian government and armed forces. In fact the entire NATO alliance is now a party to the crime and so every leader of every NATO country is a war criminal. This is the absurdity to which the world has descended, a world in which international law, the United Nations Charter, the Nuremberg Principles are regarded as only fit for confetti and every western leader is a criminal.

Last January an Iraqi general, working with the US forces, claimed the foreign forces were “necessary” to preserve a “fragile peace,” though it is more likely he wanted to fill the hole in his pocket, while Nayef al-Shamri, deputy chairman of the Iraqi parliament’s security committee, countered that, “Iraq does not need the presence of U.S. ground forces or military bases”. He said “U.S. forces had no actual presence in battles against the Islamic State, only stopping at air and logistical support.”

At the beginning of the year the Americans had stated that they were going to reduce or withdraw their forces in Iraq but by May it became clear that they were increasing them and, as their proxy forces in Syria collapsed, increased the presence of its intelligence operatives on the Iraqi-Syrian border, as well as centers such as Erbil and Mosul. Yet in December 2017 Iraq’s Prime Minister Haider al Abidi declared his country liberated from ISIS, so even the claimed pretext used by the US and its NATO servants for remaining in Iraq does not exist.

The real reasons for the continued occupation are stated by the British commanding officer in Iraq, Major-General Gedney to a British newspaper that,

“British (and so NATO) forces will need to remain in Iraq for the next several years to ensure instability, hopelessness and desperation never again become the breeding ground for radicalization.”

But hopelessness is the only thing the British and their partners in crime bring to the people of Iraq, denied their sovereignty, their self–esteem, their ability to govern themselves freely and without interference. Foreign invasions and occupations are always met with the duality of hopelessness and resistance. Hopelessness leads to desperation then to resistance. One leads to the other for one act of resistance restores the hope and with the hope the resistance increases.

The British general added that,

“we have to continue our fight against Deash’s corrupt narrative, and only then will we see their lasting defeat.”

In other words he is saying

“we must increase our propaganda containing our corrupt narrative and stay in Iraq to silence anyone who opposes us or our local puppets, increase our control of thought and speech, increase our control of the Iraqi political scene and ensure that only those loyal to us can have control; the control for geostrategic and energy reasons, the same reasons that ever motivated the aggression against Iraq.”

But speaking of “corrupt narratives,” it is the British that take the cake. Just today, the 24th of August, a news item appeared on the BBC website about the forest fires that have erupted near Berlin. One of the concerns of local firefighters trying to control the fires is the presence of unexploded ammunition from the Battle of Berlin that took place in April/May of 1945 that resulted in the Red Army liberation of Germany from the harsh yoke of fascism. In the forests around Berlin, and in the city, huge armies, Nazi and Red Army, fought each other in some of the most intense fighting of that war, but, according to the BBC, it is only the Soviet forces are responsible for the unexploded ordinance both sides exchanged during the battle. This is how the BBC framed it,

“The munitions are believed to date from the Soviet Army’s actions in the former East Germany, during World War Two.”

Just let that rest in your mind for a minute or two, let it seep into your mind what the BBC is doing here. For what they are doing is rewriting history on a vast scale and rewriting it to whitewash the Nazis and to cast the liberating Soviet forces as the bad guys, yet once again.

Apparently, for the BBC, the retreating Nazi forces, protecting Hitler and the heart of the Nazi Reich from their just and final end, did not exist. They are not mentioned. The Soviets were just engaging “in actions.” That these actions were caused by the aggression of Nazi Germany against the Soviet Union, in which the German fascist forces, allied with their version of the coalition of the willing, fascists states and forces from across Europe, killed over 27 million people, wounded and maimed millions more, razed to the ground every town and village west of Moscow in a holocaust unprecedented in history, that part of the story has been erased.

But they go further, and in my view establish the BBC as an outright fascist propaganda organ, when they claim the battle took place in something called East Germany. There was no “East Germany” at that time. There was only the Third Reich, the Nazi state, and Berlin was its capital. But the BBC wants you to forget that the Soviet forces were fighting to liberate Europe from the Nazis, that Germany was a fascist state. They want you to forget it existed. So they concoct a battle in a state only created later, cast the Russians as the bad guys, and claim that Germany suffered from their “actions” and suffers from them still.

This is a negation of history in order to erase the crimes of the fascists, to protect them, to rehabilitate them, as we have seen the NATO alliance do in Ukraine. We should not be surprised. We saw them tolerate fascist regimes in the past in Spain, Portugal, in Greece, and fascist elements in the governments and armed forces of West Germany and Italy, to limit ourselves to Europe. Before the disappearance of the Soviet Union at least lip service was paid in the west to the crimes of fascism in Europe. Now even the pretence of condemning fascism is dropped and is replaced with outright distortions of history to accompany the distortions of the mass media repeating the lies of the governments for which they serve as servile mouthpieces. And once again, as in 1941, the fascist propaganda is aimed at the same people, not the soviet people now, but the Russian people, the ones who suffered more than any other people in any war in history

People argue what fascism is and is not, what are its characteristics, but one of them to me is very simple; if you support fascists, if you rewrite history to protect them, you are a fascist. How can it be otherwise?

How can anyone observe what is going on in the United States and not smell fascism in the air as the smoke from their internal battles spreads over the world, threatening to consume us in the fires of another world war. For that is what the internal battle in the United States is ultimately about, an ongoing purge, preparing for war with Russia and its allies that now are China, Iran, Syria, and, the way the US is pushing Turkey over the arrest of the American intelligence operative Mr. Brunson, who claims to be a preacher, but who is seen, in photos posted in the Turkish news, posing with and advising ant-Turkish government rebel groups, may soon include that nation as well. Meanwhile the brave DPRK, undaunted, stands alone against the world, perhaps the only principled nation left on the planet, but it too soon may be reconciled with the others under the common threat from the great behemoth of the USA.

As for the common citizen, well, we can only suffer the lunacy in the United States, in the NATO countries, in the mass media, in our governments’ statements and actions, as they lead us to destruction, suffer or revolt. There are no other choices.

*

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

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

Are the U.S. France and Britain preparing to launch  punitive airstrikes against Syria in reprisal for another (forthcoming) “false flag” Chemical Weapons attack allegedly ordered by president Bashar al Assad against his own people. 

U.S. National Security Adviser John Bolton is reported to have told his Russian counterpart, Nikolai Patrushev, that “Syrian President Bashar al-Assad may be preparing to use chemical weapons to recapture the northwestern province of Idlib from rebels.”

On August 22, at a press conference in Jerusalem,  John Bolton, Trump’s (“Humanitarian”) National Security Adviser expressed his “concern” intimating that Assad is preparing to “kill his own people”:

“We are obviously concerned about the possibility that Assad may use chemical weapons again, …

if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly and they really ought to think about this a long time before they come into any decision, because there is no ambiguity in the U.S. position on this point.”

Screen Shot, UPI, August 22, 2018

Is another false flag CW attack on the drawing board of the Pentagon?

It’s intent (according to Bolton) would be to provide legitimacy to a US and allied “humanitarian” bombing, i.e. “Responsibility to Protect”, i.e. “war with a human face”.

Apart from acknowledging Bolton’s statement, the Western media (with the exception of a report by Germany’s Deutsche Welle) have remained silent regarding the details of the alleged false flag CW scenario which were revealed by Russia’s Ministry of Defense:

“Foreign specialists” have arrived in Syria and may stage a chemical attack using chlorine in “the next two days,” the Russian Defense Ministry said. This will be filmed for international media to frame Damascus forces.

The above report remains to be corroborated or refuted. The Western media has remained silent. It has not taken the trouble (with a couple of exceptions) to report or challenge the statement of the Russian Defense Ministry.

The unspoken truth is that the US and its allies including Israel are largely intent upon sabotaging the peace process in Syria.

What Next?

Now that the details concerning the alleged false flag CW operation have been revealed, the question is whether the US and its allies will go ahead with the punitive bombing raid against Syria.

Russia’s Response

“We warned the Americans and their allies against taking new reckless steps in Syria,” said Russia’s deputy foreign minister Sergei Ryabkov,

According to Tass (August 25) Russia has responded with major naval deployments:

“The Black Sea Fleet’s frigates Admiral Grigorovich and Admiral Essen armed with Kalibr cruise missiles will join the Russian Navy’s Mediterranean task force, the Fleet’s press office reported on Saturday.

“The Black Sea Fleet’s frigates Admiral Grigorovich and Admiral Essen are making a planned passage from Sevastopol to the Mediterranean Sea. Currently, the warships’ crews are passing through the Black Sea’s Bosphorus and Dardanelles Straits,”

These developments are of strategic significance.

The Russia-Turkey relationship has facilitated the routine deployment of Russia’s Black Sea fleet out of Sevastopol in Crimea through the Bosphorus into the Eastern Mediterranean. From Russia’s perspective, the naval integration of the Black Sea and the Eastern Mediterranean constitutes a major turning point which also affects the deployment of NATO naval forces in the Black Sea out of Romania and Bulgaria.

We are dealing with a geopolitical shift: With Ankara siding with Moscow, the Russian Federation has regained control over the Black Sea Basin.

The Kurdish YPG Supported by the US

The US has largely been supportive of Al Qaeda affiliated rebels as well the Kurdish YPG militants which have been fighting Turkish forces in Northern Syria. Back in January, “The White House said Trump had urged Erdogan to curtail the military operation in Syria, while Turkey said Erdogan had told Trump that U.S. troops should withdraw from Manbij.” (Reuters, January 24, 2018)

Both governments agreed in January to remain in “close coordination” to “avoid misunderstandings”.

About Turn: In recent developments, Washington has reaffirmed its support for the YPG (against Turkey) in defiance of the January understanding with Ankara “to collaborate”. In turn, Russia and Turkey are coordinating their actions in Syria against the US supported Kurdish YPG.

On August 25, a senior official of the State Department William Roebuck traveled to Manbij and Ayn al-Arab in  Kobani close to the border with Turkey (see map). “He also visited Dayr al-Zawr Province which is held by US-backed Kurdish militants.” (Press TV, August 26, 2018)

“We are prepared to stay here, as the president (Donald Trump) has made clear,”

He was referring to more than 2,000 US and allied troops deployed in territories in Northeast Syria under Kurdish YPG control. (Press Tv, 25 August 2018).

On Saturday, Kurdish media reported that the US had installed advanced radar systems in its bases at the Ayn al-Arab military airport and the town of Rmelan in Hasakah Province.

Quoting an informed source at the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a US-backed coalition of Kurdish militants, the report said the systems are meant to create a no-fly zone in northeastern Syria.

The source also said the US had recently sent additional weapons and ammunition for SDF militants in the southern countryside of Hasakah (see map below). (Press Tv, August 25, 2018)

US military deployments in Northeastern Syria are in practice (not officially) also directed against Turkey, with a view to creating a separate Kurdish proxy state in Northern Syria.

“The no fly zone” appears to be modelled on that imposed on Iraq in the wake of the 1991 Gulf War, allegedly to protect Kurds in Norther Iraq.

But in this case the US zone of influence is on Turkey’s door step, the No Fly Zone extends to Turkey’s border.

While Turkey has established an alliance of convenience with Russia and Iran (both of which are involved militarily in Syria), the US and Turkey are potentially on a “Collision Course” which could lead to a broader war.

When Allies Confront Allies

Needless to say, NATO is in disarray with the US, France and Britain confronting Turkey (which is also a NATO member state) in the Syria war theater.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Russia has built up its forces around the Mediterranean Sea in response to reports [yet to be confirmed G.R] of the U.S., France, and Great Britain preparing to attack Syria.

According to Yoruk Isik of the Bosphorus Observer, the Russian Navy has sent another armada of ships towards Syria’s territorial waters in order to increase the strength of their forces around the country.

Isik said that the powerful Russian warships, Admiral Grigorovich and Admiral Essen class frigate, were spotted transiting the Bosphorus Strait en route to the Port of Tartous:

New & powerful: Armed with Kalibr SS-N-27 missiles, #ВМФ #ЧФ second Admiral Grigorovich class frigate AdmIral Essen redeployed to Mediterranean after 58 days & transits Bosphorus en route to #Tartus #Syria pic.twitter.com/lnflQbZJzx

— Yörük Işık (@YorukIsik) August 25, 2018

This latest move by the Russian Navy comes just 24 hours after they sent three ships en route to the Port of Tartous in western Syria.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

A report from Russian Television asserts that the U.S. Government is positioning weaponry for yet another bombing-raid to punish Syria for having Bashar al-Assad as its President.

Headlining “Terrorists readying chemical attack to frame Damascus & provide pretext for US strikes” RT reported on Saturday, August 25th, that

“The US and its allies are preparing new airstrikes on Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said, adding that militants are poised to stage a chemical weapons attack in order to frame Damascus and provide a pretext for the strikes.”

Screengrab from RT News

A day prior, Eva Bartlett, who reports for several news-media, headlined at RT “Bolton calls on Al-Qaeda to stage more chemical attacks in Syria” and said,

“In a move that was entirely predictable, the US administration is once again threatening to bomb Syria if there is a ‘chemical weapons attack’.” 

There is considerable evidence that all of the prior alleged chemical-weapons attacks by Syria’s Government against innocent non-combatants were, in some instances, actually staged and photographed by the White Helmets and other supporters of jihadist groups in Syria, or else were actual chemical attacks which had been perpetrated by those jihadist groups in order to serve as ‘justification’ for the U.S. and its allies to bomb Syria so as to help those jihadists to bring down Syria’s Government. (The CIA and King Saud have been unsuccessfully trying, ever since 1949, to take over the committedly secular, non-sectarian, nation of Syria. In fact, the CIA perpetrated two of the three Syrian coups that were carried out in 1949.)

For example, back on 19 December 2013, Seymour Hersh, who has been pretty much banned from U.S. news-media ever since he started reporting and exposing lies by the George W. Bush Administration about terrorism, headlined in the London Review of Books, “Whose Sarin?”and he reported that

“in recent interviews with intelligence and military officers and consultants past and present, I found intense concern, and on occasion anger, over what was repeatedly seen as the deliberate manipulation of intelligence” in order to ‘justify’ U.S. invasions, now in Syria, as also in other countries.

He boldly noted that

“The press would follow suit. The UN report on 16 September confirming the use of sarin was careful to note that its investigators’ access to the attack sites, which came five days after the gassing, had been controlled by rebel forces.”

He wrote that,

“Theodore Postol, a professor of technology and national security at MIT, reviewed the UN photos with a group of his colleagues and concluded that the large calibre rocket was an improvised munition that was very likely manufactured locally. He told me that it was ‘something you could produce in a modestly capable machine shop’. The rocket in the photos, he added, fails to match the specifications of a similar but smaller rocket known to be in the Syrian arsenal. The New York Times, again relying on data in the UN report, also analysed the flight path of two of the spent rockets that were believed to have carried sarin, and concluded that the angle of descent ‘pointed directly’ to their being fired from a Syrian army base more than nine kilometres from the landing zone. Postol, who has served as the scientific adviser to the chief of naval operations in the Pentagon, said that the assertions in the Times and elsewhere ‘were not based on actual observations’.”

He noted that:

“The White House’s misrepresentation of what it knew about the attack, and when, was matched by its readiness to ignore intelligence that could undermine the narrative. That information concerned al-Nusra, the Islamist rebel group designated by the US and the UN as a terrorist organisation.”

Actually, ever since 2012, the U.S. Government was actually employing Al Nusra, which was the name given to Al Qaeda’s Syrian branch. In fact, as an intelligence-analyst, Bill Roggio, reported and documented extensively throughout December 2012 (and I quoted from and linked-to extensively in an article five years later), the U.S. basically hired Nusra as its agency to train and lead the vast majority of the forces (all but the few who weren’t jihadists) that were trying to overthrow and replace Syria’s Government, back in 2012. 

Furthermore, on 14 January 2014, the detailed report by Dr. Postol and his MIT colleague Richard Lloyd, was made public, and it asserted, with unambiguous clarity: “The US Government’s Interpretation of the Technical Intelligence It Gathered Prior to and After the August 21 Attack CANNOT POSSIBLY BE CORRECT.” They proved that Obama had been lying, but didn’t put it in those words, because that would have made it be totally banned from any but very ‘alternative’ news-media in the U.S. (such as you might be reading here).

The next day, January 15th, McClatchy newspapers ran an article (and all other mainstream U.S. ’news’ media continued to ignore the MIT study) “New analysis of rocket used in Syria chemical attack undercuts U.S. claims”, which article included some of the study’s findings, but surrounded those by, and closed with, mainstream authorities (as if those two MIT specialists in the matter weren’t also that) denigrating the very idea, for irrelevant reasons. The closing of that McClatchy article was: “Some say they are worried that the failure to declare one delivery system may also mean that other items went undeclared. ‘The most likely explanation for some of the delivery systems not showing up on the chemical declaration is that Assad doesn’t want to incriminate himself or his regime,’ said Daryl Kimball, the executive director of the Arms Control Association.” In other words: the U.S. Government’s mouthpieces simply couldn’t deny the facts that were in the Lloyd-Postol report, so they deflected to other, far less relevant, matters, to help McClatchy deceive Americans.

From that moment onward, there could be no reasonable doubt but that the U.S. Government was hiring Al Qaeda in Syria to lead the U.S. effort to replace Syria’s Government, by jihadists. The U.S. ’news’media lie — they consciously misrepresent — like the U.S. Government does, and all in service to the billionaires (and their paid agents) who control this country.

*

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As will be documented here, America’s troops in Syria are not there in order to fight, but to assist Kurdish separatists in the northeast, and to assist the Al Qaeda led-and-trained jihadist forces elsewhere in Syria (such as in the East Ghouta suburb of Damascus) to overthrow and replace Syria’s popular and democratically elected, strongly secular and anti-sectarian President, Bashar al-Assad.

Occasionally, the U.S. Government also has helped ISIS to take over and control parts of Syria, such as the city Deir Zor, which is Syria’s oil-producing capital. For example, on 17 September 2016, the U.S. bombed Syria’s army in Deir Zor so that the surrounding ISIS forces could (and did) rush in and take control there. Subsequently, the U.S. bombed the Iraqi ISIS controlled city Mosul, and the U.S and Turkey provided a protected pathway for any surviving ISIS jihadists to travel from there to Deir Zor, so as to strengthen ISIS’s grip on that Syrian city. Also, at least one non-jihadist anti-Assad fighter quit working with U.S. forces once discovering that the U.S. was secretly funneling weapons from their camps to ISIS camps.

According to a Western-sponsored poll of Syrians in 2015, all across the country, 82% blamed the war in Syria mainly on the U.S. Government. In that same poll, only 22% of Syrians approved of Al Qaeda in Syria; but, starting in 2012,

Al Qaeda in Syria provided the leadership for almost all of the dozens of jihadist groups that Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the other fundamentalist-Islamic allies of the U.S. Government, were recruiting and helping to transport into Syria, so as to establish Sharia law in Syria (in other words: to overthrow Assad). Without the support of Al Qaeda in Syria, the entire American effort to overthrow Assad would quickly have collapsed. This is one of the reasons why Al Qaeda in Syria adopted a number of different names, mainly “Al Nusrah,” so that the U.S. CIA and other agencies could work with them: it’s because the name “Al Qaeda” was poison to American and European audiences — and not only to the vast majority of Syrians.

The examples that will be presented here, of contemporaneous news-reports from 2012, which covered America’s backing of Al Qaeda, and America’s heavy dependence upon Al Qaeda, were reported by the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, which itself is funded by the U.S. and Israeli Governments and supports the overthrow of Assad, so that no one can reasonably consider their reports to be slanted in favor of Syria’s Government.

click to read articles. 

Al Nusrah Front conducts joint operation with Free Syrian Army

BY BILL ROGGIO | August 4th, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

Bill Roggio is a Senior Fellow at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies and the Editor of FDD’s Long War Journal.

Al Nusrah Front, foreign jihadists seize key Syrian base in Aleppo

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 10, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

US adds Al Nusrah Front, 2 leaders to terrorism list

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 11, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio *

Syrian National Coalition urges US to drop Al Nusrah terrorism designation

BY BILL ROGGIO | December 12th, 2012 | [email protected] | @billroggio

Jabhat al-Nusra in Syria: An Islamic Emirate for al-Qaeda

December 2014, by Jennifer Cafarella

So, there’s no real disagreement as to whether the U.S. Government backs Al Qaeda in Syria, and sometimes backs ISIS in Syria and, even under the loudly anti- “radical Islamic terrorism” President Donald Trump, strengthens ISIS there so as to assist the downfall of Assad, the elected national leader.

It’s proven by actions, not by mere words — which can’t be trusted regarding this war (if any war). Syria’s Government passionately objects at the U.N., to America’s insistence upon replacing Assad’s Government (which the U.S. and its allies call instead a ‘regime’), and America’s continued attempts at replacing this by a Sharia-law dictatorship, which very few Syrians actually want. But both the facts of the case, and the objections by the Syrian Government, are simply ignored.

By contrast, America’s assistance to Kurdish separatists in the northeast of the country is publicly acknowledged.

America’s position in that war is in blatant violation of international law, because the U.S. was never invited in by the Syrian Government, the U.S. has instead been only an invading force there (unlike Russia and Iran, both of which were invited into the country so as to get rid of the U.S.-Saudi-Qatari-UAE-Kuwaiti-Turkish and Al Qaeda and other jihadist, invaders). This shows that international laws mean nothing when the violator is the U.S. and its allies. Whereas ‘The West’ freely violates international laws, other countries do so only at their own peril. Consequently, the U.S. and its allies are destroying the U.N.

*

This article was originally published on The Saker.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

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

Michel Chossudovsky

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

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-6-0

Year: 2015

Pages: 240 Pages

List Price: $22.95

Special Price: $15.00

Click here to order.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above 

The right of return is universally recognized under international law.

Article 13 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states:

1. “Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

2. Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”

Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states:

“1. Everyone lawfully within the territory of a State shall, within that territory, have the right to liberty of movement and freedom to choose his residence.

2. Everyone shall be free to leave any country, including his own.

3. The above-mentioned rights shall not be subject to any restrictions except those which are provided by law, are necessary to protect national security, public order, public health or morals or the rights and freedoms of others, and are consistent with the other rights recognized in the present Covenant.

4. No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of the right to enter his own country.”

The UN Human Rights Committee is comprised of international experts involved in monitoring implementation of the ICCPR.

According to the body, “there are few, if any, circumstances in which deprivation of the right to enter one’s own country could be reasonable.”

Adopted near the end of Israel’s 1948 war, UN Resolution 194 resolved that Palestinian “refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbors should be permitted to do so at the earliest practicable date, and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return and for loss of or damage to property which, under principles of international law or equity, should be made good by the Governments or authorities responsible” – Article 11.

In May 1949, UN Resolution 273 granted Israel UN membership conditional on accepting and implementing UN Resolutions 181 (partitioning Mandatory Palestine into Jewish and Arab states) and 194, granting Palestinians their universally recognized right of return.

Throughout his tenure, Trump and his regime hardliners have been more contemptuous of fundamental Palestinians rights than his predecessors.

He clearly doesn’t give a damn about them, his actions leaving no ambiguity. He partners with Netanyahu regime high crimes – falsely blamed on Hamas and Palestinian resistance against apartheid viciousness.

He supports Jerusalem as Israel’s exclusive capital, what the world community rejects.

In January, after he took Jerusalem “off the table” in future peace talks, Israel’s Hadashot television news said the Netanyahu regime’s next goal is for the US to reject the fundamental right of return for millions of Palestinians.

Once announced, Trump will present his so-called “proposal for peace,” complying with Israeli demands – denying Palestinians their fundamental rights.

On Saturday, Hadashot news said Trump will formally reject the right of return for millions of Palestinian refugees.

In early September, his regime will announce a policy that “from its point of view” annuls this international law affirmed fundament right no nations have the right to deny.

The announcement will claim only around half a million Palestinian refugees exist, not five million, including their descendants.

The UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) defines a Palestinian refugee as “persons (including their patrilineal descendants) whose normal place of residence was Palestine during the period 1 June 1946 to 15 May 1948, and who lost both home and means of livelihood as a result of the 1948 conflict” – along with others affected the same way during Israel’s Six Day War of aggression.

Article 26 of the PLO’s Palestine National Covenant, the basis of all Palestinian law, states the struggle of its people is “to retrieve (their) homeland, liberate and return to it, and exercise the right to self-determination in it…”

Rights afforded under the UN Refugee Convention (1951) apply to descendants of refugees.

The Trump and Netanyahu regimes want UNWRA abolished, its humanitarian aid to millions of Palestinian refugees ended.

Their scheme is all about claiming these refugees don’t exist, wanting diaspora ones denied their international law affirmed right of return to their homeland.

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, the world body “recognizes descendants of refugees (worldwide) as refugees for purposes of their operations.”

Trump and Netanyahu regime hardliners want this notion abandoned. They want fundamental Palestinian rights denied.

They want refugee status for millions of Palestinians ended, making it easier to exploit them ruthlessly, wanting the notion of Palestine as their legitimate homeland erased.

That’s what the scourge of Zionist extremism is all about – denying indigenous Palestinians and their descendants their fundamental rights.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The Venezuelan Migrant Crisis has been regionally politicized and is now at risk of being militarily and strategically exploited by the US.

Long-simmering tensions finally exploded in a Brazilian border town after four Venezuelans robbed, beat, and stabbed a restaurant owner before the locals violently drove hundreds of them back to their country, which dangerously led to some of these coercively “repatriated” migrants carrying out reprisal attacks against some Brazilians in Venezuela. Brasilia responded by deploying troops to the border town and Venezuela demanded that its southern neighbor ensure the security of its citizens in the country, but the flood of an estimated 2.3 million Venezuelan migrants throughout the region over the past couple of years has overwhelmed local communities and contributed to a destabilizing “Weapons of Mass Migration” dynamic.

To explain, Ivy League researcher Kelly M. Greenhill’s breakthrough 2010 research describes the inevitably disruptive effect that different categories of large-scale population flows can have and how this can be exploited for political purposes. The estimated 50,000 Venezuelan migrants that crossed into Brazil’s Roraima border state where the latest clashes took place are equivalent to nearly 10% of its total population, so it was only a matter of time before tensions with the locals spilled over and created a political crisis. Something similar is also happening elsewhere in South America, albeit not yet to as dramatic of a degree as in northern Brazil, but the political ripples are nevertheless apparent.

Ecuador just mandated that the citizens of its nominal Bolivarian “ally” can only enter the country with their passports instead of their usual identity card that most of them had been using for years now per an agreement between both countries, which was soon thereafter followed up by Peru announcing the same restriction that is intended to curtail the flow of Venezuelan migrants into both Andean countries who oftentimes lack this international document. It’s predicted that this could lead to thousands of Venezuelan migrants being stuck in Colombia, which is why the US announced that it’ll dispatch a hospital ship to NATO’s newly designated and first-ever Latin American “global partner” following Mattis’ recent visit to the country.

This is a disturbing sign of “mission creep” that follows deliberately leaked reports last month about Trump’s purported willingness to invade Venezuela last year, which seem in hindsight to have been part of a pronounced psychological pressure campaign on the beleaguered country’s leadership that preceded the failed US-linked drone assassination attempt against Maduro four weeks later. Although the Venezuelan-Brazilian clashes in northern Roraima State last weekend were an organic outcome of the “Weapons of Mass Migration” dynamic that the US created through its Hybrid War on Venezuela, the tacit regional coordination between Ecuador, Peru, and Colombia wasn’t, with this actually being part of the US’ preplanned politicization of the humanitarian crisis.

It was purely coincidental that the clashes happened when they did, but they provided a convenient justification for clamping down on the freedom of regional movement that Venezuelan migrants previously enjoyed and consequently provoking the manufactured pretext for the US to dispatch its hospital ship to Colombia where many of them are now stranded in desperate conditions. It’s conceivable that a more robust military deployment to the country could be forthcoming and committed to under the disguise of a “humanitarian intervention”. The US’ goal might not be to invade Venezuela like recent reports alleged, but to use the Migrant Crisis that it’s partially responsible for as the opportunity to make Colombia the post-“Pink Tide” regional leader.

Colombia’s comparatively larger population and economy, as well as its geostrategic bi-oceanic position, make it the US’ ideal “Lead From Behind” partner, and its growing proxy influence over Ecuador, Peru, and part of the anti-government Venezuelan population is leading to the de-facto creation of a so-called “Gran Colombia” that the US wants to use for reorganizing South America. Its newly elected right-wing leader declared that it will withdraw from the Unasur continental integrational bloc, which follows Ecuador threatening to seize its headquarters in the country last month, so it wouldn’t be surprising if Colombia encourages its Ecuadorean, Peruvian, and possibly even Brazilian neighbors to do the same and effectively destroy the bloc, thus reversing one of the greatest accomplishments of the “Pink Tide” era.

*

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The news is out.  Dewayne Johnson v Monsanto is the first case to go to trial against the weed killer giant. The plaintiff’s lawyers asserted that Monsanto’s Roundup and Ranger Pro, two products that the groundskeeper used to spray as part of his job as a pest control manager at a San Francisco Bay Area school district, caused his terminal cancer, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma.

Review on the case 

The 46-year-old former groundskeeper, Dewayne Johnson, filed a lawsuit against Monsanto Company, accusing the agribusiness giant of failing to warn about the dangers of its products and health hazards from exposure, being responsible for his cancer. The jury further found that Monsanto “acted with malice or oppression”, awarding the plaintiff $289 million, from which $39 million in compensatory and $250 million in punitive damages. Monsanto, a unit of Bayer AG, is facing more than 5,000 similar lawsuits across the United States, but this case is the very first to go to trial and make Monsanto liable.

Johnson’s lawyer Brent Wisner said in a statement.

“We were finally able to show the jury the secret, internal Monsanto documents proving that Monsanto has known for decades that … Roundup could cause cancer,”  The decision, he continued, sent a “message to Monsanto that its years of deception regarding Roundup are over and that they should put consumer safety first over profits”.

Only a few months after Bayer purchased Monsanto, shares fell as much as 14 percent, even though the German company denies the verdict. 

Non-Hodgkin’s Lymphoma

Dewayne Johnson, the plaintiff who won against Monsanto, was diagnosed with NHL, which is a type of cancer of the lymphatic system. Tumors develop from the lymphocytes, a type of white blood cell.  Some of the circumstances that may increase NHL risk include old age, use of immunosuppressant drugs, exposure to certain chemicals, such as weed and insect killers. 

Glyphosate-a probable carcinogen? 

Several studies have linked glyphosate, the chemical used in the popular weed killer Roundup, to cancer.

Glyphosate, used since 1974, effectively kills or suppresses all plant types, including grasses, perennials, vines, shrubs, and trees. When applied at lower rates, glyphosate is a plant-growth regulator and desiccant. It has agricultural and non-agricultural uses throughout the world.

In March 2015, a working group of 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer, known as IARC, to evaluate the carcinogenicity of five herbicides and insecticides, among these- the most heavily used herbicide in the world, glyphosate.  The study concluded that this chemical is “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A), based on “limited” evidence of cancer in humans and “sufficient” evidence of cancer in experimental animals. IARC also reasoned that there was strong proof for genotoxicity, both for “pure” glyphosate and for glyphosate formulations. 

The IARC Monographs are based on systematic collections and review of all publicly available and pertinent studies, by objective experts. 

Some of these studies found a link between people exposed to this herbicide and an increased risk of a cancer type called non-Hodgkin lymphoma. 

On the other hand, one of the evidence that led to IARC’s classification of the chemical as probably carcinogenic to humans, was a set of studies made on animals that showed how the glyphosate has been linked to tumefactions in mice and rats, also known as ‘mechanistic evidence’, such as DNA damage to human cells from exposure to glyphosate. 

Kathryn Guyton, a senior toxicologist in the monographs programme at the IARC and one of the authors of the study, says, “In the case of glyphosate, because the evidence in experimental animals was sufficient and the evidence in humans was limited, that would put the agent into group 2A.” (group 1 is for agents that are definitely carcinogenic to humans; 2A, probably carcinogenic to humans; 2B, possibly carcinogenic to humans; 3, not classifiable; and 4, probably not carcinogenic to humans.).

According to a study published in the International Journal of Cancer in July 2008, glyphosate contained in Roundup was found to be one of the herbicides most associated with non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma:

“When different NHL entities were analysed separately, the odd ratios  for the subtype small lymphocytic lymphoma/chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (SLL/CLL) was increased for both phenoxy herbicides and, especially, glyphosate’’

The medical Journal Cancer also  published in 1999 a  case-control study, concluding “increased risk for NHL was found for subjects exposed to herbicides and fungicides“.

Monsanto also based its defense on numerous studies and it said it would appeal the verdict. Jurors heard testimony by statisticians, doctors, public health researchers and epidemiologists who disagreed on whether glyphosate can cause cancer and, in the end, they decided in favor of the plaintiff.

*

Gregory A. Cade has been a lawyer for over 20 years. With the help from his firm, Environmental Litigation Group, they have helped over 200.000 people and they have won more than $1 billion for their clients. Now, they are ready to help even more people who have suffered because of glyphosate.

Featured image is from New Eastern Outlook.

Seeds of Destruction: Hidden Agenda of Genetic Manipulation

Author Name: F. William Engdahl

ISBN Number: 978-0-937147-2-2

Year: 2007

Pages: 341 pages with complete index

List Price: $25.95

Special Price: $18.00

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

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

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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above

The U.S. blockade on Cuba, imposed for more than 60 years, cost the tiny Caribbean island US$4.2 billion between April 2017 and March 2018, bringing Cuba’s total losses over six decades to US$134.5 billion.

In an annual report detailing the impact of Washington’s ongoing financial and trade policy, Cuba’s Foreign Ministry branded the blockade “the most unfair, severe and prolonged system of unilateral sanctions that has been applied against any country.”

The report, published Friday, noted that bilateral relations between the two nations – which had begun to thaw under the Barack Obama administration – experienced “a serious setback” in June 2017, when new U.S. President Donald Trump signed a memo strengthening the blockade.

Later that year, Trump’s administration then published a list of 179 Cuban entities with which U.S. institutions and individuals or legal entities were banned from doing business.

“The new sanctions against Cuba have caused a decrease in visitors from the United States and have generated major obstacles to the economic and commercial relations of Cuban companies with potential U.S. partners and third countries,” reads the latest report, which covers the period from April 2017 to March 2018. “These measures not only affect the state economy, but also the non-state sector of the country.”

Strengthening the blockade has impacted Cuba’s financial and credit relationships with the international community, the report states, causing “serious damage” to the country’s economy.

Stricter sanctions have also been accompanied by increased threats from Washington, D.C., the report continues, generating instability and stymying national development.

“The resurgence of the blockade against Cuba has been accompanied by aggressive, threatening, disrespectful and conditioning rhetoric from the highest levels of the U.S. government, which generates greater distrust and uncertainty in financial institutions, U.S. companies and suppliers due to the real fear of being penalized for relating to Cuba,” the report reads.

“The economic, commercial and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba is the main obstacle to development of all the potentialities of the Cuban economy. It represents a brake for the implementation of both the National Economic and Social Development Plan, as well as the 2030 Agenda and its Objectives of Sustainable Development.

“It is the main obstacle to the development of economic, commercial and financial relations of Cuba with the United States and, because of its extraterritorial nature, with the rest of the world.”

The United States has lost nearly all international support for the blockade since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

After agreeing to a historic U.S.-Cuban detente in 2014, Obama eased the embargo, which was put into place in 1962. But in 2017, Trump tightened travel and trade restrictions again. Only the U.S. Congress can lift the blockade in full.

The United Nations has adopted a non-binding resolution calling for an end to the sanctions with overwhelming support every year since 1992.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Syria’s Idlib province is the last major stronghold in the country infested with US-supported terrorists.

Led by elite Syrian Tiger forces, government troops are mobilizing for an offensive to liberate the province, aided by Russian airpower.

Russian reconnaissance flights have been monitoring Iblib’s southern and western countrysides, tracking movements of heavily armed US-supported terrorists.

The offensive is set to be launched in the coming days, fierce resistance likely. The greatest obstacle Syrian forces face is US opposition to resolving the conflict it initiated for regime change.

According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov, Trump regime hardliners “are impeding a normal settlement of the…fight against terrorism in Idlib.”

They reject ending illegal US occupation of northern and southwest Syria. “Unlike the US and” its imperial partners, Russia continues going all-out to achieve “stabilization and normalization of the situation in that country together with the guarantor countries Turkey and Iran.”

Are Washington and Britain planning another Chemical Weapons false flag incident this time in Idlib province, intending to wrongfully blame it on Assad – a pretext for US-led terror-bombing of Syrian military and other targets like earlier.

On Wednesday, Trump’s hardline national security advisor John Bolton threatened Damascus, saying:

“We now see plans for the Syrian (forces) to resume offensive military activities in Idlib province.”

“We are obviously concerned about the possibility that Assad may use chemical weapons again.”

“Just so there’s no confusion here, if the Syrian (forces) use chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly, and they really ought to think about this a long time.”

Fact: No evidence suggests government forces used CWs at any time throughout years of US-sponsored naked aggression in the country.

Fact: Plenty of evidence indisputably proved that US-supported terrorists used CWs many times, mainly against civilians, Damascus falsely blamed for their high crimes.

Bolton lied calling Israeli terror-bombing of Syrian targets “self-defense.” US claims about combating the scourge of ISIS in Syria it supports is another bald-faced lie.

On Wednesday, the Syrian Arab News Agency (SANA) reported that al-Qaeda-linked White Helmets are preparing to stage another (false flag) CW attack – in Idlib province to be wrongfully blamed on government forces.

“(R)eports say that the past few days have witnessed an unusual activity by the White Helmets members as information is being reported about terrorists preparing to carry out a chemical attack in the areas between Jisr al-Shughour and the northeastern countryside of Lattakia province with the aim of accusing the army of this attack,” said SANA, adding:

“…White Helmets members used eight vans to transport a shipment of barrels from Atma factory near the Turkish borders which specializes in recycling chlorine, moving from Idlib’s northern countryside through Ariha until they reached Jisr al-Shughour area, all under heavy protection form  al-Nusra terrorists, all while calls have been made to ‘reserve members’ of the White Helmets in several areas, instructing them to report for work.”

A joint US, UK, French statement said a military response would follow another CW incident, similar to their mid-April aggression, falsely accusing Syria of using CWs at the time.

A Final Comment

Sergey Lavrov slammed a secret world body directive prepared last year. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres has prohibited UN agencies from involvement in rebuilding liberated Syrian areas until (US-plotted) “political transition” (regime change) in the country is achieved.

The document titled “Parameters and Principles of UN Assistance in Syria” was clearly prepared on orders from Washington, Guterres aiding its imperial agenda in Syria and elsewhere – circumventing the Security Council, breaching its resolutions on Syria, other international law and the UN Charter.

Lavrov slammed his complicity with Washington’s “absolutely destructive” agenda, obstructing conflict resolution and reconstruction in Syria.

Guterres secretly prohibited UN agencies “from participating in any kind of projects aimed at restoring the Syrian economy,” said Lavrov.

The Trump regime and Guterres flagrantly breached Security Council Resolution 2254, stressing the “critical need to build conditions for the safe and voluntary return of refugees…and the rehabilitation of affected (Syrian) areas.”

The Trump regime and its imperial allies want endless war for regime change continued – a high crime supported by Guterres.

*

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected].

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

That an economic world war has already started is beyond dispute. Whether it is Washington or Trump who has lost it is immaterial but between the sanctions imposed on several countries and prohibitive tariffs inflicted on friends and foes alike most are warning against a catastrophe, not just for those directly involved, but the world generally.    

Trump’s unilateral withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) otherwise known as the Iran nuclear deal is, arguably, at the heart of the recent trade spats between the US and the five co-signatories. Although it must be said that US sanctions were not unique to Iran. Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea and Russia and many others were and are victims of American sanctions declared on a capitalist whim. Iran itself was victimised on no other pretext than its Islamic Revolution.

As has become customary America has no compunction about lying. Russia was sanctioned on trumped up charges of invading East Ukraine, annexation of Crimea, meddling in the 2016 American presidential elections and, the most recent charge of “highly likely” having poisoned a former, inconsequential Russian double agent, who is an MI6 asset.

But, thus far the Russian economy has not succumbed. Instead, on 1 March 2018 President Putin announced what was to upset US military superiority irretrievably, at least for several decades to come: Russia has developed weapons against which there is no defence.

Abandoning the JCPOA on the pretext that Washington wants the treaty renegotiated opened the way to a new barrage of sanctions against Iran with Trump declaring that state parties and commercial entities found breaking them will be penalised. The other five signatories/guarantors to the JCPOA protested. Russia already a victim of US sanctions openly declared that she will continue normal relations with Iran. 

China, with tariffs already imposed on her for some nefarious allegations among them currency manipulation, which to all intents and purposes has escalated into a trade war, saw fit to find ways around the sanctions against Iran. In anticipation of the November threat on import of Iranian oil China has increased its monthly volume substantially setting a ceiling well above the present, in readiness. India, another major Iran oil importer, has followed suit.

But China is the world’s second largest economy and the Renminbi is now part of the IMF’s Special Drawing Rights (SDR) basket of currencies. Beijing’s “Made in China 2025” program of turning China into an advanced manufacturing powerhouse is, too, no reason for the US to cheer. A further manifestation of China’s growing economic muscle is the launch of the Petroyuan last March. There is, therefore, no disputing that China is signalling its challenge to US economic dominance. To make matters worse China is no military walkover, not even for the USA. 

For their part the European signatories, namely, Britain, France and Germany were disgruntled. The JCPOA debacle resulted in the reactivation of the ‘blocking statute’ to protect European companies doing business in Iran. But Washington had by then assaulted Europe with the 25% steel and aluminium tariffs slapped on Mexico, Canada, China, Russia et al.. Brussels retaliated with a US$3.3 billion in tariffs against US products. However, fearing an escalation Europe pledged to increase imports of American soy bean and LNG.

America’s NATO allies are, therefore, not off-limits. Given the strain in relations with Turkey in recent years it is not surprising that tariffs would hit Ankara too. On the pretext that Turkey is holding an American citizen under house arrest for spying, the Turkish lira is now in a tailspin. Qatar, a Turkish ally, has pledged financial support. In fact, there is an obvious overall realignment going on where Turkey is visibly going the Eurasian way. 

Meanwhile, when sanctioned by the Obama administration Russia looked East towards China as an ally, now declared a strategic alliance. Trump then is forced, at least for now, to write off a hot war as an option to bring everyone to heel. Defeat in Syria is no help.

Fortunately for Trump, whose 2020 re-election depends on the success of his first term, today’s war is hybrid, asymmetrical and can be executed on several platforms simultaneously. An economic assault by the world’s number 1 economy under the circumstance must seem to him feasible. Fortunately for the world, America’s economy is groaning under the burden of massive debts caused by her perpetual war policy, one intended to keep the military industrial complex ticking over nicely. 

Thus far the annual US$1 trillion defence budget is financed by printing dollars, the world’s number one reserve currency facilitating international trade. The Petrodollar takes care of the oil trade the world over because OPEC under Saudi influence will not have it any other way. Why? Because it buys them US protection.

But to overcome unreasonable American sanctions and exorbitant tariff increases that go against WTO regulations, countries are beginning to trade in their own currencies and the Euro. The oil and gas trade has found an alternative in the Petroyuan, which has shown strong growth indicating that it has the ability to challenge the Petrodollar. Its success will destroy the US dollar’s dominant position. 

Trump himself appears unable to push his campaign pledges through. On the foreign front, under him Russophobia has gotten worse. At home “Making America Great Again” is driving him ever fiercer towards protectionism and trade wars. As a result the US is now regarded as unpredictable, unreliable and maybe even dangerous. So why is Trump pushing hard on sanctions and tariffs?

Despite his Helsinki meeting with Putin, Trump has imposed even harsher sanctions on Moscow based on unproven allegations made by London reminiscent of the false narrative leading to the Iraqi invasion. 

On China Trump threatens further tariffs as high as US$500 billion. Can China withstand such an onslaught? Beijing, however, holds over a trillion US dollars in American debt instruments. When push comes to shove will this be weaponised? 

A combination of factors have, therefore, come together to drive the trade wars: the American mid-term elections; military defeat in Syria; and, de-dollarisation. And, Trump has adopted Bush’s uncompromising position of either the world is with the US, or against the US. As it stands the world is looking a lot like it is “against” the US  except for such fading powers as Britain and Japan, and Australia, never a power centre.

An off-ramp is, then, sorely needed especially when the trade wars have added momentum to de-dollarisation which, when accomplished, loosens the stranglehold of the dollar over the global economy. When the trade wars have backfired on Washington can Trump be persuaded to step back from the brink and gracefully accept the end of US hegemony?

But what if the US will not relinquish its imperial ambitions? What if the US is not looking for an off-ramp? If so, why wouldn’t she? Could it be that her imperial agenda is long term and not easily surrendered?

It is fair to argue that with regard Iran and Turkey — and Syria, too –all three being staunch supporters of Palestine, America is looking for trouble in an effort to execute the Zionist “Greater Israel” project, which objective is to make Israel the regional imperial power, which in turn is the proxy for the West, namely, the United States. Greater Israel would roughly stretch from the Nile in the West to the Euphrates in the East into Iraq, north through Lebanon to southern Turkey and in the south it cuts the Arabian peninsula into two, all areas very rich in oil and gas.

Nevertheless, this does not completely explain Trump’s global rampage. But if the Greater Israel project is a part of a Zionist US imperial plan — in less emotive terms the neo-conservative global New World Order — then a plausible answer is possible. The trade war is Washigton’s strategy of choice as a first phase to bring the world to its knees. 

But why should Moscow and Beijing surrender to Washington’s imperial will when they hold the trump card, the former militarily and the latter financially? President Putin has said, “Why would we want a world without Russia?” And, would not President Xi be thinking the same?

*

Askiah Adam is Executive Director of JUST Malaysia.

First published by Global Research on August 25, 2018

***

Very few people know who is Nikola Tesla.

They have heard of the Tesla electric car, but  generally the broader public is unfamiliar with Nikola Tesla, the Serbian scientist and his pathbreaking inventions in electricity and wireless technology.

Many of his inventions were stolen by US corporations. 

Wireless technology was in large part based on Tesla inventions. Nikola Tesla foresaw the advent of the cell phone back in 1926:

“We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance. … and the instruments through which we shall be able to do this will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone.  A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket.”

In a  January 30, 1926 interview in Collier’s, Tesla revealed with tremendous foresight what a Future World with wireless technology would look like. In other words, he described the World in which we live in today.  “When wireless technology is perfectly applied, the whole earth will be converted into  a huge brain.”  Does this not describe our World today?

In fact Tesla described a World Beyond today’s World:

“Belted parking towers will arise in our large cities, and the roads will be multiplied through sheer necessity, or finally rendered unnecessary when civilization exchanges wheels for wings.

Tesla’s perspective was largely humanitarian reflecting a historical commitment to social progress. It was unduly optimistic. The military applications of wireless technology which constitute the basis of modern warfare were not mentioned.  Neither did he focus on the potential impacts of wireless radiation on human health (Beware of 5G: a Health Hazard for Future Generations and the Public is Not Informed).

Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, August 25, 2018

***

Below are excerpts from Tesla’s historic 1926 interview (emphasis added)

1920s telephone, private collection.

From the inception of the wireless system,…  I saw that this new art of applied electricity would be of greater benefit to the human race than any other scientific discovery, for it virtually eliminates distance.

The majority of the ills from which humanity suffers are due to the immense extent of the terrestrial globe and the inability of individuals and nations to come into close contact.

“Wireless will achieve the closer contact through transmission of intelligence, transport of our bodies and materials and conveyance of energy.

When wireless is perfectly applied the whole earth will be converted into a huge brain, which in fact it is, all things being particles of a real and rhythmic whole.  We shall be able to communicate with one another instantly, irrespective of distance.

Not only this, but through television and telephony we shall see and hear one another as perfectly as though we were face to face, despite intervening distances of thousands of miles; and the instruments through which we shall be able to do his will be amazingly simple compared with our present telephone. 

A man will be able to carry one in his vest pocket. [i.e. a mobile cell phone]

We shall be able to witness and hear events–the inauguration of a President, the playing of a world series game, the havoc of an earthquake or the terror of a battle–just as though we were present.

When the wireless transmission of power is made commercial, transport and transmission will be revolutionized.  Already motion pictures have been transmitted by wireless over a short distance.

Later the distance will be illimitable, and by later I mean only a few years hence.  Pictures are transmitted over wires–they were telegraphed successfully through the point system thirty years ago.  When wireless transmission of power becomes general, these methods will be as crude as is the steam locomotive compared with the electric train.

Perhaps the most valuable application of wireless energy will be the propulsion of flying machines, which will carry no fuel and will be free from any limitations of the present airplanes and dirigibles.  We shall ride from New York to Europe in a few hours.  International boundaries will be largely obliterated and a great step will be made toward the unification and harmonious existence of the various races inhabiting the globe.  Wireless will not only make possible the supply of energy to region, however inaccessible, but it will be effective politically by harmonizing international interests; it will create understanding instead of differences.

Modern systems of power transmission will become antiquated.  Compact relay stations one half or one quarter the size of our modern power plants will be the basis of operation–in the air and under the sea, for water will effect small loss in conveying energy by wireless.”

Present wireless receiving apparatus … will be scrapped for much simpler machines; static and all forms of interference will be eliminated, so that innumerable transmitters and receivers may be operated without interference.  It is more than probable that the household’s daily newspaper will be printed ‘wirelessly’ in the home during the night.  Domestic management–the problems of heat, light and household mechanics–will be freed from all labor through beneficent wireless power.

I foresee the development of the flying machine exceeding that of the automobile, and I expect Mr.  Ford to make large contributions toward this progress.  The problem of parking automobiles and furnishing separate roads for commercial and pleasure traffic will be solved.  Belted parking towers will arise in our large cities, and the roads will be multiplied through sheer necessity, or finally rendered unnecessary when civilization exchanges wheels for wings.

The world’s internal reservoirs of heat, indicated by frequent volcanic eruptions, will be tapped for industrial purposes.  In an article I wrote twenty years ago I defined a process for continuously converting to human use part of the heat received from the sun by the atmosphere.  Experts have jumped to the conclusion that I am attempting to realize a perpetual-motion scheme.  But my process has been carefully worked out.  It is rational.”

(quoted from John B. Kennedy, An Interview with Nikola Tesla, Collier Magazine, January 30, 1922)

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

The call comes after a San Francisco jury on August 10 ordered Monsanto to pay nearly $290 million in punitive and compensatory damages to Dewayne Johnson, a cancer patient whose terminal illness was allegedly caused by glyphosate in the company’s weed killer product.

“This case is a precedent that dismisses previous arguments that the herbicides supplied to the U.S. Military by Monsanto and other American chemical companies during the Vietnam War are not harmful to people’s health,” deputy Foreign Ministry spokesperson Nguyen Phuong Tra said Thursday.

“We believe Monsanto should be held responsible for compensating Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange for the damage caused by the company’s herbicides,” Tra said.

Founded in 1901 in St Louis, Missouri, Monsanto began producing agrochemicals in the 1940s. It was acquired by Bayer for more than $62 billion in June.

Monsanto was one of the producers of Agent Orange, a defoliant used by U.S. troops to strip Vietnamese forces of ground cover and food. Between 1961 and 1971 the U.S. Army sprayed some 80 million liters of Agent Orange over 30,000 square miles of southern Vietnam.

Dioxin, a highly toxic chemical in the defoliant, has been linked to many major health problems such as cancer, mental disabilities and birth defects.

Millions of Vietnamese over several generations have suffered from health problems due to exposure to Agent Orange, according to government data.

In 2004, Vietnamese victims of Agent Orange filed a class action lawsuit in a New York court against Monsanto, Dow Chemical and more than 30 manufacturers of the toxic defoliant. The case was however dismissed by the U.S. court citing lack of evidence.

On the other hand, Monsanto has multiple times been ordered by U.S. courts to pay compensation to American plaintiffs who suffered health issues from exposure to the company’s chemicals.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

As the tired, weak, dispute-driven, Conservative government flounders onwards towards an ignominious and disastrous Brexit departure from the European Union, the majority of the electorate in Manchester, Birmingham, Liverpool, Leeds, London, Cardiff and Glasgow eagerly await the election and installation of a Labour administration to take control.

A new, exciting dawn awaits Britain as essential services such as road, rail, mass transport systems and public utilities are taken back into British public ownership from their current foreign owners.

Banking and financial services in the City will be closely controlled and monitored to root out the corruption that is endemic in boardrooms throughout London as remuneration committees vote themselves and their friends ever increasing bonuses running into many millions annually as workers struggle on year-on-year under a pay freeze.

Commuters and communities will see an immediate change as priorities shift from the top 5% to the rest of society.

The corrupt ‘money for honours’ system that has given the country a swollen, puffed-up, moneyed House of ermine-clad peers who scratch each other’s backs as they disrupt the business of Parliament, will suffer a radical overhaul.

The sick and disabled will be able to eat again as the oppressive Conservative legislation that deprived them of proper food, medical attention, health benefits and housing is reversed and instead of taxing the poor out of existence, the tax-avoiding cohorts of hedge fund managers, bankers and City traders will be caught in a new net, operated by a vigilant Inland Revenue that will have no truck with the large accounting firms that are hired to audit but edit instead.

It’ll be ‘a new world, Golda’ once there is a Labour government in situ.  No one will be forced to go without heating, food or medical attention.  Food banks will be unnecessary and non-existent in a Labour-controlled economy.

The NHS will be totally overhauled to provide a 24/7 world-class medical service not a 5-day bankrupt apology for a Health Service. The most effective drugs and up to date scanning will be available for all, 24/7, not just those in private hospitals in London who cater for overseas visitors.

The education system, nationwide, will be made fairer and more equitable with priority for school places going to the children and families of British-born citizens in preference to non-nationals.

Housing and land will be made affordable for all citizens as there will be legislation prohibiting the amassing of land banks with planning consents by private house builders.  Local authorities will be required to build a stipulated number of affordable houses each year.  There will be no exceptions as at present for developers claiming non-viability. Local demand will always have priority over that of foreign investors.   And rents, all rents, commercial and residential, will need to be regulated with immediate effect.

Freedom of the press, media and internet will be guaranteed by statute but the deliberate dissemination of fake news or the hounding of innocent citizens will be unlawful.

There will be a prohibition on the sale of any British PLC to an overseas registered buyer without prior official authority from UK government.

Britain is a rich country brought down by an anachronistic class system that ensures the vast majority of the working population is shackled by legislation and local government that exists to make the City richer and the ordinary citizen, poorer.

The United Kingdom will, thank God, change as soon as Labour takes power. We’ll make Britain great again!  But, unlike America, we’ll do it honestly and efficiently so that every single citizen of the United Kingdom, benefits and thrives under a democratic, transparent government that exists to serve the majority.

And finally, lobbyists acting for and paid by a foreign state or by their London embassy or diplomatic mission, will be required by law to be registered as ‘foreign agents’ and their movements and activities restricted as a matter of British national security.

*

Hans Stehling (pen name) is an analyst based in the UK. He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

One thing already seems clear in the Trump era: the world will not turn out to be the American president’s playground.  His ultra-unilateralist, rejectionist policies on trade, the Iran denuclearization agreement, the costs of defense, and climate change are already creating an incipient anti-Trump movement globally (and in the United States as well). To a remarkable degree, the countries he has targeted are banding together to oppose him and his policies.  That still inchoate but gathering opposition assures that, whatever Donald Trump’s view of America may be, it is no longer — in the phrase coined 20 years ago by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright — the “indispensable nation.” Abroad or even at home, with the president facing increasingly strong headwinds on climate change at the state and local level, we’re entering a new world order on the heels of the collapsed American domination of the past three-quarters of a century.

Let’s consider the opposition Trump has generated on an issue-by-issue basis.

Cross-Border Trade

In January 2017, on his first day in office, President Trump promptly withdrew the United States from the long-negotiated 12-nation Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) pact, deeply disappointing among others a close ally, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. He had assiduously curried favor with Trump as soon as he was elected, on and off the golf course.  A day earlier in January, Abe had even succeeded in getting his own parliament to approve the agreement.

But in an act by Washington’s allies unprecedented in the last seven decades, Abe, along with the leaders of the 10 other countries in that pact — Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, and Vietnam — refused to take Trump’s executive order as TPP’s death sentence.  Instead, in a groundbreaking step into a new world, they resumed negotiations on the pact in the Chilean city of Viña del Mar.

This March, after months of deliberation, they signed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership in Chile’s capital city, Santiago. For the signatories, it reduces tariffs drastically, while introducing sweeping new trade rules in markets covering half a billion people on either side of the Pacific Ocean.

This was a landmark event, inaugurating an era in which countries long accustomed to following cues from Washington forged ahead without its participation. In doing so, they rejected Trump’s view of trade as a zero-sum game, consisting of winners and losers. Reflecting the common perception of the signatories, Chilean President Michelle Bachelet said,

“We need to stay on the course of globalization, yet learning from our past mistakes.”

Bachelet’s view was shared by Abe, who leads the country with the third largest economy in the world. Japan is a key player in global trade. So, too, is the 28-member European Union (EU) whose aggregate gross domestic product ($17.278 trillion) far exceeds Japan’s ($4.872 trillion).

Soon after recovering from Trump’s TPP exit, Abe decided to revive his country’s stalled free-trade talks with the EU. Their shared disapproval of the American president’s trade policy led the two sides to rapidly overcome their differences. In July 2017, Abe formally agreed to an outline of a free-trade deal with European Council President Donald Tusk and European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker.  By so doing, the EU and Japan, highly developed democracies, made clear their commitment to the liberal, free-trading, rules-based international order, which runs counter to Trump’s worldview.

In July 2018 in Brussels, the European Union and Japan inked the globe’s largest free-trade deal, the Economic Partnership Agreement. Remarkably, it covers almost a third of the globe’s gross domestic product and 600 million people. Toshimitsu Motegi, Japan’s minister for economic revitalization, summed up the situation in this way:

“The signing of the Japan-EU deal today will show the world once again our unwavering political will to promote free trade.”

Juncker was even more upbeat.

“[The] impact of today’s agreement goes far beyond our shores,” he said. “We are showing that we are stronger and better off when we work together. And we are leading by example, showing that trade is about more than tariffs and barriers. It is about values, principles, and finding win-win solutions for all those concerned.”

For the first time since the end of World War II, Washington’s allies in the West as well as the East thumbed their noses at an American president.  That made it a truly historic event.

The EU Goes Head to Head With Trump

In May, when Donald Trump exited the multilateral Iran denuclearization deal endorsed by the United Nations Security Council, Juncker was equally strident in his criticism of him. The Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which had been signed in July 2015 by six world powers (America, Britain, China, France, Germany, and Russia) and the EU, was being implemented as specified in the document. Yet Trump announced the reimposition of the American sanctions that had been in place before the JCPOA. These covered Iran’s energy, banking, and other sectors, and included a provision penalizing foreign businesses worldwide that continued trading with or investing in Iran. 

The American president’s 11-minute TV address explaining his decision ignored the 10 quarterly reports by inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirming that Iran was in compliance with the pact. Altogether his address contained 10 false or misleading statements, including the howler that Iran was on the “cusp of acquiring the world’s most dangerous weapons.”

Before launching economic warfare against Tehran, Trump had alienated the EU by refusing to grant it an exemption from steel and aluminum tariffs he started imposing on China and other countries in March. An American president is authorized to take such action only to protect “national security.” EU officials argued, to no avail, that their bloc was an ally of the United States and so, by definition, not a national security threat.

“We are witnessing today a new phenomenon: the capricious assertiveness of the American administration,” Tusk said, on the eve of an EU summit in Sofia, Bulgaria, in mid-May. “Looking at the latest decisions of President Trump, some could even think, ‘With friends like that, who needs enemies?’”

At that meeting, EU members agreed unanimously to stick to the JCPOA as long as Iran agreed to do the same.

On August 7th, U.S. sanctions went into effect on any financial transactions involving American dollars relating to Iran’s automotive sector, purchases of commercial planes, and metals, including gold. The European Commission, the executive arm of the EU, immediately instructed European companies not to comply with Washington’s demand to cease trading with Iran. Those firms deciding to pull out would require the EU’s authorization to do so. The commission went on to set up a mechanism that would allow firms affected by the sanctions to sue the American government in the national courts of member states.

Russia and China, co-signatories to the JCPOA, concurred with the EU.

“We are deeply disappointed by U.S. steps to reimpose its national sanctions against Iran,” said the Russian foreign ministry. “This is a clear example of Washington violating U.N. resolution 2231 [on the Iran deal] and international law.”

China’s foreign ministry also regretted Washington’s decision and urged all involved parties to stay on track for full implementation of the 2015 accord.

The unanimously adopted Security Council Resolution 2231, passed under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, had endorsed the Iran denuclearization pact, making it part of international law. It included a call for “promoting and facilitating the development of normal economic and trade contacts and cooperation with Iran.”

As if brazenly violating international law weren’t enough, the Trump administration decided to penalize U.N. member states for abiding by that resolution — a frontal attack on a rules-based international order. Fearing U.S. sanctions, some European companies had already backed off their Iranian investments and trade before August 7th. Consider that an apt illustration of a Trumpian world in which it’s the lawbreaker who punishes the law-abiding.

Trump on NATO

As a businessman occupying the White House, Donald Trump has introduced a profit-and-loss paradigm to foreign policy — be it cross-border trade or military budgets. That helps explain his continual drumbeat of criticism about how other NATO members are not spending enough on defense.

At the July NATO summit in Brussels, Trump was implacable on that issue, summing up his position in this way to CBS News:

“Many of those countries are in NATO and they weren’t paying their bills.”

A typical Trumpian claim, it bore no relation to reality.  As German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen explained, “NATO does not have a debt account.”

Apparently, the president confused direct and indirect contributions to NATO. In 2017, NATO’s budget was $1.652 billion. Member states contribute according to an agreed-upon formula related to a country’s GDP. The U.S. contributes 22.14% of that budget, Germany 14.65%, France 10.63%, and Britain 9.84%. All paid on time.

Then there are indirect contributions to NATO. These are related to how much equipment and manpower a member state volunteers to a certain military operation, of which the best known at the moment continues to be the U.S.-led war in Afghanistan launched after the 9/11 attacks almost 17 years ago. In order to facilitate and encourage such contributions, NATO leaders agreed in 2014 to increase their spending on defense to at least 2% of their GDP by 2024. Many are on course to do so. Recently, however, Trump upped the ante, suggesting that the figure be 4%, a goal even the U.S., with by far the largest military budget in the world, does not now reach.

Currently, the U.S. is spending 3.6% of its GDP on its military. That amounts to $683 billion (and the military budget Trump just signed raised that to $717 billion), or 71% of total NATO defense spending. That is what led the American president to describe the present situation as “disproportionate and not fair to the taxpayers of the United States.” Unsurprisingly, Trump failed to compare like with like. Defense of country is normally defined in terms of a possible aggressor. In that sense, the European members of NATO are focused on Russia. Collectively, NATO’s EU members spend $254 billion on defense, or 10 times Russia’s $24.2 billion defense budget.

By contrast, since the end of World War II, the Pentagon has equipped itself to fight wars across the world and dominate both the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans. That explains why, of the 20 aircraft carriers in service around the globe, 10 belong to its navy. Constructing an aircraft carrier takes years and is hugely expensive, apart from the support ships it needs to form a complete carrier task force.  But as a well-armed, aircraft-equipped, floating part of sovereign U.S. territory, powered by dual nuclear reactors, it is unmatched in its lethal power. This is what led former defense secretary William Cohen to state that, without “flattops,” the United States would have “less of a voice, less of an influence.”

In stark contrast, among Washington’s European allies, Britain has just one aircraft carrier, as does France. Notably, their carriers rarely steam past the Horn of Africa or the Persian Gulf.

Britain is already past the 2% mark for defense spending and France is just .2% short of the agreed-upon target. Since May of last year, France has been governed by 40-year-old President Emmanuel Macron, a staunch advocate of the closer integration, financially and otherwise, of EU members.  In a September 2017 speech, he floated the idea of a joint enterprise to allow Europe’s militaries to coordinate and react swiftly together.  As a result, this June, ministers from Belgium, Britain, Denmark, Estonia, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Spain, and Portugal signed a letter of intent in Luxembourg to form the European Intervention Initiative (EII).  It would exist outside the EU’s structures and be focused on joint planning for future natural disasters, crisis intervention, and the evacuation of citizens from hostile countries, among other things.

At present, its aims remain modest, but the key point is simple.  The principle that European militaries should act collectively without the involvement of the Pentagon is to be put into practice.  That is likely to prove but one more step on the path toward turning Albright’s indispensable nation into an increasingly dispensable America. If Donald Trump or his successor persists in weakening NATO, he or she will only encourage the Europeans to build on the EII concept.

A Climate-Denying President Is Rebuffed at Home

As a global opposition to Donald Trump begins to form, on one issue, climate change — that affects all humanity — a distinctly American opposition is preparing to join the growing international one.  In June 2017, Trump withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, while appointing an unparalleled crew of climate-change deniers to his administration and reneging on President Barack Obama’s pledge by 2025 to reduce America’s greenhouse gas emissions by 26% to 28% (from 2005 levels).

To the relief of most of the planet’s inhabitants, Trump’s withdrawal proved to be a solo act, with the remaining 194 signatories remaining firmly on board. Their representatives were among the 3,000 diplomats and observers who assembled in Bonn, Germany, in May to deliberate on giving the agreement further clout. To the consternation of the Trump administration, the next crucial meeting, a Global Climate Action Summit, will take place in September — and guess where? —  in California.

That state’s governor, Jerry Brown, has been a key figure in rallying support for the Paris Accord and opposition to Trump’s climate-change deniers at the state and local levels. Along with former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg, Brown has sponsored the We Are Still In coalition. In November 2017, the two of them published a remarkable report showing that cities, states, and businesses representing more than half of the U.S. economy and population had declared their support for the agreement.

“If these non-federal actors were a country,” it pointed out, “their economy would be the third largest in the world, bigger than all but two national parties to the Paris Agreement.”

In his withdrawal statement, Trump stated that

“the United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord and the draconian financial and economic burdens the agreement imposes on our country.”

That accord’s main aim was to keep the global temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade from the preindustrial level.

“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” Trump added.

Within a few hours, Pittsburgh Mayor Bill Peduto tweeted back,

“I can assure you that we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future.”

Pittsburgh is one of 405 municipalities representing 70 million Americans that have signed on to a Climate Mayors initiative, which has only grown in the past year. More than 80 American cities — even some, like San Diego, run by Republicans — have committed to a future of 100% renewable energy. In fact, Trump’s decision actually spurred some cities to make new efforts to accelerate the pace of change. New York decided to electrify its bus fleet and pledged to divest from fossil fuels, while suing the world’s largest oil corporations for their role in escalating sea-level rise, heat waves, and other natural disasters. It also promised to abandon coal-fired electricity, as did Los Angeles.

Donald Trump is not going to change.  He has declared his intention to seek reelection in 2020 and will continue to nurture his base by endlessly demonstrating his version of Make America Great Again. The 54 million followers he has on Twitter generally seem to applaud the macho bluster with which he conducts his bouts of disruptive diplomacy. So don’t expect him to moderate either his ultra-unilateralist policies or the style in which he delivers them.

The question for the future is this: To what extent can the incipient anti-Trump movement globally and domestically coalesce in ways that will set our world on a new course — one that will make Donald Trump and his Washington cronies the dinosaurs of Planet Earth? 

*

Dilip Hiro, a TomDispatch regular, is the author of After Empire: The Birth of a Multipolar World. His 37th book, soon to be published, is Cold War in the Islamic World: Saudi Arabia, Iran, and the Struggle for Supremacy (Oxford University Press).

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

If Micronesia’s centrally positioned Chuuk State votes for independence next year, then it could set off a chain reaction of events that would seriously undermine the US’ Pacific strategy and work out to the supreme benefit of China.

What’s Chuuk?

Radio New Zealand recently reported on a little-known event of disproportionate geostrategic significance in the Pacific region when it ran an article earlier this week titled “Chuukese defiant about independence from FSM”. This piece raised awareness not only of the Chuukese secessionist campaign within the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM), but also about how the US Ambassador politically intervened to warn against voting for this move during next March’s plebiscite. The casual reader might not have ever heard of Micronesia, nor understand why the possible secession of one of its states warrants an analysis by the author, but The Diplomat’s Thomas R. Matelski answered this question in February 2016 in his article titled “America’s Micronesia Problem”.

The Chinese Challenge

To sum it up, he said that the US needs to pay extra attention to the Pacific Island states of the “Compact Of Free Association” (COFA) whose post-independence economic and security agreements with America are set to expire in the coming future, as Micronesia’s is in 2023. The US Army War College fellow warned that China could quickly replace the US in what Beijing’s strategists regard as the “Second Island Chain”, which would have the effect of threatening the Pentagon’s Sea Lines Of Communication (SLOC) in the West Pacific waters between Guam and Papua New Guinea. Even if the Chinese military doesn’t move into this space, an allied government there could refuse to renew COFA and therefore deprive the US Navy of its existing rights there.

For those who may not be aware of what COFA is, it’s basically a lopsided post-independence deal between the US and the three Pacific Island nations that it occupied after World War II (Micronesia, the Marshall Islands, and Palau) as part of the UNSC-approved “Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands”. This arrangement pretty much grants the US military the freedom to do as it pleases in exchange for allowing the small population of “Global South” people in this part of the world the right to unrestrictedly migrate to the US or any of its other territories if they so choose. It was never about the islands’ development and was more than likely forced on their leaders out of Cold War geostrategic considerations, which is why it’s so controversial.

“Balkanizing” The Pacific

Chuuk is especially important in this context because its independence campaign represents the first real threat to Micronesia’s unity, which isn’t constitutionally enshrined and therefore makes the state’s secession legally possible. Some observers were of the impression that this was all just one big bluff in order to improve Micronesia’s standing during the ongoing talks to renew COFA, but Chuuk’s determination to go forward with this vote despite the US Ambassador saying that the state’s people would lose their migration rights to the US under COFA if they seceded proves that they’re more serious about this than outsiders might have initially thought.

The US usually doesn’t mind the “Balkanization” of any region in the Eastern Hemisphere – and actually encourages it in most instances — because this outcome is thought to facilitate its divide-and-rule strategy in the 21^st century, which is why its opposition to Chuuk’s secession is a curious exception to this established pattern. The reason for this is that the US prefers to deal with the hundreds of microcosmic islands within the COFA space on three easily manageable bilateral bases because of the understandable efficiency of this arrangement, but also due to credible fears that China could take advantage of the region’s “Balkanization” to disrupt the Pentagon’s SLOC in these strategic waters per the scenario outlined by Matelski.

 American Solutions

Therefore, the US has a national security interest of paramount importance in retaining the indivisibility of the COFA states, though it for whatever reason refuses to offer more beneficial socio-economic benefits to its proxy states in order to compete with China. Should it decide to be less stingy, then the US could steal China’s thunder by turning the islands into pro-American welfare states and indefinitely preempting any legitimate separatist threat to its military superiority in the region. Barring the political will to invest more in Chuuk, Micronesia, and the COFA states as a whole, then the US will probably resort to disruptive political measures to stop the centrifugal process that “Balkanization” would produce there.

The first thing that it can do is try to get the vote delayed or outright scrapped, but if that’s not possible, then the US will continue to pressure and intimidate pro-independence supporters. There’s also a chance that it might try to pay off some members of the vote-counting authority in order to rig the results. In the somewhat unlikely event that the Chuukese people succeed in their democratic separatist aspirations, then the US would immediately challenge the constitutionality of this move and offer full legal support to the Micronesian government. Under no circumstances will it allow Chuuk to make any independent military or political decisions, especially regarding China, and could blockade it as a last resort if this happens.

Concluding Thoughts

All in all, the case of next year’s Chuukese separatist referendum from Micronesia represents an unlikely example of a seemingly obscure event in a sparsely populated and far-off place potentially having disproportionate geostrategic importance in the New Cold War. It’s not likely to develop into a full-fledged crisis because the US should be able to prevent an adverse outcome of the vote by hook or by crook, but even so, the fact that the people are going forward with this initiative anyhow speaks to the genuine grievances that they have with Micronesia, COFA, and consequently, the US. If the vote is conducted in a free and fair manner, then the world will finally discover whether these concerns are shared by the majority of the population or not.

The US should have invested more effort into sincerely developing its partners’ socio-economic potential over the decades, and the groundswell of negative sentiment surrounding it is entirely of its own making. The Chinese economic model wouldn’t be attractive to the people of Chuuk or anyone else in the COFA space if the US was taking care of their needs like it was expected to, though it’s not too late for Washington to “win hearts and minds” if it offers these countries a much better deal than before. Time will tell whether this happens or not, but it’s revealing that it has thus far refused to do this and raises the obvious question of why that is when considering the magnitude of what’s at stake.

*

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.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Washington’s global hegemonic project of war and poverty has extended its reach into the recesses of the United Nations.

Whereas the steady flow of Syrian refugees back to their homeland is an on-going humanitarian success story, reports now indicate that the UN is blocking its own agencies from participating in the restoration of Syria’s economy.

The West seeks to suppress all of the conditions which encourage resettlement, as it promotes conditions which sustain and grow its terrorist proxies. 

The U.N, purportedly an agency for peace and stability has become, in this instance, an imperial agency for war, death, and destruction.

Meanwhile, Western politicians who voice empty words about ending the refugee crisis are mere fronts for policymakers who seek (and achieve) the opposite.

Al Qaeda and all of the terrorists in Syria are the real faces of Western politicians and policymakers who have, since before the war began, sustained and supported the terrorists – and continue to do so. The same conditions which sustain terrorism, and weaken the state, open the country up for imperial plunder and control.

 Separately, President Trump’s National Security Advisor, John Bolton, basically set the stage for another false flag as a pretext for further US war crimes in defense of terrorists, by advising,  

“Just so there’s no confusion here: if the Syrian regime uses chemical weapons, we will respond very strongly, and they really ought to think about this a long time.” 

Investigative journalist, and member of the Syria Solidarity Movement, Rick Sterling told Radio Sputnik that Bolton’s statement was “just another violation of international law”, that “it’s a threat that the US will use force,” and that “it’s another unauthorised assertion that the US is the judge, jury and executioner of the violations of the chemical weapons treaty.”

Imperialists and their proxies are the problem.  Terrorism and permanent global warfare will not subside until this root cause is addressed.

(Photos below: Terrorist damage to Syria’s industrial base, Aleppo, Syria, Source: author)

*

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. Merrit Kennedy, “U.N.: More Than 600,000 Syrians Have Returned Home In 2017.” npr . 11 August, 2017. (https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/08/11/542828513/u-n-more-than-600-000-syrians-have-returned-home-in-2017) Accessed 24 August, 2018. 

According to Russian Defense Ministry, 101,641 refugees returned to Syria from January 2018 – July 2018. (https://arabic.rt.com/middle_east/957970-%D8%B1%D9%88%D8%B3%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D8%AA%D9%86%D8%B4%D8%A6-%D9%81%D9%8A-%D8%B3%D9%88%D8%B1%D9%8A%D8%A7-%D9%85%D8%B1%D9%83%D8%B2%D8%A7-%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%B3%D8%AA%D9%82%D8%A8%D8%A7%D9%84-%D9%88%D8%AA%D9%88%D8%B2%D9%8A%D8%B9-%D9%88%D8%A5%D9%8A%D9%88%D8%A7%D8%A1-%D8%A7%D9%84%D9%84%D8%A7%D8%AC%D8%A6%D9%8A%D9%86/amp/) Accessed 24 August, 2018.

2. RT News, “ ‘Secret Directive’ Bans UN Agencies From Helping Rebuild Syria Until ‘Political Transition’. Lavrov. “ RT World News, 20 August 2018/ GR 22 August, 2018. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/secret-directive-bans-un-agencies-from-helping-rebuild-syria-until-political-transition-lavrov/5651479) Accessed 24 August, 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

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

In 2013 Tom Engelhardt wrote, referring to the United States presence in Afghanistan, Iraq and Yemen, where at eight United States air strikes had killed almost 300 wedding guests: “we have become a nation of wedding crashers, the uninvited guests who arrived under false pretenses, tore up the place, offered nary and apology, and refused to go home.”

That was never truer than in Afghanistan. Contrary to widespread news reports, the United States did not begin its involvement in Afghanistan with the invasion and occupation of the country in October 2001. Its modern focus on Afghanistan can be traced back at least to the 1970s.

In the late 1970s Afghanistan was ruled by a relatively secular regime. The last King, Mohammad Zahir Shah had been deposed in a 1973 coup and a republic established. Shah was replaced by Mohammad Daoud Khan who ruled from July 1973 to April 1978 when he was assassinated. His replacement, Nur Mohammed Taraki lasted until September 1979 when he was also assassinated, a fate that also befell his successor Hafizullah Amin.

The turmoil was not entirely domestic related. Throughout the 1970s, Afghanistan’s only real foreign friend was the Soviet Union. This was a temptation too great for the Americans to resist. United States President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski persuaded Carter to support an insurrection against the Taraki Government. To this end, foreign insurgents were to be trained in Pakistan, armed by the Americans, and largely financed by Saudi Arabia.

These insurgents were then infiltrated not only into Afghanistan, but also the Muslim dominant Central Asian republics of the Soviet Union, and Xinjiang province of China, also with a large Muslim population.

The objective, as Brzezinski disclosed in his book The Grand Chessboard, (1997) was “to give the Soviet Union it’s own Vietnam.” The program to train and infiltrate terrorists into Afghanistan, Xinjiang and the Central Asian republics was code named Operation Cyclone. This was the origin of the group that came to be known as al Qaeda, which in Arabic means “the list.” The members of that list were then known as Mujihideen, foreign fighters that could be relied upon to pursue goals consistent with the objectives of United States geopolicy.

One of the leaders of this fighting force was Osama bin Laden a Saudi Arabian from a wealthy Saudi family.

Brzezinski’s task was at least partially successful. The Soviet leader Brezhnev eventually agreed to the multiple requests of the Afghanistan government for assistance, and dispatched troops to Afghanistan. This has been falsely depicted as a Soviet “invasion” ever since. Militarily and politically it was a disastrous for the Soviet Union. The last Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev ordered the withdrawal of the combat troops in May 1988 and it was successfully concluded by the following February.

Political instability continued however, with a bitter civil war that eventually led to the formation of the Taliban government. That government never had full control of all of Afghanistan’s territory, with significant portions under the control of sundry warlords, particularly in the north of the country. The Taliban’s singular achievement was to slash opium production to a tiny fraction of the volume that had produced more than 90% of the world’s heroin supply.

The events of 11 September 2001 gave the United States its excuse to once again focus on ‘regime change’ in Kabul. What the western media resolutely fails to tell its readers/ listeners is that the decision to invade Afghanistan was in fact taken in July 2001 when the Taliban Government refused to award the contract for a gas pipeline from the enormously resource-rich Caspian basin through Afghanistan to an American company, and instead gave to an Argentinian company Bridas.

Afghanistan was, for the Americans, the only feasible route for the pipeline as alternative routes were through Iran, Russia or China, none of whom were geopolitically feasible for the United States.

The ostensible public reason for the invasion and occupation was the alleged refusal of the Taliban Government to hand over Osama bin Laden, the alleged ringleader of the 9/f that evidence was produced they were willing to hand bin Laden over to an international tribunal for trial.

That evidence was never forthcoming. There were two reasons for this: the evidence is non-existent; and more importantly for present purposes, the decision to invade had already been made. Regardless of what the Afghanistan government did or did not do, their fate had already been determined.

Now, nearly 17 years later, the Americans and their allies such as Australia are still there. As Engelhardt said, they arrived uninvited, trashed the place, and refused to leave.

The longer they stay, the hollower the original justification is revealed to be the case. The public is still fed the same nonsensical excuses, such as training the Afghan troops to be able to be responsible for their own security. Evidence of ‘ghost’ troops, rampant corruption and a manifest unwillingness as well as an inability to be an effective fighting force has done nothing to diminish the propaganda.

Rather than bringing ‘peace and stability’, training Afghans to a mythical self-sufficiency, or helping rebuild Afghanistan’s shattered infrastructure, the time is long past for an honest appraisal of what western Allied forces are really trying to achieve in Afghanistan. There are a number of motives that readily reveal themselves.

The first relates to Afghanistan’s geography. It is strategically located in close proximity to, or bordering upon, the United States’ designated enemies, China, Iran and Russia. A map of US military bases shows that they closely follow the pipeline route, and are readily accessible to the poppy fields that once again produce more than 90% of the world’s heroin.

The refining of opium into heroin requires imported chemicals, and those are flown into Afghanistan on planes operated by the occupying NATO forces. This should not come as a surprise, despite being totally suppressed by the western media. Peter Dale Scott (American War Machine, 2010) and Alfred McCoy (Politics of Heroin New ed. 2003) have long pointed out the central role of drug trafficking in the financing of CIA clandestine operations.

Those military bases have also fulfilled a further role as ‘black sites’ where alleged terrorists are illegally rendered, to be tortured, indefinitely imprisoned, or simply disappeared.

A second reason relates to Afghanistan’s resource wealth. One of the least publicized facts about Afghanistan is it is enormous potential as a source of oil, gas, precious metals, precious stones, and perhaps most significantly rare earth minerals.

A number of US geological survey reports in recent years have conservatively estimated Afghanistan’s resources and those areas to be in excess of $3 trillion. It is hardly surprising given this potential bonanza, which Trump himself described as being sufficient to pay for Afghanistan’s own occupation, that the United States and its allies “refuse to go home.”

The third factor relates to the geopolitical changes occurring in the region. As corrupt and incompetent as the current Afghanistan government is, it is still able to discern that the continued US occupation is a road to nowhere. Afghanistan has, since June 2012 had observer status of the Shanghai Corporation Organisation, rapidly emerging as one of the most influential groups in the Eurasian region.

The SCO grouping poses a progressively stronger challenge to the US centred geopolitical world, and the US is not giving up its previous unipolar status without a fight.

The Mujihideen of the 1970s and 1980s, now morphed into various guises but still under US direction, is being used to destabilize and disrupt those same nations targeted during those earlier decades. It is one of the major reasons why the SCO has security related issues as a central focus.

On 4 September 2018 the Taliban will be participating in Russian sponsored peace talks in Moscow. Twelve countries and the Taliban were invited, but the United States and Afghanistan governments have announced that they will not be attending. The Afghan government says it prefers “direct talks” with the Taliban, although given the realities of the presence of foreign occupying troops, it is difficult to see how direct talks will produce a meaningful result while their status remains undetermined. It is also an open question as to how freely the Afghan government decision was made.

The Americans have also declined to take part, saying that the talks were “unlikely to yield any progress” toward a settlement. Rather obviously, progress is difficult if one of the principal players refuses to participate. The more likely real reason for American non-participation is that they do not control the agenda, the venue, or the outcome. Rather than being part of the solution, they remain instead a major part of the problem.

After nearly 17 years of occupation, destruction, civil war and a manifest absence of progress, it is clearly way past the time when there was a fresh approach with Afghanistan’s needs being the top priority. For the reasons set up above that has not been the case for the past several decades. Progress is unlikely to be achieved as long as the uninvited guests refuse to go home.

*

James O’Neill is an Australian-based Barrister at Law, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

Featured image is from the author.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

With no main electricity for 16-20 hours per day, hospitals in Gaza are reliant on backup generators to keep essential services running. UN-donated fuel to keep these life-saving services running is expected to be used up in the next few days unless emergency funding is secured.

On Monday, Mr McGoldrick called on the international community to urgently prevent essential services from shutting down:

“Life-saving services in the Gaza Strip rely heavily on donor-funded emergency fuel. We have now run out of funds and are delivering the final supplies in the next few days. Without funds to enable ongoing deliveries, service providers will be forced to suspend, or heavily reduce, operations from early September, with potentially grave consequences.”

The severe shortage of emergency fuel endangers patients’ lives, including new born babies in intensive care – a service supported by Medical Aid for Palestinians (MAP) in Gaza. This was emphasised by the UN this week:

“Among the most vulnerable to shortages are 4,800 patients in Gaza’s hospitals, who rely each day on electrical devices in intensive care units, including newborns, and those on dialysis or in trauma departments. Medical services for over 1.6 million other Palestinians will suffer from reduction or cessation of services, due to lack of emergency fuel at the main health facilities, and over half the population face the risk of possible sewage overflow, if fuel runs out for the 41 main sewage pumping stations in the Gaza Strip. Overall, the reduced functioning of water and sanitation facilities risks an increase of waterborne disease and outbreaks in a densely-populated, urban area.”

It is vital that international donors, including the UK, step in immediately to keep Gaza’s health system running. In the long-term, they must also work towards sustainable solutions to the electricity crisis, including through a lifting of Israel’s 11-year illegal closure. The UN estimates that US$4.5 million is required to cover humanitarian fuel costs until the end of 2018.

The crisis affecting the provision of health services in Gaza is further compounded by the mass trauma casualties which have entered hospitals in the context of Israel’s use of force against protesters taking part in the “Great March of Return” since 30 March.

On Friday 17 August, the twenty-first Friday of the “Great March of Return” demonstrations, a high number of casualties were again reported. According to the Ministry of Health, two Palestinians were killed and 270 injured by Israeli forces. Karim Abu Fatair, 30, was fatally shot in the head by an Israeli sniper near to the perimeter fence in central Gaza. Saadi Akram Ahmad Abu Maamar, 27, also succumbed to his wounds at demonstrations in central Gaza.

Since 30 March, 160 Palestinians have been killed and 18,000 people injured. According to the World Health Organization, 9,447 people have been hospitalised, of whom 48% (4,508) were shot. Of those hospitalised 5,924 received limb injuries.

Outside of hospitals, frontline health workers have come under attack by Israeli forces using live ammunition, tear gas and rubber bullets. From 30 March to 13 August, three paramedics have been killed and 379 injured. Two health facilities – a health centre for people with disability and a Ministry of Health ambulance station – were also reportedly damaged in and Israeli air strike on 14 July.

*

Featured image is from MAP.

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Western media has described the unrest and violence in Nicaragua as a “campaign of terror” by government police and paramilitary. This has also been asserted by large non governmental organizations (NGOs). In May, for example, Amnesty International issued a report titled “Shoot to Kill: Nicaragua’s Strategy to Repress Protest”. 

A Miami Herald op-ed summarized,

“It’s not like there’s any confusion over who’s to blame for the recent killings amid Nicaragua’s political violence. Virtually all human rights groups agree that Ortega’s police-backed paramilitary goons are the culprits.”

Much less publicized, other analysts have challenged these assertions. They claim the situation is being distorted and the reality is very different. For example,  wrote an open letter condemning the Amnesty report for being biased and actually contributing to the chaos and violence. 

To learn more about the situation, Task Force on the Americas (TFA) invited Camilo Mejía to speak in the San Francisco Bay Area. TFA has a long history of work in Central and South America educating the public, lobbying around US foreign policy and leading delegations to see the reality in Central and South America. 

Veterans for Peace (VFP) quickly agreed to co-sponsor events with Camilo in San Francisco and Oakland. Veterans for Peace also has a long history with Nicaragua. VFP was founded partially in response to US aggression in Central America. VFP members protested against US shipments to the Nicaraguan Contras. VFP member Brian Willson had both legs cut off when a train carrying weapons destined for Central America ran over him. The current VFP president, Gerry Condon, was at that protest and helped stop the blood gushing from Willson’s severed legs. Brian Willson lives in Nicaragua today.   

Camilo Mejía was born in Nicaragua, the son of famous musician Carlos Mejía Godoy. His mother was a staunch Sandinista activist but separated from the father soon after his birth. She brought Camilo to the United States as a single mother in 1994, four years after the Sandinista electoral defeat. Living in Florida, Camilo struggled to make ends meet and joined the US Army to pay for college. Just a few months before completing his service, Camilo was ordered into the 2003 invasion of Iraq. After serving one tour of war duty, he refused to return and was imprisoned for 9 months. 

Camilo was honored as a “Prisoner of Conscience” by Amnesty International. Thus Camilo’s criticism of the Amnesty report on Nicaragua has special significance. Camilo is Nicaraguan, a member of Veterans for Peace, and a hero to both VFP and Amnesty. He is also the author of the compelling autobiography “Road from Ar Ramadi.”  

As news of Camilo’s upcoming visit to San Francisco was spread, we quickly started to feel a reaction. There is a large and diverse Nicaraguan exile community in San Francisco. While some support the Sandinista government, others are adamantly opposed and some even supported the Contras decades ago. Anti-Ortega Nicaraguan exiles in San Francisco began organizing a protest .

Camilo’s visit to speak on Nicaragua also prompted a reaction from some Americans who had once supported the Sandinistas but now support the opposition. They campaigned to have their viewpoint presented at our events. TFA and VFP organizers thought there was no need to include the opposition voice since their characterization of the conflict is widespread. However Camilo wanted to be transparent and not exclude the opposition. He thought that if we allowed an opposition supporter to speak briefly, they were more likely to listen to his analysis and he could directly address their concerns.  

At the San Francisco event, protesters arrived early in front of the War Memorial Veterans Building. When the event started, protesters flooded into the venue. As promised, an opposition supporter was invited to speak briefly.The audience of about 120 was split between those who wanted to hear Camilo and those who came to protest. Camilo’s talk was repeatedly interrupted and police arrived to prevent violence. Camilo asked what kind of “democracy” was this they claimed to want for Nicaragua when they would not listen or allow him to speak here in San Francisco?  

Camilo showed two short video clips. The first video showed opposition activists torturing a Sandinista supporter under the oversight of a Catholic priest and the remains of a Sandinista burned alive. 

A second video showed a statement from an American who has lived in Nicaragua for many years. He described how gangs had invaded his town, set up road blocks, intimidated and abused local civilians. He described the joy of the community when the roadblocks were removed and masked “protesters” departed. 

The audience got increasingly disruptive during the question period. A prominent Nicaraguan opposition supporter came forward, offering to quiet the disrupters. After receiving the microphone from Camilo, she did the opposite.The disruptions escalated and the event had to be ended early. The protesters had completed their mission: they had prevented Camilo from being able to present his perspective. 

Organizers from TFA and Veterans for Peace decided the Sunday event in Oakland needed to be handled differently. Members of Veterans for Peace, including chapter president Paul Cox and others, prevented the protesters from entering. Ultimately the venue was packed with interested listeners. The anti-Ortega crowd protested on the sidewalk and street but were not able to disrupt the event. 

With the loud opposition outside, Camilo was introduced by VFP President Gerry Condon. He gave a clear and concise history of key events in Nicaraguan political history including: 

• Nicaragua was connected to the gold rush in California in the the mid 1800’s. That is when the idea of a trans-oceanic passage through Nicaragua was born. 
• When Cesar Sandino launched guerrilla war in the 1920’s and 30’s there were two priorities: advancing the working class and anti-imperialism.  
• The Frente Sandinista which carried out the 1979 revolution had nine commanders: three from each of three factions. 
• After the Sandinistas lost the 1990 election, splits emerged and ultimately Sergio Ramirez formed the Movimiento Renovador Sandinista (MRS). The more affluent members plus intellectuals, writers, and musicians gravitated toward it. But though they were well connected to western solidarity activists, they had no popular platform nor base. They did poorly in elections and moved toward neoliberal policies and the NGO world. 
• Since taking power in 2007, Daniel Ortega and Sandinistas have improved living conditions for the poor with free healthcare, free education and better economic policies. Nicaragua now supplies 80 – 90% of its own food needs. 
• Up until April, Nicaragua was vastly safer than neighboring countries. Their “community policing” is considered a model. 
• Support for Ortega and the Frente Sandinista has steadily increased. In 2006, they won 38% of the vote; in 2011, it increased to 62%; in 2016 support increased to 72% with 68% turnout.   
• There has been much misinformation about the proposed changes in social security which sparked the protests in April. To stabilize the social security funding, the IMF wanted to implement an austerity plan which would have doubled the work requirements and raised the qualification age from 60 to 65. The Sandinista proposal was much more progressive, requiring wealthy individuals and businesses to pay much more with minor changes for others.   
• The death count has been manipulated. Some deaths are counted twice; people who were said to be dead have turned up alive; dead Sandinista supporters have been counted as protesters. The first deaths on April 19 were one student, one police officer and one bystander killed by sniper fire. Camilo asks: Was this done by the government or by outside forces? 
• The National Endowment for Democracy and other US agencies have trained students and others in using social media, video and symbols to stir up dissent and destabilize Nicaragua.   

At the Oakland event, Camilo showed a torture video which demonstrates opposition violence. He also showed video of the huge July 19 celebration of the the revolution anniversary. His talk was followed by many questions including from opposition supporters. 

At times during the event, there was tension and concern about violence from the protesters outside. Some Nicaraguan families were afraid for their safety. After the event, they had to be escorted with protection to their cars. The car of one Nicaraguan family was besieged by the anti-Ortega crowd. Camilo and his young daughter had to be quickly taken away amidst shouts and waving placards. 

Ultimately Camilo’s visit accomplished the goal. Media interviews in Spanish and English reached many thousands.  In these and the public presentations, he brought information and analysis which has been largely censored or ignored in coverage of Nicaragua. 

Camilo believes Nicaragua has temporarily defeated a “soft coup” attempt but the danger is not over. The opposition forces internally and internationally are still there.

*

Rick Sterling is an investigative journalist and current board president of Task Force on the Americas. He can be reached at [email protected]. 

Note to readers: please click the share buttons above  

Featured image: A Palestinian man can be seen demolishing his home on his wedding day after he was forced to do so by Israeli forces [Quds TV/Twitter]

Israeli occupation police on Saturday evening forced a Palestinian man in the Negev to demolish his home on his wedding day, Arab48 reported.

Faisal Abu-Binniyah in Wadi Al-Naam village was forced to raze the property in which he planned to start his new family, his brother Jalal said, leaving “him without an alternative”.

“The demolition of my brother’s house ended our happiness at his marriage as we were subject to repeated raids by Israeli police and repeated threats to pay high fines if we did not demolish the house,” Jalal told Arab48.

Jalal described the measures of the Israeli police against his family as a “revenge policy”, stating that this is “intentionally planned against Arabs.”

Wadi Al-Naam is the largest unrecognised Arab villages in the Negev with a population estimated to be more than 13,000.

Most of the residents in this village were forced out of their homes by the Israeli occupation forces in 1953. Like all other unrecognized villages they lack the basic infrastructure including access to running water and connection to the national grid.

According to the Association for Civil Rights in Israel (ACRI), more than half of the approximately 160,000 Bedouins in the Negev reside in unrecognised villages.

The unrecognised Bedouin villages were established in the Negev soon after the 1948 Arab-Israeli war following the creation of the State of Israel.

Right groups say that the demolition of unrecognised Bedouin villages is a central Israeli policy aimed at removing the indigenous Palestinian population from the Negev and transferring them to government-zoned townships to make room for the expansion of Jewish Israeli communities.

This article was written at the height of the 2008-2009 economic crisis which coincided with the US presidential election campaign. It was published in the week following Obama’s victory in the November 2008 elections. 

The October 2008 economic meltdown was the result of a deliberate process of financial manipulation. Ten years later under the Trump administration, financial warfare has become increasingly sophisticated. Manipulations of  foreign exchange markets combined with economic sanctions have been used by Washington in alliance with Wall Street to trigger economic instability in targeted countries, including Iran, Turkey, Russia and Venezuela.  

The following article provides a brief history of “financial warfare” from the 1997 Asian Crisis (triggered by the manipulation of forex markets) to the October 2008 financial meltdown, not to mention the bailout procedures put forth by powerful banking conglomerates.

Michel Chossudovsky, August 24, 2018

****
The October 2008 financial meltdown is not the result of a cyclical economic phenomenon. It is the deliberate result of US government policy instrumented through the Treasury and the US Federal Reserve Board.

This is the most serious economic crisis in World history.

The “bailout” proposed by the US Treasury does not constitute a “solution” to the crisis. In fact quite the opposite: it is the cause of further collapse. It triggers an unprecedented concentration of wealth, which in turn contributes to widening economic and social inequalities both within and between nations.

The levels of indebtedness have skyrocketed. Industrial corporations are driven into bankruptcy, taken over by the global financial institutions. Credit, namely the supply of loanable funds, which constitutes the lifeline of production and investment, is controlled by a handful of financial conglomerates.

With the “bailout”, the public debt has spiraled. America is the most indebted country on earth. Prior to the “bailout”, the US public debt was of the order of 10 trillion dollars. This US dollar denominated debt is composed of outstanding treasury bills and government bonds held by individuals, foreign governments, corporations and financial institutions.

“The Bailout”: The US Administration is Financing its Own Indebtedness

Ironically, the Wall Street banks –which are the recipients of the bailout money– are also the brokers and underwriters of the US public debt. Although the banks hold only a portion of the public debt, they transact and trade in US dollar denominated public debt instruments Worldwide.

In a bitter twist, the banks are the recipients of  a 700+ billion dollar handout and at the same time they act as creditors of the US government.

We are dealing with an absurd circular relationship: To finance the bailout, Washington must borrow from the banks, which are the recipients of the bailout.

The US administration is financing its own indebtedness.

Federal, State and municipal governments are increasingly in a straightjacket, under the tight control of the global financial conglomerates. Increasingly, the creditors call the shots on government reform.

The bailout is conducive to the consolidation and centralization of banking power, which in turn backlashes on real economic activity, leading to a string of bankruptcies and mass unemployment.

Will an Obama Administration Reverse the Tide? 

The financial crisis is the outcome of a deregulated financial architecture.

Obama has stated unequivocally his resolve to address the policy failures of the Bush administration and “democratize” the US financial system. President-Elect Barack Obama says that he is committed to reversing the tide:

“Let us remember that if this financial crisis taught us anything, it’s that we cannot have a thriving Wall Street while Main Street suffers. In this country, we rise or fall as one nation, as one people.” (President-elect Barack Obama, November 4, 2008, emphasis added)

The Democrats casually blame the Bush administration for the October financial meltdown.

Obama says that he will be introducing an entirely different policy agenda which responds to the interests of Main Street:

“Tomorrow, you can turn the page on policies that put the greed and irresponsibility of Wall Street before the hard work and sacrifice of men and women all across Main Street. Tomorrow you can choose policies that invest in our middle class and create new jobs and grow this economy so that everybody has a chance to succeed, from the CEO to the secretary and the janitor, from the factory owner to the men and women who work on the factory floor.( Barack Obama, election campaign, November 3, 2008, emphasis added)

Is Obama committed to “taming Wall Street” and “disarming financial markets”?

Ironically, it was under the Clinton administration that these policies of “greed and irresponsibility” were adopted.

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act (FSMA) was conducive to the the repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.

A pillar of President Roosevelt’s “New Deal”, the Glass-Steagall Act was put in place in response to the climate of corruption, financial manipulation and “insider trading” which resulted in more than 5,000 bank failures in the years following the 1929 Wall Street crash.

Bill Clinton signs into law the  Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, November 12, 1999

Under the 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act, effective control over the entire US financial services industry (including insurance companies, pension funds, securities companies, etc.) had been transferred to a handful of financial conglomerates and their associated hedge funds.

The Engineers of Financial Disaster

Who are the architects of this debacle?

In a bitter irony, the engineers of financial disaster are now being considered by President-Elect Barack Obama’s Transition Team for the position Treasury Secretary:

Lawrence Summers played a key role in  lobbying Congress for the repeal of the Glass Steagall Act. His timely appointment by President Clinton in 1999 as Treasury Secretary spearheaded the adoption of the Financial Services Modernization Act in November 1999. Upon completing his mandate at the helm of the US Treasury, he became president of Harvard University (2001- 2006).

Paul Volker was chairman of the Federal Reserve Board in the l980s during the Reagan era. He played a central role in implementing the first stage of financial deregulation, which was conducive to mass bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions, leading up to the 1987 financial crisis.

Timothy Geithner is CEO of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which is the most powerful private financial institution in America. He was also a former Clinton administration Treasury official. He has worked for Kissinger Associates and has also held a senior position at the IMF. The FRBNY plays a behind the scenes role in shaping financial policy. Geithner acts on behalf of powerful financiers, who are behind the FRBNY. He is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR)

Jon Corzine is currently governor of New Jersey, former CEO of Goldman Sachs.

Larry Summers (left) and Timothy Geithner

At the time of writing, Obama’s favorite is Larry Summers, front-runner for the position of Treasury Secretary.

Harvard University Economics Professor Lawrence Summers served as Chief Economist for the World Bank (1991–1993). He contributed to shaping the macro-economic reforms imposed on numerous indebted developing countries. The social and economic impact of these reforms under the IMF-World Bank sponsored structural adjustment program (SAP) were devastating, resulting in mass poverty.

Larry Summer’s stint at the World Bank coincided with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the imposition of the IMF-World Bank’s deadly ” economic medicine” on Eastern Europe, the former Soviet republics and the Balkans.

In 1993, Summers moved to the US Treasury. He initially held the position of Undersecretary of the Treasury for international affairs and later Deputy Secretary. In liaison with his former colleagues at the IMF and the World Bank, he played a key role in crafting the economic “shock treatment” reform packages imposed at the height of the 1997 Asian crisis on South Korea, Thailand and Indonesia.

The bailout agreements negotiated with these three countries were coordinated through Summers office at the Treasury in liaison with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York and the Washington based Bretton Woods institutions. Summers worked closely with IMF Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer, who was later appointed Governor of the Central Bank of Israel.

Larry Summers became Treasury Secretary in July 1999. He is a protégé of David Rockefeller. He was among the main  architects of the infamous Financial Services Modernization Act, which provided legitimacy to inside trading and outright financial manipulation.

Larry Summers and David Rockefeller

“Putting the Fox in Charge of the Chicken Coop”

Summers is currently a Consultant to Goldman Sachs [Oct 2008]and managing director of a Hedge fund, the D.E. Shaw Group,  As a Hedge Fund manager, his contacts at the Treasury and on Wall Street provide him with valuable inside information on the movement of financial markets.

Putting a Hedge Fund manager (with links to the Wall Street financial establishment) in charge of the Treasury is tantamount to putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

The Washington Consensus

Summers, Geithner, Corzine, Volker, Fischer, Phil Gramm, Bernanke, Hank Paulson, Rubin, not to mention Alan Greenspan, al al. are buddies; they play golf together; they have links to the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bilderberg; they act concurrently in accordance with the interests of Wall Street; they meet behind closed doors; they are on the same wave length; they are Democrats and Republicans.

While they may disagree on some issues, they are firmly committed to the Washington-Wall Street Consensus. They are utterly ruthless in their management of  economic and financial processes. Their actions are profit driven. Outside of their narrow interest in the “efficiency” of “markets”, they have little concern for “living human beings”. How are people’s lives affected by the deadly gamut of macro-economic and financial reforms, which is spearheading entire sectors of economic activity into bankruptcy.

The economic reasoning underlying neoliberal economic discourse is often cynical and contemptuous. In this regard, Lawrence Summers’ economic discourse stands out. He is known among environmentalists for having proposed the dumping of toxic waste in Third World countries, because people in poor countries have shorter lives and the costs of labor are abysmally low, which essentially means that the market value of people in the Third World is much lower.  According to Summers, this makes it far more “cost effective” to export toxic materials to impoverished countries. A controversial 1991 World Bank memo signed by of Chief Economist Larry Summers reads as follows (excerpts, emphasis added):

DATE: December 12, 1991 TO: Distribution FR: Lawrence H. Summers Subject: GEP

“‘Dirty’ Industries: Just between you and me, shouldn’t the World Bank be encouraging MORE migration of the dirty industries to the Less Developed Countries? I can think of three reasons:

1) The measurements of the costs of health impairing pollution depends on the foregone earnings from increased morbidity and mortality…. From this point of view a given amount of health impairing pollution should be done in the country with the lowest cost, which will be the country with the lowest wages. I think the economic logic behind dumping a load of toxic waste in the lowest wage country is impeccable and we should face up to that.

2) The costs of pollution are likely to be non-linear as the initial increments of pollution probably have very low cost. I’ve always though that under-populated countries in Africa are vastly UNDER-polluted, their air quality is probably vastly inefficiently low compared to Los Angeles or Mexico City. Only the lamentable facts that so much pollution is generated by non-tradable industries (transport, electrical generation) and that the unit transport costs of solid waste are so high prevent world welfare enhancing trade in air pollution and waste.

3) The demand for a clean environment for aesthetic and health reasons is likely to have very high income elasticity. [the demand increases when income levels increase]. The concern over an agent that causes a one in a million change in the odds of prostrate cancer is obviously going to be much higher in a country where people survive to get prostrate cancer than in a country where under 5 mortality is is 200 per thousand…. ”

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/envronmt/summers.htm

Summers stance on the export of pollution to developing countries had a marked impact on US environmental policy:

In 1994, “virtually every country in the world broke with Mr. Summers’ Harvard-trained “economic logic” ruminations about dumping rich countries’ poisons on their poorer neighbors, and agreed to ban the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD [developing] countries under the Basel Convention. Five years later, the United States is one of the few countries that has yet to ratify the Basel Convention or the Basel Convention’s Ban Amendment on the export of hazardous wastes from OECD to non-OECD countries. (Jim Valette, Larry Summers’ War Against the Earth, Counterpunch, undated)

The 1997 Asian Crisis: Dress Rehearsal for Things to Come

In the course of 1997, currency speculation instrumented by major financial institutions directed against Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea was conducive to the collapse of national currencies and the transfer of billions of dollars of central bank reserves into private financial hands. Several observers pointed to the deliberate manipulation of equity and currency markets by investment banks and brokerage firms.

While the Asian bailout agreements were formally negotiated with the IMF, the major Wall Street commercial banks (including Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup and J. P. Morgan) as well as the “big five” merchant banks (Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney) were “consulted” on the clauses to be included in the Asian bail-out agreements. [Note: These are 1997 denominations of major financial institutions]

The US Treasury in liaison with Wall Street and the Bretton Woods institutions played a central role in negotiating the bailout agreements. Both Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner, were actively involved on behalf of the US Treasury in the 1997 bailout of South Korea:

[In 1997] “Messrs. Summers and Geithner worked to persuade Mr. Rubin to support financial aid to South Korea. Mr. Rubin was wary of such a move, worrying that providing money to a country in dire straits might be a losing proposition…” (WSJ, November 8, 2008)

What happened in Korea under advice from Deputy Treasury Secretary Summers et al, had nothing to do with “financial aid”.

The country was literally ransacked. Undersecretary of the Treasury David Lipton was sent to Seoul in early December 1997. Secret negotiations were initiated.  Washington had demanded the firing of the Korean Finance Minister and the unconditional acceptance of the IMF “bailout”.

A new finance minister, who happened to be former IMF and World Bank official, was appointed  and immediately rushed off to Washington for “consultations” with his former IMF colleague Deputy Managing Director Stanley Fischer.

“The Korean Legislature had met in emergency sessions on December 23. The final decision concerning the 57 billion dollar deal took place the following day, on Christmas Eve December 24th, after office hours in New York. Wall Street’s top financiers, from Chase Manhattan, Bank America, Citicorp and J. P. Morgan had been called in for a meeting at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Also at the Christmas Eve venue, were representatives of the big five New York merchant banks including Goldman Sachs, Lehman Brothers, Morgan Stanley and Salomon Smith Barney. And at midnight on Christmas Eve, upon receiving the green light from the banks, the IMF was allowed to rush 10 billion dollars to Seoul to meet the avalanche of maturing short-term debts.

The coffers of Korea’s central Bank had been ransacked. Creditors and speculators were anxiously awaiting to collect the loot. The same institutions which had earlier speculated against the Korean won were cashing in on the IMF bailout money. It was a scam. (See Michel Chossudovsky, The Recolonization of Korea, subsequently published as a chapter in The Globalization of Poverty and the New World Order, Global Research, Montreal, 2003.)

“Strong economic medicine” is the prescription of the Washington Consensus.  “Short term pain for long term gain” was the motto at the World Bank during Lawrence Summers term of as World Bank Chief Economist. (See IMF, World Bank Reforms Leave Poor Behind, Bank Economist Finds, Bloomberg, November 7, 2000)

What we dealing with is an entire ” old boys network” of officials and advisers at the Treasury, the Federal Reserve, the IMF, World Bank, the Washington Think Tanks, who are  in permanent liaison with leading financiers on Wall Street.

Whoever is chosen by Obama’s Transition team will belong to the Washington Consensus.

The 1999 Financial Services Modernization Act

What happened in October 1999 is crucial.

In the wake of lengthy negotiations behind closed doors, in the Wall Street boardrooms, in which Larry Summers played a central role, the regulatory restraints on Wall Street’s powerful banking conglomerates were revoked “with a stroke of the pen”.

Larry Summers worked closely with Senator Phil Gramm (1985-2002),chairman of the Senate Banking committee, who was the legislative architect of the  the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Financial Services Modernization Act, signed into law on November 12, 1999 (See Group Photo above). (For Complete text click US Congress: Pub.L. 106-102). As Texas Senator, Phil Gramm was closely associated with Enron.

In December 2000 at the very end of the Clinton mandate, Gramm introduced a second piece of legislation, the so-called Gramm-Lugar Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which paved the way for the speculative onslaught in primary commodities including oil and food staples.

“The act, he declared, would ensure that neither the sec nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (cftc) got into the business of regulating newfangled financial products called swaps—and would thus “protect financial institutions from overregulation” and “position our financial services industries to be world leaders into the new century.” (See David Corn, Foreclosure Phil, Mother Jones, July August 2008)

Phil Gramm was McCain’s first choice for Secretary of the Treasury.

Under the FSMA new rules – ratified by the US Senate in October 1999 and approved by President Clinton – commercial banks, brokerage firms, hedge funds, institutional investors, pension funds and insurance companies could freely invest in each others businesses as well as fully integrate their financial operations.

A “global financial supermarket” had been created, setting the stage for a massive concentration of  financial power. One of the key figures behind this project was Secretary of the Treasury Larry Summers, in liaison with David Rockefeller. Summers described the FSMA as “the legislative foundation of the financial system of the 21th century”.  That legislative foundation is among the main causes of the 2008 financial meltdown.

Financial Disarmament

There can be no meaningful solution to the crisis, unless there is a major reform in the financial architecture, implying inter alia the freezing of speculative trade and the “disarming of financial markets”.  The project of disarming financial markets was first proposed by John Maynard Keynes in the 1940s as a means to the establishment of a multipolar international monetary system. (See  J.M. Keynes, Activities 1940-1944, Shaping the Post-War World: The Clearing Union, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Royal Economic Society, Macmillan and Cambridge University Press, Vol. XXV, London 1980, p. 57).

Main Street versus Wall Street

Where are Obama’s “Main Street appointees”? Namely individuals who respond to the interests of people across America.  There are no labor or community leaders on Obama’s list for key positions.

The President-elect is appointing the architects of financial deregulation.

Meaningful financial reform cannot be adopted by officials appointed by Wall Street and who act on behalf of Wall Street.

Those who set the financial system ablaze in 1999, have been called back to turn out the fire.

The proposed “solution” to the crisis under the “bailout” is the cause of further economic collapse.

There are no policy solutions on the horizon.

The banking conglomerates call the shots. They decide on the composition of the Obama Cabinet. They also decide on the agenda of the Washington Financial Summit (November 15, 2008) which is slated to lay the groundwork for the establishment of a new “global financial architecture”.

The Wall Street blueprint has already been discussed behind closed doors: the hidden agenda is to establish a unipolar international monetary system, dominated by US financial power, which in turn would be protected and secured by US military superiority.

Neoliberalism with a “Human Face”

There is no indication that Obama will break his ties to his Wall Street sponsors, who largely funded his election campaign.

Goldman Sachs, J. P. Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bill Gates’ Microsoft are among his main campaign contributors.

Warren Buffett, among the the world’s richest individuals, not only supported Barak Obama’s election campaign, he is a member of his transition team, which plays a key role deciding the composition of Obama’s cabinet.

Warren Buffett

Unless there is a major upheaval in the system of political appointments to key positions, an alternative Obama economic agenda geared towards poverty alleviation and employment creation is highly unlikely.

Barack Obama. November 7 Press Conference.
Joe Biden (far left), newly appointed chief of staff Rahm Emanuel (far right). Photo: Charles Dharapak

What we are witnessing is continuity.

Obama provides a ” human face” to the status quo. This human face serves to mislead Americans on the nature of the economic and political process.

The neoliberal economic reforms remain intact.

The substance of these reforms including the “bailout” of America’s  largest financial institutions ultimately destroys the real economy, while spearheading entire areas of manufacturing and the services economy into bankruptcy.