Global Research

A television interview of a top Qatari official confessing the truth behind the origins of the war in Syria is going viral across Arabic social media during the same week a leaked top secret NSA document was published which confirms that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the conflict.

And according to a well-known Syria analyst and economic adviser with close contacts in the Syrian government, the explosive interview constitutes a high level “public admission to collusion and coordination between four countries to destabilize an independent state, [including] possible support for Nusra/al-Qaeda.” Importantly, “this admission will help build case for what Damascus sees as an attack on its security & sovereignty. It will form basis for compensation claims.”

A 2013 London press conference: Qatari Prime Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim bin Jabr Al Thani with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry. A 2014 Hillary Clinton email confirmed Qatar as a state-sponsor of ISIS during that same time period. 

As the war in Syria continues slowly winding down, it seems new source material comes out on an almost a weekly basis in the form of testimonials of top officials involved in destabilizing Syria, and even occasional leaked emails and documentswhich further detail covert regime change operations against the Assad government. Though much of this content serves to confirm what has already long been known by those who have never accepted the simplistic propaganda which has dominated mainstream media, details continue to fall in place, providing future historians with a clearer picture of the true nature of the war.

This process of clarity has been aided – as predicted – by the continued infighting among Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) former allies Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with each side accusing the other of funding Islamic State and al-Qaeda terrorists (ironically, both true). Increasingly, the world watches as more dirty laundry is aired and the GCC implodes after years of nearly all the gulf monarchies funding jihadist movements in places like Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

Since 2013 The Intercept (+WaPo?) hid NSA docs showing Saudi ordering 'rebel' attacks on Damascus. Now released. https://t.co/0PZrBKpJCw

— Julian Assange ? (@JulianAssange) October 24, 2017

The top Qatari official is no less than former Prime Minister Hamad bin Jassim bin Jaber al-Thani, who oversaw Syria operations on behalf of Qatar until 2013 (also as foreign minister), and is seen below with then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in this Jan. 2010 photo (as a reminder, Qatar’s 2022 World Cup Committee donated $500,000 to the Clinton Foundation in 2014).

In an interview with Qatari TV Wednesday, bin Jaber al-Thani revealed that his country, alongside Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the United States, began shipping weapons to jihadists from the very moment events “first started” (in 2011). 

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to “hunting prey” – the prey being President Assad and his supporters – “prey” which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, “al-sayda”, which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister’s words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has “full documents” and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.

"We argued over the prey and that prey run away".Ladies and Gentleman: To these people #Syria #Assad was nothing but a f….ing hunting game https://t.co/w4oKO5TTK6

— EHSANI2 (@EHSANI22) October 27, 2017

According to Zero Hedge’s translation, al-Thani said while acknowledging Gulf nations were arming jihadists in Syria with the approval and support of US and Turkey:

“I don’t want to go into details but we have full documents about us taking charge [in Syria].”

He claimed that both Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah (who reigned until his death in 2015) and the United States placed Qatar in a lead role concerning covert operations to execute the proxy war.

The former prime minister’s comments, while very revealing, were intended as a defense and excuse of Qatar’s support for terrorism, and as a critique of the US and Saudi Arabia for essentially leaving Qatar “holding the bag” in terms of the war against Assad. Al-Thani explained that Qatar continued its financing of armed insurgents in Syria while other countries eventually wound down large-scale support, which is why he lashed out at the US and the Saudis, who initially “were with us in the same trench.”

In a previous US television interview which was vastly underreported, al-Thani told Charlie Rose when asked about allegations of Qatar’s support for terrorism that, “in Syria, everybody did mistakes, including your country.” And said that when the war began in Syria, “all of use worked through two operation rooms: one in Jordan and one in Turkey.”

Below is the key section of Wednesday’s interview, translated and subtitled by @Walid970721. Zero Hedge has reviewed and confirmed the translation, however, as the original rush translator has acknowledged, al-Thani doesn’t say “lady” but “prey” [“al-sayda”]- as in both Assad and Syrians were being hunted by the outside countries.

#Qatar's ex PM says that Qatari support for jihadists including Nusra in #Syria was in coordination w/ KSA, Turkey & the US via @BBassem7 pic.twitter.com/tu8IMRI7IP

— Walid (@walid970721) October 27, 2017

The partial English transcript is as follows:

“When the events first started in Syria I went to Saudi Arabia and met with King Abdullah. I did that on the instructions of his highness the prince, my father. He [Abdullah] said we are behind you. You go ahead with this plan and we will coordinate but you should be in charge. I won’t get into details but we have full documents and anything that was sent [to Syria] would go to Turkey and was in coordination with the US forces and everything was distributed via the Turks and the US forces. And us and everyone else was involved, the military people. There may have been mistakes and support was given to the wrong faction… Maybe there was a relationship with Nusra, its possible but I myself don’t know about this… we were fighting over the prey [“al-sayda”] and now the prey is gone and we are still fighting… and now Bashar is still there. You [US and Saudi Arabia] were with us in the same trench… I have no objection to one changing if he finds that he was wrong, but at least inform your partner… for example leave Bashar [al-Assad] or do this or that, but the situation that has been created now will never allow any progress in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council], or any progress on anything if we continue to openly fight.”

As is now well-known, the CIA was directly involved in leading regime change efforts in Syria with allied gulf partners, as leaked and declassified US intelligence memos confirm. The US government understood in real time that Gulf and West-supplied advanced weaponry was going to al-Qaeda and ISIS, despite official claims of arming so-called “moderate” rebels. For example, a leaked 2014 intelligence memo sent to Hillary Clinton acknowledged Qatari and Saudi support for ISIS.

The email stated in direct and unambiguous language that:

“the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.”

Furthermore, one day before Prime Minister Thani’s interview, The Intercept released a new top-secret NSA document unearthed from leaked intelligence files provided by Edward Snowden which show in stunning clarity that the armed opposition in Syria was under the direct command of foreign governments from the early years of the war which has now claimed half a million lives.

The newly released NSA document confirms that a 2013 insurgent attack with advanced surface-to-surface rockets upon civilian areas of Damascus, including Damascus International Airport, was directly supplied and commanded by Saudi Arabia with full prior awareness of US intelligence. As the former Qatari prime minister now also confirms, both the Saudis and US government staffed “operations rooms” overseeing such heinous attacks during the time period of the 2013 Damascus airport attack.

No doubt there remains a massive trove of damning documentary evidence which will continue to trickle out in the coming months and years. At the very least, the continuing Qatari-Saudi diplomatic war will bear more fruit as each side builds a case against the other with charges of supporting terrorism. And as we can see from this latest Qatari TV interview, the United States itself will not be spared in this new open season of airing dirty laundry as old allies turn on each other.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: A US Navy P-2H Neptune of VP-18 flying over a Soviet cargo ship with crated Il-28s on deck during the Cuban Crisis. © Wikipedia

On the Sept 22, 2017, during a march of All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee, one of its leaders Mr Yogendra Yadav (henceforth YY) told us:

“So, what we are witnessing is the beginning of something that can only be described as a peasant rebellion”[1] Because, there were outbursts of peasants’ movement in several states of India in the last 12-14 months, and also, “Second, they are being run by different organisations, but the demands are actually common. Every single protest boils down to two demands: fair and remunerative price and complete loan waiver…. This de-facto common agenda has emerged in the formation of the All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee, bringing together more than 150 farmer organisations. So, there is a possibility.”[2]

Interestingly, we are hearing this on the 100th year after a revolution the fulfilled the demands of peace, land and bread; when state confiscated all land without compensation and peasants got control over almost all land of the country. Also we are crossing 50th year after the Naxalbari rebellion that started when nine peasant women and a child died in police firing in Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal, in May 1967 during left rule, where peasants had forcibly sequestered land of the landlords; and subsequently a great peasants’ struggle developed against landlords, usurers and village vested interests that spread over India challenging the rule[3].

It may be noted that some peasants’ organisations of “Naxalite” parties (different CPIMLs) along with those of the CPI and CPIM etc left parties are there inside the abovementioned ‘All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee’.

Demand of “fair and remunerative price” or MSP (Minimum Support Price) was being heard since almost 40 years. It became much heard during the Nasik Movement in 1980. Demand of “loan waiver” is also an old one; it was even demanded by a Chief Minister of a state, 30 years earlier in Haryana[4]. These movements cropped up from Maharashtra, Karnataka, Western UP, Haryana etc ‘advanced’ states.

But during 1977-87 there were also echoes of some ‘old’ type, voices against landlords, usurers and village vested interests from Andhra, Telangana, Bihar, Jharkhand, etc states. It was then only 10-20 years from the Naxalbari Peasants struggle. From Punjab where an intense semi-religious Khalistan movement was going on we heard electricity workers and peasants raising a slogan – “Na Hindu Raaj na Khalistan, Raaj Kare Mazdoor, Kisan. (Neither Hindu rule or Khalistani rule, we want the rule of workers and peasants.)”[5]. In Bihar and Jharkhand there were peasants’ movements even after the Arwal killing where 30 peasants died in police firing in 1986.

So there were two kinds of fights. One was putting such demands and acting in such a way as to challenge the agrarian system and also the law and order of the system. There was a revolutionary seed inside such fights. The other type of fight takes as granted the present socio-economic system and seeks some remedy so that peasants (mostly in simple commodity production) can carry on and mainly the farmers (to whom agriculture is a ‘business’) can get a ‘profit’ and thrive.

Subsequently, one came in forefront and the other retreated. Words like agrarian revolution, democratic revolution, means of production etc. de facto retreated. Demands more and more were centred on prices of produces than production relations. Land to the tillers was seen to me ‘no more viable’ or even ‘impractical’. Agriculture was seen as less of a necessity, livelihood, way of life and more of an investment where profitable return was the chief parameter. The ‘lefts’ were proud and happy with their ‘land reform’ in West Bengal which surpassed figures of other states even though touching only 6% of total land under agriculture which passed hands (from the landlords to the peasants); a figure which blushes in shame in front of post WWII land reform in Japan or South Korea.

In the mid-1990s several factors of agriculture again became important to the economy as a whole. Let us see some pertinent points. Firstly, the evils of chemically pushed hybrid (HYV) agriculture started getting manifested – more and more chemical needed to get same level of yield, depletion of groundwater, depletion of micro-nutrients and exhaustion of soil are some significant ones. Secondly, liberalisation led to reduction in subsidies (starting from 1993-94), which in turn moved up prices of fertilisers in an uneven way (increase in prices of P and K was more than that of N, leading to worsening of N:P:K input ratio). Thirdly, diminishing return in agriculture was amply apparent. And fourthly, shift towards commercial agriculture, away from basic foods, increased vulnerability.

As all answers were to be sought in market (and everybody knew revolution is not at all a practical word and equality is just a utopia, haven’t you seen what happened in Russia, East Europe, China!), the question of influencing the biggest player, the state, came to forefront: Lowering of input price (= subsidy, loan waiver) and increasing the output price (= MSP). History, geography, economics etc all worked hand in hand so well to shape this inside the popular consciousness that we could understand this ‘situation’ even without the help of our learned friend YY. Only some small detail are missing here in this generalisation, for example, demand for irrigation water[6], outbursts against insufficient electricity supply[7] etc which are all related to basic needs of green revolution.

Still, the land question did not die. In the last 10 years it is also present sometimes in the news served by big media. Let us see some examples.

1. In July 2007 in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh we saw “If the police brutally throw them out of occupied lands, they are returning back with greater determination the next day. In Nellore, where there has been a most atrocious attack on women, children and old by the police, the people refused to vacate the lands despite our people trying to persuade them to retreat temporarily…[8]. CPIM and other ‘opposition’ parties quickly called a state wide general strike for a day and withdrew the movement for land.

2. In 2008-09 in Malwa region of Punjab we found Dalit peasants capturing govt. owned lands. We hear story of a woman peasant who was undaunted in her fight even after being in jail twice for the fight.[9]

3. “Holding banners and flags and raising slogans, nearly a thousand landless farmers who arrived from different parts of the district marched from Ambedkar Circle to the office of Deputy Commissioner here on Wednesday demanding cultivable lands for landless and residential plots for homeless.”[10] And this was from Raichur, Karnataka, in July 2016.

4. Shortly after that we hear slogans in Gujarat— તમે તમારું ગાયનું પૂંછડું રાખો અને અમને અમારી જમીન આપો (you keep your cow’s tail, and give us our land)[11]. That was when thousands of Dalits marched from Ahmedabad to Una, Gujarat, in August 2016.

But there is a warning sign. If leaders of these movements gets in a parliamentary grouping with target of winning next parliament and assembly elections and ‘reforming’ the system from within, well, we have seen in the past how efficiently bourgeois parliament (and even state governments) can accommodate and reform these parties or groups or platforms and make all of them system-slaves.

Some last words:

1. We have seen above few peasants movements with demand of land. Interestingly, most of them took place in so called advanced or developed states of India. This only shows the presence of the demand in the mind of the peasants. We find in history how difficult it is to conclude that certain sections have become agro-labourers and they do not have this land demand anymore. We may recall a story from Russia during early soviet years; interested readers may read that given in the footnote section.[12]

2. If an averaging happens in India a peasant household will get a maximum of, say 0.75 Ha in WB, about 1 Ha in Andhra Pradesh, about 1.75 Ha in Madhya Pradesh and so on[13]; which is meagre and will not bring a lifelong solution to Indian peasants. But a democratic revolution is only a start of a solution. Most likely, to overcome the size and ability constraints they will move towards making cooperatives and eventually to social ownership of social means of production.

3. Our learned friends YY only mentioned the ‘ecological’ crisis of agriculture when he stared the talk but did not put any ‘demand’ or emphasis corresponding to that. But shifting from this green revolution to natural agriculture is now imperative. Is there any peasants’ organisation which is taking it up seriously?

Sandeep Banerjee is an activist who writes on political and socioeconomic issues and also on environmental issues. Some of his articles are published in Frontier Weekly, a 50 year old magazine from Kolkata.
He lives in West Bengal, India.

Notes

[1]. Oct 04, 2017 · 08:00 am, Manas Roshan in Scroll.in https://scroll.in/article/851846/interview-we-are-witnessing-the-beginning-of-a-peasant-rebellion-in-india-says-yogendra-yadav

[2] ibid

[3] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1968/06/x02.html

[4] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/haryana-chief-minister-devi-lals-grand-loan-waiver-plans-go-awry/1/337755.html “After sitting in the chief minister’s chair, I will call my finance minister and the chief secretary. I will ask them to draft an order waiving all loans taken by my brothers in the villages. You will all be free from the burden of loans the moment your man Devi Lal signs the order and puts the Haryana Government’s seal on it.” And he did it.

[5] http://www.massline.info/India/ht_MassRevLineDuringKhalistani.htm See also https://www.straight.com/news/389916/gurpreet-singh-khalistani-separatists-killings-leave-legacy-sorrow-canada-and-us

[6] Farmers hold SDM as hostage, 30 hurt in police lathi charge http://www.thehindu.com/2004/10/27/stories/2004102711260500.htm Then, “The tehsil town of Gharsana and the neighbouring Raola in Sriganganagar district of Rajasthan were brought under curfew on Tuesday morning after the previous night’s clashes between the police and the farmers agitating for irrigation water. The troops deployed late on Monday evening took over Gharsana town, which was till the other day virtually under the control of farmers who had laid siege to the Dan Mandi area for the past seven days. The troops carried out flag marches in the town.” http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/curfew-in-two-rajasthan-towns/article3062885.ece

[7] Farmers stage dharna in protest against power supply disconnection http://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/02/stories/2004060210030300.htm

[8] Peoples Democracy 2007, July1, Interview with B V Raghavulu, “We Will Continue & Intensify The Land Struggle” http://archives.peoplesdemocracy.in/2007/0701/07012007_raghavulu%20intrv.htm

[9] Interested readers may read the full story here http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/08/3134

[10] Landless farmers demand agricultural lands, residential plots, Raichur, July 20, 2016
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Landless-farmers-demand-agricultural-lands-residential-plots/article14499308.ece

[11] Dalit Asmita Rally August 6, 2016 http://sandesh.com/dalit-asmita-raily-ahmedabad-to-una/

[12] It was in March 1919. Lenin was addressing “Session of the First Congress of Farm Labourers of Petrograd Gubernia” and he ended his speech declaring the hope of formation of ‘All-Russia Farm Labourers’ Union’ soon. But some queer comments cropped up from those ‘farm labourers’ or whom they thought to be agricultural proletariat. They demanded, in front of Lenin, private vegetable plots and permission to keep and raise animals! Lenin was amazed. He said, “If private vegetable plots, animals, poultry, and so forth, were permitted again, we should revert to the small farming that had existed hitherto. If that were the case, would it be worthwhile to have all this bother. Would it be worthwhile establishing state farms?” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/13.htm

[13] Agriculture Census 2011 http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/statesummarytype.aspx

Featured image is from ScoopWhoop.

On the Sept 22, 2017, during a march of All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee, one of its leaders Mr Yogendra Yadav (henceforth YY) told us:

“So, what we are witnessing is the beginning of something that can only be described as a peasant rebellion”[1] Because, there were outbursts of peasants’ movement in several states of India in the last 12-14 months, and also, “Second, they are being run by different organisations, but the demands are actually common. Every single protest boils down to two demands: fair and remunerative price and complete loan waiver…. This de-facto common agenda has emerged in the formation of the All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee, bringing together more than 150 farmer organisations. So, there is a possibility.”[2]

Interestingly, we are hearing this on the 100th year after a revolution the fulfilled the demands of peace, land and bread; when state confiscated all land without compensation and peasants got control over almost all land of the country. Also we are crossing 50th year after the Naxalbari rebellion that started when nine peasant women and a child died in police firing in Naxalbari, a village in West Bengal, in May 1967 during left rule, where peasants had forcibly sequestered land of the landlords; and subsequently a great peasants’ struggle developed against landlords, usurers and village vested interests that spread over India challenging the rule[3].

It may be noted that some peasants’ organisations of “Naxalite” parties (different CPIMLs) along with those of the CPI and CPIM etc left parties are there inside the abovementioned ‘All India Kisan Sangharsh Co-ordination Committee’.

Demand of “fair and remunerative price” or MSP (Minimum Support Price) was being heard since almost 40 years. It became much heard during the Nasik Movement in 1980. Demand of “loan waiver” is also an old one; it was even demanded by a Chief Minister of a state, 30 years earlier in Haryana[4]. These movements cropped up from Maharashtra, Karnataka, Western UP, Haryana etc ‘advanced’ states.

But during 1977-87 there were also echoes of some ‘old’ type, voices against landlords, usurers and village vested interests from Andhra, Telangana, Bihar, Jharkhand, etc states. It was then only 10-20 years from the Naxalbari Peasants struggle. From Punjab where an intense semi-religious Khalistan movement was going on we heard electricity workers and peasants raising a slogan – “Na Hindu Raaj na Khalistan, Raaj Kare Mazdoor, Kisan. (Neither Hindu rule or Khalistani rule, we want the rule of workers and peasants.)”[5]. In Bihar and Jharkhand there were peasants’ movements even after the Arwal killing where 30 peasants died in police firing in 1986.

So there were two kinds of fights. One was putting such demands and acting in such a way as to challenge the agrarian system and also the law and order of the system. There was a revolutionary seed inside such fights. The other type of fight takes as granted the present socio-economic system and seeks some remedy so that peasants (mostly in simple commodity production) can carry on and mainly the farmers (to whom agriculture is a ‘business’) can get a ‘profit’ and thrive.

Subsequently, one came in forefront and the other retreated. Words like agrarian revolution, democratic revolution, means of production etc. de facto retreated. Demands more and more were centred on prices of produces than production relations. Land to the tillers was seen to me ‘no more viable’ or even ‘impractical’. Agriculture was seen as less of a necessity, livelihood, way of life and more of an investment where profitable return was the chief parameter. The ‘lefts’ were proud and happy with their ‘land reform’ in West Bengal which surpassed figures of other states even though touching only 6% of total land under agriculture which passed hands (from the landlords to the peasants); a figure which blushes in shame in front of post WWII land reform in Japan or South Korea.

In the mid-1990s several factors of agriculture again became important to the economy as a whole. Let us see some pertinent points. Firstly, the evils of chemically pushed hybrid (HYV) agriculture started getting manifested – more and more chemical needed to get same level of yield, depletion of groundwater, depletion of micro-nutrients and exhaustion of soil are some significant ones. Secondly, liberalisation led to reduction in subsidies (starting from 1993-94), which in turn moved up prices of fertilisers in an uneven way (increase in prices of P and K was more than that of N, leading to worsening of N:P:K input ratio). Thirdly, diminishing return in agriculture was amply apparent. And fourthly, shift towards commercial agriculture, away from basic foods, increased vulnerability.

As all answers were to be sought in market (and everybody knew revolution is not at all a practical word and equality is just a utopia, haven’t you seen what happened in Russia, East Europe, China!), the question of influencing the biggest player, the state, came to forefront: Lowering of input price (= subsidy, loan waiver) and increasing the output price (= MSP). History, geography, economics etc all worked hand in hand so well to shape this inside the popular consciousness that we could understand this ‘situation’ even without the help of our learned friend YY. Only some small detail are missing here in this generalisation, for example, demand for irrigation water[6], outbursts against insufficient electricity supply[7] etc which are all related to basic needs of green revolution.

Still, the land question did not die. In the last 10 years it is also present sometimes in the news served by big media. Let us see some examples.

1. In July 2007 in Nellore district of Andhra Pradesh we saw “If the police brutally throw them out of occupied lands, they are returning back with greater determination the next day. In Nellore, where there has been a most atrocious attack on women, children and old by the police, the people refused to vacate the lands despite our people trying to persuade them to retreat temporarily…[8]. CPIM and other ‘opposition’ parties quickly called a state wide general strike for a day and withdrew the movement for land.

2. In 2008-09 in Malwa region of Punjab we found Dalit peasants capturing govt. owned lands. We hear story of a woman peasant who was undaunted in her fight even after being in jail twice for the fight.[9]

3. “Holding banners and flags and raising slogans, nearly a thousand landless farmers who arrived from different parts of the district marched from Ambedkar Circle to the office of Deputy Commissioner here on Wednesday demanding cultivable lands for landless and residential plots for homeless.”[10] And this was from Raichur, Karnataka, in July 2016.

4. Shortly after that we hear slogans in Gujarat— તમે તમારું ગાયનું પૂંછડું રાખો અને અમને અમારી જમીન આપો (you keep your cow’s tail, and give us our land)[11]. That was when thousands of Dalits marched from Ahmedabad to Una, Gujarat, in August 2016.

But there is a warning sign. If leaders of these movements gets in a parliamentary grouping with target of winning next parliament and assembly elections and ‘reforming’ the system from within, well, we have seen in the past how efficiently bourgeois parliament (and even state governments) can accommodate and reform these parties or groups or platforms and make all of them system-slaves.

Some last words:

1. We have seen above few peasants movements with demand of land. Interestingly, most of them took place in so called advanced or developed states of India. This only shows the presence of the demand in the mind of the peasants. We find in history how difficult it is to conclude that certain sections have become agro-labourers and they do not have this land demand anymore. We may recall a story from Russia during early soviet years; interested readers may read that given in the footnote section.[12]

2. If an averaging happens in India a peasant household will get a maximum of, say 0.75 Ha in WB, about 1 Ha in Andhra Pradesh, about 1.75 Ha in Madhya Pradesh and so on[13]; which is meagre and will not bring a lifelong solution to Indian peasants. But a democratic revolution is only a start of a solution. Most likely, to overcome the size and ability constraints they will move towards making cooperatives and eventually to social ownership of social means of production.

3. Our learned friends YY only mentioned the ‘ecological’ crisis of agriculture when he stared the talk but did not put any ‘demand’ or emphasis corresponding to that. But shifting from this green revolution to natural agriculture is now imperative. Is there any peasants’ organisation which is taking it up seriously?

Sandeep Banerjee is an activist who writes on political and socioeconomic issues and also on environmental issues. Some of his articles are published in Frontier Weekly, a 50 year old magazine from Kolkata.
He lives in West Bengal, India.

Notes

[1]. Oct 04, 2017 · 08:00 am, Manas Roshan in Scroll.in https://scroll.in/article/851846/interview-we-are-witnessing-the-beginning-of-a-peasant-rebellion-in-india-says-yogendra-yadav

[2] ibid

[3] https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mazumdar/1968/06/x02.html

[4] http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/haryana-chief-minister-devi-lals-grand-loan-waiver-plans-go-awry/1/337755.html “After sitting in the chief minister’s chair, I will call my finance minister and the chief secretary. I will ask them to draft an order waiving all loans taken by my brothers in the villages. You will all be free from the burden of loans the moment your man Devi Lal signs the order and puts the Haryana Government’s seal on it.” And he did it.

[5] http://www.massline.info/India/ht_MassRevLineDuringKhalistani.htm See also https://www.straight.com/news/389916/gurpreet-singh-khalistani-separatists-killings-leave-legacy-sorrow-canada-and-us

[6] Farmers hold SDM as hostage, 30 hurt in police lathi charge http://www.thehindu.com/2004/10/27/stories/2004102711260500.htm Then, “The tehsil town of Gharsana and the neighbouring Raola in Sriganganagar district of Rajasthan were brought under curfew on Tuesday morning after the previous night’s clashes between the police and the farmers agitating for irrigation water. The troops deployed late on Monday evening took over Gharsana town, which was till the other day virtually under the control of farmers who had laid siege to the Dan Mandi area for the past seven days. The troops carried out flag marches in the town.” http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-national/curfew-in-two-rajasthan-towns/article3062885.ece

[7] Farmers stage dharna in protest against power supply disconnection http://www.thehindu.com/2004/06/02/stories/2004060210030300.htm

[8] Peoples Democracy 2007, July1, Interview with B V Raghavulu, “We Will Continue & Intensify The Land Struggle” http://archives.peoplesdemocracy.in/2007/0701/07012007_raghavulu%20intrv.htm

[9] Interested readers may read the full story here http://www.hardnewsmedia.com/2009/08/3134

[10] Landless farmers demand agricultural lands, residential plots, Raichur, July 20, 2016
http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/karnataka/Landless-farmers-demand-agricultural-lands-residential-plots/article14499308.ece

[11] Dalit Asmita Rally August 6, 2016 http://sandesh.com/dalit-asmita-raily-ahmedabad-to-una/

[12] It was in March 1919. Lenin was addressing “Session of the First Congress of Farm Labourers of Petrograd Gubernia” and he ended his speech declaring the hope of formation of ‘All-Russia Farm Labourers’ Union’ soon. But some queer comments cropped up from those ‘farm labourers’ or whom they thought to be agricultural proletariat. They demanded, in front of Lenin, private vegetable plots and permission to keep and raise animals! Lenin was amazed. He said, “If private vegetable plots, animals, poultry, and so forth, were permitted again, we should revert to the small farming that had existed hitherto. If that were the case, would it be worthwhile to have all this bother. Would it be worthwhile establishing state farms?” https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/mar/13.htm

[13] Agriculture Census 2011 http://agcensus.dacnet.nic.in/statesummarytype.aspx

Featured image is from ScoopWhoop.

A new portion of documents about the assassination of John F. Kennedy, which was published on the website of the National Archives of the United States, sheds light on the USSR’s reaction to the high-profile crime. Originally, the Soviet leadership assumed that the killing was a “conspiracy of ultra-right” forces to seize power in the USA.

The USA received the information about the reaction of the Soviet Authorities from a source in the USSR. According to the source, the USSR was shocked and awed about Kennedy’s assassination. Declassified documents say that the Church honoured the memory of the victim with a toll of bells.

The administration of the Communist Party assumed that there was not one person, but a group of people behind the crime. The Soviet leadership believed that the murder could be part of conspiracy plan of ultra-right forces to commit a coup, cease negotiations with the USSR, attack Cuba and even launch a war. The USSR, the documents said, set its armed forces on high alert immediately.

The published materials also say that the Soviet authorities feared an outbreak of a nuclear war and wanted to learn more about the persona of Lyndon Johnson, who became the 36th US president. The source told the US authorities that the Soviet Union believed that an irresponsible general in the United States could launch a missile at the Soviet Union.

The published materials contain a document about reactions of Soviet special services to the assassination of John Kennedy. Soviet Colonel Boris Ivanov, who was in charge of the legal KGB residency in New York, was convinced about the existence of a large-scale conspiracy plan to destabilise the United States. Ivanov also believed that there was a whole group of people, who had plotted Kennedy’s assassination. He ordered special services to find out what really happened and who exactly was standing behind the shocking crime.

In 1965, a source at the FBI said that the KGB had information about President Johnson’s responsibility for the murder. Thus, even after the killing of Oswald and the report from the Warren Commission, which considered Kennedy’s assassination as an act committed by only one sniper, the Soviet Union still believed in the conspiracy in the USA.

The Soviet Union denied any connection between Lee Harvey Oswald and the USSR, calling him “a neurotic maniac,” who was not loyal either to his own country or to anything else. Soviet officials also noted that Oswald had never been a part of any organisation in the Soviet Union, nor had he ever obtained Soviet citizenship.

However, Lee Harvey Oswald had spent two and a half years in Minsk and returned home with his Russian wife Marina and their first daughter a year before the Kennedy assassination – in June 1962. Some believe that Nikita Khrushchev wanted to take revenge on the US for the failed Caribbean crisis. However, no one has ever presented any evidence to this version.

Featured image is from the author.

According to the World Health Organization (WHO):

As societies industrialize and the technological revolution continues, there has been an unprecedented increase in the number and diversity of electromagnetic field (EMF) sources. These sources include video display units (VDUs) associated with computers, mobile phones and their base stations. While these devices have made our life richer, safer and easier, they have been accompanied by concerns about possible health risks due to their EMF emissions.

For some time a number of individuals have reported a variety of health problems that they relate to exposure to EMF. While some individuals report mild symptoms and react by avoiding the fields as best they can, others are so severely affected that they cease work and change their entire lifestyle. This reputed sensitivity to EMF has been generally termed “electromagnetic hypersensitivity” or EHS.

Other sources of this type of radiation include power lines and WiFi technology.

The WHO fact sheet quoted above also describes Electromagnetic Hypersensitivity in detail, and is based on the combined research of a WHO Workshop on the subject (Prague, Czech Republic, 2004), an international conference on EMF and non-specific health symptoms (COST244bis, 1998), a European Commission report (Bergqvist and Vogel, 1997), and recent reviews of the literature.

However, many of the facts cited seem to be countered by a growing number of publications and scientists. For example, they argue that EMFs are simply a “perceived” problem, and the sensitivities are psychological rather than physical. They state that “well controlled and conducted double-blind studies have shown that symptoms were not correlated with EMF exposure.” They also state it’s possible “these symptoms may be due to pre-existing psychiatric conditions as well as stress reactions as a result of worrying about EMF health effects, rather than the EMF exposure itself.” In conclusion, they suggest that “treatment of affected individuals should focus on the health symptoms and the clinical picture, and not on the person’s perceived need for reducing or eliminating EMF in the workplace or home.”

These arguments are reminiscent of those surrounding Glyphosate, the main ingredient in Monsanto’s Round Up herbicide, because for decades a plethora of publications and scientists were showing what it can do to the human body, yet it wasn’t until recently that the World Health Organization admitted that it is carcinogenic. Why does it take so long for new evidence to be considered? Why do they state that substances are safe in the face of such staunch opposition from so many professionals, and why do we assume things are safe until proven otherwise? Shouldn’t it be the other way around? Are we seeing the same thing with electromagnetic radiation?

If It’s Not A Concern, Then Why…

If it’s not as much of a concern as many feel it to be, then why are more than 200 scientists from more than 40 countries petitioning the United Nations about this issue? The information above provided from the WHO is more than a decade old, and in 2015 this group of scientists urged the United Nations and its organization to encourage precautionary measures and conduct an environmental assessment. They also asked for the WHO to educate the public about health risks, particularly to children and pregnant women, and for the United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) to assess the potential impact of EMF exposure on all living organisms.

Why are there more than 2,000 peer-reviewed publications raising cause for concern on this topic? According to the appeal sent to Antonio Guterres (among others), Secretary-General of the United Nations:

Numerous scientific publications have found that EMF affects living organisms at levels far below international exposure guidelines adopted by most industrialized nations. There is discrepancy in how this matter is considered at the WHO, however. While WHO accepted its International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)’s recommendation that classifies both ELF/EMF and RF/EMF as Group 2B “Possible Carcinogens,” it also, in direct contrast to these warnings, recommends the adoption of the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection’s (ICNIRP) guidelines for exposure standards. These guidelines, developed by a self-selected 2 independent industry group, have long been criticized as not protective given the science now established.

“Independent Industry Group”

The importance of highlighting industry’s role in this matter shouldn’t be ignored, since modern day science is, unfortunately, plagued by industry corruption and scientific fraud. Not long ago, however, the Berkeley City Council unanimously adopted an ordinance to require cellphone retailers in Berkeley, California, to provide consumers with information regarding the dangers associated with the wireless industry and, more specifically, on cell phone radiation.

The ordinance was created with the help of Lawrence Lessig, a law professor at Harvard University, the California Brain Tumor Association, and Robert Post, the Dean of Yale Law School, who believes, along with hundreds of other scientists, that the research is sound.

The concerns raised by all of these scientists also had at least 12 elementary and middle schools in Ontario and B.C. impose bans on wireless internet by not installing it or removing it completely from their classrooms. You can read more about that here.

Hearing From the Creator of the Initiative

The initiative was started by Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Colombia University, who has joined a group of scientists from around the world making an international appeal to the United Nations regarding the dangers associated with the use of various electromagnetic emitting devices, like cells phones and WiFi.

“Putting it bluntly they are damaging the living cells in our bodies and killing many of us prematurely,”said Dr. Martin Blank, from the Department of Physiology and Cellular Biophysics at Columbia University, in a video message.

“We have created something that is harming us, and it is getting out of control. Before Edison’s light bulb there was very little electromagnetic radiation in our environment. The levels today are very many times higher than natural background levels, and are growing rapidly because of all the new devices that emit this radiation.”

Below is a video of him speaking about this issue.

Do You Have Electromagnetic Sensitivity? What Can You Do About It?

For starters, the best think you can do is not to worry, because this is how powerful the mind-body connection really is. 

It’s also important to mention that children’s brains absorb much more radiation than those of adults. According to Mary Redmayne, Ph.D,. a professor in the Department of Epidemiology & Preventative Medicine at Australia’s Monash University:

There is much high-quality research showing bio-physiological effects from permitted electromagnetic exposures; these findings are not nullified by research which fails to find effects. To claim that the ‘weight of evidence’ does not support these effects (even if it were true) is misleading. To infer that this means no precautions are needed is illogical and non-scientific.

It would help parents and policy makers if consensus among advisory organisations and scientists could be reached acknowledging that assurance of safety of chronic low-dose radiofrequency exposure cannot be guaranteed and is related to ill-health in some people. Therefore, minimising exposure, especially children’s, is sensible. This should be treated like other daily health precautions and warnings such as those about diet.

A publication from the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, titled “Guidelines For Limiting Exposure To Time Varying Electric, Magnetic, and Electromagnetic Fields Up To 300 GHZ,” cites an abundance of scientific research regarding these non-natural fields and their affect on human biology.

Here are the IARC’s Monographs on the Evaluation of Carcinogenic Risks to Humans.

The symptoms can differ a lot between sufferers, but will normally include some of the following: sleep disturbance, tiredness, depression, headaches, restlessness, irritability, concentration problems, forgetfulness, learning difficulties, frequent infections, blood pressure changes, limb and joint pains, numbness or tingling sensations, tinnitus, hearing loss, impaired balance, giddiness and eye problems. There have been reports of cardiovascular problems such as tachycardia, though these are relatively rare.

Many of the symptoms reported resemble those of  multiple chemical sensitivity (MCS).

Some steps you can take are:

• Don’t let your child use a cell phone.
• Keep your cell phone use to a minimum.
• Reduce or eliminate your use of other wireless devices.
• Limit cell phone use to areas with excellent reception.
• Avoid carrying your cell phone on your body, and do not sleep with it under your pillow or near your head.
• Don’t assume one cell phone is safer than another. There’s no such thing as a “safe” cell phone.
• Respect others; many are highly sensitive to EMF. Some people who have become sensitive can feel the effects of others’ cell phones in the same room, even when it is on but not being used.
• Walk barefoot on the earth
• Worry less. The power of consciousness with regards to our health is huge. This has been demonstrated by recent findings within quantum physics, the placebo effect, and many other interesting phenomena, like neuro-plasticity. This could explain why some people who have such unhealthy lifestyles, but don’t worry and enjoy themselves still live longer. The human body is great at adapting — all we have to do is help it out a little bit.

You can also check out Dr. Scott Eberle, who trained as a family physician, worked for nearly two decades as an AIDS specialist, and continues as a hospice medical director. After an episode of carbon monoxide poisoning in 2010, he began having symptoms that, in retrospect, signalled the initial onset of this type of sensitivity. In 2013, his health plummeted until he finally figured out the cause.

“What’s the Diagnosis, Doctor?” was published in Sonoma Medicine in 2104. “An Underworld Journey: Learning to Cope With Electromagnetic Sensitivity” was published by Ecopsychology in 2017. See also: “So You Think You Might Be Electrosensitive “and “Guidelines for Making a Home Radiowave Safe.” Read more from Dr. Eberle here.

Devices You Can Get to Help Protect You, Backed by Science

As a result of this growing issue that’s gaining more attention, scientists and researchers are now teaming up to find ways to mitigate the effects of electromagnetic radiation. One example would be the devices manufactured by Earth-Calm. They have been tested in the lab by multiple scientists, with full reports and results available on the website.

I just wanted to provide an example, and let people know that there are several companies developing these products. I recommend doing the research, reading the studies and results, as well as contacting the scientists who are conducting these studies.

2,000+ Peer-Reviewed Studies

The truth is, there are more, but these 2,000 come from the 200+ scientists who are petitioning the UN about this issue, as mentioned above. Below is the list. Feel free to look them up and contact them for more information.

Armenia

Prof. Sinerik Ayrapetyan, Ph.D., UNESCO Chair – Life Sciences International Postgraduate Educational Center, Armenia

Australia

Dr. Priyanka Bandara, Ph.D., Independent Env.Health Educator/Researcher, Advisor, Environmental Health Trust; Doctors for Safer Schools, Australia
Dr. Peter French BSc, MSc, MBA, PhD, FRSM, Conjoint Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales, Australia
Dr. Bruce Hocking, MD, MBBS, FAFOEM (RACP), FRACGP, FARPS, specialist in occupational medicine; Victoria, Australia
Dr. Gautam (Vini) Khurana, Ph.D., F.R.A.C.S., Director, C.N.S. Neurosurgery, Australia
Dr. Don Maisch, Ph.D., Australia
Dr. Elena Pirogova, Ph.D., Biomed Eng., B. Eng (Hon) Chem. Eng., Engineering & Health College; RMIT University, Australia
Dr. Mary Redmayne, Ph.D., Department of Epidemiology & Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Australia
Dr. Charles Teo, BM, BS, MBBS, Member of the Order of Australia, Director, Centre for Minimally Invasive Neurosurgery at Prince of Wales Hospital, NSW, Australia

Austria

Dr. Michael Kundi, MD, University of Vienna, Austria
Dr. Gerd Oberfeld, MD, Public Health Department, Salzburg Government, Austria
Dr. Bernhard Pollner, MD, Pollner Research, Austria
Prof. Dr. Hugo W. Rüdiger, MD, Austria

Bahrain

Dr. Amer Kamal, MD, Physiology Department, College of Medicine, Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain

Belgium

Prof. Marie-Claire Cammaerts, Ph.D., Free University of Brussels, Faculty of Science, Brussels, Belgium

Brazil

Vânia Araújo Condessa, MSc., Electrical Engineer, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Dr. João Eduardo de Araujo, MD, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil
Dr. Francisco de Assis Ferreira Tejo, D. Sc., Universidade Federal de Campina Grande, Campina Grande, State of Paraíba, Brazil
Prof. Alvaro deSalles, Ph.D., Federal University of Rio Grande Del Sol, Brazil
Prof. Adilza Dode, Ph.D., MSc. Engineering Sciences, Minas Methodist University, Brazil
Dr. Daiana Condessa Dode, MD, Federal University of Medicine, Brazil
Michael Condessa Dode, Systems Analyst, MRE Engenharia Ltda, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Prof. Orlando Furtado Vieira Filho, PhD, Cellular&Molecular Biology, Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil

Canada

Dr. Magda Havas, Ph.D., Environmental and Resource Studies, Centre for Health Studies, Trent University, Canada
Dr. Paul Héroux, Ph.D., Director, Occupational Health Program, McGill University; InvitroPlus Labs, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
Dr. Tom Hutchinson, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Environmental and Resource Studies, Trent University, Canada
Prof. Ying Li, Ph.D., InVitroPlus Labs, Dept. of Surgery, Royal Victoria Hospital, McGill University, Canada
James McKay M.Sc, Ecologist, City of London; Planning Services, Environmental and Parks Planning, London, Canada
Prof. Anthony B. Miller, MD, FRCP, University of Toronto, Canada
Prof. Klaus-Peter Ossenkopp, Ph.D., Department of Psychology (Neuroscience), University of Western Ontario, Canada
Dr. Malcolm Paterson, PhD. Molecular Oncologist (ret.), British Columbia, Canada
Prof. Michael A. Persinger, Ph.D., Behavioural Neuroscience and Biomolecular Sciences, Laurentian University, Canada

China

Prof. Huai Chiang, Bioelectromagnetics Key Laboratory, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Yuqing Duan, Ph.D., Food & Bioengineering, Jiangsu University, China
Dr. Kaijun Liu, Ph.D., Third Military Medical University, Chongqing, China
Prof. Xiaodong Liu, Director, Key Lab of Radiation Biology, Ministry of Health of China; Associate Dean, School of Public Health, Jilin University, China
Prof. Wenjun Sun, Ph.D., Bioelectromagnetics Key Lab, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, China
Prof. Minglian Wang, Ph.D., College of Life Science & Bioengineering, Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Qun Wang, Ph.D., College of Materials Science & Engineering,  Beijing University of Technology, China
Prof. Haihiu Zhang, Ph.D., School of Food & BioEngineering, Jiangsu University, China
Prof. Jianbao Zhang, Associate Dean, Life Science and Technology School, Xi’an Jiaotong University, China
Prof. Hui-yan Zhao, Director of STSCRW, College of Plant Protection, Northwest A & F University, Yangling Shaanxi, China
Prof. J. Zhao, Department of Chest Surgery, Cancer Center of Guangzhou Medical University, Guangzhou, China

Croatia

Ivancica Trosic, Ph.D., Institute for Medical Research and Occupational Health, Croatia

Egypt

Prof. Dr. Abu Bakr Abdel Fatth El-Bediwi, Ph.D., Physics Dept., Faculty of Science, Mansoura University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Emad Fawzy Eskander, Ph.D., Medical Division, Hormones Department, National Research Center, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Heba Salah El Din Aboul Ezz, Ph.D., Physiology, Zoology Department, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt
Prof. Dr. Nasr Radwan, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Faculty of Science, Cairo University, Egypt

Estonia

Dr. Hiie Hinrikus, Ph.D., D.Sc, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia
Mr. Tarmo Koppel, Tallinn University of Technology, Estonia

Finland

Dr. Mikko Ahonen, Ph.D, University of Tampere, Finland
Dr. Marjukka Hagström, LL.M., M.Soc.Sc, Principal Researcher, Radio and EMC Laboratory, Finland
Prof. Dr. Osmo Hänninen, Ph.D., Dept. of Physiology, Faculty of Medicine, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Editor-In-Chief, Pathophysiology, Finland
Dr. Dariusz Leszczynski, Ph.D., Adjunct Professor of Biochemistry, University of Helsinki, Finland; Member of the IARC Working Group that classified cell phone radiation as possible carcinogen.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland

France

Prof. Dr. Dominique Belpomme, MD, MPH, Professor in Oncology, Paris V Descartes University, ECERI Executive Director
Dr. Pierre Le Ruz, Ph.D., Criirem, Le Mans, France Georgia
Prof. Besarion Partsvania, Ph.D., Head of Bio-cybernetics Department of Georgian Technical University, Georgia

Germany

Prof. Dr. Franz Adlkofer, MD, Chairman, Pandora Foundation, Germany
Prof. Dr. Hynek  Burda, Ph.D., University of Duisburg-Essen, Germany
Dr. Horst Eger, MD, Electromagnetic Fields in Medicine, Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians, Bavaria, Germany
Prof. Dr. Karl Hecht, MD, former Director, Institute of Pathophysiology, Charité, Humboldt University, Berlin, Germany
Dr.Sc. Florian M. König, Ph.D., Florian König Enterprises (FKE) GmbH, Munich, Germany
Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Dr. rer. nat. Lebrecht von Klitzing, Ph.D., Head, Institute of Environ.Physics; Ex-Head, Dept. Clinical Research, Medical University, Lubeck, Germany
Dr. Cornelia Waldmann-Selsam, MD, Member, Competence Initiative for the Protection of Humanity, Environment and Democracy e.V, Bamberg, Germany
Dr. Ulrich Warnke, Ph.D., Bionik-Institut, University of Saarlandes, Germany

Greece

Dr. Adamantia F. Fragopoulou,  M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Cell Biology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, University of Athens, Greece
Dr. Christos Georgiou, Ph.D.,  Biology Department, University of Patras, Greece
Prof. Emeritus Lukas H. Margaritis, Ph.D., Depts. Cell Biology, Radiobiology & Biophysics, Biology Faculty, Univ. of Athens, Greece
Dr. Aikaterini Skouroliakou, M.Sc., Ph.D., Department of Energy Technology Engineering, Technological Educational Institute of Athens, Greece
Dr. Stelios A Zinelis, MD, Hellenic Cancer Society-Kefalonia, Greece

Iceland

Dr. Ceon Ramon, Ph.D., Affiliate Professor, University of Washington, USA; Professor, Reykjavik University, Iceland

India

Prof. Dr. B. D. Banerjee, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Environmental Biochemistry & Molecular Biology Laboratory, Department of Biochemistry, University College of Medical Sciences, University of Delhi, India
Prof. Jitendra Behari, Ph.D., Ex-Dean, Jawaharlal Nehru University; presently, Emeritus Professor, Amity University, India
Prof. Dr. Madhukar Shivajirao Dama, Institute of Wildlife Veterinary Research, India
Associate Prof. Dr Amarjot Dhami, PhD., Lovely Professional University, Phagwara, Punjab, India
Dr. Kavindra K. Kesari, MBA, Ph.D., Resident Environmental Scientist, University of Eastern Finland, Finland; Assistant Professor, Jaipur National University, India
Prof. Girish Kumar, Ph.D., Electrical Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India
Dr. Pabrita Mandal PhD.,Department of Physics, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, India
Prof. Rashmi Mathur, Ph.D., Head, Department of Physiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Kameshwar Prasad MD, Head, Dept of Neurology, Director, Clinical Epidemiology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, India
Dr. Sivani Saravanamuttu, PhD., Dept. Advanced Zoology and Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, India
Dr. N.N. Shareesh, PhD., Melaka Manipal Medical College, India
Dr.  R.S. Sharma, MD, Sr. Deputy Director General, Scientist – G & Chief Coordinator – EMF Project, Indian Council of Medical Research, Dept. of Health Research, Ministry/Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
Prof. Dr. Dorairaj Sudarsanam, M.Sc., M.Ed., Ph.D., Fellow – National Academy of Biological Sciences, Prof. of Zoology, Biotechnology and Bioinformatics, Dept. Advanced   Zoology & Biotechnology, Loyola College, Chennai, South India

Iran (Islamic Republic of)

Prof. Dr. Soheila Abdi, Ph.D., Physics, Islamic Azad University of Safadasht, Tehran, Iran
Prof. G.A. Jelodar, D.V.M., Ph.D., Physiology, School of Veterinary Medicine, Shiraz University, Iran
Prof. Hamid Mobasheri, Ph.D., Head BRC; Head, Membrane Biophysics&Macromolecules Lab; Instit. Biochemistry&Biophysics, University, Tehran, Iran
Prof.  Seyed Mohammad Mahdavi, PhD., Dept of Biology, Science and Research, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Prof. S.M.J. Mortazavi, Ph.D., Head, Medical Physics & Engineering; Chair, NIER Protection Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Amirnader Emami Razavi, Ph.D., Clinical Biochem., National Tumor Bank, Cancer Institute, Tehran Univ. Medical Sciences, Iran
Dr. Masood Sepehrimanesh, Ph.D., Gastroenterohepatology Research Center, Shiraz University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Prof. Dr. Mohammad Shabani, Ph.D., Neurophysiology, Kerman Neuroscience Research Center, Iran

Israel

Michael Peleg, M.Sc., radio communications engineer and researcher, Technion – Israel Institute of Technology, Israel
Prof. Elihu D. Richter, MD,MPH, Occupational&Environmental Medicine, Hebrew University-Hadassah School of Public Health&Community Medicine, Israel
Dr. Yael Stein, MD, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Hadassah Medical Center, Israel
Dr. Danny Wolf, MD, Pediatrician and General Practitioner, Sherutey Briut Clalit, Shron Shomron district, Israel
Dr. Ronni Wolf, MD, Assoc. Clinical Professor, Head of Dermatology Unit, Kaplan Medical Center, Rehovot, Israel

Italy

Prof. Sergio Adamo, Ph.D., La Sapienza University, Rome, Italy
Prof. Fernanda Amicarelli, Ph.D., Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life and Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Dr. Pasquale Avino, Ph.D., INAIL Research Section, Rome, Italy
Dr. Fiorella Belpoggi, Ph.D., FIATP, Director, Cesare Maltoni Cancer Research Center, Ramazzini Institute, Italy
Prof. Giovanni Di Bonaventura, PhD, School of Medicine, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti-Pescara, Italia
Prof. Emanuele Calabro, Department of Physics and Earth Sciences, University of Messina, Italy
Prof. Franco Cervellati, Ph.D., Department of Life Science and Biotechnology, Section of General Physiology, University of Ferrara, Italy
Vale Crocetta, Ph.D. Candidate, Biomolecular and Pharmaceutical Sciences, “G. d’Annunzio” University of Chieti, ItalyProf. Stefano Falone, Ph.D., Researcher in Applied Biology, Dept. of Health, Life&Environmental Sciences, University of L’Aquila, Italy
Prof. Dr. Speridione Garbisa, ret. Senior Scholar, Dept. Biomedical Sciences, University of Padova, Italy
Dr. Settimio Grimaldi, Ph.D., Associate Scientist, National Research Council, Italy
Prof. Livio Giuliani, Ph.D., Director of Research, Italian Health National Service, Rome-Florence-Bozen; Spokesman, ICEMS-International Commission for Electromagnetic Safety, Italy
Prof. Dr. Angelo Levis, MD, Dept. Medical Sciences, Padua University, Italy
Prof. Salvatore Magazù, Ph.D., Department of Physics and Science, Messina University, Italy
Dr. Fiorenzo Marinelli, Ph.D., Researcher, Molecular Genetics Institute of the National Research Council, Italy
Dr. Arianna Pompilio, PhD, Dept. Medical, Oral & Biotechnological Sciences. G. d’Annunzio University of Chieti-Pescara, Italy
Prof. Dr. Raoul Saggini, MD, School of Medicine, University G. D’Annunzio, Chieti, Italy
Dr. Morando Soffritti, MD, Honorary President, National Institute for the Study and Control of Cancer and Environmental Diseases, B.Ramazzini, Bologna. ItalyProf. Massimo Sperini, Ph.D., Center for Inter-University Research on Sustainable Development, Rome, Italy

Japan

Prof. Tsuyoshi Hondou, Ph.D., Graduate School of Science, Tohoku University, Japan
Prof. Hidetake Miyata, Ph.D., Department of Physics, Tohoku University, Japan

Jordan

Prof. Mohammed S.H. Al Salameh, Jordan University of Science & Technology , Jordan

Kazakhstan

Prof. Dr, Timur Saliev, MD, Ph.D., Life Sciences, Nazarbayev University, Kazakhstan; Institute Medical Science/Technology, University of Dundee, UK

New Zealand

Dr. Bruce Rapley, BSc, MPhil, Ph.D., Principal Consulting Scientist, Atkinson & Rapley Consulting Ltd., New Zealand

Nigeria

Dr. Idowu Ayisat Obe, Department of Zoology, Faculty of Science, University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, Nigeria
Prof. Olatunde Michael Oni, Ph.D, Radiation & Health Physics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Oman

Prof. Najam Siddiqi, MBBS, Ph.D., Human Structure, Oman Medical College, Oman

Poland

Dr. Pawel Bodera, Pharm. D., Department of Microwave Safety, Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland
Prof. Dr. Stanislaw Szmigielski, MD, Ph.D., Military Institute of Hygiene and Epidemiology, Poland

Romania

Alina Cobzaru, Engineer, National Institutes Research & Development and Institute of Construction & Sustainability, Romania

Russian Federation

Prof. Vladimir N. Binhi, Ph.D., A.M.Prokhorov General Physics Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences; M.V.Lomonosov Moscow State University
Dr. Oleg Grigoyev, DSc., Ph.D., Deputy Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Prof. Yury Grigoryev, MD, Chairman, Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Russian Federation
Dr. Anton Merkulov, Ph.D., Russian National Committee on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection, Moscow, Russian Federation
Dr. Maxim Trushin, PhD., Kazan Federal University, Russia

Serbia

Dr. Snezana Raus Balind, Ph.D., Research Associate, Institute for Biological Research “Sinisa Stankovic”, Belgrade, Serbia
Prof. Danica Dimitrijevic, Ph.D., Vinca Institute of Nuclear Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia
Dr. Sladjana Spasic, Ph.D., Institute for Multidisciplinary Research, University of Belgrade, Serbia

Slovak Republic

Dr. Igor Belyaev, Ph.D., Dr.Sc., Cancer Research Institute, Slovak Academy of Science, Bratislava, Slovak Republic

South Korea (Republic of Korea)

Prof. Young Hwan Ahn, MD, Ph.D, Ajou University Medical School, South Korea
Prof. Kwon-Seok Chae, Ph.D., Molecular-ElectroMagnetic Biology Lab, Kyungpook National University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Myoung Gimm, Ph.D., School of Electronics and Electrical Engineering, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Myung Chan Gye, Ph.D., Hanyang University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Mina Ha, MD, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Seung-Cheol Hong, MD, Inje University, South Korea
Prof. Dong Hyun Kim, Ph.D., Dept. of Otorhinolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery, Incheon St. Mary’s Hospital, Catholic University of  Korea, South Korea
Prof. Hak-Rim Kim, Dept.of Pharmacology, College of Medicine, Dankook University, South Korea
Prof. Myeung Ju Kim, MD, Ph.D., Department of Anatomy, Dankook University College of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jae Seon Lee, MD,  Department of Molecular Medicine, NHA University College of Medicine, Incheon 22212, South Korea
Prof. Yun-Sil Lee, Ph.D., Ewha Woman’s University, South Korea
Prof. Dr. Yoon-Won Kim, MD, Ph.D., Hallym University School of Medicine, South Korea
Prof. Jung Keog Park, Ph.D., Life Science & Biotech; Dir., Research Instit.of Biotechnology, Dongguk University, South Korea
Prof. Sungman Park, Ph.D., Institute of Medical Sciences, School of Medicine, Hallym University, South Korea
Prof. Kiwon Song, Ph.D., Dept. of Chemistry, Yonsei University, South Korea

Spain

Prof. Dr. Miguel Alcaraz, MD, Ph.D., Radiology and Physical Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Murcia, Spain
Dr. Alfonso Balmori, Ph.D., Biologist, Consejería de Medio Ambiente, Junta de Castilla y León, Spain
Prof. J.L. Bardasano, D.Sc, University of Alcalá, Department of Medical Specialties, Madrid, Spain
Dr. Claudio Gómez-Perretta, MD, Ph.D., La Fe University Hospital, Valencia, Spain
Prof. Dr. Miguel López-Lázaro, PhD.,  Associate Professor, Department of Pharmacology, University of Seville, Spain
Prof. Dr. Elena Lopez Martin, Ph.D., Human Anatomy, Facultad de Medicina, Universidad de Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Prof. Enrique A. Navarro, Ph.D., Department of Applied Physics and Electromagnetics, University of Valencia, Spain

Sweden

Dr. Michael Carlberg, MSc, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden
Dr. Lennart Hardell, MD, Ph.D., University Hospital, Örebro, Sweden
Prof. Olle Johansson, Ph.D., Experimental Dermatology Unit, Dept. of Neuroscience, Karolinska Institute, Sweden
Dr. Bertil R. Persson, Ph.D., MD, Lund University, Sweden
Senior Prof. Dr. Leif Salford, MD. Department of Neurosurgery, Director, Rausing Laboratory, Lund University, Sweden
Dr. Fredrik Söderqvist, Ph.D., Ctr. for Clinical Research, Uppsala University, Västerås, Sweden

Switzerland

Dr. phil. nat. Daniel Favre, A.R.A. (Association Romande Alerte, Switzerland

Taiwan (Republic of China)

Prof. Dr. Tsun-Jen Cheng, MD, Sc.D., National Taiwan University, Republic of China

Turkey

Prof. Dr. Mehmet Zülküf Akdağ, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Diyarbakir, Turkey
Associate Prof.Dr. Halil Abraham Atasoy, MD, Pediatrics, Abant Izzet Baysal University, Faculty of Medicine, Turkey
Prof. Ayse G. Canseven (Kursun), Ph.D., Gazi University, Faculty of Medicine, Dept. of Biophysics, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Salih Celik, Ph.D., Fmr. Head, Turkish Biophysical Society; Head, Biophysics Dept; Medical Faculty, Dicle Univ., Turkey
Prof. Dr. Osman Cerezci, Electrical-Electronics Engineering Department, Sakarya University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Suleyman Dasdag, Ph.D., Dept. of Biophysics, Medical School of Dicle University, Turkey
Prof. Omar Elmas, MD, Ph.D., Mugla Sitki Kocman University, Faculty of Medicine, Department of Physiology, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ali H. Eriş, MD, faculty, Radiation Oncology Department,  BAV University Medical School, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Arzu Firlarer, M.Sc. Ph.D., Occupational Health & Safety Department, Baskent University, Turkey
Prof. Associate Prof. Ayse Inhan Garip, PdH., Marmara Univ. School of Medicine, Biophysics Department, Turkey
Prof. Suleyman Kaplan, Ph.D., Head, Department of Histology and Embryology, Medical School, Ondokuz Mayıs University, Samsun, Turkey.
Prof. Dr. Mustafa Nazıroğlu, Ph.D., Biophysics Dept, Medical Faculty, Süleyman Demirel University, Isparta, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Ersan Odacı, MD, Ph.D., Karadeniz Technical University, Medical Faculty, Trabzon, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Elcin Ozgur, Ph.D., Biophysics Department, Faculty of Medicine, Gazi University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Selim Seker, Electrical Engineering Department, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Cemil Sert, Ph.D., Department of Biophysics of Medicine Faculty, Harran University, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Nesrin Seyhan, B.Sc., Ph.D., Medical Faculty of Gazi University; Chair, Biophysics Dept; Director GNRK Ctr.; Panel Mbr, NATO STO HFM; Scientific Secretariat Member, ICEMS; Advisory Committee Member, WHO EMF, Turkey
Prof. Dr. Bahriye Sirav (Aral), PhD.,Gazi University Faculty of Medicine, Dept of Biophysics, Turkey

Ukraine

Dr. Oleg Banyra, MD, 2nd Municipal Polyclinic, St. Paraskeva Medical Centre, Ukraine
Prof. Victor Martynyuk, PhD., ECS “Institute of Biology”, Head of Biophysics Dept, Taras Shevchenko National University of Kiev, Ukraine
Prof. Igor Yakymenko, Ph.D., D.Sc., Instit. Experimental Pathology, Oncology & Radiobiology, National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine

United Kingdom

Michael Bevington, M.A., M.Ed., Chair of Trustees, ElectroSensitivity UK (ES-UK), UK
Mr. Roger Coghill, MA,C Biol, MI Biol, MA Environ Mgt; Member Instit.of Biology; Member, UK SAGE Committee on EMF Precautions, UK
Mr. David Gee, Associate Fellow, Institute of Environment, Health and Societies, Brunel University, UK
Dr. Andrew Goldsworthy BSc PhD,  Lecturer in Biology (retired), Imperial College, London,  UK
Emeritus Professor Denis L. Henshaw, PhD., Human Radiation Effects, School of Chemistry, University of Bristol, UK
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho, Ph.D., Institute of Science in Society, UK
Dr. Gerard Hyland, Ph.D., Institute of Biophysics, Neuss, Germany, UK
Dr. Isaac Jamieson, Ph.D., Biosustainable Design, UK
Emeritus Professor, Michael J. O’Carroll, PhD., former Pro Vice-Chancellor, University of Sunderland, UK
Mr. Alasdair Phillips, Electrical Engineer, UK
Dr. Syed Ghulam Sarwar Shah, M.Sc., Ph.D., Public Health Consultant, Honorary Research Fellow, BrunelUniversity London, UK
Dr. Sarah Starkey, Ph.D., independent neuroscience and environmental health research, UK

USA

Dr. Martin Blank, Ph.D., Columbia University, USA
Prof. Jim Burch, MS, Ph.D., Dept. of Epidemiology & Biostatistics, Arnold School of Public Health, University of  South Carolina, USA
Prof. David O. Carpenter, MD, Director, Institute for Health and the Environment, University of New York at Albany, USA
Prof. Prof. Simona Carrubba, Ph.D., Biophysics, Daemen College, Women & Children’s Hospital of Buffalo Neurology Dept., USA
Dr. Zoreh Davanipour, D.V.M., Ph.D., Friends Research Institute, USA
Dr. Devra Davis, Ph.D., MPH, President, Environmental Health Trust; Fellow, American College of Epidemiology, USA
Paul Raymond Doyon, EMRS, MAT, MA , Doyon Independent Research Associates, USA
Prof. Om P. Gandhi, Ph.D., Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Utah, USA
Prof. Beatrice Golomb, MD, Ph.D., University of California at San Diego School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Martha R. Herbert, MD, Ph.D., Harvard Medical School, Harvard University, USA
Dr. Donald Hillman, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Michigan State University, USA
Elizabeth Kelley, MA, Fmr. Managing Secretariat, ICEMS, Italy; Director, EMFscientist.org, USA
Neha Kumar, Founder, Nonionizing Electromagnetic Radiation Shielding Alternatives, Pvt. Ltd; B.Tech – Industrial Biotech., USA
Dr. Henry Lai, Ph.D., University of Washington, USA
B. Blake Levitt, medical/science journalist, former New York Times contributor, EMF researcher and author, USA
Prof. Trevor G. Marshall, PhD, Autoimmunity Research Foundation, USA
Dr. Albert M. Manville, II, Ph.D. and C.W.B., Adj. Professor, Johns Hopkins University Krieger Graduate School of Arts & Sciences; Migratory Bird Management, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, USA
Dr. Andrew Marino, J.D., Ph.D., Retired Professor, LSU Health Sciences Center, USA
Dr. Marko Markov, Ph.D., President, Research International, Buffalo, New York, USA
Dr. Jeffrey L. Marrongelle, DC, CCN, President/Managing Partner of BioEnergiMed LLC, USA
Dr. Samuel Milham, MD, MPH, USA
L. Lloyd Morgan, Environmental Health Trust, USA
Dr. Joel M. Moskowitz, Ph.D., School of Public Health, University of California, Berkeley, USA
Dr. Martin L. Pall, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, Biochemistry & Basic Medical Sciences, Washington State University, USA
Dr.  Jerry L. Phillips, Ph.D. University of Colorado, USA
Dr. William J. Rea, M.D., Environmental Health Center, Dallas, Texas, USA
Camilla Rees, MBA, Electromagnetichealth.org; CEO, Wide Angle Health, LLC, USA
Prof. Narenda P. Singh, MD, University of Washington, USA
Prof. Eugene Sobel, Ph.D., Retired, School of Medicine, University of Southern California, USA
David Stetzer, Stetzer Electric, Inc., Blair, Wisconsin, USA
Dr. Lisa Tully, Ph.D., Energy Medicine Research Institute, Boulder, CO, USA

Supporting Scientists who have published peer reviewed papers in related fields

Michele Casciani, MA, Environmental Science, President/Chief Executive Officer, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Enrico Corsetti, Engineer, Research Director, Salvator Mundi International Hospital, Rome, Italy
Jacques Testart, Biologist, Honorary Research Director at I.N.S.E.R.M. (French National Medical Research Institute), France
Xin Li, PhD candidate MSc, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stevens Institute of Technology, New Jersey, USA
Dr. Carlos A. Loredo Ritter, MD, Pediatrician, Pediatric Neurologist, President, Restoration Physics, North American Sleep Medicine Society, USADr. Robin Maytum, PhD, Senior Lecturer in Biological Science, University of Bedfordshire, Luton, UK
Prof. Dr. Raúl A. Montenegro, Ph.D, Evolutionary Biology, National University of Cordoba; President, FUNAM; Recognitions: Scientific  Investigation Award from University of Buenos Aires, UNEP ‘Global 500’ Award (Brussels, Belgium), the Nuclear Free Future Award (Salzburg, Austria), and Alternative Nobel Prize (Right Livelihood Award, Sweden), Argentina.
Dr. Georgiy Ostroumov, Ph.D. (in the field of RF EMF), independent researcher, Finland
Dr. Hugo Schooneveld, PhD, Biologist, Neuroscientist, Adviser to the Dutch EHS Foundation, Netherlands
Dr. Carmen Adella Sirbu, MD, Neurology, Lecturer, Titu Matorescu University, Romania

Last weekend saw Ukraine’s biggest Nazi march of modern times. Yet, the Western media and its numerous correspondents in Kiev completely ignored the story, even on social networks. This is as clear an example of press bias as you will ever encounter.

On Saturday night, up to 20,000 far-right radicals honored the 75th anniversary of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) – a paramilitary group led by Stepan Bandera, which actively collaborated with Hitler’s Germany. They brandished lit torches, smoke pellets, and flares as they chanted fascist slogans. And some participants openly gave Nazi salutes during the rally.

The leaders of the procession included Oleg Tyahnybok, an associate of US Senators John McCain and Chris Murphy, who has called for Ukraine to do more to halt the “criminal activities” of “organized Jewry.” He’s also demanded Ukrainian citizens should have their ethnic origins stamped in their passports.

Earlier in the day, Ukraine’s President Petro Poroshenko said the actions of the UPA fighters would always remain an “inspiration” and an example for future generations. This conduct included the slaughter of tens of thousands of Jews and Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia from 1943 to 1944.

So, we had a major Nazi gathering in a European capital and the only English language sources that show up in a Google News search are from RT, Sputnik, The Nation and a half-hearted seven-sentence ‘report’ by US state broadcaster RFE/RL, which meekly describes them as mere “nationalists.” That means there is nothing from CNN, the Guardian, the New York Times, Washington Post or the BBC, among the usual suspects who make every little protest in Russia headline news.

#Ukrainian nationalists hold march in #Kiev demanding Nazi collaborators to be proclaimed 'national heroes' https://t.co/2GeA31vWp4 pic.twitter.com/v5EUnLqCB1

— RT (@RT_com) October 15, 2017

Clutching at straws

We all know the mainstream narrative by now. Ukraine can do little wrong, and Russia can hardly do anything right. However, in reality, both countries are remarkably similar, culturally, politically, linguistically and socially. And this is hardly a surprise, given both formed the two most populous parts of a union state for over seventy years and have historical associations going back to the ninth century.

However, there are a few fundamental differences these days. Ukraine has, in fits and starts, pursued a pro-Western course since the turn of the century, while Russia has preferred to position itself as an independent Eurasian power. Meanwhile, there is also a huge economic disparity, with Russian per capita GDP around three and a half times higher than the Ukrainian equivalent.

There’s another significant issue which divides the two countries. And that’s the official attitude to World War Two. Moscow sees itself as the successor of the victorious Soviet Union and Kiev, searching for a historical narrative of statehood, wants to project Ukraine as a victim of the USSR. This is despite the fact that many Ukrainians – such as Leonid Brezhnev, Konstantin Chernenko, Leon Trotsky and Grigory Zinoviev – played prominent political roles in the former superpower.

Today, Kiev airbrushes these figures from its history and instead prefers to celebrate people associated with the anti-Soviet resistance of the World War Two period. The problem is that most of these characters were Nazi collaborators, complicit in various atrocities of the period.

And that’s why we had Saturday night’s torchlight march in Kiev. An attempt to secure the Bandera gang’s place as the founding fathers of the modern Ukrainian nation. Something further encouraged by the post- Maidan regime’s 2014 decision to make October 14 – the UPA’s birthday – an official public holiday called “Defender of Ukraine Day.”

Willful ignorance

There are numerous Western correspondents in Kiev. Perhaps the most prominent is Christopher Miller, of RFE/RL, whose presence at Maidan gained him a substantial number of social media followers. On Saturday, Miller made no reference to the Nazi march on his Twitter account, preferring to post pictures from the Carpathian mountains. However, in the past, he has extensively tweeted about much smaller rallies organized by Alexei Navalny in far-away Moscow and St Petersburg.

This weekend in Kiev, a torchlit Nazi march through the centre. Which the dozens of western hacks there haven't noticed. Just fancy that! https://t.co/v98MPWusHh

— Bryan MacDonald (@27khv) October 15, 2017

Additionally, Matthew Kupfer, head of Hromadske in Kiev, a TV network funded by the US embassy and the European Commission, also failed to note the rally. But, again, he extensively covered Navalny’s travails in Russia. Meanwhile, in fairness to Ian Bateson, who writes from Ukraine for the New York Times and Guardian, he did at least mention the event, if not its intent, but, again, this contrasts with his enthusiastic tweeting about Russia’s opposition get-togethers.

As mentioned early, big media corporations, with a staff and stringer presence all over the former USSR, apparently didn’t feel a Nazi parade, of up to 20,000 people, with fascist symbols and Hitler salutes on view, was newsworthy. Furthermore, when statues are erected to Ukrainians who murdered Jews these outlets don’t seem to bat an eyelid.

Ukraine's Infrastructure Minister wants official heroes' reburials for Nazi collaborators, mass-murderers of Jews https://t.co/lwW8xdG7i9 pic.twitter.com/jOL7DEshQR

— Mark Ames (@MarkAmesExiled) January 4, 2017

Take the BBC, for instance. The British state broadcaster has a dedicated Ukrainian service and employs dozens of journalists in Kiev, many of whom are also active on social media in the English language. Despite this, the BBC didn’t cover the Kiev Nazi rally. And the call came on the same weekend we learned the British government has hired PR firm M&C Saatchi to run a project with the Foreign Office to “rehabilitate” Ukraine. Now if anyone thinks the two are not linked, I have a bridge to sell them.

However, if Navalny so much as breaks wind in Moscow, the BBC is there to report. Indeed, its former Moscow correspondent once ludicrously compared the Russian nationalist to Nelson Mandela.

Small number of Navalny supporters on Palace Square chant "Happy Birthday!" (to Putin). Placard: "Putin – leave! We want a different way." pic.twitter.com/2daNzRETL9

— Steve Rosenberg (@BBCSteveR) October 7, 2017

These are the dual standards displayed by Western reporters on the Russia/Ukraine beat, and they make a mockery of supposed adherence to journalistic balance and fair play. Just this month, Moscow protests attended by around 700 people (a great many of them journalists working at the event) were given huge attention by the mainstream media, while Saturday’s Kiev Nazi march was entirely ignored by the same outlets.

Ukraine has a far-right problem, and it also has a Western media predicament. Because if hacks from NATO countries think they are helping Ukraine, by turning a blind eye to this cancer, they are badly mistaken.

Bryan MacDonald is an Irish journalist, who is based in Russia

Featured image is from the author.

United States President Donald Trump is attempting to set the scene for attacking Iran by continuing with his pre-election mantra of the “bad deal”. Since his assumption of office, he has continually referred to the Iranian state as a “sponsor of terrorism” and has also made his designs clear by referring to Hezbollah, Iran’s ally in Lebanon, as a terrorist organisation responsible for the massacre of American troops in Lebanon in 1983. His decision not to re-certify the ‘Five Plus One’ Agreement is pivoting America towards an armed confrontation with Iran.

1. Ratcheting tensions with Iran is an unmistakable attempt aimed at setting up the United States to fight a war on behalf of Israel, and, it would be remiss not to note, Saudi Arabia, a country with which Israel has developed a symbiotic relationship. Iran has not invaded another country for around 200 years, is a signatory nation to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty with attendant inspections and in addition to this has consented to the multinational ‘Five Plus One’ Agreement. It is also useful to remind that the intelligence community of the United States and even Israel’s Mossad have concluded that Iran has no military objectives related to the acquisition of nuclear power. The Iranian leadership debated this and decided as long ago as the early or mid-2000s not to pursue the nuclear option.

It is a manufactured crisis.

By inflicting the first defeat in recent memory on the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), former President Barack Obama resisted the Israel-Jewish lobby’s insistence on using the United States to mount a military attack on Iran by reaching the ‘Five Plus One’ agreement. This came after a concerted effort by Binyamin Netanyahu to undermine Obama’s position by accepting an invitation from Republican members of congress to speak before America’s legislative body without the express approval of the serving president, an abrogation of established US constitutional convention.

2. Donald Trump recently tweeted a reminder of Hezbollah’s alleged responsibility for murdering US Marines in Lebanon back in 1983. Vice President Mike Pence joined in, but neither man mentioned any other atrocity allegedly instigated by Hezbollah since the period of time when Lebanese militias were resisting what they perceived as the occupation of their country by foreign military powers. The problem with this focus on Hezbollah as an instigator of terrorism is that most of the atrocities committed against the United States and other Western nations by Muslim organisations have been by those of the Sunni-Wahhabist stripe whose ideology emanates from America’s ally Saudi Arabia. These organisations have in fact been covertly used by the United States to harass, destabilise and overthrow America’s enemies in Chechnya (an anti-Russian endeavour), Syria and Libya.

While Trump and Pence invoke the name of Hezbollah in the killing of United States military personnel, neither man has ever publicly memorialised the American sailors who were deliberately murdered and maimed during an attack on the USS Liberty by the armed forces of the state of Israel in June 1967.

Both men will not acknowledge that Hezbollah was created out of the carnage that followed the Israeli invasion of Lebanon in the early 1980s, and that it was nurtured by the experience of combating Israel’s 18-year occupation of southern Lebanon.

By threatening to abrogate the multilateral treaty with Iran, it appears that Trump is doing the bidding of the Israel lobby which has had its intentions so far as achieving the destruction of Iran manifested in a number of position papers including many produced by the neoconservative-orientated and now defunct Project for the New American Century (PNAC).

Iran and Hezbollah were also targets proposed in a paper submitted in 1996 to Binyamin Netanyahu during his first tenure as Prime Minister of Israel. Led by the American neoconservative Richard Perle, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm proposed “rolling back” the Syrian state, a crucial ally of Hezbollah, by proxy warfare.

Further, the “policy coup” referred to by retired US General Wesley Clark which Clark had learned of on two visits to the Pentagon in the immediate aftermath of the September 11 attacks, outlined a neoconservative strategy of taking out “seven countries in five years” including Syria, Lebanon (meaning Hezbollah) and Iran.

Apart from Sudan and Somalia, none of the targeted entities, including Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, shared the objectives of the Sunni extremist ideology that characterised the alleged instigators of the 9/11 attacks. Iraq and Syria were led by secular, nationalist governments with roots in the Baathist movement, Libya’s ruling Jamahiriya Party was also a secular government, while Lebanon’s Hezbollah and Iran represented bastions of the Shia Muslim world.

All had in common an implacable opposition to Israel.

Iran, Syria and Hezbollah in Lebanon together form the so-called ‘Shia Crescent’, an ‘arc of resistance’ which threatens Israel’s military domination of the Middle East. This alliance also elicits fear and concern from Saudi Arabia, the leader of the Sunni Muslim world, and a nation with which Israel has developed closer, albeit informal relations.

The grand design of neutralising Iran and its allies is one which has continued unabated over the course of three successive United States administrations spanning those of George W. Bush, Barack Obama and now Donald Trump. The foreign policy of Obama did not vary much from that of Bush except in regard to Obama favouring covert action rather than overt foreign invasions by the American armed forces. Thus, the Syrian insurrection of 2011 through which foreign Islamist mercenaries were allowed to infiltrate Syria’s borders with the aid of America’s allies in the region was a policy consistent with the overarching policy of weakening the Shia powers by attempting to isolate Hezbollah by destroying Syria, the conduit between Israel’s Lebanese enemy and Iran.

Hezbollah, which like Iran has participated in defending the Assad government,  is the only military force in the Arab world that is willing and capable of confronting Israel’s military machinery. It was responsible for Israel’s withdrawal from Lebanon in 2000 after an almost two-decade-long occupation and they effectively defeated Israel in duels in the intelligence sphere and on the battlefield in the Lebanon War of 2006.

Israel has for long wanted to extend its frontier to the River Litani because it covets the resource the river provides. But the reclaiming of swathes of Syrian territory from Sunni Islamist groups such as Islamic State and Jabhat al-Nusra by the Syrian Arab Army with the help of Russian air power, Iranian advisors and soldiers provided by Hezbollah has frustrated the plan to cut Hezbollah off from Iran. It frustrates Israel’s desired ability to act with impunity in Lebanon as well as achieving its goal of securing its illegal annexation of the Golan Heights on the basis that none of the successor statelets of a balkanised Syria would have a claim to that region.

Whereas President Obama refused to yield to Israeli pressure to sacrifice American lives in a military adventure against Iran, it appears that President Trump is willing to pursue a path of aggression. In a speech defending the nuclear deal he had reached prior to a congressional vote in 2015, Obama claimed that “many of the same people who argued for the war in Iraq are now making the case against the Iran nuclear deal.” This was a not very veiled attack on the pro-Israel groups led by AIPAC, which sent hundreds of activists to lobby lawmakers to reject the deal.

Obama’s claim, which he repeated on several occasions, led to expressions of concern by several American Jewish organisations that his rhetoric could lead to a backlash against American Jews who are sensitive to suggestions of warmongering or placing ties to Israel over the interests of the United States.

Yet it remains the case, as Obama put it, that the “choice we face is ultimately between diplomacy and some form of war”. The joint statement issued earlier this month by the leaders of Britain, France and Germany affirming their support for the deal together with the words of the European Union’s foreign policy chief asserting that the agreement was working well clearly demonstrate that Trump is working towards achieving a preconceived agenda.

That agenda is a war agenda and it would be a catastrophe for the US to wage war against Iran on Israel’s behalf.

The malign results of the invasion of Iraq and the proxy war in Syria are apparent to all.

Adeyinka Makinde is a writer based in London, England.

This article was originally published by Adeyinka Makinde.

Featured image is from the author.

A rare blackout exercise and mass evacuation drill took place in North Korea last week according to NK News, citing “multiple sources.” The wartime preparations were not visible in Pyongyang, but were seen in “secondary, tertiary cities and towns” on the eastern coast of the country.

NK News and “multiple sources” stressed these drills are “extremely rare.”  Such “blackout and evacuation” drills are extremely rare in North Korea, multiple other sources with long experience working inside or on the country told NK News, making it difficult to gauge their purpose amid the current atmosphere.

Chun In-bum, a retired three star lieutenant general from the South Korean army, said

“I have never heard of this type of training exercises before in North Korea, but am not surprised. They must realize how serious the situation is.”

An NK News confidential “source” with-in North Korea added to the gravity of the situation: ”

I have never heard of evacuation exercises happening before.”

“There used to be air raid drills in 2003, but not since then,” the source said, who didn’t want to be identified due to the sensitivities of talking about military issues to the media. “A mass evacuation would be impossible not to notice.”

The North Korean war preparation exercise drill takes place as the U.S. Navy plans to stage an extremely rare, three-carrier exercise in the next few weeks off the Korean Peninsula, which could coincide with President Trump’s visit to South Korea, Japan, and China next month. The joint drills, the first in 10 years, are possible because of a rare confluence of carrier deployment schedules, according to the Pentagon.

The USS Ronald Reagan is based in Japan. On Tuesday, the Navy announced that the USS Theodore Roosevelt Carrier Strike Group had entered 7th Fleet, followed by the USS Nimitz Carrier Strike Group on Wednesday. Nimitz is on its way back to Washington state from a deployment to the Middle East, during which time it’ll operate in 7th Fleet, which covers the eastern half of the Indian Ocean and the Western Pacific.

The Pentagon has said the massing of three carriers in the waters off the peninsula is not a response to the rising tension with the North over its nuclear and missile programs. But the Navy said the ships would be available to take part in any real-world contingencies.

On Friday, Kim Jong-Un restarted the war of words when he said the U.S. is making “criminal moves for igniting a war of aggression,” according to the North’s state-run media.

In the meantime, many analyst believe Pyongyang has ambitions to launch at least one more intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) test in the near term, while a senior diplomat from Pyongyang warned Thursday that a possible atmospheric nuclear test over the Pacific Ocean should be taken “literally”; such a move would be viewed by parts of the U.S. government as an “attack on the homeland.”

NK News author and ‘multiple sources’ had no further details on the drills or exercises, except for the understand of geographical locations.

But while such evacuation drills – precise details of which were not provided by sources – may be prudent as far as helping save lives in the event of bombing campaigns in affected areas, blackout exercises have much more limited utility in the contemporary military environment.

The North Korean activities suggests the country is preparing for a kinetic US-response if a nuclear test and or an ICBM missile is launched.

Separately, as as reported previously next week, the Pentagon will conduct a nationwide blackout drill in the United States on November 04-06. Explained by Army MARS Program Manager Paul English,

“This exercise will begin with a national massive coronal mass ejection event which will impact the national power grid as well as all forms of traditional communication, including landline telephone, cellphone, satellite, and Internet connectivity.”

Curiously, a drill for a coronal mass ejection (CME) is, according to experts, very similar to an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). Just yesterday, Business Insider titled an article: Here’s what would happen if North Korea hit the US with an EMP. Excerpts form article:

• Experts recently told Congress that a North Korean electromagnetic-pulse attack on the US could wipe out 90% of the population.
• EMP attacks are unproven, and the academic community finds this claim ridiculous.
• Even if North Korea did pull off the attack, it wouldn’t hurt the US’s nuclear systems that are hardened against EMPs.

Earthsky.org provides an easy understanding of what is a cornoal mass ejection (CME):

“A CME can launch a billion tons of plasma from the sun’s surface into space, at speeds of over a million miles per hour. Every so often, the sun burps.  But, unlike myself, when the sun burps, it does so with the power of 20 million nuclear bombs.  These hiccups are known as coronal mass ejections (CMEs)—powerful eruptions near the surface of the sun driven by kinks in the solar magnetic field.  The resulting shocks ripple through the solar system and can interrupt satellites and power grids on Earth.”

The similarities between the CME and EMP are strikingly similar and could provide clarity of how the US is actively preparing for an EMP via a North Korean delivery with the “cover” of CME.

All images in this article are from the author.

Global Research brings to the attention of our readers a selection of articles on the release of classified files pertaining to  President John F. Kennedy. 

Consider Making a Donation to Global Research

Stronger together: your donations are crucial to independent, comprehensive news reporting in the ongoing battle against media disinformation. (click here to donate)

*     *     *

What Happened to the JFK Records?

By Rex Bradford, October 30, 2017

What happened on Thursday, Oct. 26, with the JFK records scheduled for release under the JFK Records Act? A travesty. Most news reports correctly noted the release of about 2,800 documents, but added that only a few were held back, in some cases saying “300 documents” remain withheld (see CNN, and Washington Post for example). They are off by a factor of 100. In fact, tens of thousands of documents, possibly as many as 30,000, remain sealed at the National Archives.

Will Donald Trump Confront the CIA? Will He Take the Risk of Becoming “Another John Kennedy”?

By Aidyn Mehtiyev, October 30, 2017

On Saturday, October 21, US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that he was ready to declassify 3,000 CIA and FBI files related to the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. The same morning, Politico wrote that the head of the White House refused to declassify the documents for reasons of national security.

JFK Files: US Officials Plotted Destruction of Cuban Crops with Biological Agents

By Kevin Gosztola, October 30, 2017

Several of the more intriguing files released in the President John F. Kennedy assassination files have little to do with specific aspects of the assassination. Instead, they involve covert operations that were contextually related to possible theories that were initially entertained by investigators.

JFK Files Expose CIA Plot to Stage Miami Bombings and Blame Fidel Castro

By Telesur, October 30, 2017

The report said the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, considered staging several terror events involving Cuban citizens to seek blame for Castro’s government.

The JFK Assassination: Why CIA’s Richard Helms Lied About Oswald

By Prof Peter Dale Scott, October 27, 2017

We should not conclude from the change in the FBI’s story about the tapes that either it, or still less the HSCA, was involved in the Kennedy assassination. It does however seem extremely likely that further investigation of the Oswald imposter in Mexico City would have, one way or another, have led to exposure of the CIA’s Oswald operation exposed in this essay.

Trump to Release Classified JFK Files

By Stephen Lendman, October 23, 2017

It includes all US government records relating to his November 1963 assassination. The legislation required all documents collected to be publicly disclosed no later than 25 years after the law’s October 26, 1992 enactment – less than a week from now.

The One Paragraph You Need to Read from the JFK Assassination Files that May Change Everything

By Tyler Durden and Douglas P. Horne, October 30, 2017

In 2009, I believed I had discovered new evidence in the JFK assassination never reported by anyone else: convincing photography of the through-and-through bullet hole in the windshield of the JFK limousine that had been reported by six credible witnesses.

an armed coup. The Maidan do not appoint these people; rather, it’s the US that does it. It’s enough to look at the newly appointed officials: Parubiy, Gvozd, Nalyvaichenko are all people who followed somebody else’s orders, the orders of the US, not even Europe. They are directly linked to the American intelligence. 

For nearly three years now, there has been this ‘debate’; but, there has actually been no debate at all, because the media on the two sides, have different alleged ‘historical’ accounts of what the cause of the ‘New Cold War’ is. The people on the two sides disagree about history (was it a coup that had occurred in Ukraine in February 2014, or was it instead a revolution?), and not only about the news. Fake ‘news’ isn’t the only issue here; fake ‘history’ also is.

This is an exceedingly dangerous situation to exist between the two nuclear superpowers, because it goes deeper than mere semantics (‘coup’ or else ‘revolution’) to the real evidence, to reality. One side or the other is — or else both sides are — simply ignoring crucial evidence, in this case. This could produce nuclear Armageddon. There are two mutually contradictory accounts of the history, which have been continuing unchanged for nearly three years already, and the only way that the problem is being dealt with is by there continuing to be no public adjudication of the issue on the basis of the wealth of incontrovertible evidence that exists (including crucial leaked phone-conversations such as this and this) regarding this incredibly important matter.

Was the precipitating event Obama’s ‘coup’ in February 2014, or was it instead Putin’s ‘invasion’ in March 2014? Western media don’t, at all, use the term “coup” to refer to the overthrow of Viktor Yanukovych in February 2014, but Russian media do.

Three acts unfolded on the Maidan. First came the citizen protests. Then, the brutal government crackdown. And finally, after the first guy was killed on Hrushevsky Street, what I call “the Maidan of dignity.” At that point, it had become obvious that the people would never accept Yanukovych again. It was the beginning of his end, and the start of this journey toward Russia that is still playing out.

Once, Ukraine looked at its leaders like Olympic Gods; they know what to do, and how to do it, and we’ll just follow them. But over these last three months, the people have seen that’s not true. Politicians are no better than the rest of us. People want to participate in politics now. They demand equality, the right to assembly, and a fair court system. And they see their leaders for what they are—really old. If you asked Yanukovych or some others about Facebook, they wouldn’t understand what it can do.

I understand that the moment I posted on Facebook, I was no longer acting as a journalist; I was an activist. As a journalist, one must remain independent. On the other hand, as a citizen, I had to act. It is difficult to do nothing as your future is being destroyed right before your eyes. As the crackdown began, I realized I could no longer stand by as an unbiased observer while the government was killing people.. It has been a long time coming.

The press gained freedoms under Yanukovych. But it wasn’t until 2013 that a group of us left our jobs at companies owned by oligarchs or political partisans and began to create a truly independent media. In the first months of the presidency of Viktor Yanukovych we formed Stop Censorship! to protest persecution of the press.

Three years later, we founded the first Internet TV channel in the country that operates through donations from our viewers — Hromadske.tv, where I work now as editor in chief. The media showed everything that was happening—helping people to believe that if we all act together, we can accomplish great things.

But the Russian media are different. They are trying to create a parallel reality. They are under Putin’s control, and he is trying to convince Russians that evil has overtaken Kyiv. The Russian people don’t have access to a free Internet, like we do. …

Using Facebook, Nayem was one of the first activists to urge Ukrainians to gather on Independence Square in Kiev to protest Viktor Yanukovych’s decision to “pause” preparations for signing an association agreement with the European Union.[9] His summons to rally on Facebook on November 21, 2013 were the start of the Euromaidan protests which led to the overthrow of the Yanukovych government.[10]

Where Nayem had used in his article the phrases “the brutal government crackdown” and “the Maidan of dignity,” I thought of the event that occurred on 25 January 2014, and that was captured so well in a video uploaded that day to the Web by Russian Television, “Ukrainian rioters brutally assaulting police”, in which the terrified police, who are being beaten and worse by America’s hired masked paramilitaries, try to ward off the clubs and brickbats by means of their shields. The assault’s PR agents labelled such realites as “the Maidan of dignity,” and Soros’s Nayem parroted the phrase, for whatever trusting fools (people who don’t ‘need’ evidence) might happen to be reading Soros’s site — which is just about everyone who reads there. Those PR agents had actually been inside the Vatican (institutionally hostile toward Russia); and, in fact, on that very day (January 25th), Vatican Radio had headlined “Ukraine movement a ‘Maidan of dignity’, says bishop”, and Orthodox Churches, including the Russian one, were infuriated. But, anyway: this was the reality behind “the Maidan of dignity.”

Protestors began to mobilize on Nov. 21, 2013, after the Ukrainian government suspend preparations for the EU-Ukraine Association agreement. They gathered in Independence Square (Maidan) in Kiev and used the hashtags #euromaidan and #евромайдан on Twitter and Facebook. The Facebook posts of Hromadske TV journalist Mustafa Nayem, encouraging Ukranians to gather at Maidan, received more than 1,000 shares in a few hours. At the same time, a number of independent video streams were set up, on platforms like UStream, live broadcasting what was happening on the streets.

The demonstrations swelled on November 24 when ultimately 250,000 people took to Kiev’s streets, demanding reforms as well as Ukraine’s European integration. The first social media pages also started to gain traction: the Euromaidan Facebook page gained 70,000 followers in less than a week. As noted by two NYU researchers in the Washington Post, Facebook was being used much more actively than Twitter, acting as a news hub, as well as coordinating protests by noting the location of demonstrations, providing logistical and support information, distributing flyers for printing and dissemination, giving tips on how to behave and react to police, and uploading videos of police brutality.

A recent independent research study conducted by Kyrylo Galushko and Natalia Zorba from the National Pedagogical University ‘M.P. Drahomanov’ in Kiev confirmed the predominance of Facebook in organizing the protests. According to a poll of 50 Ukrainian social media experts and Internet opinion leaders, conducted between December 2013 and January 2014, Facebook played the largest role in mobilization. Twitter came in second place, followed by the Russian social networking site, Vkontakte, which is the second most popular social networking site in Europe. “Social networking services were the leading communication feature of protesters, instrument of mobilization for taking part in different actions and establishing other forms of social support,” explains Galushko. …

In my role as a representative of the Ukrainian people, activists from the Volya Public Organization turned to me, providing clear evidence that within our country, with support and direct participation of the US Embassy in Kiev, a “TechCamp” project is under way in which preparations are being made for a civil war in Ukraine. The “TechCamp” project prepares specialists for information warfare and for the discrediting of state institutions [the Government] using modern media — potential revolutionaries for organizing protests and the toppling of the Government. This project is overseen by and currently under the responsibility of the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Geoffrey R. Pyatt. After the conversation with the Volya Organization, I learned that they actually succeeded to access facilities in the “TechCamp” project [they had hacked into it] disguised as a team of IT specialists. To their surprise, were found briefings that were held on peculiarities of modern media. American instructors explained there how social networks and Internet technologies can be used for targeted manipulation of public opinion as well as to activate potential protest to provoke violent unrest on the territory of Ukraine — radicalization of the population, and triggering of infighting. American instructors show examples of successful use of social networks to organize protests in Egypt, Tunisia and Libya. “Tech Camp” representatives currently hold conferences throughout Ukraine. A total of five events have been held so far. About 300 people have been trained as operatives, who are now active throughout Ukraine. The last conference took place on 14 and 14 November 2013, in the heart of Kiev, inside the US Embassy!

The U.S. Embassy in Kiev had even posted in Spring of 2013 an announcement of its “Tech Camps.” Here is an announcement from the Embassy in Ukraine, on 1 March 2013, titled, “U.S. Embassy Hosted TechCamp Kyiv 2.0 to Build Technological Capacity of Civil Society.” (That Ambassador is now our Ambassador to Russia.)

This new evidence from Tsarev, piled on top of all the other evidence that already proved the assertion by the founder of the “private CIA” firm Stratfor, that the overthrow of Yanukovych was “the most blatant coup in history,” simply cements the reality, that all of the sanctions against Russia, and all of the “me too” statements supporting Obama’s coup and ethnic cleansing in Ukraine, by David Cameron, Stephen Harper, and Obama’s other co-nazis, are abominations, which should be loudly condemned by all decent persons in all countries. The aggressor here is Obama, not Putin; and NATO must end, now: all decent nations should quit it ASAP. (War crimes trials against Obama and his agents should follow. After all: these people are bringing the world closer to a nuclear war than has been the case since 1962, and there is no decent reason for it.)

Subsequently, on 17 September 2016, I traced the origin of the February 2014 coup back farther, to a meeting that had occurred on 23 June 2011 between Wikileaks’ Julian Assange, Google’s Eric Schmidt, and the Hillary Clinton U.S. State Department’s Jared Cohen (now hired by Google), in which Schmidt and Cohen drilled Assange for tips on how to use social media to foment a revolution, and Assange didn’t figure out till later, that they were planning both the Arab Spring operations and the takeover of Ukraine. On 23 October 2014 Assange headlined “Google Is Not What It Seems”, and called Cohen “Google’s ‘director of regime change’.” Assange also explained his disillusionment: “I began [prior to meeting Schmidt] to think of Schmidt as a brilliant but politically hapless Californian tech billionaire who had been exploited by the very U.S. foreign-policy types he had collected to act as translators between himself and official Washington — a West Coast–East Coast illustration of the principal-agent dilemma. I was wrong.”

The great investigative historian Nafeez Ahmed took that insight even farther, in his stunning 22 January 2015 “How the CIA made Google”, which tells, in remarkable detail, the origin of the military-industrial complex’s takeover of the then-emerging digital economy — the internet, Google, the ‘news’media, and, more broadly, of Americans’ emerging fascism-accepting political attitudes and beliefs — the manipulation of the public mind (mass mind-control), starting with the mathematician William Perry’s service as U.S. Secretary of Defense under President Bill Clinton. Whereas the anodyne CIA-edited Wikipedia article on Perrypresents him by deceptive phrases such as “Perry did everything he could to improve relations with Moscow,” and ignores the deeper reality to the exact contrary (which followed through on President G.H.W. Bush’s lie issued on 24 February 1990), Ahmed recognizes this deeper reality (which I documented at the present link). Perry was doing everything he could — and not just in the former Yugoslavia — to expand America’s empire right up to Russia’s borders.

Czech President Says ‘Only Poorly Informed People’ Don’t Know About Ukraine Coup
Eric Zuesse

The Czech Republic’s President Milos Zeman said, in an interview, in the January 3rd edition of Prague’s daily newspaper Pravo, that Czechs who think of the overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych, on 22 February 2014, as having been like Czechoslovakia’s authentically democratic “Velvet Revolution” are seeing it in a profoundly false light, because, (as Russian Television translated his statement into English) “Maidan was not a democratic revolution.” He said that this is the reason why Ukraine now is in a condition of “civil war,” in which the residents of the Donbass region in Ukraine’s southeast have broken away from the Ukrainian Government.

He furthermore said that, “Judging by some of the statements of Prime Minister Yatsenyuk, I think that he is rather a prime minister of war because he does not want a peaceful solution, as recommended by the European Union (EU), but instead prefers to use force.”

He added, by way of contrast to Yatsenyuk, the possibility that Ukraine’s President, Petro Poroshenko “might be a man of peace.” So: though Zeman held out no such hope regarding Yatsenyuk (who was Obama’s choice to lead Ukraine), he did for Poroshenko (who wasn’t Obama’s choice, but who became Ukraine’s President despite Obama’s having wanted Yatsenyuk’s sponsor, the hyper-aggressive Yulia Tymoshenko, to win the May 25th Presidential election, which was held only in Ukraine’s pro-coup northwest, but claimed to possess authority over the entire country). …

If such news-reports were published in U.S. newsmedia, especially in mainstream ones, then one could reasonably trust U.S. newsmedia, but such news-reports are not published in the U.S. (nor in its allied countries)

That article by The Saker included the 31 July 2014 video of a Ukrainian ‘journalist’ being interviewed on George Soros’s and Mustafa Nayem’s and the U.S. Government’s and the Dutch Government’s Ukrainian TV station, explaining why “You need to kill 1.5 million people in Donbass” — arguing for ethnic cleansing there, of the genocidal type. The U.S.-imposed Ukrainian regime did attempt that, and such ethnic-cleansing started being Ukrainian Government policy as soon as the new Government was installed. On 19 November 2014, I headlined “Meet Ukraine’s Master Mass-Murderer: Dmitriy Yarosh” and noted that Yarosh had been the person who not only was very active in the ethnic-cleansing program, but he had trained the paramilitaries who had executed the overthrow, and I linked to a video of Yarosh being interviewed as a hero on the new regime’s television. I also wrote:

As Yarosh said this past March in an interview with Newsweek, he has “been training paramilitary troops for almost 25 years,” and his “divisions are constantly growing all over Ukraine, but over 10,000 people for sure.” More recently, in October, a pro-Government Ukrainian site interviewed Yarosh and he mentioned specifically a “DUC,” or Volunteer Ukrainian Corps of fighters. He was then asked “How many soldiers in DUC?” and he answered, “About seven thousand men.” These would be his real military force, by far the biggest private army in Ukraine. So, in his private files are everyone’s individual background and skill-level as a “paramilitary,” or far-right mercenary, and they all respect and obey him as the top man. He is the indispensable person in this new Ukraine. Yarosh’s teams carry out the most violent operations for the CIA in Ukraine (including the coup). 

1. Pressuring of our employees.

2. Hordes of Western media outlets attempting to discredit our work.

3. Flogging the ‘cash cow’

4. Explicit threats to revoke our broadcasting license.

5. Pressuring independent experts who appear on RT.

On 28 October 2017, RT bannered “Budapest vetoes Ukraine-NATO summit, says Kiev’s new law a ‘stab in the back’”, and reported that some of the formerly Russia-allied European nations were turning away from the U.S. (NATO & EU) alliance. The core of that news-report was the statement from Hungary’s Foreign Minister saying “Hungary cannot support Ukraine’s integration aspirations, so it vetoed the NATO-Ukraine summit in December.” RT’s article linked to the Hungarian Government video of that person saying this. However, my Web-search of that statement “Hungary cannot support Ukraine’s integration aspirations, so it vetoed the NATO-Ukraine summit in December” brings up only the RT news-report, none other. A Web-search for that Minister’s name, Peter Szijjarto, also fails to bring it up. Perhaps his statement isn’t suitable for inclusion in “All the News That’s Fit to Print”. Apparently, it just doesn’t fit; so, it won’t be printed. Like none of this has been published in America.

The “Russian Aggression Prevention Act”, introduced to Congress by U.S. Senator Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), will set the US on a path towards direct military conflict with Russia in Ukraine.

Any US-Russian war is likely to quickly escalate into a nuclear war, since neither the US nor Russia would be willing to admit defeat, both have many thousands of nuclear weapons ready for instant use, and both rely upon Counterforce military doctrine that tasks their military, in the event of war, to preemptively destroy the nuclear forces of the enemy.

RAPA provides de facto NATO membership for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova via RAPA

The Russian Aggression Prevention Act, or RAPA, “Provides major non-NATO ally status for Ukraine, Georgia, and Moldova for purposes of the transfer or possible transfer of defense articles or defense services.” Major non-NATO ally status would for practical purposes give NATO membership to these nations, as it would allow the US to move large amounts of military equipment and forces to them without the need for approval of other NATO member states. Thus RAPA would effectively bypass long-standing German opposition to the US request to make Ukraine and Georgia part of NATO.

Fortunately, Corker’s bill turned out to have ended on 1 May 2014 when it was sent to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and failed to be voted on even there. Corker is that extreme a neoconservative. No one in the U.S. Government can be more fascist than that. He was even more of a fascist than U.S. President Barack Obama was.

This article, like every article that I do, is being sent free-of-charge for publication, to all U.S. newsmedia that cover international issues; but, all of the major newsmedia, and almost all of the “alternative news” sites, have refused to publish any among the many hundreds like this that I have submitted to them in the past. Perhaps the reason for this is the same reason why the U.S. ‘news’media never admitted that they had entirely uncritically reported to the American people, in stenographic fashion, really as propaganda instead of as a democratic newsmedia, the lies that George W. Bush and his Administration asserted in 2002 and 2003 regarding ‘Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction’ etc., as if it those lies weren’t clear, even at that time the lies were made.

How does a ‘news’media which has a record of deceiving its public into invasions, ever admit that this is what they long have been doing, and continue even now to do? Any of them that would publish the present article would be making a fundamental change-of-course, to becoming finally part of the press in a democracy, no longer part of the propaganda-operation in a dictatorship. Can a leopard change its spots? We’ll see, by web-searching the title here, “Does Russia Produce ‘Fake News’? Or Does America? Or Both?” and seeing where this article has been published — and where it hasn’t.

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.

Featured image: Black Panther Party founders Bobby Seale and Huey P. Newton standing in the street, armed with a Colt .45 and a shotgun. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

The black revolution is much more than a struggle for the rights of Negroes. It is forcing America to face all its interrelated flaws—racism, poverty, militarism, and materialism. It is exposing evils that are rooted deeply in the whole structure of our society. It reveals systemic rather than superficial flaws and suggests that radical reconstruction of society itself is the real issue to be faced.—Martin Luther King Jr., 1968

You don’t have to be one of those conspiratorial curmudgeons who reduces every sign of popular protest to “George Soros money” to acknowledge that much of what passes for popular and progressive, grass-roots activism has been co-opted, taken over and/or created by corporate America, the corporate-funded “nonprofit industrial complex,” and Wall Street’s good friend, the Democratic Party, long known to leftists as “the graveyard of social movements.” This “corporatization of activism” (University of British Columbia professor Peter Dauvergne’s term) is ubiquitous across much of what passes for the left in the U.S. today.

What about the racialist group Black Lives Matter, recipient of a mammoth $100 million grant from the Ford Foundation last year? Sparked by the racist security guard and police killings of Trayvon Martin, Mike Brown and Eric Garner, BLM has achieved uncritical support across the progressive spectrum, where it is almost reflexively cited as an example of noble and radical grass-roots activism in the streets. That is a mistake.

I first started wondering where BLM stood on the AstroTurf versus grass roots scale when I read an essay published three years ago in The Feminist Wire by Alicia Garza, one of BLM’s three black, lesbian and veteran public-interest careerist founders. In her “Herstory of the #BlackLivesMatter Movement,” Garza wrote: “Black lives. Not just all lives. Black lives. Please do not change the conversation by talking about how your life matters, too. It does, but we need less watered down unity and a more active solidarities with us, Black people, unwaveringly, in defense of our humanity. Our collective futures depend on it.”

Denouncing “hetero-patriarchy,” Garza described the adaptation of her clever online catchphrase (“black lives matter”) by others—“brown lives matter, migrant lives matter, women’s lives matter, and on and on” (Garza’s dismissive words)—as “the Theft of Black Queer Women’s Work.”

“Perhaps,” she added, “if we were the charismatic Black men many are rallying around these days, it would have been a different story.”

From a leftist perspective, this struck me as alarming. Why the prickly, hyperidentity-politicized and proprietary attachment to the “lives matter” phrase? Garza seemed more interested in brand value and narrow identity than social justice. Did she want a licensing fee? Wouldn’t any serious, leftist, people’s activist eagerly give the catchy “lives matter” phrase away to all oppressed people and hope for their wide and inclusive use in a viciously capitalist society that has subjected everything and everyone to the soulless logic of commodity rule, profit and exchange value? Who were these “charismatic Black men many are rallying around” in the fall of 2014?

And how representative were Garza’s slaps at “hetero-patriarchy” and “charismatic Black men” of the black community in whose name she spoke? Would it be too hetero-patriarchal of me, I wondered, to suggest that maybe a black male or two with experience of oppression in the nation’s racist criminal justice system ought to share some space front and center in a movement focused especially on a police and prison state that targets black boys and men above all?

I defended the phrase “black lives matter” against the absurd charge that it is racist, but I couldn’t help but wonder about the left-progressive credentials of anyone who gets upset that others would want to have a “conversation” (as Garza put it) about how their lives matter too. Is there really something wrong with a marginalized Native American laborer or a white and not-so “skin-privileged” former factory worker struggling with sickness and poverty wanting to hear that his or her life matters? For any remotely serious progressive, was there anything mysterious about the fact that many white folks facing foreclosure, job loss, poverty wages and the like might not be doing cartwheels over the phrase “black lives matter” when they experience the harsh daily reality that their lives don’t matter under the profits system?

My concerns about BLM’s potential service to the capitalist elite were reactivated when I heard a talk by Garza’s fellow BLM founder, Patrisse Cullors (another veteran nonprofit careerist). Cullors spoke before hundreds of cheering white liberals and progressives in downtown Iowa City in February. “We are witnessing the erosion of U.S. democracy,” she said, adding that Donald Trump “is building a police state.” Relating that she had gone into a “two-week depression” after Hillary Clinton was defeated by Trump, Cullors said she wondered if BLM had “done enough to educate people about the differences between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.” She described Trump as a fascist.

Surely, I thought, Cullors knew that the United States had been in the grip of a finance-led corporate oligarchy and had been building a militarized police state for many years now, under Barack Obama as well as George W. Bush and others. Certainly, I hoped, she understood that the “erosion of democracy” and the construction of a racist police state have been underway since long before Trump took up residence in the White House. Surely, I felt, Cullors knew that the Clintons were vicious corporate racists who kicked millions of black women and children off federal public assistance while advancing racially disparate mass incarceration with their horrific three-strikes crime bill (which Bill Clinton later admitted he regretted).

Cullors said nothing in her talk about the problem of class rule and the plight of the multiracial working class, which includes white workers. Surely, I reflected, she knew that a “lying neoliberal warmonger” (the apt description of Hillary Clinton by the black, leftist, political scientist Adolph Reed Jr.) lost to a “fascist” because of her captivity to the nation’s corporate and financial elite, which has abandoned the white and multiracial working class in the neoliberal era (1975 to the present). Thanks to her captivity—political, economic, ideological and even cultural in nature—the “Inauthentic Opposition Party” (the late political theorist Sheldon Wolin’s dead-on description of the dismal dollar Democrats) has suppressed the lower- and working-class vote and handed the majority of the active, white, working-class electorate to the white-nationalist Republican Party. It’s an old story.

This would not have been all that tough a point to make in Iowa City, where voters, young ones above all, went mad for Bernie Sanders, the self-described democratic socialist who ran against the corporate and financial plutocracy and likely would have defeated Trump in the general election had the corporate Democrats not rigged the nomination on behalf of Clinton.

If Cullors was reconsidering her stance on (and within) major-party politics during the last election cycle, I wondered, did she think that BLM “did enough to educate people” about the difference between a racist, imperial and militantly neoliberal candidate like Hillary and a semi-social-democratic, anti-neoliberal candidate like Sanders? And what about third parties? Did BLM try to tell people about the Jill Stein-Ajamu Baraka Green Party ticket and platform, which advocated such common-sense revolutionary reforms as a giant peace dividend to fund planet-saving green jobs programs, single-payer health insurance and massive social reconstruction programs in the nation’s ghettoes, barrios and reservations?

Then I remembered that the only presidential candidate to have a campaign event shut down by BLM activists was Sanders, the left-most candidate with the most to offer poor and working-class black Americans. When it came to Clinton, all BLM activists could muster was a “self-humiliating” backstage meeting, where they listened to her lecture them on how to formulate demands.

Listening just to BLM’s many white-nationalist and right-wing, paranoid critics (see this for one among many examples), you might be led to think of the group as a radical and even terrorist agent of civil unrest meant to resurrect the spirit of the Black Panther Party in a steely-eyed people’s struggle against each of what Martin Luther King Jr. called “the triple evils that are interrelated”: racism, economic disparity (capitalism) and imperial militarism.

The Black Panthers would find this judgment amusing.

“We believe,” the Panthers’ Minister of Information Eldridge Cleaver wrote in 1969, “in the need for a unified revolutionary movement … informed by the revolutionary principles of scientific socialism.”

Formed by young black intellectuals who read Marx, Lenin, Mao, W.E.B. Du Bois, Malcom X and Frantz Fanon, the Panthers fused black nationalism with Marxism in militant opposition to all of King’s evils and in accord with King’s conclusion that the “real issue to be faced” beyond “superficial” matters was “radical reconstruction of society itself.”

The solution, the Panthers said, was revolution, a transformation of the whole society, to be achieved by combining the forces of the black, brown, yellow, red and white “proletariats” in opposition to America’s capitalist and racist empire. This idea was “Black Power” but also and, more broadly, “Power to the People.” As the legendary young Chicago Black Panther Fred Hampton explained in a 1969 speech:

We got to face some facts. That the masses are poor, that the masses belong to what you call the lower class, and when I talk about the masses, I’m talking about the white masses, I’m talking about the black masses, and the brown masses, and the yellow masses, too. We’ve got to face the fact that some people say you fight fire best with fire, but we say you put fire out best with water. We say you don’t fight racism with racism. We’re gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don’t fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.

Hampton and his cohorts encouraged and assisted poor and working-class white radicals in the organization of such leftist “hillbilly nationalist” organizations as the Young Patriots Organization (Chicago), Rising Up Angry (Chicago), the October 4th Organization (Philadelphia) and White Lightning (the Bronx). As Amy Sonnie and James Tracy noted in “Hillbilly Nationalists, Urban Race Rebels, and Black Power,” “The [original] Rainbow Coalition initiated by the Panthers united poor whites, Blacks, and Latinos in a ‘vanguard of the dispossessed.’ ”

Along with their well-known practice of “policing the police” with armed self-defense of “occupied” black ghettoes, the Panthers’ model included a direct serve-the-people approach that “reached thousands of [poor black neighborhood] families each day.” As part of a strategy called “Survival Pending Revolution,” the Panthers, Sonnie and Tracy wrote, “provided the basic services people desperately needed, including a popular free breakfast program, sickle-cell anemia testing, legal defense clinics, literary classes, and schools that taught children cultural pride and Black history for the first time.”

It’s not for nothing that the Panthers faced fierce repression from the American state (including the chilling police-state execution of Fred Hampton in a raid organized by Cook County State’s Attorney Ed Hanrahan in December of 1969).

Mention of the Black Panthers can elicit raised eyebrows from feminists because of the party’s reputation for hypermasculinism. However, the Combahee River Collective, a black female-led feminist coalition that became the left wing of the 1970s women’s movement, shared the organization’s commitment to radical social and political transformation beyond racial equality alone. The CRC’s April 1977 manifesto called for a “feminist and antiracist revolution” that was also “a socialist revolution.” It said that “the liberation of all oppressed peoples necessitates the destruction of the political-economic systems of capitalism and imperialism as well as patriarchy.”

Black Lives Matter—founded by three veteran, professional-class, nonprofit activists and fundraisers (Garza, Cullors and Opal Tometi) with long prior “close ties to corporations, foundations, academia and government-sponsored agencies”—poses no comparable threat to the established order. Its expertly marketed slogans, “Black Lives Matter” and “Hands Up, Don’t Shoot,” are defensive and pale reflections of “Black Power” and “Power to the People.” BLM has little, if any, direct service relationships with the poor black communities in whose name it speaks. It does not call for broad-based popular rebellion against the combined and interrelated oppression structures of racism, capitalism, imperialism and patriarchy. In December, it openly took up the cause of black capitalism, partnering with the Fortune 500 advertising agency J. Walter Thompson to produce a national black business database. In February, BLM marked Black History Month by marketing a “black debit card” (the “Amir Visa debit card”) with OneUnited Bank, the largest black-owned bank in the U.S. All this and more might surprise many of the progressives who eagerly embraced the #BLM brand in the name of fighting racist police violence.

The U.S. ruling class, whose capitalist system is the historical midwife of modern racism, is not threatened by the racialist and black-capitalist BLM. But just to make sure that black anger is kept within safe political boundaries, a critical, cash-rich arm of concentrated wealth agreed last year to lavishly fund the group and a significant number of black middle class-led policy and advocacy groups coming in under its rubric.

In August 2016, when I first heard that BLM had scored $100 million from the Ford Foundation and other elite philanthro-capitalists (including the Hill-Snowden Foundation, the NoVo Foundation, Solidaire, JPMorgan Chase and the Kellogg Foundation), I wrote it off as “fake news” from the right-wing noise machine. The story struck me as too perfect a match for the Republican and white-nationalist narrative that black protesters were in pay to the evil “liberal and left elite.” It seemed too perfectly timed for the election season and too close a fit for Trump and Steve Bannon’s racist and fake-populist liberal- and left-bashing, Archie Bunker-like talking points.

But the story checked out. The remarkable grant—a vast sum of money off the charts of normal foundation giving—was a matter of public record. Fortune magazine wrote that the gift “would make anyone sit up straighter if they read it in a pitch deck.” It was a curious statement: A “pitch deck” is a presentation venue for start-up businesses seeking investor backing.

On the day of the presidential election last year, Huffington Post posted a report titled “Black Lives Matter—A Catalyst for Philanthropic Change,” penned by a “nonprofit industrial complex” veteran. The article’s author, Liora Norwich, celebrated the historic grant as an example of “social justice philanthropy (SJP, to insiders)” and hailed it for “mark[ing] a notable and laudable shift from small episodic grantmaking to longer-term investments supporting a movement-building process via a flexible giving model.” Norwich repeated the Ford Foundation’s claim that it and other SJP foundations were “actively seeking not to [in the Ford Foundation’s words] ‘dictate or distort the work underway.’ ” Norwich wrote that “these same funders also appear self-consciously aware of the historical pitfalls of large foundation support to movements. As such, they may be trying to avoid what happened in the 1960s during the Civil Rights movement and the ongoing dilemma of the environmental movement, where philanthropic support forced a moderation of the movements’ agendas, causing them to become less receptive to their constituencies.”

Rife with telling caveats and qualifications (“appear aware” and “may be trying”), Norwich’s claim that the foundation had no interest in keeping BLM safe for the rich and the white was naïve. As the World Socialist Web Site noted in October:

The Ford Foundation, one of the most powerful private foundations in the world, with close ties to Wall Street and the US government, … receives the bulk of its endowment from corporate contributors and very wealthy donors through trusts and bequeathments. … The Ford Foundation has for years maintained close ties to US military and intelligence agencies. … Its board of directors is a ‘who’s who’ of powerful corporate players, including CEOs and Wall Street lawyers. … The contribution of such an immense sum of money [$100 million] is a gift from the ruling class that will allow Black Lives Matter to construct a bureaucracy of salaried staff and lobbyist positions. The influx of money will bring the movement greater influence through campaign contributions and integrate it even more closely with the Democratic Party and the corporate media.

By the World Socialist Web Site’s reckoning, the grant was a capitalist investment in the timeworn, ruling-class game of racial divide-and-rule tactics:

The $100 million gift is an acknowledgment by a powerful section of the ruling class that the aims of the Black Lives Matter movement are aligned with those of Wall Street and the US government. In an interview with Bloomberg News in 2015, the Ford Foundation’s current president, Darren Walker, an ex-banker at UBS, spelled out the pro-capitalist perspective underlying the foundation’s decision to bankroll Black Lives Matter: ‘Inequality … kills aspirations and dreams and makes us more cynical as a people. … What kind of Capitalism do we want to have in America?’… The foundation’s support for Black Lives Matter is an investment in the defense of the profit system. Black Lives Matter portrays the world as divided along racial lines, proclaiming on its web site that it “sees itself as part of a global black family.”

The venerable ruling-class Ford Foundation, it is relevant to note, responded to Detroit’s epic 1967 race riot (provoked by racist white police brutality) by trying to promote black capitalism in Detroit a half-century ago.

Was the World Socialist Web Site’s judgment too harsh? Perhaps. One does not have to be a bourgeois racialist to see that the nation is divided along racial as well as class lines, after all. A close look at the BLM/Movement for Black Lives (M4BL) online policy agenda suggests that its constituent organizations reside on the broadly defined left side of the U.S. political spectrum. Beneath a strong overlay of black-specific identity politics is a sprawling monument to progressive-policy wonkery, replete with the latest and best liberal and social-democrat-ish ideas for creating a more socially, economically and racially just, inclusive, democratic and environmentally sustainable U.S. capitalism. The United States and the world would be better places if the M4BL’s “Vision 4 Black Lives”—including universal health care, restoration of workers’ right to organize, the public financing of elections, a shift of resources from militarism to meeting social needs and reparations for slavery—was implemented.

Still, M4BL’s progressive web formulations are wrapped in the exclusive professional- and political-class discourse of foundation-backed policy wonkery, filled with references to “intersectionality” and other elite phrases that betray a lack of organic and grass-roots presence in the poor black communities in whose name BLM speaks. Few among the ghettoized and incarcerated black poor sit on the internet puzzling their way through the intricate policy ideas of black coordinator-class professionals who get grants from top bourgeois foundations, few of whose funders and program officers are remotely interested in seeing King’s “radical reconstruction of society itself.”

As a former veteran, nonprofit, racial justice foundation grant recipient (I’ve spent years in the nonprofit industrial complex), I can assure readers that the Ford money comes with at least four strings attached. First, there must be no calls for seriously radical revolution and lower- and working-class solidarity across racial and ethnic lines. Second, the progressive policy ideas are to be wrapped in middle-class language meant for foundation program officers and Democratic Party policy wonks, not the people in the streets, housing projects, low-paid jobs, jails and prisons. Third, the organizations receiving the elite foundation largesse are to take their cue from those already in power, not those on the margins. Fourth, the groups getting money under the BLM rubric or brand are to be (in the words of Black Agenda Report) “led exclusively by college-educated professionals answerable to self-perpetuating boards and philanthropic funders.” They are not to become mass-based organizations financially accountable to a rank-and-file membership.

Money talks loudest, but the Ford Foundation is not content to let its cash speak for itself without top-down supervision and control. The BLM grant permits the funder to provide “auxiliary consulting and advice to a confederation of 14 groups linked to BLM.” The money and the “auxiliary services” have been coordinated through the so-called Black-Led Movement Fund, overseen by a for-profit company called Borealis Philanthropy. Ford and Borealis say they want to “support the infrastructure, innovation and dynamism of intersectional Black-led organizing.”

Along with the money comes status and celebrity. As World Socialist Web Site writers Lawrence Porter and Nancy Hanover note, “the leadership of BLM has been showered with honorariums, awards, and junkets, both in the U.S. and internationally. Cullors was made Woman of the Year for Justice Speakers by Glamour magazine, made World’s Greatest Leader by Fortune magazine and awarded an honorary doctorate from Clarkson University.”

One irony is that this dependence on money and administration by (neo)liberal elites tied to the Democratic Party is self-negating for BLM/M4BL’s more sincerely and genuinely progressive grant recipients. With no revolutionary thunder on the actual left, progressive liberals/neoliberals are not going to enact many, if any, of the reforms they advocate.

The revolution will not be paid for by the Ford Foundation. And it will not be led by “public interest careerists who want to be players” and cut deals with the ruling class.

Paul Street holds a doctorate in U.S. history from Binghamton University. He is former vice president for research and planning of the Chicago Urban League. 

“They use ludicrous terms like ‘gold star family’ and make the case for continued American aggression around the world.”

The desire to be affirmed by American society has dangerous consequences for black people. This pernicious dynamic creates the inclination to worship any black face in a high place or to defend questionable activity. The death of special forces Sergeant La David Johnson in Niger is a case in point. Donald Trump’s racism and stupidity prevented him from performing the simple task of conveying appropriate condolences to Johnson’s widow. The ensuing brouhaha focuses on what Trump said in the phone call overheard by Congressional Black Caucus member Frederica Wilson.

Almost no one is asking about the fact that American troops are stationed in Africa at all. Few people realize that such a thing as the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM ) exists and that the military forces of most African nations have been under the de facto control of this country since the George W. Bush administration.

There is similar silence about the role that the United States played in bringing groups designated as terrorists into nations such as Niger and Mali. The decision to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is directly responsible for Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda affiliate groups gaining a foothold throughout the region. Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and their NATO partners in crime were not just responsible for the deaths of thousands of Libyans, slavery in that country, and an ongoing humanitarian crisis. They are responsible for bringing state sponsored terror to the entire region.

“The military forces of most African nations have been under the de facto control of this country since the George W. Bush administration.”

Focusing on Donald Trump’s bad behavior is a sure path to confusion and accommodation. Instead of denouncing imperialism, otherwise sensible people are waving the flag and attacking Trump using right wing terminology. They use ludicrous terms like “gold star family” and make the case for continued American aggression around the world.

It is pointless to ask about the specific circumstances of Johnson’s death. He died along with three other soldiers in the murky circumstances that are to be expected in warfare. Any questions posed should be about America’s ever expanding empire and the determination to make war on as many places in the world as possible.

Black people should feel no need to validate themselves through military service or any other undertaking. As the people who have suffered through centuries of unpaid labor, Jim Crow apartheid and constant oppression, we should feel no need to uphold this system. Yet we have already proven a willingness to die for the interests of a corrupt and dangerous state. There is frankly no reason to show pride in Johnson’s death or to allow a member of the CBC to turn an important issue into nonsensical grandstanding versus Trump.

“The decision to overthrow Muammar Gaddafi in Libya is directly responsible for Boko Haram and Al-Qaeda affiliate groups gaining a foothold throughout the region.”

At this juncture in history all talk of patriotism is at best foolish and at worst a call for continued crimes and mass murder. It is also high time to end the deification of the American war dead, even when they look like us. They die because they are trying to kill other people.

Condolences to Johnson’s family are appropriate but they are also appropriate for the millions of people who lost loved ones to American empire building in Niger, Somalia, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Syria, and Iraq. That is a short list which only includes the victims of American war crimes committed in the past 20 years.

No one should be fooled by crocodile tears from white Americans with grudges against Trump. If Sergeant Johnson had been killed by a police officer in an American city many of the same white people who now rush to call him a hero would either shrug their shoulders in indifference or applaud his death. They should not be allowed to jump on the bandwagon of fake concern because Trump is their target.

“Any questions posed should be about America’s ever expanding empire and the determination to make war on as many places in the world as possible.”

As for congresswoman Wilson, she has a golden opportunity to discuss the impact of American interventions abroad and question their rationale. But like the rest of her CBC colleagues, her interests are confined to reliance on the largesse of the Democratic Party and their corporate benefactors. Trump’s bad behavior makes him an easy target for scorn and a convenient punching bag for the useless black political class. If Wilson wants to take on the president it ought to be for more substantive reasons. Likening his boorishness to “Benghazi” uses a right wing trope for ridiculous effect.

Any discussion about Sergeant Johnson ought to point out that he was a victim of the poverty draft. Before enlisting he worked at Walmart, a sure path to continued poverty or to the dubious odds offered by the army. Trump said that Johnson “knew what he signed up for” but that is probably not true. He took a chance and hoped for the best. Unfortunately the machinations of Bush, Obama, Clinton and Trump made his choice a bad one. If the Congresswoman wants to have a debate she could start with the realities of Johnson’s life and how it ran afoul of United States foreign policy. Only then would her fight with a president be worthwhile.

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

Featured image is from the author.

There are standoffs, threats and continuing tensions over the imminent closure of the Manus Island Detention Centre. (The politically palatable term here is “processing centre”.) This closure, instigated by legal ruling by the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court in April 2016, has led to a degree of window dressing, prevarication and stalling by all parties connected with the institutionalised barbarism that has been inflicted on refugees and asylum seekers.

A vital stumbling block in this involves the removal of 718 men from the Lombrum Naval Base to alternative, purpose-built accommodation in the town of Lorengau. Even CNN decided the crisis was newsworthy: “Powder keg on Manus Island as refugees refuse to leave immigration centre.”[1]

Central to the PNG tactics of removal will be the deployment of the PNG mobile squad, famed for their brutality and expert mishandling. Extra personnel are being deployed ahead of the closure on the pretext that they are the ones to protect the populace. The actual ones in danger are the refugees and asylum seekers in the camp itself who fear marauding locals indifferent to the dark deals done between PNG and Australia.

As Kurdish refugee Behrouz Boochani, who has made a name for covering the camp’s accretions of wearing brutality and tedium over the years explained,

“The refugees don’t feel safe in the community, because the local community is not ready to accept them.”

The social nightmare that has arisen was a case of pure engineering on the part of the Australian government, keen to sustain a gulag-styled system of camp processing and control supposedly designed to deter arrivals. Absurdist claims that refugees could settle in PNG as a land of smooth milk and enticing honey have become the fare of successive administrations in Canberra.

The PNG politicians tend to have mixed feelings about their large, insistent neighbour. The refugees, spanning a range of countries as diverse as Iran and Myanmar, are sore intrusions into a locality of 6,000 residents. White man’s burden is a testy one, and shouldering it in a modern pseudo-colonial context has not been a thrill.

“It boils down to if everyone behaves themselves it’s all good,” suggests the local Manus Island MP, Ron Knight. “You have young men who have been locked up for four or five years. They get a taste of freedom. You have young women in town who are attracted to these guys. They keep these relationships hidden. The fathers find out, or the families find out, and it becomes a big issue.”

PNG immigration minister Petrus Thomas has also shown that he is far from impressed by the moves of the Turnbull government to eschew responsibility. In an act of truly determined hand washing, Thomas insisted that,

“PNG has no obligation under the current arrangement to deal with these two cohorts and they remain the responsibility of Australia to pursue third-country options and liaise with respective governments of the non-refugees for their voluntary or involuntary return.”[2]

Human Rights Watch has been on the case of the Manus Island Centre for some time, and the picture has merely become more hideous with time. In 2015, the organisation noted instances of severe abuse, inhumane treatment and neglect.[3] Another report released on October 25 makes for grim reading. Knife attacks have taken place. Beatings are not infrequent. As is robbery. Gangs of intoxicated youths roam and prey upon those daring to mix in the community.

“While many Papuans have welcomed the new arrivals to Manus Island,” state the findings, “nearly every refugee and asylum seeker Human Rights Watch interviewed described how they had experienced or witnessed violence, threats of violence, or robberies by groups of often intoxicated young local men.”[4]

PNG Police Commissioner Gari Baki attempted to paint a picture of even-handedness and fair play, that all would be in good hands come the day of the facility’s closure.

“The safety of both the refugees and government workers plus staff of leading agencies is not to be taken for granted given the tension that is now being expressed by the locals on Manus Island.”

But a PNG police force statement was far more frank about what will happen this week:

“Extra manpower is on standby to be deployed to Manus Island to assist the local police in addition to the two Mobile Squad now on the island.”[5]

The response from the Australian government, fringed by the complicity of PNG authorities, is crude in its simplicity: cut the water, the electricity, and the supplies. Starve the residents, more appropriately inmates, into submission. Drag them out; relocate them; deport them. What is startling is how conscious a strategy this has been, commencing, in fact, earlier this year.

This is a mission of viciousness. Having been given a frightful ticking off by judicial officers for their role in facilitating breaches of the PNG constitution, the political figures are doing their best to scuttle and vacillate. The aim, it seems, is less the resolution of a problem than the continued infliction of harm upon individuals with legitimate rights to flee persecution and distress.

That officials in Canberra persist in subverting international refugee law, not to mention colluding in behaviour that would, in many instances, be criminalised domestically, has corroded the integrity of Australian institutions.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

Since the inauguration of US President D. J. Trump in January 2017, along with his contingent of generals, Washington has rattled its nuclear and other military sabers in most every direction, threatening to totally destroy North Korea, ramping up weapons deliveries to Syrian opposition groups, scaling up AFRICOM military actions, sending its naval fleets in every imaginable direction from the South China Sea to the Baltic, building up troops along the borders to Russia, threatening Iran…

Behind all the bluster is a US military with morale at an all-time low, with preparedness in many cases abysmally inadequate, and using technologies that are costly to taxpayers and far behind the state of the art of other potential adversaries. All are symptoms of a failing former sole superpower whose military is being gravely abused and misused, far from the intent for defense of the nation.

US Navy Collisions

This August the USS John Sidney McCain, a guided-missile destroyer of the US Navy’s Seventh Fleet collided with an oil tanker off Singapore, killing ten sailors. Two months earlier the Japan-based USS Fitzgerald collided with a merchant ship killing seven sailors and causing an estimated half-a billion dollars in damage. A Naval intelligence investigation found zero evidence of cyber-attack. For once Washington did not try to blame Russia or China. The fault lies at home.

Incredible as it may seem, for the world’s largest and most formidable Navy, a decision was made during the Bush-Cheney Administration when Don Rumsfeld was Secretary of Defense to “save money” by scrapping the traditional training of Navy officers. As naval electronics such as advanced radar, sonar, gun, missile, and data linkage systems became more complex during the 1960s, the Navy created what was called the Surface Warfare Division Officer School which gave future officers a rigorous 12-14 months of training before they boarded their first ship. In 2003, it was shut down “to create efficiencies,” and replaced by computer-based training (CBT). Instead of attending the earlier training, new naval officers were given a packet of computer training discs and the ship commander was told to be responsible for the competence of officers under their command.

Vice Admiral Timothy LaFleur, the one responsible for the decision, sharply criticized by many officers, insisted the elimination of serious training would, “result in higher professional satisfaction, increase the return on investment during the first division officer tour, and free up more career time downstream.” The training cuts saved a ludicrous $15 million a year. Moreover, over-reliance on “fail-proof” electronics such as automated radar systems and the automatic identification system (AIS) led to abandonment of human watch-standers actually looking out the bridge window of the ship for dangers. No one was watching on the USS Fitzgerald or the USS McCain.

The commanders of the USS Fitzgerald and the USS McCain were relieved of their commands, hardly a serious response to the deeper problem. The rot goes much deeper.

Lower standards

As any honest experienced military veteran of the 1960s Vietnam War can attest, there is a crucial difference if you come as a foreign soldier to a land and its people who are fighting for their independence from foreign military occupation or defending from foreign attack. Ho Chi Minh, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Workers’ Party of Vietnam, who spent years in the United States and France, led a vastly under-equipped army of peasants against the best-equipped armed force in the world and ultimately won.

The fact that the armed forces of the United States, since the end of the Cold War with the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 has not had a convincing “evil” adversary, has had a huge effect on morale. Going to Afghanistan in 2001 to destroy Osama bin Laden, then to Iraq to destroy Saddam Hussein, then to Libya to destroy Muammar Qaddafi, now to Syria to destroy Bashar al Assad—none of these “adversaries” are morally convincing to most Americans.

Not surprisingly, in this context the US Armed Forces are having difficulty recruiting sufficient qualified, intelligent service personnel for the wars that Washington and its patrons in Wall Street seem to want to wage around the world.

This year to meet its quota of new recruits to fill its global missions, the US Army has had to accept recruits with lower qualifications, to take recruits who scored in the lower third of the tests, so called Category Four recruits, including those with records for drug use.

And it is not only the lack of sufficient preparation of its Army personnel or of its naval officers.

Alarming pilot shortage

On October 23, the US Air Force revealed that it is preparing its fleet of B-52 nuclear-capable bombers for 24-hour alert status, something not done since the end of the Cold War, according to Defense One. Airmen at the Barksdale Air Force base are readying the planes “in case the alert order is issued.” The B-52s would be armed with nuclear bombs available to take off at a moment’s notice something that was discontinued with the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991.

The mad new plan of Trump’s generals however, has an added problem. The Air Force has a dramatic shortage of qualified pilots.

On October 21, President Trump signed an executive order allowing the Air Force to call back to service up to 1,000 retired pilots, by expanding a state of national emergency declared by George W. Bush after Sept. 11, 2001. The order is part of an attempt “to mitigate the Air Force’s acute shortage of pilots,” according to a Pentagon spokesman.

For decades the US military–whose annual budget exceeds that of China, UK, France, Germany, and Russia combined–has waged wars against military opponents such as Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya where there was no contest.

This past June the US Army War College issued a study titled, At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post-Primacy World. In the study the authors conclude that the world order created after World War II, dominated by the US “is under enormous stress.” They add,

“The order and its constituent parts… were transformed to a unipolar system with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and have by-and-large been dominated by the United States and its major Western and Asian allies since. Status quo forces collectively are comfortable with their dominant role in dictating the terms of international security outcomes and resist the emergence of rival centers of power and authority.”

The study adds that the US “can no longer count on the unassailable position of dominance, supremacy, or pre-eminence it enjoyed for the 20-plus years after the fall of the Soviet Union.”

Now, with the emergence of China as a genuine great power, with the rapid emergence of Russia as a great power in cohesion with China’s vision of an emerging Eurasia, the Trump Administration is warring around with everybody everywhere in what is clearly not either a healthy conduct of US foreign policy nor a serious manner for a mature nation to behave. Building up and restoring America’s rotting domestic infrastructure, not building up the US military against concocted threats or nations who ask the right to own sovereignty, building the real American economy to rejoin the ranks as a leading industrial nation makes far more sense in my view.

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

This article was originally published by New Eastern Outlook.

Featured image is from the author.

Featured image: Puhung station in Pyongyang

Any person who is half clued-in knows well that corporate and state media (particularly in the West) must be regarded with deserved skepticism. This holds particularly for geo-political events since the domineering elitist corporate-governmental line will be adhered to.

Given this deplorable media state-of-affairs, it goes to reason that coverage of North Korea must be regarded with an Olympus Mons of salt. So the question is: how best to obtain a more credible insight into what the reality is in North Korea?

How about actually being there and seeing with your own eyes? This would provide a first-hand perspective as opposed to a second-hand perspective (or quite likely a zero-hand perspective since the monopoly media scribe might never have been to North Korea).

Hence, I took my opportunity to travel to and experience a moment in North Korea.

Earlier this month, I arrived in Dandong. It is a Chinese city of two-million people – many ethnic Korean – situated on the Yalu River. Across the grayish, brown river lies North Korea. Two bridges side-by side reach out from central Dandong toward the city of Sinuiju on the North Korean shore. One bridge, the Sino-Korean Friendship Bridge, reaches the opposite shore. The other bridge extends halfway out, having been destroyed by the US bombing during the war in Korea. It remains half intact as a reminder.

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Granted, one travels to North Korea as part of a tour group, but this is an understandable precaution when a country is confronted by an unfriendly (the United States eschews peace treaties and non-aggression pacts) rogue superpower with its web of spy networks and NGO-fronted coup enablers.

As with other US-designated enemies (e.g., Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Venezuela, and Syria), North Korea shares a favorable disposition to socialism.

My impression: North Korea is indeed very different from the US. Crass materialism was absent. Where are all the shops? It was hard to discern as there was no advertising for products or services. No billboards, no buy-this signs. Granted that, yes, there were the occasional socialist slogans.

Concerning socialism in North Korea, the petite North Korean tour guide, Ms Kim proudly informed,

“We all get free housing, free medical care, and do not pay to go to university.”

Ms Kim even opined that North Korea is more socialist than their communist neighbor China. Obviously, this is so. Communist China cannot claim to have achieved any of these socialist goals… yet. [1] That being said, it seems that governing the third largest country in the world with the world’s largest population — usually cited now as about 1.4 billion people – poses a somewhat more daunting task than governing North Korea and its 25 million people.

However, North Korea has achieved these socialist goals despite economic sanctions pushed by the United States through the United Nations. This despite North Korea having broken no laws. As a North Korean weekly newspaper argued:

The DPRK’s buildup of a nuclear deterrent is an absolutely legal and just act that does not violate any international law in all processes from the beginning of their programme to the recent test of hydrogen bomb to be mounted on an ICBM as well as future measures for the completion of the state nuclear programme. [2]

The article further noted that having withdrawn from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons in 2003, it is untethered to any of its stipulations. Therefore, North Korea has demanded many times, without success, an emergency meeting of the UN Security Council to explain, among other matters, the legality of its resolution 2375.

Despite resolution 2375 garnering the unanimous vote of the 15 member UN Security Council, the member nations of the G77 unanimously rejected the sanctions against North Korea. [3]

Neither Wealthy nor Poor

North Korea is not poor, and neither is it materially wealthy. While vehicles are few, Pyongyang boasts a two-line metro 110 meters below ground where some station walls are adorned by beautiful mosaic scenery. Above ground getting around by bicycles and walking was the norm. My observations for the most part were of a slim people nattily attired, seemingly happy.

On 20 July, the UN’s FAO published a special alert warning of impending food insecurity stemming from an arid stretch from April to June.

Food shortages have plagued North Korea in recent decades, as lack of fertilizer and weather calamities wreaked havoc on agriculture. Given that only 20% of the land is suitable for cultivation, previous crop failures had disastrous effect. While I could not glean information on the current crop yield by observation or by asking the tour guides, I noted that the entire length of the approximately 225 km of rail track from Sinuiju to Pyongyang featured an unbroken expanse of agriculture, primarily rice, but also wheat, corn, and other foodstuffs crammed into every nook and cranny. Farm machinery was seldom seen, and neither were beasts of burden. I witnessed farmer workers manually tending the farms, physically harvesting, and carrying out bundled crops on their backs.

There are other struggles. Air pollution is apparent. And at night, I was surprised by how very dark Pyongyang was. Lighting was at a minimum, obviously to conserve fuel.

In smaller cities, such as Kaesong, many women were seen down by the river washing clothes.

Kaesong is the entry point to the DMZ where the armistice ending the war on the Korean peninsula was signed. This war is emblazoned in the history and memory of North Koreans.

The Start of the War on the Korean Peninsula

The North Korean people are very aware of the US role in the war – a war they accuse the Americans of starting. [4] Essentially and logically, this North Korean claim is unassailable. Because if the US had not insisted on splitting the country there would have been no war to reunite the two Koreas.

Protecting Socialism

The one indelible impression of having been in North Korea was that the country is populated by people so much like you and I, and much like the people I have come across in so many countries on all the continents. They have dreams and desire freedom as do people anywhere. The tour guide (and I did not consider the tour guides in any way to be minders, as they are depicted pejoratively in western media), Ms Kim, related that Koreans are very interested in international matters. I would feel less confident to assert such about people in western lands.

Despite alarmist headlines in western monopoly media, it was also clear that North Koreans have no desire or inclination to launch a first strike with any nuclear weapons.

It is also palpable that North Koreans will never back down to threats from the US as attested to by resolute revolutionary posters depicting North Korea battling the US (and Japan). Neither will North Korea succumb to sanctions imposed by the UN. In fact, the sanctions work to magnify and reinforce the North Korean ideology of juche (self-reliance). After all, what could be a better method to mitigate sanctions than to be self-reliant? As with juche, songun originated with former leader Kim Il Sung. Songun derives from juche. “[T]he songun idea puts up the revolutionary soldier spirit as the main factor in defending the destiny of the nation and propelling overall socialist construction.” [5]

Socialism is posited at the core of songun:

Revolutionaries can win the struggle against counter-revolutionary forces and establish a socialist government only when they have a strong armed force. And this continuance buildup of the army is imperative for thwarting all manner of underhand moves of the imperialists and maintaining and consolidating the socialist government. [6]

As a declared socialist state, North Korea is anathema to the mindset of billionaire presidents like Donald Trump. That North Korea has been able to survive as a socialist state and render services to all citizens (socialist achievements unmentioned or marginalized by US corporate media) that is unattainable under US capitalism invites demonization by the 1%-ers. In an age where neoliberalism is eviscerating the middle socio-economic stratum and grotesquely further enriching the already rich, North Korea presents a socialism that survives against overwhelming capitalist forces.

The Koreans point to and extol these socialist accomplishments.

North Koreans are People

My contact with North Koreans was largely limited by language barrier. What I can state is that Koreans came across as likeable, friendly, caring, proud, and non-threatening.

Consequently, to wish to destroy or threaten to destroy these people is an unconscionable and morally depraved attitude deserving of utmost censure and condemnation. It is a denial of the essence of humanity: that we are all humans. Our own humanity hinges upon this essence.

Humanity is elevated by acts of charity, kindness, protection, and rejection of violence against other humans (except in self-defense against rogue humans).

Embracing our humanity demands embracing Koreans, in the north and south, and embracing all humans everywhere.

Therefore, all nations, and the United Nations, must demand a cessation of the vitriolic rhetoric among all parties. In particular, the people of the United States must demand the rejection of violence. Americans should extend a peace branch to Koreans and to the peoples of all lands.

War is, after all, antithetical to humanity.

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

Notes

1. China’s chairman Xi Jinping has stated that China is in the earliest stages of socialism. Xi Jinping, The Governance of China(2014): location 352. 

2. Kang Choi, “A council for global security, or one for US hegemony?” Pyongyang Times, 30 September 2017, p. 7. 

3. “G77 rejects anti-DPRK sanctions,” Pyongyang Times, 30 September 2017, p. 4. 

4. See Won Myong Uk and Kim Hak Chol, Distortion of US Provocation of Korean War (Pyongyang : Foreign Languages Publishing House, 2003). 

5. Questions and Answers on the Songun Idea, (Pyongyang: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 2012), p 4. 

6. Questions and Answers on the Songun Idea, p 12. 

All images in this article are from the author.

Dr G.N.Saibaba Professor at Delhi University and now in solitary confinement in Nagpur Central Jail has spoken out for help. Saibaba 90 per cent disabled and suffering from multiple ailments, wrote this letter to his wife Vasantha that he might not be able to survive the winter months in jail. He has been convicted under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act in what those convinced of his innocence describe as a travesty of justice. Saibaba has been branded a Maoist and sentenced to life imprisonment.

A sessions court in Gadchiroli district of Maharashtra had convicted Saibaba in March for Maoist links and sentenced him to life imprisonment. Professor Saibaba, Mr. Mishra, Mr. Rahi and two residents of Gadchiroli —Mahesh Tirki, Pandu Narote — were convicted under Sections 13, 18, 20, 38 and 39 of the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA) and Section 120 B of the Indian Penal Code for connections with the banned Revolutionary Democratic Front (RDF), an organisation linked with the banned Communist Party of India (Maoist).

The letter was written on October 17 and received by his wife on October 25.

Dear Vasantha

I am frightened to think of coming winter. Already I am shivering with continuous fever. I do not have a blanket. I do not have a sweater/jacket. As temperature goes down excruciating pain continuously in my legs and left hand increases. It is impossible for me to survive here during the winter that starts from November.

I am living here like an animal taking its last breaths. Somehow 8 months I managed to survive. But I am not going to survive in the coming winter. I am sure. It is of no use to write about my health any longer.

In any case, please finalize the senior counsel by or before the end of this month. Then inform Mr. Gadling to file my bail application in the first week of November or last week of October itself. You remember if this is not done in this way, my situation will be out of hands. I am not responsible. I am making clear to you. Hereafter I am not going to write about it any longer.

You should talk to Mrs Rebeccaji and Nandita Narain. You also talk to Prof. Haragopal and others. Explain the entire situation. You need to hurry up.

I am feeling so depressed for requesting you all so many times like a beggar, a destitute. But none of you are moving an inch, no one understand my present condition. No one understands 90% disabled person is behind bars struggling with one hand in condition and suffering with multiple ailments. And no one cares for my life. This is simply criminal negligence, a callous attitude.

Please take care of your health. Your health is my health and entire family’s health. There is no one else to take care of your health for now. Till I am in your presence, you have to take care of your health without any negligence.

Lots of love

Yours

Sai

Featured image: Adapted by WhoWhatWhy from National Archives (PDF) and FBI / Wikimedia.

What happened on Thursday, Oct. 26, with the JFK records scheduled for release under the JFK Records Act? A travesty. Most news reports correctly noted the release of about 2,800 documents, but added that only a few were held back, in some cases saying “300 documents” remain withheld (see CNN, and Washington Post for example). They are off by a factor of 100. In fact, tens of thousands of documents, possibly as many as 30,000, remain sealed at the National Archives.

If President Donald Trump had gone golfing at Mar-A-Lago and done absolutely nothing on Thursday, the National Archives (NARA) would have released all documents, as it was set to do. See the relevant language in the Assassination Records Review Board’s Final Report, quoting from the 1992 JFK Records Act.

This includes 3,147 “withheld in full” records never seen, and an unknown number of redacted documents estimated at about 30,000. Intensely lobbied by federal agencies including the CIA, Trump instead authorized the withholding of well over 90% of these documents. 52 of the 3,147 withheld-in-full records were released and put online by NARA, less than 2%, and 2,839 of the redacted documents were released, which is probably less than 10% of that set.

From the public metadata available for all these records, it’s clear that the most-desired records were held back. Still withheld-in-full records among the 98% of those still withheld include, for example:

* Still-withheld Church Committee interview transcripts not included in the 1990s releases, including one with none other than CIA CounterIntelligence chief James Angleton.

* Lengthy CIA files on officers who played a role in Castro assassination plotting and/or the JFK story, including William Harvey, David Phillips, E. Howard Hunt, James O’Connell, Richard Synder, and several others.

* A 167-page CIA document on Valeriy Kostikov, the Soviet agent stationed in Mexico whose name was used as part of the “World War III” scenario that theWarren Commission we now know was created to push back against.

* An interview the House Select Committee on Assassinations conducted with Orest Pena, the New Orleans bar owner who told the Committee that Oswald was an FBI informant and he often saw Oswald in the company of a particular FBI agent.

and many many more.

Additionally, many of the documents released online Thursday featured redactions — blacked out areas. In at least one case, the very same document has been available in fully unredacted form at the National Archives for more than 10 years. See the newly released version and compare to the MFF online version. These are two different copies of the same document held by different agencies, so perhaps one being redacted and the other not is just an accident. But why are there any redactions at all in the new copy? It is as yet unclear why so many redactions appear in what are supposed to be fully released records.

In a White House press release, President Trump announced “I am ordering today that the veil be finally lifted.” In fact, no such order was given or was necessary. The JFK Records Act mandated full disclosure by Thursday as a matter of law, with the only mechanism for holding anything back being a presidential certification that “continued postponement is made necessary by an identifiable harm to the military defense, intelligence operations, law enforcement, or conduct of foreign relations” AND “the identifiable harm is of such gravity that it outweighs the public interest in disclosure.” (see ARRB Final Report).

What happens next? According to the White House, there will be a review process over the next six months. By April 26, 2018, a further determination will be made as to whether full disclosure will occur, or more secrecy. Watch this space. Call your congressperson.

For more on these records, how to find online those which have been released, and links to essays discussing them, see the 2017 Document Releases project here at MFF.

Rex Bradford is the President of the Mary Ferrell Foundation, whose website hosts the largest searchable online collection of JFK assassination records.

Featured image: Abayomi Azikiwe at Detroit MLK 2014

During the week of October 23-27, the World Conference of Mayors held a conference in the city of Detroit at the luxurious MGM Casino Hotel.

This organization is not to be confused with the United States Conference of Mayors which has existed for decades. The World Conference mainly consists of elected officials and other affiliates from small and medium-sized African American majority cities in the southern U.S. along with some representation from Africa, Canada and the Middle East.

The event was held in Detroit under the theme of “The City that Never Surrendered.” Although the notion of non-surrender is applicable to the people who have struggled to remain in the Motor City, the actual meaning of such a sentiment should not be distorted and utilized as a mechanism to obfuscate the ongoing problems of poverty, unemployment, state repression and gross economic exploitation of working people and public resources.

Detroit has become a focal point for a false narrative of “urban revitalization.” Having been subjected to the social effects of capitalist de-industrialization and restructuring for decades, the city has seen a drastic decline in population from 1.8 million in 1950 to approximately 670,000 today.

The drastic reduction in residents is linked with the systematic disinvestment by the manufacturing industry and the financial institutions. Even dating back to the 1950s and 1960s, there was a major shift in investment strategies where through federal governmental assistance whites were funneled into the suburbs along with the construction of newer factories and commercial centers such as shopping malls.

There was almost no attention directed towards the increasing African American, Latina/o and working poor communities pouring into the Northern, Southern, Midwestern and Western cities fleeing from the collapse of small and large-scale agricultural production both inside and outside the U.S. Decaying housing and municipal infrastructure, along with overcrowding, fueled resentment. Pressures from the African American led Southern Civil Rights Movement and the consequent “white backlash” angered the burgeoning ghetto communities where overcrowded schools and neighborhoods contained through de facto segregationist policies sparked urban rebellions in over 200 cities from 1963 through 1970.

Real Detroiters Speak Out Town Hall Meeting, October 26, 2017

White flight from the central cities to the suburbs was by no means spontaneous. The enactment of The Federal-Aid Highway Act, also known as the National Interstate and Defense Highways Act (Public Law 84-627), was adopted by Congress and the White House on June 29, 1956, when President Dwight D. Eisenhower signed the bill into law.

Years prior to this during the Great Depression, the Federal Housing Administration (FHA) grew out of the National Housing Act of 1934. Although both measures ostensibly were designed to improve conditions in the major cities, inevitably due to the institutional racism undergirding public policy in the U.S., projects designed by banks and city administrations in fact provided billions in public funding to facilitate the large-scale population transferals intensifying the national oppression of the African American people in particular.

Tax Captures and Downtown Development

Over the last two decades there has been another major effort to reverse the population shifts of the immediate post World War II period. Due to a myriad of factors, development planners have focused on central cities for substantial investments in office complexes, retail outlets, high-income housing units and entertainment venues such as concert halls and sports stadia.

These projects have been promoted as a means of turning the tide of urban decay and population loss. Nonetheless, the major beneficiaries of this style of investment have been the same ruling interests which profited from the suburbanization and restructuring extending from the 1950s to the first decade of the 21st century.

The unprecedented bailout of the banks, insurance firms and auto companies beginning in 2008, was carried out over and above the political will of the people of the U.S. Overproduction in housing loans through the corrupt and usurious practices of the securitized trusts that backed fraudulent loan schemes due to the enormous profitability, left urban and suburban communities devastated through home foreclosures, further job losses and subsequent abandonment.

This is the plight of the city of Detroit which after decades of population decline from the 1950s to the 1980s had witness a degree of stabilization at the conclusion of the 1990s. Nonetheless, the speculative financial predatory loan schemes that were channeled to residents, in a municipality which had the highest homeownership rates in the U.S., eviscerated any capacity for a community-based revitalization.

A drastic decline in homeownership and employment resulted in a precipitous reduction in tax revenues. Therefore, Detroit was forced again into predatory municipal financing instruments engineered by the same banks which had robbed the people of their homes and jobs.

An illegally-imposed system of “emergency management” in 2013, in the wake of a statewide vote against such legislation, restructured the city in the interests of the financial institutions and corporate magnates. The bankruptcy was carried out through the appropriation of $5.5 billion in state constitutionally-guaranteed pension funds, the theft of public assets such Belle Isle, the Detroit Institute of Arts (DIA), Public Works and Public Lighting, among others, was apparently not enough to satisfy the capitalist ruling class.

All of the major “development projects” centered in the downtown area are subsidized through the capturing of tax dollars to fund the building of such prestige monuments such as the recently opened District Detroit, which includes a new hockey and basketball arena and entertainment complex. Taxes to the tune of at least $343 million were redirected from the municipal services, schools and libraries. Although District Detroit is supposedly the property of the quasi-public Downtown Development Authority (DDA) it is managed by the tentacles of Illitch Holdings, which owns the Detroit Tigers and others corporations in the vicinity. Altogether the taxpayers of Detroit, who are per capita the poorest city residents in the U.S., could be on the hook for more than $800 million.

In yet another plot to further impoverish the masses, billionaire Dan Gilbert, the owner of Quicken Loans and the Cleveland Cavaliers basketball team, maybe the recipient of additional largesse to construct a retail and apartment building on the old long-demolished J.L. Hudson Department store site on Woodward Avenue. Gilbert and the owner of the Detroit Pistons Tom Gores of the Beverly Hills, California-based Platinum Equity have their eyes as well set on building a soccer stadium at the location near the Wayne County Jail downtown to the tune of $1 billion. The correctional facility would be re-located to the location of the now-defunct headquarters of the American Motors Corporation (AMC) on the northwest side of the city.

An article published by the Detroit Metro Times weekly newspaper said in regard to recent legislation passed in Lansing to finance the Gilbertville program that:

“The new laws make available up to $1 billion in taxpayer money for Gilbert’s $775 million mixed-use tower planned for the site of the former J.L. Hudson’s department store. Those funds could also be used for Gilbert’s proposed nearby Monroe Street project. And whatever he doesn’t cut out of that pie goes to other wealthy developers around the state. To be clear, the laws — more formally called ‘Transformational Brownfield’ bills — only put in place a mechanism to give Gilbert and other developers the money and the exact figure will be determined as they apply for the funds. It’s possible — though unlikely — that Gilbert takes the whole pot. Perhaps he only gets $200 million for the Hudson site and another $400 million the following year for the Monroe Street project. There’s no exact figure up front, and that’s why his strategy is so savvy — the waters are muddy and opponents of corporate welfare won’t know his haul until it’s too late to put up any kind of fight.” (Oct. 4 article by Tom Perkins)

An Alternative Vision for Detroit

This set of circumstances guided the people’s response to the distortions surrounding the World Conference of Mayors. It is an election year in Detroit and the corporate-oriented white mayor Mike Duggan, the first in forty years to rule over a city which is now 82 percent African American, seeks re-selection on the basis of the disingenuous claims of a revival. Duggan’s campaign is funded by the corporations and banks who he faithfully serves at the expense of the majority African American population.

When the Moratorium NOW! Coalition issued the call for an alternative summit to counter the Dugganite psychological warfare campaign against the people, it noted:

“Detroit’s ‘rebirth’ has meant that the public revenues generated through the process of taxation are being funneled to the capitalist corporations. The People’s Summit will discuss a real agenda for the rebirth and rebuilding of our neighborhoods and communities. Real development in Detroit would focus on the rehabilitation of neighborhoods, the guaranteeing of jobs, housing, water services, heating and quality education for all. The banks which are responsible contributed for the destruction of our neighborhoods and must be held accountable through criminal prosecution and the payment of reparations.”

The week of activities organized by Moratorium NOW! Coalition and its allies featured a public meeting addressed by Rev. Edward Pinkney of Berrien County, Michigan in the southwest region of the state on October 23. Pinkney is a former political prisoner who served two-and-a-half years in detention for organizing a recall campaign against a corporate-backed mayor of Benton Harbor, a city which is over 90 percent African American.

Rev. Edward Pinkney addresses the Moratorium NOW! Coalition alternative people’s summit to the World Conference of Mayors, October 23, 2017

Pinkney, the leader of the Black Autonomy Network Community Organization (BANCO), was framed for allegedly altering the dates on five recall petitions. He was tried by an all-white jury and sent off to perish in the correctional facilities in Michigan. A defense committee worked tirelessly to bring about his release in June. Benton Harbor is a social microcosm of Detroit.

Another highlight of the week of action was the “Real Detroiters Speak Out” town hall meeting held at the Historic St. Matthews-St. Joseph’s Church on Woodward Avenue on October 26. Over twenty people from various community organizations addressed a capacity audience on the profound problems facing the city.

It is outcomes of such coalition and movement-building activities that solutions to the crises will emerge. At the root of the social problems of Detroit and other major cities is the decline of the capitalist system.

The present administrations holding power in the municipalities, state governments, Congress and the White House are a reflection of the inability of the prevailing economic system to resolve the fundamental needs of the people. The only solution is socialist reconstruction which would transfer the wealth generated by the working and oppressed communities from the capitalist ruling class to the masses.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Norman Finkelstein (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

Finkelstein is a high-profile target of state-sponsored persecution for staunchly supporting Palestinian rights, along with stinging criticism of Zionism and Israel – touching the right nerves with scholarly accuracy.

A personal note. I owe him a debt of gratitude. Posting my review of his book, titled “Beyond Chutzpah” on his web site launched my writing and media work, a pro bono career after retiring from small family business.

In 2007, I wrote about his dismissal by Chicago’s Depaul University for daring to criticize Israel – the most sensitive third rail in politics, media and academia.

Finkelstein was called “truly outstanding and among the most impressive” of all university political science professors by his students.

His Department of Political Science endorsed his tenure, stating his academic record “exceeds our department’s stated standards for scholarly production” – then denied him tenure even though “outside experts we consulted recognize the intellectual merits of his work.”

His long struggle with the university ended on September 5, 2007, the first day of classes. Finkelstein was dismissed, put on administrative leave with full pay and benefits for the 2007-08 academic year.

His teaching career in America ended, he’s one of numerous examples of the best, brightest and most honorable scholars banished from academia for truth-telling on vital issues – a disturbing indictment of rogue state control over major media and academic practices.

He once said it’s “possible to unite exacting scholarly rigor with scathing moral outrage.” He knew the risks of confronting power with disturbing truths, yet took them courageously and still does, his soul not for sale.

His book “The Holocaust Industry: Reflections on the Exploitation of Jewish Suffering” denounced what he called exploiting its memory as a “ideological weapon,” enabling Israel, “one of the world’s most formidable military powers, with a horrendous human rights record, (to) cast itself as a victim state immun(e) to criticism.”

His current troubles followed his staunch support for Dr. Rudolph Baldeo, saying the following on September 12:

“Attorneys Michael Chetkof and Allyson Burger (the puppeteers) and Azimoon Baldeo (the puppet) colluded to frame Dr Rudolph Baldeo.”

“They churned out hundreds of pages of official Court papers depicting Dr Baldeo as a sado-psychopath.”

“They calculated that they could steamroll and slander him by exploiting pernicious stereotypes of violent dark-hued immigrant Muslim males.”

“They also figured he was a pushover because he’s slight of stature and a geek. In the eyes of these greedy vultures, Dr Baldeo was an easy prey: A Little Indian Boy.”

“But they got so carried away in their lies, and they’re so innately stupid and inept, that nearly every statement in their Court papers was contradicted by another statement in these same papers.”

“Unfortunately, there was never a cross-examination: unbearable pressure was exerted on Dr Baldeo to settle the case before he had his day in court.”

“In this excerpt from my forthcoming article, I enact the cross-examination that never was.”

“The excerpt is meticulously and scrupulously based on the Court record, which I perused in full..”

“This excerpt was presented to Chetkof, Burger and Azimoon Baldeo for comment. They did not contest any of the facts or interpretations presented herein.”

“If you are as outraged as I am by this frame-up, you should make your voice heard.”

Separately, Finkelstein explained his cruel and unreasonable ordeal, viciousness by any standard, saying the following:

“1. I was arrested on 6 September 2017.

2. Two police detectives barged into my apartment at 11:30 p.m.

3. (omitted)

4. (omitted)

5. The detectives demanded that I sit on a rickety coffee table in my foyer that comes up to my kneecap. They wouldn’t let me sit on a chair.

6. I was handcuffed as I left my apartment building in order to humiliate me in front of my neighbors.

7. I was transported to a police precinct located fully one hour from where I live. I was handcuffed the entire trip and was in agonizing pain. (I am 64 years old.)

8. I was handcuffed to a pole for five hours in the police precinct while the detective filled out a single-paged form.

9. I was then thrown into an overcrowded jail cell and had to sleep on a stone floor. I asked for a blanket as I was freezing but the request was denied.

10. I was brought before a judge at 11:00 a.m.

11. I was served with an Order of Protection forbidding me to have any contact for one year with the two opposing lawyers, Michael Chetkof and Allyson Burger.

12. The police alleged that I was harassing Chetkof and Burger by constantly emailing them.

13. The allegation is a flat-out lie. Every email I sent to Chetkof and Burger and their colleagues had appended at the head:

14. If Chetkof and Burger didn’t want to receive my emails, they merely had to inform me, and I most certainly would have ceased writing them.

15. They had me arrested in order to intimidate me into silence.

16. This is not the first time Chetkof and Burger tried to intimidate me. When I informed them that I was writing an article to expose their racist shakedown of Dr Rudolph Baldeo, Chetkof threatened to ‘open Pandora’s Box and destroy Dr Baldeo ‘Personally and Professionally’ unless I desisted.

17. Because of the Order of Protection, I can no longer accompany Dr Baldeo to Court. They want to isolate him in Court so they can terrorize him into submission.

18. (omitted)

19. I must appear in Court again on 10 October 2017.. It is possible that I will again be thrown into jail.

20. I am not afraid. My late parents survived five years in Hitler’s death camps. I will survive a Long Island jail cell.

21. I will not be browbeaten into abandoning Dr Baldeo in his Moment of Truth.

Finkelstein was released on bail, his next court appearance on November 3.

He remains in grave danger, already victimized by police brutality, facing up to two years imprisonment for supporting truth and justice, for showing extraordinary courage, integrity and honor, for exposing “tactics used to terrorize, demean, slander, bankrupt, and rob his friend,” according to a petition on his behalf – an attempt to judicially lynch them both.

“He (Finklestein) had the audacity to expose to the whole wide world how two corrupt lawyers operate,” the petition stressed.

Add your name to others, supporting Finkelstein’s struggle for justice, along with Dr. Baldeo.

The ordeal they endured provides clear and compelling evidence of how a fascist police state operates – with cruel and merciless indifference to justice!

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Did BBC personnel collude in the fabrication of an atrocity using British military casualty simulation techniques with the aim of influencing public opinion in favour of war against Syria?

Presentation by Robert Stuart at Media on Trial,

19 October 2017, Bloomsbury Central Baptist Church, London.

.

.

On Saturday, October 21, US President Donald Trump wrote on Twitter that he was ready to declassify 3,000 CIA and FBI files related to the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy. The same morning, Politico wrote that the head of the White House refused to declassify the documents for reasons of national security.

Donald Trump has an excellent opportunity to take revenge for all the humiliations and insults that the CIA and the FBI have made him go through since his inauguration in January 2017. US special services declared a real war on the head of the White House as they were destroying his reputation by leaking confidential reports about secret connections of the Trump team with Russia.

Now Trump said he would not interfere with the US-stipulated procedure to declassify 3,000 files of the CIA and the FBI about the secret of the assassination of the 35th US President John F. Kennedy, which took place on November 22, 1963 in Dallas, Texas, at 12: 30 local time.

It is expected that The National Archives will disclose secret files of the CIA and the FBI about the 1963 tragedy on October 26. In addition, more than 30,000 documents that could be published only in parts will be declassified as well.

Should the publication of those materials reveal that US special services were involved in the Kennedy assassination, their reputation will be irreparably damaged.

However, many analysts believe that both the CIA and the FBI have long eliminated most dangerous evidence that could indicate their involvement in the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Therefore, declassifying another portion of previously classified documents is not going to add much to the already known facts about the tragedy in Dallas.

An independent commission was convened in 1992 to study the “assassination of the century.” The move froze the publication of secret documents for a quarter of a century, that is, until October 26, 2017. Now is the time when the publication of those files has come.

On November 22, 1963 US President John F. Kennedy was killed while his car was traveling through the streets of Dallas. The governmental Warren Commission came to conclusion that the crime was committed by Lee Harvey Oswald, who was acting as a lone killer.

US intelligence services unwilling to investigate

However, US intelligence services were acting suspiciously from the very start of the investigation. They refused to analyse the trajectory of the bullet that killed Kennedy. The amateur film of the Kennedy assassination shows Kennedy’s body being thrown backwards at the moment of the shot.

In addition, the commission claimed that the killer used a manually operated rifle, i.e. he had to pull back the bolt and release it. Oswald managed to make three shots in five seconds. Later, finest snipers of the United States could not repeat the trick, although Oswald himself was not a first-class shooter.

The bullet that got into Kennedy’s head, for some reason, is missing in the materials of the case. The victim’s brain that had been taken for examination, mysteriously disappeared as well. More than 50 people, who eye-witnessed the mysterious assassination, died mysteriously afterwards.

The surgeon, who performed the autopsy of Kennedy’s body, was found dead in his apartment. The taxi driver, who gave Oswald a lift, died in a car accident. One of the eyewitnesses of the assassination who testified about two men shooting from behind the fence lost his life as well.

The most suspicious aspect in the whole story is: why did the police let Jack Ruby shoot to kill Oswald at point-blank range two days afterwards when he was being transported from a police department to a Dallas prison?

Many assumed that Oswald could uncover the names of his curators from the CIA and the FBI, that is why special services decided to do away with Kennedy’s assassin through Ruby’s hands. Three years after Oswald’s death, Jack Ruby died under mysterious circumstances too.

Another suspicious fact: all amateur photos and video materials depicting the moment of Kennedy’s assassination had been confiscated and immediately classified. The main amateur video, which was made as the motorcade was traveling on the street, was edited in a way to exclude the version about the existence of another shooter, who was aiming at the president from behind the fence.

Oswald visited the FBI office only two weeks before Kennedy was assassinated. According to independent experts, Oswald was supposed to distract attention, whereas the bullet that shot Kennedy in the head was fired by a professional sniper from behind the fence.

There is circumstantial evidence saying that then FBI Director Edgar Hoover knew about the forthcoming killing of Kennedy and wanted Kennedy dead, as president’s brother Robert, the US Attorney General, declared a crusade against mafia and special services.

Thus, 54 years after Kennedy’s assassination, US intelligence agencies are still in no hurry to publicise facts and documents related to the investigation of the assassination of the 35th US president.

Will Donald Trump be able to change the situation and tell the whole truth about the conspiracy? After all, if Trump openly goes against the CIA and the FBI, he may jeopardise his own life too. Most likely, one of the greatest mysteries of the 20th century will remain a dark mystery.

Featured image is from the author.

It’s been a huge day in Catalonia, but it’s also a day of immense uncertainty. Rather than pontificate about a situation which is changing rapidly, and which is likely to have seen further developments by the time I got to the end of whatever it was I was writing, a more useful and informative contribution to events in Catalonia for people in Scotland would be to provide an English translation of today’s declaration of independence. This is the full text of the declaration of independence approved today (Friday 27 October) by the Catalan Parliament. The declaration is fairly lengthy and couched in legalese, but I’ve done my best to provide as literal a translation as possible. The original Catalan language text was taken from an article in the Catalan digital newspaper Vilaweb. If you speak Catalan, you can read it HERE.  All translation errors are of course my own.

To the Bureau of Parliament

Lluís M. Corominas i Díaz, president of the Parliamentary Group of Together for Yes, Marta Rovira i Vergés, spokesperson of the Parliamentary Group of Together for Yes, Mireia Boya e Busquet, president of the Parliamentary Group of the Popular Unity Candidacy – Constituent Call, Anna Gabriel i Sabaté, spokesperson of the Parliamentary Group of the Popular Unity Candidacy – Constituent Call, in agreement with that which is established in articles 151 and 152 of the rules of the parliament, present the following motions for resolution subsequent to the general debate on the application of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution to Catalonia, and its possible effects.

Motions for Resolution

Motion for resolution 1
Declaration of the representatives of Catalonia

The deputies of the Parliamentary groups of Together for Yes and the Popular Unity Candidacy – Constituent Call signed the previous 10 of October the following:

Declaration of the representatives of Catalonia

To the people of Catalonia and to all the peoples of the world.
Justice and individual, collective and intrinsic human rights, fundamental and unrenouncable, which give sense to the historical legitimacy and the juridical and institutional tradition of Catalonia, are the basis of the constitution of the Catalan Republic.

The Catalan nation, its language and its culture have one thousand years of history. For centuries, Catalonia has endowed and enjoyed its own institutions which have exercised self-government in full, with the Generalitat as the maximum expression of the historic rights of Catalonia. Parliamentarianism has been, during periods of liberty, the pillar upon which these institutions have sustained themselves, have been channelled through the Cortes Catalanes, and which have been crystalised in the Constitutions of Catalonia.

Catalonia restores today its full sovereignty, lost and long yearned for, after decades of trying, honestly and loyally, institutional coexistence with the peoples of the Iberian peninsula.

Since the approval of the Spanish Constitution of 1978, Catalan politics has had a key role with an exemplary attitude, loyal and democratic towards Spain, and with a profound sense of statehood.

The Spanish state has responded to that loyalty with the denial of the recognition of Catalonia as a nation, and has conceded a limited autonomy, more administrative than political, and which is in the process of recentralisation, a profoundly unjust economic treatment, and linguistic and cultural discrimination.

The Statute of Autonomy, approved by the Parliament and Congress, and by the Catalan people in a referendum, would have been the new stable and lasting marker of a bilateral relationship between Catalonia and Spain. But it was a political agreement halted by the ruling of the [Spanish] Constitutional Court, and caused the emergence of new demands by the citizens.

Gathering the demands of a large majority of the citizens of Catalonia, the Parliament, the Government, and civil society have repeatedly demanded to agree [with Spain] the holding of a referendum on self-determination.

In the face of the affirmation the institutions of the [Spanish] State have rebuffed all negotiations, have violated the principle of democracy and autonomy, and have ignored the legal mechanisms available to the Constitution, the Generalitat of Catalonia has convoked a referendum in order to exercise the right to self-determination recognised in international law.

The organisation and the celebration of the referendum has brought about the suspension of Catalan self-government and the de facto application of a state of emergency.

The brutal police operation of a military nature and style orchestrated by the Spanish state against Catalan citizens has infringed, on many and repeated occasions, their civil and political rights and the principles of Human Rights, and has contravened the international agreements signed and ratified by the Spanish State.

Thousands of people, amongst whom there have been hundreds of those in elected, institutional, and professional positions linked to the communication sector, administration, and civil society, have been investigated, detained, had complaints filed against, interrogated and threatened with harsh punishment of prison.

Spanish institutions, which should have remained neutral, protected fundamental rights and arbitrated in the face of political conflict, have turned into a part and an instrument of those attacks and have left the Catalan citizenry defenceless.

Despite the violence and the repression with the intent to impede the celebration of a peaceful and democratic process, the citizens of Catalonia have voted by a majority in favour of the constitution of the Catalan Republic.

The constitution of the Catalan Republic is founded in the necessity of protecting liberty, the security and coexistence of all the citizens of Catalonia, and of advancing towards a State of law and a democracy of greater quality, and in response to the obstacle on the part of the Spanish state of making the right to self-determination of peoples effective.

The people of Catalonia are lovers of law, and the respect for the law is and shall be one of the keystones of the Republic. The Catalan state will comply with and will fulfil legally all the dispositions which make up this declaration and guarantees legal security and the maintenance of subscribed agreements will form part of the foundational spirit of the Catalan Republic.

The constitution of the Republic is a hand held out to dialogue. Doing honour to the Catalan tradition of the pact, we maintain our commitment with agreement as a form of resolving political conflicts. At the same time, we reaffirm our fraternity and solidarity with the rest of the peoples of the world, and in particular, with those with whom we share a language and culture and with the euromediterranean region, in defence of individual and collective liberties.

The Catalan Republic is an opportunity to correct the current democratic and social deficits, and to build a more prosperous, more just, more secure, more sustainable society with greater solidarity.

In virtue of all that has just been set out, we, the democratic representatives of the Catalan people, in the free exercise of the right to self-determination, and in agreement with the mandate received from the citizenry of Catalonia:

WE CONSTITUTE the Catalan Republic, as an independent and sovereign state, a state of law, democratic, and social.

WE PREPARE the entrance into law of the Law of Juridical and Foundational Transition of the Republic.

WE INICIATE the constituent, democratic process, based in the citizenry, transversal, participative, and binding.

WE AFFIRM the will to open negotiations with the Spanish State, without preconditions, addressed to establish a regime of collaboration in the benefit of both parties. The negotiations must be, necessarilty, on an equal footing.

WE MAKE AWARE the international community and the authorities of the European Union, of the establishment of the Catalan Republic, and the proposal for negotiations with the Spanish State.

WE URGE the international community and the authorities of the European Union to intervene in order to prevent the violation of civil and political rights currently in course, and to follow and to make themselves witnesses to the negotiating process with the Spanish State.

WE DEMONSTRATE the will to construct a European project which reinforces the social and democratic rights of the citizenry, as well as the commitment to continue applying, without solution of continuity and in a unilateral manner, the norms of the legal system of the European Union and those of the Spanish State and the Catalan autonomy into which this normative is transposed.

WE AFFIRM that Catalonia has the inequivocal will to integrate itself as quickly as it may be possible into the international community. The new state is committed to respecting the international obligations which are currently applied in its territory and to continuing to be part of the international treaties to which the Kingdom of Spain belongs.

WE CALL ON states and international organisations to recognise the Catalan Republic as an independent and sovereign state.

WE URGE the Government of Catalonia to adopt the necessary measures in order to make possible the full effectiveness of this Declaration of Independence and of the provisions of the Law of Juridical and Foundational Transition of the Republic.

WE MAKE a call to each and every citizen of the Catalan Republic to make ourselves worthy of the liberty which we have given ourselves and to construct a state which translates into action and conduct the collective inspiration.

WE ASSUME the mandate of the people of Catalonia expressed in the Referendum of Self-Determination of 1 October and we declare that Catalonia becomes an independent state in the form of a Republic.

Motion for resolution

The Parliament of Catalonia expresses its rejection of the agreement of the Council of Ministers of the Spanish State proposing to the Senate of the Spanish State measures in order to put into effect that which is set out in Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution. The proposed measures, on the margin of the current juridical establishment, suppose the elimination of Catalan self-government. At the same time they situate the Government of the Spanish State as a substitute for the Government of the Generalitat of Catalonia and censor the Parliament of Catalonia, a meansire which not only is not acceptable but which is an attack on democracy without precedent in the past 40 years.

We have offered negotiation and dialogue and they have answered us with Article 155 of the Constitution and the elimination of self-government; the response has been of a political firmness similar to the use of force on the 1 October.

The Parliament agrees, to urge the Government to dictate all the necessary resolutions for the development of the Law of Juridical and Foundational Transition of the Republic and in particular:

– To promulgate the necessary Decrees, giving staff and materially to the seized administrative services for the provision to citizens of the accredited documents of Catalan nationality.

– To establish the regulation for procedures for the aquisition of Catalan nationality, by reason of what is set out in article 8 and in the final latter disposition.

– To promote the subscription of a treaty of dual nationality with the government of the Kingdom of Spain, in conformity with article 9.

– To dictate, in conformity with article 12.1, the necessary dispositions for the adaptation, modification, and inapplication of local, autonomous, and state law current before the entrance into effect of the Law of Juridical and Foundational Transition of the Republic.

– To dictate, with the basis in that which is set out in article 12.3 the precise Decrees for the recovery and efficiency of the previous norms and the succession of legal systems, annulled or suspended by the [Spanish] Constitutional Court and by the remainder of the courts, laying special attention to all those regulations of taxation and other imposition, as well as those which develop tools for the struggle against poverty and social inequality.

– To promote to all states and institutions the recognition of the Catalan Republic.

– To establish the corresponding procedure and in conformity with that which is set out in article 15, the relation of international treaties which have to be kept in force, as well as those which to be found inapplicable.

– To establish, in accordance with Article 17, the regime of integration to the administration of the Generalitat of Catalonia, excepting the express renunciation of the same, of all those officials and staff of the Spanish State, who up until now have given their services to the general administration of Catalonia, to the local administration of Catalonia, Catalan universities, the administration of justice, the institutional administration of the Catalan state, or of the official and staff of the Spanish State, of Catalan nationality, who render their services outwith Catalonia.

– To make Parliament aware, of the relation of contracts, agreements and accords object of subrogation on the part of the Catalan Republic, in accordance with what is set out in article 19.

– To promote an agreement with the Spanish State for the integration of staff and the subrogation of contracts foreseen in sections IV and V, in conformity with that which is set out in Article 20.

– To agree all that which may be preceding, as well as adopting the necessary measures for the exercise of fiscal authority, the social security, customs, and land registry in accordance with what is set out in Articles 80, 81, 82, and 83, establishing if it is the case, the periods of tranfer between administrations necessary for an adequate public service.

– To promote the necessary legislative actions and measures for the creation of a public development bank in the service of a productive economy.

– To promote the necessary legislative actions and measures for the creation of the Bank of Catalonia, with the functions of a central bank, which must oversee the establishment of the financial system.

– To promote the necessary legislative actions and measures for the creation of the remaining regulatory authorities, with the functions which are inherent to them.

– To open a period of negotiations with the Spanish State, according to that which is set out in Article 82, in order to determine, if such is the case, and to which degree, the succession of the Catalan state through an agreement, to the rights and obligations of an economic and financial character assumed by the Kingdom of Spain.

– To elaborate an inventory of the goods in title of the Spanish State, pertaining to the national territory of Catalonia, to the end of making effective the succession of title on the part of the Catalan state, in conformity with that which is set out in Article 20.

– To elaborate a proposal of division of assets and liabilities between the Kingdom of Spain and the Catalan Republic, on the basis of standardised international criteria, opening a period of negotiation between the representatives of both state, subjecting the achieved agreement, if such is the case, for the approval of the Parliament of Catalonia.

The Parliament opens an investigation in order to determine the responsibilities of the Government of the Spanish State, its institutions and dependent organs in the commission of crimes relating to the violation of fundamental, individual and collective rights in order to avoid the exercise of the right to vote of the people of Catalonia the past 1 October.

This investigatory commission will be comprised of deputies from parliamentary groups and of expert persons in the national and international arenas, of the Anti-Fraud office, the Office of the Ombudsman, and the Catalan legal profession and in representation entities defending human rights, ensuring that there may be representative of international organisations.

Motion for resolution 2

Constituent process
The Parliament of Catalonia agrees:

To declare the inciation and the opening of the constituent process

To urge the government of the Generalitat to:

a) Activate in an immediate manner all the human, public and social resources as well material media at its disposal, in order to make effective the democratic constituent process, based in the citizenry, participative and binding, which must culminate with the redaction and approval of the constitution of the Republic on the part of the Parliament constituted in the Consituent Assembly which results from the constituent elections.

b) To constitute within the term of fifteen days the assessory council of the constituent process in order to advise in the deliberative constituent phase led by organised civil society.

c) To convene, diffuse, and execute the decision phase of the constituent process, gathering together the sistematised proposals to the Constituent Social Forum, submitting them to the consultation of the citizenry, which will constitute a binding mandate for the constituted Parliament in the Constituent Assembly which results from the constituent elections.

d) To convene constituent elections once all the phases of the constituent process have culminated.

To encourage all civic and social agents, within the term of one month, to constitute a promotional platform for the constitutional process or national agreement for the constitutional process.

To constitute, within the term of fifteen days, the Parliamentary Commission to follow the constituent process, with the aim of protecting but not interfering in, the task of the promotional platform, guaranteeing the deployment of its work as well as the fulfilment of the six month term legally defined for its development and conclusions.

To encourage the municipal authorities to promote constituent debates in the local sphere promoting the participation of civil society, facilitating the resources and public spaces necessary for the correct development of citizens’ debate.

Palace of Parliament 27 October 2017

signed

Lluís M. Corominas i Díaz
President del GP JS

Marta Rovira i Vergés
Portaveu del GP JS

Mireia Boya e Busquet
Presidenta del GP CUP-CC

Anna Gabriel i Sabaté
Portaveu del GP CUP-CC

The details about US military presence in Africa happened to be a surprise even for members of the Congress. On October 4, four American soldiers were killed by militants linked to the Islamic State in Niger. The incident thrust the issue of US military presence in Africa into the spotlight and drew the attention of senators tasked with military oversight. It has been revealed that even the Congress has been kept in the dark about the US involvement in that country. It puts into question the accountability of the military. Since it was established as an independent command in 2006, the United States Africa Command (AFRICOM) has never been transparent with its activities largely shrouded in secrecy.

In the aftermath of the incident, the US Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, revealed at a press-conference that about 800 US troops are now based in Niger – more than in any other African country. The press conference came after several US senators expressed surprise that the US had such a large military presence on the continent, and Niger in particular.

“I didn’t know there was 1,000 troops in Niger,” Senator Lindsey Graham said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” “This is an endless war without boundaries and no limitation on time and geography … You’ve got to tell us more.”

Indeed, the size of the presence was a big surprise for lawmakers as well as public in general. The vast majority of Americans probably had no idea that the US even had military troops participating in combat missions in Africa before the incident in Niger. The US has previously acknowledged it has troops there. But it’s never gone into much detail. Niger has also allowed the United States to build a large drone base at an estimated cost of $100 million near the central trading city of Agadez. Dunford acknowledged the lack of communication between military leaders and the Congress, and said he and Secretary of Defense James Mattis would “double” their efforts to communicate better with senators.

American forces entered the region en masse in the early 2000s, when the United States began training and equipping militaries in dozens of African countries. According to Dunford, a total of 6,000 US troops are deployed in 53 African countries today. They are conducting 3,500 exercises, programs, and engagements each year – almost 10 missions each day. The number of the Special Operations Forces (SOF) across the continent rose from 450 in 2012 to 1,300 in 2017 (of 8,000 SOF deployed globally this year). The United Nations recognizes 54 countries in Africa. It means that only one of them is free of US military presence!

Officially, the United States only has one military base in Africa — Camp Lemonnier in Djibouti. But SOF outfits, including the Green Berets, the Navy SEALs and Marine and Air Force commandos, also use an air base at Moron in southern Spain for Africa operations. Other operating sites are called “forward operating sites”, “cooperative security locations” (CSL) or “contingency locations” in host countries.

According to the AFRICOM 2017 Posture statement, the command runs a network of 46 sites, including two forward operating sites (Djibouti’s Camp Lemonnier and a base on the United Kingdom’s Ascension Island off the west coast of Africa), 13 cooperative security locations, and 31 “non-enduring” contingency locations. This is an increase by 10 locations—a 28 percent jump—in just over two years.

African bases have long been essential, for instance, to Washington’s ongoing shadow war in Yemen, which has seen a significant increase in drone strikes under the Trump administration. Djibouti is essential for operations in the Arabian Peninsula. CSL Entebbe in Uganda is a hub for surveillance aircraft, carrying out mission across the continent. The US sprawling, ever-expanding network of bases provides the crucial infrastructure for cross-continental combat by US and allied forces, especially France, which boasts a large military presence (5,000 troops) of its own.

Many activities the Pentagon has described as “advise and assist” in nature seem to be indistinguishable from combat  by any basic definition. Claiming troops are only “assisting” or “training” local forces is the way that the US military establishes a foothold in African countries.

Private military contractors have become another element of US presence on the continent.

The Trump administration is preparing to dismantle key Obama-era limits on drone strikes and commando raids outside conventional battlefields. This will lead to drastic escalation in the use of forces in Africa. Somalia has already been declared an “area of active hostilities,” temporarily bringing it under less restrictive war-zone rule.

The military operations in Africa have never been specifically authorized by Congress, let alone discussed and debated by the American public. The Authorization for Use of Force, adopted right after the Sept. 11, 2001, says the president is authorized to use force against the planners of the attacks and those who harbor them. It does not cover mere supporters of such groups and associated forces. Nevertheless, the legislation has been used for 16 years now to justify conflicts in many countries, including Afghanistan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Georgia, Iraq, Kenya, the Philippines, Somalia and Yemen.

The 1973 War Powers Resolution is a federal law in force intended to check the president’s power to commit the United States to an armed conflict without the consent of the US Congress. It provides that under certain circumstances a President can deploy troops into combat situations, but there are periodic reporting requirements for a President as well as time limits on how long troops can remain engaged in conflicts without a formal declaration of war or specific congressional authorization. The law was breached when the US bombed Yugoslavia in 1999. It is also not observed in Africa because formally the US is not at war there, despite the fact that it is waging combat operations where servicemen lose their lives. The October 4 tragedy in Niger is just another example. In May, a Marine was killed in Somalia.

The military presence in Africa will probably grow in the future. Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, indicated that the United States may increase its military presence.

“The war is morphing. We’re going to see more actions in Africa, not less,” he said.

The policy marks a stark about-face from Trump’s campaign declarations that the US can no longer afford to be the world’s policeman. The military operations in Africa suggest otherwise. The fighting in Africa seldom hits media headlines but it does not change the fact that the US is waging a war. Niger is the perfect illustration of America’s permanent war posture around the world, where combat operations are conducted with little or no public scrutiny and no congressional authorization. The administration appears to view the international problems mostly through a military prism.

Featured image is from thenation.com.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: 

stephenlendman.org 

(Home – Stephen Lendman). 

Contact at [email protected].

November 2 marks its 100th anniversary, a deplorable action, the beginning of the end of historic Palestine.

UK Foreign Secretary Arthur Balfour’s declaration came in a 67-word letter to British Zionist Federation’s Lord Rothschild.

Accepted by the League of Nations on July 24, 1922, it stemmed from the mandate, giving Britain administrative control of Palestine.

Generations of political, military and cultural repression of its people followed, far worse after Israel’s so-called war of independence, stealing 78% of historic Palestine, the rest in June 1967.

Balfour’s call for establishing a nation for Jews (on stolen Palestinian land) was a high crime against humanity.

Endless conflict, occupation, dispossession, and repression, along with social and cultural fragmentation define conditions for beleaguered Palestinians – 100 years of suffering, no end of it in sight, the world community dismissive of their rights.

Balfour’s letter to Rothschild read as follows:

“I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty’s Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

His Majesty’s Government view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.”

Balfour acted without consulting Palestinians, reason enough for them to deplore Britain to this day, beginning the process of stealing their homeland, consigning them to future subjugation.

Former UK prime minister David Cameron urged PM Theresa May to commemorate the anniversary together with the Jewish community “in the most appropriate way,” without further elaboration.

Current UK Foreign Minister Boris Johnson defended his predecessor’s action, saying

“I am proud of Britain’s part in creating Israel.” The declaration was “indispensable to the creation of a great nation.”

It’s been a curse for Palestinians – their land stolen, their rights denied. The myth of “a land without people for a people without land” was predominantly Arab with small numbers of Jews and Christians at the time.

Balfour duplicitously promised Palestinians respect for their rights, saying they’d be protected, free from foreign rule.

Palestinian leaders saw the ruse, wanting no part of it. They opposed further Jewish immigration to no avail, their wishes conflicting with imperial Britain’s plans.

In 1947-48, historian Ilan Pappe explained what he called the “urbicide of Palestine – attacking and ethnic cleansing the country’s major urban centers, slaughtering and displacing Palestinians, making way for Jewish occupation and development.

The Nakba killed or displaced about 800,000 Palestinians. Over 500 historic towns and villages were erased, along with urban neighborhoods in Tel-Aviv, Haifa, Jerusalem and other cities, private property destroyed or confiscated, woman raped, other atrocities committed.

David Ben-Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, said during the Nakba “(e)very attack has to end with occupation, destruction and expulsion” – forcefully eliminating resistance.

Balfour and the British mandate made creating Israel and erasing Palestine possible – his declaration a document to live in infamy forever.

VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home – Stephen Lendman). Contact at [email protected].

My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”

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

Featured image: Victims of the sarin attack in Khan Sheikhoun (Source: One News Page)

A UN commission concluded that the Syrian government is responsible for a widely discussed incident in Khan Sheikhoun. An alleged gas attack by air happened in April in an al-Qaeda controlled area in Syria. It was used by the White House to justify its bombing of a Syrian airbase.

The now released report was made to fit the narrative. The details below show that it was not the result of a serious investigation. This explains why Russia blocked the extension of the mandate of the reporting commission.

On October 26 Reuters reported: Syrian government to blame for April sarin attack: U.N. report

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – The Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad is to blame for a chemical attack on the opposition-held town of Khan Sheikhoun that killed dozens of people last April, according to a report sent to the United Nations Security Council on Thursday.“The Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Sheikhoun on 4 April 2017,” the report from the U.N. and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons’ Joint Investigative Mechanism (JIM) said.

The official report has not been published. But someone obtained a copy of the Seventh report of the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons-United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism (pdf) and we make it herewith available.

The reports notes “irregularities” that makes one wonder how its writers could ever have come to this conclusion:

Based on the foregoing, the Leadership Panel is confident that the Syrian Arab Republic is responsible for the release of sarin at Khan Shaykhun on 4 April 2017. The findings of the Leadership Panel regarding the evidence in this case are based on the information set forth in detail in annex II.

Note the verbal choices the commission made: “.. is confident ..” is not a wording that conveys surety and “..is responsible for the release” does not mean that the Syrian Arab Republic in fact did it.

The reports conclusions are NOT by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons or even endorsed by it. They were made by the “Joint Investigative Mechanism” which consists of a Guatemalan diplomat, an UN bureaucrat from Malaysia educated in the U.S. and a chemical expert who works for the Swiss government. It is a political board with a political judgment.

The reasons for that rather vague wording, which is not reflected in the news reports, can be found in the details. The report says on page 10:

The Mechanism determined that sarin was released from the location of a crater in the northern part of Khan Shaykhun between 0630 and 0700 hours on 4 April 2017.

Many of the reports findings are based on open source videos and photographs published by the opposition. It acquired witnesses statements from the area which is under control of al-Qaeda. It also examined forensic evidence for which no chain of custody existed. Some findings are strange.

In annex II, on page 36 (of 39) of the pdf, it notes:

Certain irregularities were observed in elements of information analysed. For example, several hospitals appeared to start admitting casualties of the attack between 0640 and 0645 hours. The Mechanism received the medical records of 247 patients from Khan Shaykhun who were admitted to various health-care facilities, including those of survivors and a number of victims who died from exposure to chemical agent. The admission times of the records range between 0600 and 1600 hours. Analysis of the aforementioned medical records revealed that in 57 cases, patients were admitted in five hospitals before the incident in Khan Shaykhun (at 0600, 0620 and 0640 hours). In 10 such cases, patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 125 km away from Khan Shaykhun at 0700 hours while another 42 patients appear to have been admitted to a hospital 30 km away at 0700 hours. The Mechanism did not investigate these discrepancies and cannot determine whether they are linked to any possible staging scenario, or to poor record-keeping in chaotic conditions.

At least 23% of the alleged casualties of the incident WERE ADMITTED TO HOSPITALS BEFORE THE INCIDENT HAPPENED.

The hospital 125 km away, a two hour drive, must have been a regular one in Turkey. It is highly unlikely that such a well organized hospital would mix up the arrival time. It is impossible that the casualties admitted at 0700 hours were those of an incident in Khan Sheikhoun that happened, according to the commission, at 0630. The commission did not investigate the discrepancies and it asserts that it does not determine if the incident was staged or not.

Another curiosity:

An inconsistency was identified in one of the Fact-Finding Mission biomedical results from samples without a chain of custody. In sample number 133, the blood tested negative for sarin or a sarin-like substance, while the urine sample tested positive for the sarin degradation product isopropyl methylphosphonate. There is currently no explanation regarding the inconsistency.

The commission also notes a point that we had detailed back in April:

The Mechanism observed from open sources that treatment of victims from Khan Shaykhun frequently involved oxygen and cortisone therapy. This treatment is not recommended for sarin intoxication, but is mainly for lung damage, as would be caused by either chlorine or vacuum bombs.

The report misses the early reporting we had documented shortly after the incident happened:

First reports on that day by the Turkish government news agency Anadolu mentioned only chlorine … The first OPCW statement on April 4 referred to chlorine, not sarin or similar … The first report of the Turkish government also said chlorine

Moreover, according to local press reports the first 30 casualties that arrived at the Turkish border were diagnosed as chlorine affected, not as Sarin casualties. Neither did the patients in any of the videos show strong Sarin symptoms nor did the emergency personal take the necessary precautions for handling a Sarin incident.

The incident was most likely not caused by an air attack at 0630 that distributed Sarin. It was probably caused by a local Chlorine release that must have happened at an earlier point in time. The Sarin and air attack story was only later attached to it. The incident was adopted as a show the White House used to justify its bombing attack on Syria and to thereby divert from its domestic problems. It released an amateurish “intelligence assessment” on the incident that was not prepared by any intelligence agency but by the White House itself.

All evidence the investigation says it obtained from Khan Sheikhun, biomedical, environmental, physical sample as well as media, were obtained without a chain of custody. It was taken by Al-Qaeda or by groups Al-Qaeda allows to work in areas it controls. The terrorist and the opposition to the Syrian government, and certainly their sponsors, had an obvious interest in manipulating evidence of the incident to then blame it on the Syrian government.

The former prime minister of Qatar just admitted on TV that Qatar, in tight cooperation with Saudi Arabia, Turkey and under direction of the United States delivered weapons and money to the “opposition” in Syria, including to al-Qaeda, since the very beginning of the conflict:

Al-Thani even likened the covert operation to “hunting prey” – the prey being President Assad and his supporters – “prey” which he admits got away (as Assad is still in power; he used a Gulf Arabic dialect word, “al-sayda”, which implies hunting animals or prey for sport). Though Thani denied credible allegations of support for ISIS, the former prime minister’s words implied direct Gulf and US support for al-Qaeda in Syria (al-Nusra Front) from the earliest years of the war, and even said Qatar has “full documents” and records proving that the war was planned to effect regime change.

These same forces, especially the U.S., are still determined to “regime change” Syria. To this purpose the U.S. military is preparing for a long-term occupation of the areas its Kurdish proxies in north-east Syria now control.

Note: Parts of the above are based on the work of Syricide

The CIA considered bombing Miami and other cities to create a terror threat while blaming the government of Cuban revolutionary leader Fidel Castro, according to the recently-published “JFK files.”

The files were published as part of the nearly 3,000 documents collected by the U.S. National Archive on the assassination of former President John F. Kennedy and several other issues.

The report said the Central Intelligence Agency, CIA, considered staging several terror events involving Cuban citizens to seek blame for Castro’s government.

“We could develop a Communist Cuban terror campaign in the Miami area, in other Florida cities and even in Washington,” the files read.

The plan also included a possible attack on migrants leaving Cuba to settle in the United States.

“We could sink a boatload of Cubans enroute to Florida (real or simulated). We could foster attempts on lives of Cuban refugees in the United States even to the extent of wounding in instances to be widely publicized.”

The release of 2,891 previously classified files also shed a light on more aggressive tactics by the CIA, which included the placement of bombs and the creation of a terror environment.

“Exploding a few plastic bombs in carefully chosen spots, the arrest of a Cuban agent and the release of prepared documents substantiating Cuban involvement also would be helpful in projecting the idea of an irresponsible government,” the files went on.

The report also mentions how the CIA tried to assassinate Castro through bodysuits filled with deadly bacteria and explosive seashells planted underwater, taking advantage of the Cuban leader’s taste for diving.

“It was known that Fidel Castro liked to skindive,” the reports said. “The CIA plan was to dust the inside of the suit with a fungus producing madera foot, a disabling and chronic skin disease, and also contaminating the suit with tuberculosis bacilli in the breathing apparatus.”

Finally, the files revealed that after several allegations, investigations showed that the Cuban government wouldn’t have been responsible for killing Kennedy “because such an act, if discovered, would have afforded the United States the excuse to destroy Cuba. The risk would not have been worth it.”

During the 1990s, the United States planned to break up Yugoslavia and build America’s largest military base in Kosovo (Camp Bondsteel) a strategic location giving the US access to the oil-rich Caspian Sea, which would also threaten Russia’s defence capabilities. In order to achieve their goals, the CIA imported fighters from Afghanistan who went on a rampage of killing and destruction. A mass media disinformation campaign blamed a proportion of the crimes of the CIA-backed fighters on their victims – mostly Serbs.

Between 1992 and 1995, CIA terrorists murdered 2383 Serbs in Srebrenica. When the Bosnian Serb army finally arrived in the town, they fought the terrorists. Between five hundred and one thousand Muslim locals were executed. No one knows how many of them were terrorists.

The Western media used images of detained Muslim men to say that a massacre of innocent young men had taken place. The heinous ethnic cleansing of 150 Serbian villages was ignored. The CIA’s ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ is accused of having slaughtered all before them but the ‘international community’ cried ‘genocide’ when many of them were rounded up and shot. Serbian Christians were the Empire’s scapegoats. Srebrenica is still invoked today to justify ‘humanitarian intervention’ and Rohingya activists in the Empire’s capital cities are now calling for a humanitarian carpet bombing of Burmese citizens.

Muslims who refuse to face up to such historical realities ought to realise that they have no monopoly on suffering and victimisation. When the Empire needs scapegoats, it finds them no matter what their religion or ethnicity.

Burmese patriots would be well advised to study the destruction of Yugoslavia as multi-ethnic states with religious divisions are easily broken apart when imperialism decides impotent fiefdoms are more easily manipulated than patriotic nation states.

In November 2011, President Obama declared that the Asia-Pacific region was a ‘top priority’ of US security policy.

US policy in Asia consists of containing Chinese influence in the region through control of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the encirclement of China. The US already has military bases along the South East Asian coast but needs to have extensive military projection capacity in inland Asia. The breaking up or balkanisation of strategic states whose stability is vital to Chinese security would serve US geopolitical interests in Asia.

Since Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra lobbied on behalf of the Myanmar government, resulting in their inclusion in ASEAN, US sanctions against the country proved futile. Forcing the Burmese junta to accept US intelligence asset Aung San Suu Kyi as de facto president has not ‘opened up’ the country to US interests at a pace and scale acceptable to Washington. In fact, Aung San Suu Kyi has thus far proved that she has a mind of her own and has taken an increasingly nationalist line, to the chagrin of her Western liberal sycophants. The human rights icon appears to have rediscovered her Asian roots and thus her portrait has fallen from the halls of Western imperial academia.

Terrorist groups financed by the Saudis and backed by the United States, seek to carve out a separate state encompassing parts of Bangladesh and North Rakhine – what they call Arakanistan or the Islamic Republic of Rahmanland, which would adhere to a strict State-Wahhabi ideology. A document appeared in 2012 signed by London-based Amir Ilham Kamil and Farid L. Shyaid proclaiming the creation of such a state.

Although the authenticity of the document cited above cannot be verified, the concept of a state called Arakanistan has been openly discussed for some time in the Bangladeshi media and some books.

Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has criticized the British government for not doing enough to prosecute known Islamist terrorists in its territory. Critics of the war on terrorism have pointed out the deep and constant collusion of the British security services with Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Hasina’s government is facing a potential nightmare. There are credible reports that Bangladesh’s Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) is training and protecting ARSA terrorists.

The training is reportedly being conducted in conjunction with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

A Wahhabi enclave in Myanmar would give the US another base of operations for geopolitical war games in Asia and upset China’s expanding One Belt-One Road and New Silk Road policy. Such a Kosovo-like state would be in US strategic interests as it would allow Washington to control the Bay of Bengal and prevent a land route for Chinese importation of Middle Eastern oil. The US would then be able to block Chinese oil supplies in the Straits of Malacca. China’s exploitation of the Shwe gas field discovered in 2004 is another major concern for Washington.

Myanmar has moved closer to China in recent years with the construction of pipelines set to pump oil from KyaukPhyu deep-sea port in the Bay of Bengal to Kunming in China’s Yunnan province. The deep sea port in KyaukPhyu is due to have an annual capacity of 7.8 million tonnes of bulk cargo.

The Teellong China-Oil and Gas line project, running from the Bay of Bengal to China’s Yunnan province, was built at the cost of 2.46 billion dollars. It jointly owned by the China National Petroleum Corporation and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. It is estimated that the pipelines will eventually be able to pump up to 12 billion tonnes of oil per year.

The KyaukPhyu Special Economic Zone, spanning more than 1700 hectares, is another China-Burmese joint venture which aims to industrialise the country’s underdeveloped Western region, in particular Rakhine State. As noted in her State Councillor’s Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent speech in Naypyidaw, economic underdevelopment is a key factor driving ethnic and religious violence in Rakhine State.

Naypyidaw and Moscow signed an important defense agreement in June last last year. Myanmar’s Defence Minister Myint New said his country hoped to strengthen military ties with Russia in the near future.

The cooperation with Russia is a concern for US interests.

Russian diplomacy has corroborated the Burmese military’s version of events, following the August 25th terrorist attacks. At the recent UN Security Council meeting to discuss Myanmar Russia’s UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said:

“In recent days we’ve received an illustration of the fact that ARSA were responsible for the massacre of civilians. What was also found were cashes of improvised explosive devices. There is information that the extremists forced members of the Hindu community in border villages to leave their homes and to migrate to neighboring Bangladesh with the Muslims. Furthermore, there is information that terrorists burned entire villages and that evidence confiscated from the fighters.

Photographs were confiscated from the terrorists which were in all likelihood meant to be used as reports to the leadership of ARSA or its foreign sponsors. This information is confirmed by the earlier statement of Naypyidaw when they said that the initiators of the outbreak in Rakhine State had the objective of maximally increasing the scale of the humanitarian disaster and transferring the responsibility for it to the government.”

US President Donald Trump has called for “strong and swift action” from the UN Security Council. French president Emmanuel Macron has also accused the Burmese government of genocide. Russia has warned the West not to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. Given the pro-Rohingya position of the United States, one can assume some level of CIA backing for the Rohingya terrorists. However, it is unclear how the Trump administration will respond if the Islamic State, who are now active in Rakhine, manage to occupy territory. The US may simply ‘assist’ Naypyidaw in managing the CIA’s terrorists, while continuing to covertly feed the insurgency.

Fake news and the ‘iceberg of misinformation’

Many examples of fake news published by the Rohingya organizations have been cited. The most notorious examples have been photos of the 2010 Chinese earthquake disaster where Buddhist monks helped bury the victims. The tragic scenes were photo-shopped by pro-Rohingya websites to claim that Buddhists had massacred Rohingya. All the cases of fake news are too numerous to mention here but the BBC have done a good job, for once, in highlighting the most notorious examples.

However, in spite of admitting that preposterous lies have been spread to support the theory that the Burmese government is committing genocide against the Bengali minority in Rakhine State, the BBC continues to claim that such a genocide is in fact taking place; but it has produced no evidence whatsoever to back up those claims.

Shortly after the August 25th terrorist attacks, the Deputy Turkish Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek published more fake news about Burmese massacres of Rohingya, calling for the international community to intervene. After the fake news was proven by Burmese authorities, Simsek was forced to admit he had published disinformation.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in August, Agence France Press (AFP) published video footage of Burmese Buddhist villagers fleeing the violence claiming they were Rohingya. The news agency was later forced to admit it had lied.

It was not the only report of people fleeing the violence mislabeled as ‘Rohingya’.

Many Hindu villagers told reporters they had been called Rohingya too.

It should be mentioned here that ‘Rohingya’ is a term used by activists linked to agencies and NGOS outside the country. It is not a term used by Bengali Muslims to describe themselves. Bengali Muslims recently told reports that they never use that term.

Many eye witnesses accounts, including those whose family members were massacred by terrorist groups, have not been investigated by the Western mass media.

One Hindu woman told Burmese reporters:

 “In there, they [ARSA terrorists] came, dressed in black, only their eyes could be seen.

Then they caught us; they had bombs, axes, choppers, knives, bullets.

They held us on one side of the area.

They slaughtered my family members one by one.

Then some Muslims ordered – ‘slaughter them too’.

My husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law and one of my sister-in-laws were slaughtered in front of my eyes.

One of the sons of my sister-in-law was hijacked by Muslims [ARSA terrorists].”

Again the horrific report was ignored by the Western media in spite of their claims to be concerned for the victims of violence. Was it because the killers here did not match the editorial spin?

Another video posted online tells the story of a Rakhine Buddhist and his family who were attacked by a mob of Bengali terrorists. He says he used to have Muslim friends but now no longer trusts the Muslim community in Rakhine. It is easy to call such people pejorative terms but communal hatred is growing with every call by Muslim communities across the world to ‘stop the genocide of the Rohingya’. The video shows the horrible reality of ethnic conflict, where fear and hatred eat up the souls of men.

The Burmese government has accused Western NGOs of collaborating with terrorists. The UN’s World Food Programme has confirmed that their food is going to terrorists. And photos have emerged of NGOs meeting the terrorists. Western NGOs really do ‘care’ about innocent civilians. Burmese State Councilor Aung San Suu Kyi has called Western propaganda against her country an “iceberg of misinformation – perhaps, the truest words the Noble Peace Laureate has ever uttered.

Gearóid Ó Colmáin, AHT Paris correspondent, is a journalist and political analyst. His work focuses on globalization, geopolitics and class struggle. His articles have been translated into many languages. He is a regular contributor to Global Research, Russia Today International, Press TV, Sputnik Radio France, Sputnik English , Al Etijah TV , Sahar TV Englis, Sahar French and has also appeared on Al Jazeera. He writes in English, Irish Gaelic and French.

Rohingya girl in Sittwe, Myanmar. Image credit: Carsten S./ flickr

During the 1990s, the United States planned to break up Yugoslavia and build America’s largest military base in Kosovo (Camp Bondsteel) a strategic location giving the US access to the oil-rich Caspian Sea, which would also threaten Russia’s defence capabilities. In order to achieve their goals, the CIA imported fighters from Afghanistan who went on a rampage of killing and destruction. A mass media disinformation campaign blamed a proportion of the crimes of the CIA-backed fighters on their victims – mostly Serbs.

Between 1992 and 1995, CIA terrorists murdered 2383 Serbs in Srebrenica. When the Bosnian Serb army finally arrived in the town, they fought the terrorists. Between five hundred and one thousand Muslim locals were executed. No one knows how many of them were terrorists.

The Western media used images of detained Muslim men to say that a massacre of innocent young men had taken place. The heinous ethnic cleansing of 150 Serbian villages was ignored. The CIA’s ‘Kosovo Liberation Army’ is accused of having slaughtered all before them but the ‘international community’ cried ‘genocide’ when many of them were rounded up and shot. Serbian Christians were the Empire’s scapegoats. Srebrenica is still invoked today to justify ‘humanitarian intervention’ and Rohingya activists in the Empire’s capital cities are now calling for a humanitarian carpet bombing of Burmese citizens.

Muslims who refuse to face up to such historical realities ought to realise that they have no monopoly on suffering and victimisation. When the Empire needs scapegoats, it finds them no matter what their religion or ethnicity.

Burmese patriots would be well advised to study the destruction of Yugoslavia as multi-ethnic states with religious divisions are easily broken apart when imperialism decides impotent fiefdoms are more easily manipulated than patriotic nation states.

In November 2011, President Obama declared that the Asia-Pacific region was a ‘top priority’ of US security policy.

US policy in Asia consists of containing Chinese influence in the region through control of the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the encirclement of China. The US already has military bases along the South East Asian coast but needs to have extensive military projection capacity in inland Asia. The breaking up or balkanisation of strategic states whose stability is vital to Chinese security would serve US geopolitical interests in Asia.

Since Thailand’s former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra lobbied on behalf of the Myanmar government, resulting in their inclusion in ASEAN, US sanctions against the country proved futile. Forcing the Burmese junta to accept US intelligence asset Aung San Suu Kyi as de facto president has not ‘opened up’ the country to US interests at a pace and scale acceptable to Washington. In fact, Aung San Suu Kyi has thus far proved that she has a mind of her own and has taken an increasingly nationalist line, to the chagrin of her Western liberal sycophants. The human rights icon appears to have rediscovered her Asian roots and thus her portrait has fallen from the halls of Western imperial academia.

Terrorist groups financed by the Saudis and backed by the United States, seek to carve out a separate state encompassing parts of Bangladesh and North Rakhine – what they call Arakanistan or the Islamic Republic of Rahmanland, which would adhere to a strict State-Wahhabi ideology. A document appeared in 2012 signed by London-based Amir Ilham Kamil and Farid L. Shyaid proclaiming the creation of such a state.

Although the authenticity of the document cited above cannot be verified, the concept of a state called Arakanistan has been openly discussed for some time in the Bangladeshi media and some books.

Bangladesh’s Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina has criticized the British government for not doing enough to prosecute known Islamist terrorists in its territory. Critics of the war on terrorism have pointed out the deep and constant collusion of the British security services with Al-Qaeda terrorists.

Hasina’s government is facing a potential nightmare. There are credible reports that Bangladesh’s Directorate General of Forces Intelligence (DGFI) is training and protecting ARSA terrorists.

The training is reportedly being conducted in conjunction with Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

A Wahhabi enclave in Myanmar would give the US another base of operations for geopolitical war games in Asia and upset China’s expanding One Belt-One Road and New Silk Road policy. Such a Kosovo-like state would be in US strategic interests as it would allow Washington to control the Bay of Bengal and prevent a land route for Chinese importation of Middle Eastern oil. The US would then be able to block Chinese oil supplies in the Straits of Malacca. China’s exploitation of the Shwe gas field discovered in 2004 is another major concern for Washington.

Myanmar has moved closer to China in recent years with the construction of pipelines set to pump oil from KyaukPhyu deep-sea port in the Bay of Bengal to Kunming in China’s Yunnan province. The deep sea port in KyaukPhyu is due to have an annual capacity of 7.8 million tonnes of bulk cargo.

The Teellong China-Oil and Gas line project, running from the Bay of Bengal to China’s Yunnan province, was built at the cost of 2.46 billion dollars. It jointly owned by the China National Petroleum Corporation and the Myanmar Oil and Gas Enterprise. It is estimated that the pipelines will eventually be able to pump up to 12 billion tonnes of oil per year.

The KyaukPhyu Special Economic Zone, spanning more than 1700 hectares, is another China-Burmese joint venture which aims to industrialise the country’s underdeveloped Western region, in particular Rakhine State. As noted in her State Councillor’s Aung San Suu Kyi’s recent speech in Naypyidaw, economic underdevelopment is a key factor driving ethnic and religious violence in Rakhine State.

Naypyidaw and Moscow signed an important defense agreement in June last last year. Myanmar’s Defence Minister Myint New said his country hoped to strengthen military ties with Russia in the near future.

The cooperation with Russia is a concern for US interests.

Russian diplomacy has corroborated the Burmese military’s version of events, following the August 25th terrorist attacks. At the recent UN Security Council meeting to discuss Myanmar Russia’s UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia said:

“In recent days we’ve received an illustration of the fact that ARSA were responsible for the massacre of civilians. What was also found were cashes of improvised explosive devices. There is information that the extremists forced members of the Hindu community in border villages to leave their homes and to migrate to neighboring Bangladesh with the Muslims. Furthermore, there is information that terrorists burned entire villages and that evidence confiscated from the fighters.

Photographs were confiscated from the terrorists which were in all likelihood meant to be used as reports to the leadership of ARSA or its foreign sponsors. This information is confirmed by the earlier statement of Naypyidaw when they said that the initiators of the outbreak in Rakhine State had the objective of maximally increasing the scale of the humanitarian disaster and transferring the responsibility for it to the government.”

US President Donald Trump has called for “strong and swift action” from the UN Security Council. French president Emmanuel Macron has also accused the Burmese government of genocide. Russia has warned the West not to interfere in other countries’ internal affairs. Given the pro-Rohingya position of the United States, one can assume some level of CIA backing for the Rohingya terrorists. However, it is unclear how the Trump administration will respond if the Islamic State, who are now active in Rakhine, manage to occupy territory. The US may simply ‘assist’ Naypyidaw in managing the CIA’s terrorists, while continuing to covertly feed the insurgency.

Fake news and the ‘iceberg of misinformation’

Many examples of fake news published by the Rohingya organizations have been cited. The most notorious examples have been photos of the 2010 Chinese earthquake disaster where Buddhist monks helped bury the victims. The tragic scenes were photo-shopped by pro-Rohingya websites to claim that Buddhists had massacred Rohingya. All the cases of fake news are too numerous to mention here but the BBC have done a good job, for once, in highlighting the most notorious examples.

However, in spite of admitting that preposterous lies have been spread to support the theory that the Burmese government is committing genocide against the Bengali minority in Rakhine State, the BBC continues to claim that such a genocide is in fact taking place; but it has produced no evidence whatsoever to back up those claims.

Shortly after the August 25th terrorist attacks, the Deputy Turkish Prime Minister Mehmet Simsek published more fake news about Burmese massacres of Rohingya, calling for the international community to intervene. After the fake news was proven by Burmese authorities, Simsek was forced to admit he had published disinformation.

Shortly after the terrorist attacks in August, Agence France Press (AFP) published video footage of Burmese Buddhist villagers fleeing the violence claiming they were Rohingya. The news agency was later forced to admit it had lied.

It was not the only report of people fleeing the violence mislabeled as ‘Rohingya’.

Many Hindu villagers told reporters they had been called Rohingya too.

It should be mentioned here that ‘Rohingya’ is a term used by activists linked to agencies and NGOS outside the country. It is not a term used by Bengali Muslims to describe themselves. Bengali Muslims recently told reports that they never use that term.

Many eye witnesses accounts, including those whose family members were massacred by terrorist groups, have not been investigated by the Western mass media.

One Hindu woman told Burmese reporters:

 “In there, they [ARSA terrorists] came, dressed in black, only their eyes could be seen.

Then they caught us; they had bombs, axes, choppers, knives, bullets.

They held us on one side of the area.

They slaughtered my family members one by one.

Then some Muslims ordered – ‘slaughter them too’.

My husband, father-in-law, mother- in-law and one of my sister-in-laws were slaughtered in front of my eyes.

One of the sons of my sister-in-law was hijacked by Muslims [ARSA terrorists].”

Again the horrific report was ignored by the Western media in spite of their claims to be concerned for the victims of violence. Was it because the killers here did not match the editorial spin?

Another video posted online tells the story of a Rakhine Buddhist and his family who were attacked by a mob of Bengali terrorists. He says he used to have Muslim friends but now no longer trusts the Muslim community in Rakhine. It is easy to call such people pejorative terms but communal hatred is growing with every call by Muslim communities across the world to ‘stop the genocide of the Rohingya’. The video shows the horrible reality of ethnic conflict, where fear and hatred eat up the souls of men.

The Burmese government has accused Western NGOs of collaborating with terrorists. The UN’s World Food Programme has confirmed that their food is going to terrorists. And photos have emerged of NGOs meeting the terrorists. Western NGOs really do ‘care’ about innocent civilians. Burmese State Councilor Aung San Suu Kyi has called Western propaganda against her country an “iceberg of misinformation – perhaps, the truest words the Noble Peace Laureate has ever uttered.

Gearóid Ó Colmáin, AHT Paris correspondent, is a journalist and political analyst. His work focuses on globalization, geopolitics and class struggle. His articles have been translated into many languages. He is a regular contributor to Global Research, Russia Today International, Press TV, Sputnik Radio France, Sputnik English , Al Etijah TV , Sahar TV Englis, Sahar French and has also appeared on Al Jazeera. He writes in English, Irish Gaelic and French.

Rohingya girl in Sittwe, Myanmar. Image credit: Carsten S./ flickr

In an era of media distortion, our emphasis has been on the “unspoken truth”. To maintain our independence, we do not seek foundation funding and elite philanthropic sponsorship, which invariably contribute to setting limits on the scope and focus of media reporting.

We therefore largely rely on contributions from our readers. You can help us by forwarding our articles far and wide as a means of battling alternative media censorship.

Please consider making a donation and/or becoming a Global Research Member. Any amount large or small will contribute to the broad objective of Truth in Media.

*     *     *

Syria, Iraq, Libya: The Staged-Massacre Routine and False Flag Operations For Regime Change

By Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli, October 28, 2017

In the various endeavours for regime-change assayed to fit the geopolitical and economic interest of western powers, a foremost argument has consisted in allegations on infringements of human rights and accusations of insufferable oppression against the population. These claims have often culminated with the staging of ‘massacres’ against civilians.

US Department of Defense (DOD) Plans Solar-Storm-Based National Blackout Drill During Antifa Protests in November

By Tyler Durden, October 28, 2017

According to The National Association for Amateur Radio (ARRL), elements of the US Department of Defense (DOD) will simulate a  “communications interoperability” training exercise across the United States on November 04-06. The announcement released on October 24 has not been widely distributed to the media, because the drill is simulating a total grid collapse and could spark public fear.

Russia Rejects the False UN-OPCW Report on Syrian Chemical Weapons Attack

By Breakingnews.sy, October 28, 2017

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that the report of the Joint UN Security Council and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inquiry Mechanism into the events, relating to the alleged use of sarin gas in the northwestern Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4th, was flawed as regards its investigative methods and based on false statements coming from the highly questionable sources.

America’s Oligarchy: No Money for Opioid Crisis, Endless Funds for Corporate Tax Cuts

By Andre Damon, October 28, 2017

Trump’s response to the opioid epidemic mirrors his administration’s response to every social crisis and disaster, such as the hurricanes that struck Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. The government has provided no meaningful federal aid to Puerto Rico, still suffering from widespread blackouts, while demanding it step up its payments to its Wall Street creditors.

Spain Imposes Military Rule in Catalonia to Preempt Independence Bid

By Alex Lantier and Alejandro López, October 28, 2017

The Spanish Senate formally voted 214-47 on Friday to authorize the implementation of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, suspending parliamentary rule in Catalonia. It handed Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy full powers to suspend the Catalan regional government, proceed with punitive measures outlined in Rajoy’s October 21 speech, and impose an unelected Catalan government answerable only to Madrid.

The Kurds Want a “Federal” Regime Change in Syria

By Andrew Korybko, October 28, 2017

Kurdish Democratic Union Party co-chairman Shahoz Hasan said that his organization’s objective is to impose its system of so-called “democratic autonomy” all over Syria, and despite denying that this amounts to a de-facto internal partition, it’s hard to argue that it’s anything but. Moreover, the Syrian Kurds also just announced that they’ll be annexing Daesh’s former so-called “capital” to their self-proclaimed “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria”, though they plan to “legitimize” this land grab through what’s essentially controlled elections that will ultimately lead to the installation of a puppet government in the Arab-cleansed city.

Featured image: Picture of President Kennedy in the limousine in Dallas, Texas, on Main Street, minutes before the assassination. Also in the presidential limousine are Jackie Kennedy, Texas Governor John Connally, and his wife, Nellie. (Source: Wikimedia Commons)

Dear Readers, some of you are pushing me to continue with the Las Vegas shooting story while others are asking to know what to make of the release of files pertaining to President Kennedy’s assassination. I appreciate that you are interested and are unsatisfied with official explanations.

My answer is that we already know, thanks to exhaustively researched books such as James W. Douglass’ JFK and the Unspeakable (Simon & Schuster, 2008), far more than is in the released files.  

My answer is also that it doesn’t matter what we know or what the facts are, the official story will never be changed.  For example, we know as an absolute indisputable fact that Israel intentionally attacked the USS Liberty inflicting enormous casualties on US Navy personnel, and the US government continues the coverup that it was all a mistake despite unequivocal statements to the contrary by the Moorer Commission, led by Admiral Tom Moorer, former Chief of Naval Operations and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.  

My answer also is that time is better spent in trying to prevent conspiracies in the making, such as the endless stream of lies and accusations against Russia that are turning a friendly country into an enemy and renewing the risk of nuclear armageddon.  Indeed, the biggest conspiracy theory of the present time is the one issuing from the military/security complex, the Democratic National Committee, and the presstitute media that Russia in collusion with Donald Trump hacked the US presidential election.  

The Russian government knows that this is a lie, and when they see a lie repeated endlessly now for one year without a shred of evidence to support it, the Russian government naturally concludes that Washington is preparing the American people for war. I cannot imagine a more reckless and irresponsible policy than destroying Russia’s trust in Washington’s intentions. As Putin said, the main lesson life has taught him is that “if a fight is unavoidable, strike first.”

If you really want to know who killed President Kennedy and why, read JFK and the Unspeakable. Yes, there are other carefully researched books that you can read.

Douglass concludes that Kennedy was murdered because he turned to peace. He was going to work with Khrushchev to end the Cold War. He refused the CIA  US air cover for the Bay of Pigs invasion. He rejected the Joint Chiefs’ Operation Northwoods, a plan to conduct false flag attacks on Americans that would be blamed on Castro to justify regime change. He refused to reappoint General Lyman Lemnitzer as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs. He told US Marine commandant General David Shoup that he was taking the US out of Vietnam. He said after his reelection he was going to “break the CIA into 1,000 pieces.” All of this threatened the power and profit of the military/security complex and convinced military/security elements that he was soft on communism and a threat to US national security.

The film of the motorcade taken by Zapruder shows that the bullet that killed Kennedy hit him from the front, blowing out the back of his head. You can see Kennedy’s wife Jackie reaching from the back seat onto the trunk of the limo to recover the back of his head. Other tourist films show moments before the shot the Secret Service agents being ordered off of the presidential limo so that a clear shot at Kennedy is possible. The film shows one Secret Service agent protesting the order.

The medical “evidence” that Kennedy was hit from behind was falsified by medical doctors under orders. Navy medical corpsmen who helped the Navy doctors with the autopsy testified that they were dismayed by orders from Admiral Calvin Galloway to ignore entry wounds from the front. One of the corpsmen testified “all at once I understood that my country was not much better than a third world country. From that point on in time, I have had no trust, no respect for the government.”

Dr Charles Crenshaw, one of the doctors forced to lie, later broke his silence with a book and was rewarded with a fierce media campaign to discredit him. 

Lt. Commander William Pitzer, director of the Audio-Visual Department of the Bethesda Naval Hospital, filmed the autopsy. The film clearly showed the entry wound from the front. Pitzer was found shot to death on the floor of the production studio of the National Naval Medical Center. It was ruled a suicide, as always.

J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI knew that Oswald, who Douglass believes was on the payroll of both the CIA and FBI, was sent to Cuba by the CIA in order to establish the story for the patsy role Oswald was unaware was being prepared for him. However, Hoover, along with LBJ, Earl Warren and the members of the Warren Commission understood that it was impossible to tell the American people that their president has been assassinated by the US military and US security agencies.  At a dicey time of the Cold War, clearly it would have been reckless to destroy Americans’ trust in their own government.

Finian Cunningham presents a summary of much of the accumulated evidence. All experts long ago concluded that the Warren Commission report is a coverup.  

I am not an expert. I have not spent 30 years or longer, as has Douglass, investigating, interviewing witnesses, tracking down unexplained deaths of witnesses, and piecing together the available voluminous information. If you want to know what happened, put down your smart phones, close your video screens, and read Douglass’ or a similar book.

This article was originally published by Paul Craig Roberts Institute for Political Economy.

“The media lies about Syria …and I think media heads should face trial for war crimes and crimes against humanity for the one-sided false narrative they’ve been spreading since the Syrian War began.”

 -Janice Kortkamp (November 2016) as quoted in Voices from Syria. [1]

“A really important point that I’ve made before and I want to make again here on your show is that they (Kurds) have actually already worked with Daesh and other terrorist groups.”

-Sarah Abed (on this week’s show)

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Western powers have been officially waging a Global War on Terrorism for about a generation now. This multi-lateral offensive is more than likely a cover for military enterprises geared toward enlarging America’s sphere of influence not only in Central Asia and the Middle East, but also into the Indian sub-continent and the Far East. [2]

From Afghanistan in 2001, to Iraq in 2003, to Libya in 2011. Now Syria is in the cross-hairs.

Where is the anti-war movement?

Less than two years after 9/11, millions upon millions around the world took to the streets determined to thwart US President Bush’s criminal assault on the people of Iraq. Today, civilian populations in the US, Canada and other NATO countries seem to no longer mobilize against war.

Distrubingly, supposedly “progressive” social justice groups seem to echo the rhetoric of the interventionist lobby.

Democratically elected President Bashar Al-Assad is denounced as a brutal dictator. Terrorist attacks by opposition forces are ignored. The conflict is presented as a civil war and a popular uprising by freedom-loving Syrians as opposed to a foreign-backed insurgency by Islamist extremists.

Groups such as Amnesty International, Médecins Sans Frontières (Doctors without Borders) and AVAAZ have lent their credibility to these imperialist narratives.

This week, on the Global Research News Hour we devote the program to a defusing of the propaganda weapons being used to trigger another ‘humanitarian intervention’ this time on the people of the Syrian Arab Republic.

In the first half hour, guest Sarah Abed challenges the heroic narratives around Kurdish freedom fighters in Syria, and explains how Kurdish nationalism has been and continues to be an instrument of US and Israeli imperial ambitions. We then hear Mark Taliano correct the record on a ‘democratic revolution’ in Syria. Finally, a member of the Syrian-diaspora in Canada provides some insights into who the anti-Assad Syrians in Canada are, how they have helped derail social justice movements in Canadian cities, and how they continue to sabotage the unity of the Syrian people.

Sarah Abed is a Syrian American independent investigative political commentator who focuses on exposing the lies and propaganda in mainstream media news and social media. She is a truth advocate who uses her social media accounts and website The Rabbit Hole www.sarahabed.com to counter Western media disinformation about Syria. Several of her articles have appeared at global Research.

Mark Taliano is a former high school teacher, an author and an independent investigative reporter, as well as a research associate with the centre for research on Globalization. In September of 2016, Mark travelled to Syria to corroborate his own research into the Syrian conflict and the distortions of reality presented in mainstream and some alternative media discourse. Earlier this year he compiled his findings in the book Voices from Syria, which is on sale now from Global Research.

Majd Zooda is a Ph.D. Candidate in science education at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto. She was born in Kuwait but moved to Damascus in 2005 where she lived until 2012 before moving to Canada. She still has family in Damascus that she visits annually.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

All of the post-9/11 wars were sold to Western audiences through a sophisticated network of interlocking governing agencies that disseminate propaganda to both domestic and foreign audiences. But the dirty war on Syria is different. The degree of war propaganda levelled at Syria and contaminating humanity at this moment is likely unprecedented. I had studied and written about Syria for years, so I was not entirely surprised by what I saw.

(Excerpt from Preface, Mark Taliano’s book “Voices from Syria“, Global Research Montreal, 2017)

Order directly from Global Research (also available in PDF)

Voices from Syria

Mark Taliano

.

.

.

.

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca . The show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in everyThursday at 6pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario –1  Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border.

It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia, Canada. – Tune in  at its new time – Wednesdays at 4pm PT.

Radio station CFUV 101.9FM based at the University of Victoria airs the Global Research News Hour every Sunday from 7 to 8am PT.

CORTES COMMUNITY RADIO CKTZ  89.5 out of Manson’s Landing, B.C airs the show Tuesday mornings at 10am Pacific time.

Cowichan Valley Community Radio CICV 98.7 FM serving the Cowichan Lake area of Vancouver Island, BC airs the program Thursdays at 6am pacific time.

Campus and community radio CFMH 107.3fm in  Saint John, N.B. airs the Global Research News Hour Fridays at 10am.

Caper Radio CJBU 107.3FM in Sydney, Cape Breton, Nova Scotia airs the Global Research News Hour starting Wednesday Morning from 8:00 to 9:00am. Find more details at www.caperradio.ca

RIOT RADIO, the visual radio station based out of Durham College in Oshawa, Ontario has begun airing the Global Research News Hour on an occasional basis. Tune in at dcstudentsinc.ca/services/riot-radio/

Notes:

1. Mark Taliano (2017), Voices from Syria, published by Global Research.
2. Michel Chossudovsky (2005), p. 5, America’s War on Terrorism, published by Global Research

In its regime-change, “Assad Must Go!”, anti-humanitarian war against Syria, the Canadian government is using public funds to support war, poverty, and unspeakable misery.

As Prof. Chossudovsky notes in the Forward to Voices from Syria:

“Everybody in Syria knows that Washington is behind the terrorists, that they are financed by the U.S (at tax payers’ expense) and its allies, trained and recruited by America’s Middle East partners. Saudi Arabia, Qatar have been financing and training the ISIS-Daesh, al Nusra terrorists on behalf of the United States. Israel is harboring the terrorists out of the occupied Golan Heights, NATO in liaison with the Turkish high command has since March 2011 been involved in coordinating the recruitment of the jihadist fighters dispatched to Syria …”1

By supporting a war of terror beneath the lies of “humanitarianism”, we are agents for an overseas holocaust, but we are also agents for misogyny, human exploitation, environmental and economic devastation, poverty, disease, totalitarian oligarch rule and a long list of war-imposed evils. In fact, the aggressive warfare to which Canada is committed is anti-Life by any measure.

Peace-activist Janice Kortkamp recently visited Al Mayadeen, — liberated by the Syrian Arab Army, and described as the “economic capital of ISIS” — where she witnessed Empire’s foot print at its finest.

Kortkamp and her friends, pictured below, are standing beneath a sign which dictates the dress-code for females living in the (previously) Daesh-controlled area.

Photo credit: Janice Kortkamp

In a journal entry, Kortkamp added:

… (t)he women had complied with the laws to cover up yet were severely beaten if they dared look at a man. Children were not allowed to go to school. People were starved while terrorist fighters feasted on hoarded food.2

This is what Canadian “progressives”, “feminists”, and “human rights defenders” are supporting when they support Canada’s war on Syria.3 In fact, all Canadians are supporting this when we pay our taxes.

Silence is complicity.

Notes

1 Mark Taliano, Voices from Syria, Global Research, 2017. Excerpt from Forward.

2 Janice Kortkamp, Deir Ezzor diary part 5b. 27 October, 2017.

3 Mark Taliano, “The Liberation of Deir Ezzor. Remorseless in Defeat. The West Evacuate ISIS Commanders.” Global Research, 6 September, 2017. (https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-liberation-of-deir-ezzor-remorseless-in-defeat-the-west-evacuate-isis-commanders/5607756) Accessed 28 October, 2017.

Featured image: U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Saudi King Salman speak before their meeting in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, Oct. 22, 2017. (Source: Oriental Review)

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was in Riyadh where he partook in a trilateral meeting with the Saudi and Iraqi leaders. The two Arab states have been moving closer to one another recently, with Saudi Arabia even hosting Shiite cleric and militia leader Muqtada al-Sadr earlier this year in a bid to strengthen its influence across sectarian lines so that the Kingdom can become an important post-Daesh partner in the country’s investment, military, and social spheres.

If this policy was being promoted with win-win interests in mind and not as part of a larger regional game aimed at “containing” Iran, then there wouldn’t be anything irresponsible about it, but Tillerson inadvertently exposed the grand geostrategic designs behind it when he spoke at the gathering. He ordered the Popular Mobilization Forces, a highly trained and effective anti-terrorist group of Iranian-backed militias which are officially a part of the Iraqi security apparatus, to “go home” after Daesh is defeated, implying that the majority-Shiite members of these fighting forces are just volunteers from Iran.

That’s not true at all, as most of them are born-and-raised Iraqis who banded together to defend their homeland from Daesh, but the US and Saudi Arabia have an interest in framing it otherwise. To its credit, the Iraqi government shortly thereafter came out real sharply against Tillerson’s demand, and Prime Minister Abadi later reemphasized during the Secretary of State’s visit to Baghdad right afterwards just how integral of a role the Popular Mobilization Forces played in his country’s liberation operations against Daesh. From this scandalous exchange, it’s clear that post-Daesh Iraq is becoming a heated zone of competition between the US and Saudi Arabia on one side, and Iran and Baghdad on the other, with the Kurds being the unpredictable chaos factor that could take down this fragile house of cards. The Iraqi authorities would ideally like to balance all players to their countrymen’s benefit, hence the recent rapprochement with Saudi Arabia, but while Riyadh has been coy about its true intentions in forcing Baghdad to take sides, Washington harbored no such reservations and seems to have clumsily overstepped its limits with Tillerson’s sectarian suggestion.

The pressure that the US is putting on Iraq to disband the Popular Mobilization Forces runs parallel to what it’s doing to Syria in trying to get Damascus to send Hezbollah and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) home after the defeat of Daesh there too, though it’s unclear in both cases what the US will do if these two states don’t obey its commands. All told, the renewed diplomatic offensive that’s being waged against Iran’s regional interests might have a majorly unintended effect in strengthening Tehran’s political will to support its allied militias abroad, which could play into the hands of the country’s Principalists – or “conservatives”, as they’re referred to in the West – to the perceived expense of its Reformists – or “moderates”. That could see Iran take a more assertive regional position contrary to the expectations of the American strategists who anticipate that it’ll back down, with the most predictable consequence being that the next Mideast conflict might be over the post-Daesh fate of Hezbollah in Syria and the Popular Mobilization Forces in Iraq.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Oct 27, 2017:

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.

Featured image: President Uhuru Kenyatta

President Uhuru Kenyatta of the Republic of Kenya is tasked with reversing one of the most challenging political crises in the post-colonial history of the country.

After implementing a 4-2 Supreme Court decision delivered in two stages during September mandating a rerun of the internationally-monitored multi-party national elections held on August 8, the opposition National Super Alliance (NASA) coalition, which brought the petition to overturn the results before the bench, then embarked upon a campaign of disinformation and violence directed at millions of voters.

The two dissenting justices in the annulment decision noted that there were no specific irregularities cited as the basis for the declaration of reversal in the elections where 15 million Kenyans took part. Only procedural problems associated with the transmission of some votes to the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IBEC) were utilized as a rationale for the unprecedented ruling of nullification.

Raila Odinga, a former prime minister in the imposed coalition government installed after the post-election violence of 2007-2008, which resulted in the deaths of over 1,500 people, has been a perennial presidential candidate. Interestingly enough, Odinga visited Britain just two days after his announcement that he would not participate in the October 26 revote.

While in London on October 13, the NASA leader delivered a lecture at Chatham House, a division of The Royal Institute of International Affairs. During his remarks Odinga in essence called for British funding of his coalition and other so-called civil society groups which were in his estimation the genuine upholders of democracy in Kenya and throughout the African continent. He openly admitted to meeting with current and former British government officials along with the Anglican Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby, whose counsel he greatly cherished.

An apparent ally of NASA, Roselyn Akombe, left her position on the Independent Electoral and Boundaries Commission (IEBC) after the announcement of Odinga’s withdrawal, settling in New York City where she denounced the Kenyan government to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and the New York Times for its ostensible failure to guarantee democracy. NASA sought to restructure the IEBC in its own image and when this did not materialize, Odinga and Akombe appealed for direct intervention by both Britain and the United States.

Organized Disruption Seeks to Overthrow Kenyan Government

Although Odinga publically said that he was urging his supporters to stay at home and not vote on October 26, gangs of people armed with rocks, machetes and petrol bombs attacked polling locations, IEBC personnel and civilians attempting to cast their ballots. As a result of the precarious security situation, numerous polling locations in the western regional strongholds of the NASA coalition could not open.

Violence directed at the electoral process was so severe that the IEBC announced on October 26 that voting in Kisumu, Migori, Homa Bay and Siaya would be re-scheduled for two days later. Nonetheless, as the unrest continued on October 27, it was decided that the voting in these areas would be postponed indefinitely.

Official statistics reported by the Kenyan government indicate that at least 67 people have been killed in election-related violence since August, with the bulk of fatalities taking place in the run-up to October 26. Odinga and his members have not denounced the actions of their constituencies and are directing efforts toward further destabilization saying that yet another election should be held within 90 days.

Organized destruction was carried out in Kawangware 56, Nairobi as armed criminals attacked businesses and homes they claimed belonged to members of the ruling Jubilee Party of President Kenyatta. Hundreds of people were left unemployed and jobless in the wake of the targeted violence.

Kenya ruling Jubilee Party members and followers of President Uhuru Kenyatta

Kenya’s Daily Nation newspaper reported on October 28 that:

“As the situation got out of hand, criminal gangs took advantage and started looting. Houses and shops were broken into, property carted away as gunshots rent the air with the area also experiencing a power blackout. All the shops at the junction of routes 56 and 46 including butcheries, hotels and salons were burnt down.”

One resident of the area, Mathews Okwanda, Chairman of the Abaluhya Alternative Leadership Forum called upon the government to take immediate action to investigate, apprehend and prosecute those behind the theft, arson and killings. The same above-mentioned Daily Nation report said that 15 bodies were collected on the morning of October 28 after overnight violence.

“This is anarchy and the whole world is watching. The first duty of the State is to protect its people regardless of race or political affiliation. Therefore, a state that cannot guarantee safety of its citizens has no business calling itself sovereign,” Okwanda stressed.

Yet the aim of the destabilization efforts is to weaken the capacity of the Kenyan government to exercise its authority. Western media outlets in conjunction with the disruption activities are portraying Kenya as a lawless society further damaging its economy and diplomatic relations with foreign states.

Kenyatta Will Be Sworn in for Second Term

Despite the orchestrated disruption by the NASA coalition, President Kenyatta is to be inaugurated for another four years in office. Even though efforts were undertaken to prevent voting, some 6.5 million people were able to cast their ballots.

Initial results revealed that Kenyatta won the election with 91 percent of the vote. Deputy President William Ruto of Jubilee said that altogether 40 percent of the registered electorate participated in the poll.

Ruto acknowledged the deliberate attempts to prevent people from voting on October 26 and 28. The DP accused Odinga and his backers of funding militias to set upon communities to disrupt the democratic process.

“There are a percentage of the voters which were denied its right to vote. I challenge our opponents to remove the organized militia groups blocking the delivery of voting materials and we will know for sure if those affected want to vote or not,” Ruto said.

Jubilee leaders have exposed the ulterior motives of the NASA coalition saying that Odinga is bent on sabotaging East Africa’s largest economy. By appealing to the leading imperialist states such as the U.S. and Britain, coupled with the deliberate targeting of small businesses and working people in Kenya, the opposition forces want to undermine the ability of the country to move beyond the turmoil they have created surrounding the electoral process.

Kenyan opposition gangs loot stores in Nairobi township of Kawangware aimed at disrupting East Africa’s largest economy

The Jubilee Elgeyo Marakwet Senator Kipchumba Murkomen along with National Assembly Majority Leader Aden Duale emphasized the fact that Odinga has initiated what the NASA leader falsely says is civil disobedience as part of a plot to ruin the country. Frustrated with the ineffectiveness of these disruption tactics, the opposition coalition is demanding greater support from the western states.

“Now that he has realized he can’t succeed in his quest for the presidency he wants to attack the economic foundation of our country so that he can recruit poor young people into militant activities,” Murkomen noted.

A key element of the plan is to stifle and even destroy businesses and jobs held by Kenyans through robbery and arson, which the Jubilee government has pledged to “vehemently resist”.

A prolonging of the unrest which is aimed as well at stoking ethnic divisions between the Luo, whom Odinga considers his political base, and the Kikiyu, where Kenyatta emanates from, is designed to create the conditions for military intervention by the U..S. and other NATO countries. If such a scenario arises, it will inevitably be disastrous for the Kenyan people as has been proven in neighboring Somalia, where the war pitting the Federal Government in Mogadishu against the Islamist Al-Shabaab has resulted in the ten year occupation by western-backed troops, of which Kenya is a part of, while the mounting deaths, economic disintegration, food deficits and population displacement accelerate.

All images, except the featured, are from the author.

And they fell like ninepins. Weeks of predictions, optimistic readings, and hopeful signs were dashed as the members of the highest court of Australia laid waste to members of Parliament. Citing a section in the Australian constitution that has become something of a heavy footnote in popular consciousness, the judges ruled five out of seven applicants ineligible to sit in Parliament.[1]

The applicants have come to assume a title more commonly associated with criminal gangs or wrongly accused terrorists: the Citizenship Seven. But of the seven, only Senators Matt Canavan and Nick Xenophon survived. Barnaby Joyce, the Deputy Prime Minister, Fiona Nash, Larissa Waters, Scott Ludlam and Malcolm Roberts all became confirmed victims of section 44(i).

That section, read strictly, is onerous in application, making ineligible anyone “under any acknowledgment of allegiance, obedience, or adherence to a foreign power, or is a subject or a citizen or entitled to the rights or privileges of a subject or a citizen of a foreign power”.

It had been a true battle. Submissions varied. Joyce and Nash had suggested that s. 44(i) required that a foreign citizenship be actually chosen or maintained, its “essence,” noted the judges, being “knowledge of the foreign citizenship”. Ludlam and Waters insisted that a person be “put on notice” where the person is alerted to “primary facts” of possessing citizenship of another country.

A third, one advanced by Canavan, Roberts and Xenophon, was that foreign citizenship be voluntarily obtained or retained. This enabled a distinction to be drawn between naturalised Australians and “natural born” Australians.

The former placed the onus on the naturalised Australian to have taken all reasonable steps to renounce citizenship of another country. The latter would be disqualified if he or she took active steps to acquire a foreign citizenship or, after acquiring knowledge of that citizenship, did not take reasonable steps to renounce it.

The High Court, much against the spirit of any true widening of the section’s purpose, kept matters narrow. Constitutional history suggested no need to change that stance. As for the impact of a foreign law, that, in of itself, could never determine the operation of the disqualification provision. Fine words in theory, but in practice, a far from easy proposition.

A notable limb of reasoning in the judgment was its dismissal of the mental element of the potential parliamentarian. The section made no reference to the state of mind, and investigating “the state of mind of a candidate” was undesirable to the stability of the process.

What, then, of the survivors? Xenophon was spared the cull as he was not truly a “subject or citizen of a foreign power” or entitled the rights and privileges of one. His foreign citizenship was “residual” in nature, one rooted in British practice towards overseas territories – in his case, Cyprus. He was neither a subject nor a citizen of a foreign power for the purposes of the section.

Canavan was similarly graced by the good will of the court.. When he was born, the court noted, his parents and grandparents were Australian citizens and only Australian citizens. As for the senator, never one to be entirely honest in press conferences on his background, he had never visited Italy nor taken steps to acquire Italian citizenship. The court, fortunately for Canavan, took the view that registration of Italian citizenship was different to a declaration of it, effectively meaning that the right to it lay dormant.

The Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, had had moments of hope over experience in claiming that the High Court would give a clean bill of constitutional health to his deputy. His statements prior to the court ruling came close enough to a directive, a point that would not have been missed by the judicial officers. What transpired was a predictably conservative ruling.

The sense that Australians, certainly those with dual citizenship, have received a good blow is palpable. The expert commentary on the section certainly point to its archaic formulation, one that takes aim at diversity in favour of one citizenship. Adrienne Stone, director of the Constitutional Centre for Comparative Studies, feels that such an eligibility requirement should be inapplicable in a multicultural society.

“We would be missing out on terrific representatives. But also it’s a matter of the most basic fairness that people ought to be able to contribute or participate on equal grounds.” Waters similarly backs the point that the reading of section 44(i) “would eliminate a good half of our population from running for Federal Parliament.”[2]

The other side of the coin is a less forgiving one. The paperwork on background, familial links, and efforts to renounce, were not done in five cases, and convincing Australians that a constitutional amendment to permit dual citizens to sit in the highest chambers in the land is not one that will fly easily, should it even grow wings. The electorate’s kindness only extends so far.

The only possible textual change will have to be by a mechanism of a double requirement: a majority of electors in a majority of states and a majority of the country, a truly high bar to satisfy.

Referenda have a habit of dying in brave efforts to cross the line – a mere 8 out of 44 seeking to amend the constitution have succeeded, the last being 1977. As constitutional law professor Anne Twomey rightly notes,

“It is not the sort of thing that people march on the streets for.”

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge and lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: [email protected]

Notes

[2] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-28/what-does-the-high-court-decision-mean-for-dual-citizens/9094014

The following is a presentation given by South Korean peace activist Choi Eun-a on a webinar entitled “On the Brink of War: Peace Activists in South Korea and Japan Respond,” hosted by a consortium of US peace organizations on October 25, 2017.

(For a video recording of the full webinar, click here)

***

1. How do South Korean progressives view the current US-North Korea conflict?

I can’t speak for all progressive forces, but I will tell you the view of the Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (KAPM). 

We view the current conflict between the United States and North Korea as the product of the un-ended Korean war and antagonism that have continued for sixty years since the signing of the Korean War armistice in 1953. For decades, the United States has considered North Korea an enemy state, deployed US troops and weapons of mass destruction in South Korea, and held massive war games as displays of its military might. The South Korean government, too, has spent ten times more than the North on defense to exert asymmetric pressure on North Korea. Since the late 1980s, South Korea has normalized relations with former socialist countries, but relations between North Korea and the United States, Japan and South Korea have not normalized and instead have been one of asymmetric intimidation. This is the fundamental reason for North Korea’s decision to strengthen its own deterrence and is at the root of the current crisis on the Korean peninsula.

We should note that the point at which North Korea stepped up its nuclear development was when agreements reached through the six party talks began to unravel. Multilateral agreements were tossed out unilaterally by the United States, which pursued a policy of regime collapse and war in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. These events were key in driving North Korea to turn to strengthening its own deterrence, particularly in the form of nuclear weapons.

If anything, the decades of negotiations between the United States and North Korea  have confirmed two things: that as long as the United States does not stop its military threats and sanctions targeting North Korea, North Korea will not abandon its nuclear deterrent; and that lasting peace and denuclearization on the Korean peninsula is a distant possibility. Sanctions, military threats and shows of force will only push North Korea to increase its own deterrent capabilities and exacerbate, not resolve, war threats on the Korean peninsula.

In this light, we can no longer ignore what North Korea has demanded for decades: the normalization of its relations with the United States. The United States needs to change course by stopping its hostile policies, i.e. sanctions and shows of military force, and pursue a peace agreement that fundamentally resolves the nuclear issue and military tension.

2. What are your plans for Trump’s upcoming visit to South Korea and beyond?

Choi Eun-a

The South Korean public is highly critical of Trump—for denouncing Obama’s policy of strategic patience as a failure but still continuing the same policy of sanctions and military pressure; openly making threats of war and dismissing the gravity of its consequences as something “over there”; demanding that South Korea pay for the cost of hosting the THAAD missile system and US troops; and demanding the renegotiation of the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement. The general mood here about Trump’s upcoming visit is one of anger.

We are working with other progressive forces and peace organizations to organize coordinated and joint actions under the banner of “No Trump.” 

Beginning with a press conference today, we will carry out a series of actions until the last day of Trump’s visit on November 8. Leading up to his visit, our aim is to generate an anti-Trump consensus among the broader public. To this end, we will hang large banners that say, “War-threatening, weapons salesman Trump unwelcome,” “No war No Trump,” “No THAAD, no war threats, no sanctions” all across the country, post pamphlets at every bus station, hold simultaneous one-person relay protests across the country, and get organizations representing various sectors of the progressive movement to release statements denouncing Trump. On Saturday, November 4, we will hold a mass demonstration, then during his visit on November 7 and 8, we will organize joint actions outside the Blue House, at Gwanghwamun Plaza and outside the National Assembly.

Throughout this year, we have been organizing to demand an end to sanctions and the US-ROK war games that only intensify military tensions, and the realization of a Peace Treaty. If there are no talks between the United States and North Korea in the coming months, then we believe tensions will further escalate before Key Resolve Foal Eagle, the next massive US-ROK joint war games, scheduled for March 2018. In February 2018, South Korea hosts the Winter Olympics. It is the desire of the Moon Jae-in government to use the Olympics as an opportunity for symbolic North-South reconciliation. A flare-up of tensions before the mass war games will frustrate this plan. So we plan to intensify our call for an end to the military exercises and the pursuit of a Peace Treaty. To this end, we are planning a mass peace mobilization on Feb 3 before the Olympics and the Key Resolve exercises, then a series of actions across the country until late March to denounce the military exercises.

3. How can the peace movements of South Korea, Japan and the United States build/strengthen solidarity?

Choi Eun-a is the chair of the Reunification Committee of the Korean Alliance of Progressive Movements (KAPM), which brings together social movements — trade unions, farmers, urban poor, women, youth — for peace and democracy. It was instrumental in the fight to oppose the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement and the “candlelight revolution” that ousted former President Park Geun-hye.

All images in this article are from Zoom in Korea.

Fourteen members of the Fellowship of South Korean Youth — calling themselves the “Ban Trump’s Crazy Action” (BTC) delegation — were stopped at Incheon airport on October 25 and prevented from boarding their planes to the United States, where they had planned to protest Trump’s war threats in Korea. The group, which had planned to visit New York, Washington DC, and Los Angeles to demand an end to U.S. sanctions and war threats against North Korea, was turned away despite having acquired proper documentation to visit the United States.

The members of the delegation were told by the United Airline staff that there were problems with their visas. When the delegation asked for an explanation, they were told,

“You need to find out why from the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. Due to privacy concerns, we cannot release any information.”

Following their entry denial, the BTC delegation held a press briefing at Incheon Airport. One representative of the delegation stated,

“We received our visas through the proper channels, but suddenly our visas were rejected. We don’t understand what is so free about the so-called ‘land of the free.’ Every member of the BTC delegation is furious about this.”

Every member of the delegation had received an ESTA (Electronic System for Travel Authorization) approval. According to the delegation, there was no further explanation from the airline staff as to why the visas they had received were denied. Later, the delegation members found out that their ESTA approval’s were canceled prior to checking in to their flights.

One of the members of the delegation took a separate flight and managed to arrive at JFK International Airport in New York before being detained without telephone access and deported back to South Korea the next day.

Sign in photo reads, “”We condemn the U.S. for denying entry” | Photo: Ban Trump’s Crazy Action (BTC) delegation (Source: Zoom in Korea)

U.S. anti-war/peace activists, including the Task Force to Stop THAAD in Korea & Militarism in Asia and the Pacific and Nodutdol for Korean Community Development released a joint statement denouncing the U.S. government’s decision to ban the entry of the South Korean activists:

As organizations and individuals who advocate open borders, freedom of speech, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts, we strongly protest the U.S. entry ban of the members of BTC and demand a full explanation for this action and immediate reversal of this decision. We also forcefully oppose the Trump administration’s escalation of tension with North Korea, fully support South Korean peacemakers mobilizing to protest Trump’s visit to their country and preparing for mass demonstrations on November 4th, and stand in solidarity with all people – Koreans, citizens of the United States, and others throughout the world – unconditionally committed to preventing a second Korean War.

The list of organizations endorsing the statement include CODEPINK, Peace Action, US Labor Against the War, Veterans For Peace, the United National Antiwar Coalition (UNAC), among many others.

Trump will visit South Korea on November 7 and 8 as part of his upcoming Asia tour, and South Korean anti-war/peace activists plan to hold a series of actions to protest Trump’s hostile policies and war threats against North Korea. Peace groups are planning a mass demonstration in Seoul on November 4. Korean Americans plan to hold solidarity protests in Los Angeles, New York, and Washington DC.

On one hand, the United States is demanding that Iranian-backed militias “leave” Iraq, claiming the fight against the self-titled “Islamic State” (IS) is over. On the other hand, the US and its European partners are still funneling weapons, cash, direct military support and organizing training for Kurdish factions in Iraq’s northern region to “beat back” IS.

Additionally, US contractors are attempting to take control of Iraq’s western highways connecting the nation to neighboring Jordan and Saudi Arabia. The contractors are to provide both security and rebuild destroyed infrastructure, also citing IS’ continued presence as a pretext for America’s continued presence in the country.

In other words, the United States is attempting to claim IS is both defeated and also yet to be defeated, attempting to craft a narrative that excludes Iraqi cooperation with Iran, Syria and Russia who are also operating in the region against IS and other militants, and gives the US and its partners exclusive control over Iraq and its future.

Artificial Conflict 

CNN in its article, “Tillerson: Time for Iranian-backed militias to leave Iraq,” would claim:

US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, anticipating an end to the fight against ISIS, said Sunday it was time for Iranian-backed militias to exit the war-torn nation of Iraq.

“Those militias need to go home,” Tillerson said. “Any foreign fighters in Iraq need to go home and allow the Iraqi people to regain control of areas that had been overtaken by ISIS and Daesh that have now been liberated. Allow the Iraqi people to rebuild their lives with the help of their neighbors.”

And while Secretary Tillerson notes that the Iraqi people should be allowed to rebuild their lives “with the help of their neighbors,” he apparently means, all of the Iraqi people’s neighbors except Iran and Syria.

Secretary Tillerson’s remarks were made in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, giving a significant clue as to which neighbors he meant Iraq should get help from. However, it was Saudi Arabia who provided the very militants the Iraqi people have been fighting with arms, cash, equipment and training in the first place.

CNN would even note that:

At the same time, at least 1,500 Saudis had traveled to Iraq and Syria to join ISIS over the years, and Baghdad had long accused Saudi Arabia of turning a blind eye to Sunni militants crossing its territory to enter Iraq to take part in the country’s sectarian conflict. 

In 2007, the US military reported that around 40% of all foreign militants targeting US troops and Iraqi civilians and security forces had come from Saudi Arabia. Half of the Saudi fighters who arrived in Iraq during that time went there to be suicide bombers, the US military said.

What this apparent contradiction indicates is that the conflict in Iraq was never about defeating a spontaneous militant threat, but was instead a proxy conflict engineered by Washington with the help of partners like Riyadh, aimed against Tehran and its allies.

Kurdistan, the Other “IS” 

If IS and other militant organizations fighting in Iraq and neighboring Syria represent one proxy of US, European and Persian Gulf interests, the Kurdish factions in northern Iraq seeking to carve out an independent “Kurdistan” are another.

Similarly, US and European governments are insisting that Iraqi militias begin standing down, even as US-European support for certain Kurdish factions not only continues, but expands.

Germany’s Deutsche Welle (DW) in an article titled, “German army restarts training Iraqi Kurds, but future of mission in doubt,” would report that:

The German army on Sunday announced it has restarted training Iraqi Kurdish peshmerga fighters, despite a political and military conflict between the autonomous region and Baghdad.

The Bundeswehr has been training and supplying weapons to the peshmerga for three years to help the Iraqi Kurds beat back the “Islamic State” (IS).

It has provided some 32,000 assault rifles and machine guns, as well as the MILAN anti-tank missile, valued at some €90 million ($106 million) since September 2014. Some 150 Bundeswehr troops are in northern Iraq, and peshmerga units have also received training in Germany.

But the training mission was suspended for a week after the central government in Baghdad, backed by Iranian-trained paramilitary groups, moved to reassert control over disputed territories the Kurds have captured since June 2014.

However, if  “Iranian-trained paramilitary groups” are reasserting control over disputed territories the Kurds have captured since June 2014, this means unequivocally that the threat of IS has been removed from the region and thus German military support is either unwarranted, or was never fully intended to combat IS, simply appear as doing as much while bolstering yet another proxy force to confront and conflict with Iraq’s central government.

DW’s report also included an interesting map. On it depicts “Kurdistan” as a diminutive region clinging to the northern borders of Iraq, divided between the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK) factions. It resembles not the foundation for a future, functional, independent nation-state, but rather a divided and weak proxy that will be forever dependent on its foreign sponsors.

Still Pursuing Balkanization 

In other words, “Kurdistan” is little more than a vector through which the US and its partners seek to divide, weaken and assume hegemony over both the nation, and throughout the region.

More honest politicians and commentators, quoted in the DW article, note that there is little logic in continuing Germany’s support for Kurdish militias if the true objective was indeed fighting IS. However, it appears that the US will attempt to use willing Kurdish factions as proxies against Baghdad and to a greater extent, against Tehran, for as long as certain Kurdish leaders allow them to.

Attempts to frame “Kurdistan” as an issue of “independence” and “self-determination” fall flat upon examining that actual sociopolitical, economic and military landscape of Iraq’s northern reaches. It is clear, that for now, the future of the Kurds is being determined by Washington and its partners, not the Kurds themselves. But it will be primarily the Kurds themselves who pay the highest price in this ongoing political game, along with militias and soldiers representing Baghdad they are arrayed against to fight.

It is little secret that the US seeks to divide both Syria and Iraq along sectarian lines. US policymakers at think tanks like the Brookings Institution have literally published papers with titles like, “Deconstructing Syria: A new strategy for America’s most hopeless war,” detailing just how such divisions can be cultivated.

Such divisions diminish both nations further in their ability to influence their own destiny, let alone influence the region. With the US attempting to take control of Iraq’s western highways to reinforce a “Sunni” sphere of influence, while it arms, trains and backs Kurds in the north, the three-way partitioning of Iraq is still clearly at the center of US policy. IS, it appears, was merely a catalyst, one intentionally introduced, but one that has almost run its course.

One wonders what “catalyst” the US will turn to next, and seems content for now pretending IS both exists and doesn’t exist. But what there is little doubt of is that Washington and its partners still eagerly seek to move forward their agenda, continuing to weaken the region in an attempt to reassert its control over it.

Ulson Gunnar is a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.  

Featured image is from the author.

Sixteen years ago, from modest beginnings, with virtually no resources, Global Research was born. Among our first articles was coverage of the events surrounding 9/11 and the subsequent US-NATO invasion of Afghanistan on October 7.

Since the inception of our website on September 9, 2001, several thousand committed authors and journalists have contributed to Global Research, providing an independent analysis and honest understanding of World events. From the very outset, our readers have relentlessly supported the GR project:   

“Global Research is my first choice for alternative news. As with any news, I examine all the contradictions and I find more often than not the facts here are accurate and the opinions and journalism are informed and first rate.

I disregard those who would broad brush this organization simply because it often contradicts the narrative of the NYT, Washington Post, CNN and other MSM propaganda parrots of the official Western corporatocracy favoring perspective.

I would trust this site and its news before I would trust any of the corporate news sources which are losing readership, audience, and trust as this site and its investigative depth and trust are only growing and becoming more authoritative. (GR Reader Comment, Facebook)

One of the best sources of information that you will ever find. You can’t depend on corporation media for honest information when their main purpose is to protect other profit first partners. The Global Research (Centre for Research on Globalization) proves that independent media is the only way to stay informed. (GR Reader Comment on Facebook)

Global Research is a credible source of information and opinions even the one’s I don’t agree with . I personally don’t trust most mainstream media and need an independent insight on what is going on around the world and specifically in our region in the Middle East. Global Research offers that independent insight for me. I trust GR news more than the BBC. (GR Reader’s Comment, Facebook) 

At this juncture, Global Research is facing financial difficulties. 

We call upon our readers to Donate, (click image) or

Become a Member of Global Research.

Together with our readers, we share a “Dream of a World without War and Social Injustice.

For that Dream to become a reality, the media propaganda apparatus which sustains the legitimacy to America’s “humanitarian wars” must be confronted.

This is no easy task: The Western media is controlled by a handful of powerful business syndicates. The media conglomerates must be challenged through cohesive actions which reveal the lies and falsehoods.

Michel Chossudovsky,

Global Research Editor, October 29,2017

To reverse the Tide of Media Disinformation, we Need your Support 

Click image above to donate to Global Research

This GRTV video was first published on August 26, 2015

The “Chinese dragon” of the last two decades may be faltering but it is still hailed by many as an economic miracle.

Far from a great advance for Chinese workers, however, it is the direct result of a consolidation of power in the hands of a small clique of powerful families, families that have actively collaborated with Western financial oligarchs.

This is the GRTV Backgrounder on Global Research TV, with James Corbett and Michel Chossudovsky.  

–

In the same week that Secretary of State for Defence, Michael Fallon, told the House of Commons Defence Committee that criticism of the Saudi Arabian regime and its brutal bombardment of Yemen is a hindrance to arms sales, two activists were acquitted for trying to disarm fighter jets bound for Saudi Arabia.

Activist Sam Walton and Rev Daniel Woodhouse have been acquitted after breaking-in to BAE Systems factory to ‘disarm’ Typhoon fighter jets.

BAE’s Typhoon fighter jets are being used by Saudi-led forces in the ongoing bombardment of Yemen. The UK has licensed £3.8 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia since the bombing began in March 2015.

This afternoon, Reverend Daniel Woodhouse and Sam Walton, a Quaker activist from London, were found not guilty at Burnley Magistrates Court, following their arrest for trying to disarm Typhoon fighter jets at BAE Systems’ site in Warton, Lancashire on 29 January 2017.

Their aim had been to stop the jets, which had Saudi markings painted on them, from going to Saudi Arabia where, the pair claim, they would be used to support the ongoing bombing of Yemen. Sam and Daniel successfully argued that their intention was to save innocent lives and prevent war crimes, by physically disabling the warplanes.

The two campaigners broke in via a fence on the perimeter of the site, and got within five feet of the warplanes before being stopped by BAE security.

The court heard evidence about the scale of the brutal bombardment, and the many serious accusations of war crimes that have been made against the Royal Saudi Air Force.

In delivering comments on his judgement District Judge James Clarke said:

 “They were impressive and eloquent men who held strong views about what they were doing and what they wanted to achieve. They impressed me as being natural in their delivery and honest throughout their evidence…”

“I heard about their belief of BAE’s role in the supply of aircraft to Saudi Arabia. I heard about their beliefs regarding the events in Yemen, that they include the death of civilians and the destruction of civilian property, and the basis for their belief that this amounted to war crimes…”

“However, having considered in full the defence under sec 5 Criminal Damage Act 1971, I find the defendants not guilty.”

Since the bombing of Yemen began in March 2015, the UK has licensed £3.8 billion worth of arms to Saudi Arabia, including:

• £2.6 billion worth of ML10 licences (Aircraft, helicopters, drones)
• £1.1 billion worth of ML4 licences (Grenades, bombs, missiles, countermeasures)
• £572,000 worth of ML6 licences (Armoured vehicles, tanks)

In a joint statement, Sam and Daniel said:

“We did not want to take this action, but were compelled to do so in order to stop the UK government’s complicity in the destruction of Yemen. Thousands of people have been killed in the brutal bombardment, while companies like BAE Systems have profited every step of the way.

This vindication from the Courts is further evidence of the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy that underpins so much of UK foreign policy. It is time for the government to stop putting arms company profits ahead of human rights. We do not regret taking action, and would do it again in a heartbeat. The only thing we regret is that we were not able to finish the job.”

Criticism of Saudi Arabia not helpful for arms sales

This week, Secretary of State for Defence Michael Fallon told the House of Commons Defence Committee

“We’ve been working extremely hard on the batch two deal. I’ve traveled to Saudi Arabia back in September and discussed progress on the deal with my opposite number, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia – and we continued to press for a signature or at least a statement of intent as we’ve done with Qatar. I have to repeat sadly, to this committee, that obviously other criticism of Saudi Arabia, in this Parliament, is not helpful and …I’ll leave it there, but we need to do everything possible to encourage Saudi Arabia towards batch two. I believe they will commit to batch two and we need to work away on the timing.”

Andrew Smith of Campaign Against Arms Trade said:

“These comments from the Secretary of State for Defence are disgraceful. He is calling on other parliamentarians to join him in putting arms sales ahead of human rights, democracy and international humanitarian law.

The Saudi regime has one of the most appalling human rights records in the world, and has inflicted a terrible humanitarian catastrophe on Yemen. Fallon should be doing all he can to stop the bloodshed and end UK complicity in the suffering, not urging his colleagues to willingly ignore the abuses in order to sell even more weapons.

Arms sales to human rights abusing regimes like Saudi Arabia would not be possible without the support of Ministers like Fallon. If the government’s main concern is jobs then it should be shifting that support into more positive areas like renewable energy and low carbon technology, and other industries which are not dependent on war and conflict for profit.”

Ollie McAninch is an economist turned digital media pioneer; developing new systems to allow members of the public to supply their own stories, features, photos and videos to the national press. Ollie has become one of the UK’s leading digital content experts.

All images in this article are from the author.

1. Introduction

This investigation aims to inquire into the staged-massacre routine and similar false flag operations implemented by Western powers to justify military and/or political interventions for regime change. The series comprises:

I) The Staged-Massacre Routine for Regime Change;

II) Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign;

III) Epidemiological questioning of the ‘UN-Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ Report on the Khan Shaykhun incident.

This first part gives a brief synopsis of such a false flag operations assayed in recent decades in a number of countries, and regarding to Syria, this first section focuses on allegations done by the “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­/ United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”, a document delivered for the Security Council consideration on 24 August 2016.

Ensuing section II in the series assesses the psychosocial role of Western media and stream rights organizations such as “Human Rights Watch”, in the staging and dissemination of this deceitful war propaganda. Inevitably, the role of the “White Helmets” –a propaganda organization of locals established by Western powers in occupied territories of Syria, also associated with other jihadist combat organizations – is also commented. One main reason being that “White Helmets” has been instrumented as the main media source for ‘massacre’ allegations. Invariably, these claims have conveyed a role of pledging for military action against the Syrian government. I may summarize such a role partly with this statement read in the recent “handbook for U.S. Army formations”, “Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook”: [1]

“The new objective is not victory in a conflict, but regime change…Not all regime changes have to be resolved with a military option, but when a military lever is activated, it is done by, with, and through segments of the local population. The involvement of locals gives validity to military action on the world stage.”

The ending section, N° III in the series, focuses on a recently issued report about the Khan Shaykhun purported “sarin attack” of April 2017, published by the “UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” (COI). [2]

Interestingly, while the new COI-report exhaustively list the claims of chemical attacks taken place in Syria since the conflict began –and where the COI found “reasonable grounds to believe” that it was the Syrian government who had perpetrated those attacks– there is no mention at all about the alleged “chemical attack” on Sarmine, Idlib, 16 March 2015. Those allegations, originally put forward by Human Rights Watch (HRW) and sourced in the White Helmets, were focus of an analysis-series undertaken by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) in March-April 2017. [3] [4]. Our investigation demonstrated the falsehoods in the pseudo evidence claimed by a HRW-report [5] as well as serious pseudo-medical fabrications in the corresponding ‘life-saving’ videos showed by the White Helmets as ‘evidence’ for the claim. [See details on this staged-massacre routine further bellow, in section Syria].

Nevertheless, the fact that the UN-panel omitted the above-mentioned “Sarmine episode” from the list of alleged chemical attacks in Syria given in their report, a) It further indicates the accuracy of the SWEDHR analysis and our fact-based conclusions on that new murky episode enacted by the proxies White Helmets. b) It once more confirm that the mentioning of our investigations at the UN Security Council session of April 2017 done by the Syrian ambassador, [6] as well as the citations by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova of SWEDHR independent analyses, [7] [8], including her reference to the denounces in The Indicter Magazine [9], were relevant and legitimate. I thank these diplomats for the attention drawn to the work done by our independent organization Swedish Doctors for Human Rights. c) The omission of the “Sarmine attack” allegations in the COI-report it also invalidates the unjustified attacks against SWEDHR and its representatives done by some pro-NATO media in Europe – such as Swedish DN [10] or the French Le Figaro. [11] See also my statement published by the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association, “SWEDHR is absolutely independent”. [12]

I draw attention on the facts above as means of encouraging further analysis from the international research community on any spurious claims of that kind against the Syrian people, its secular government, its armed forces, and its friends and allies combating for the victory over religious fanaticism. Unsubstantiated allegations deprived of beyond-doubt evidence, or blunt attacks as hominem, self-expose a desperate strategy intended to find public support for a continuation of the Syrian conflict. Ultimately, for those Western powers and mercenary proxies it is about pursuing a political reversal at the eve of a military defeated campaign. And more victories to come for the human-rights-for-all struggle.

2. False flag operations for regime change

In the various endeavours for regime-change assayed to fit the geopolitical and economic interest of western powers, a foremost argument has consisted in allegations on infringements of human rights and accusations of insufferable oppression against the population. These claims have often culminated with the staging of ‘massacres’ against civilians. Subsequently, to these blames the strategists have added a corresponding pledge “by the locals” for external military interventions. Such false flag

The practice of false flags to justify political overthrown or military interventions steams from an old geopolitical tradition of deceptive strategy. However, during the last decades it has been surreptitiously established a geopolitical routine. It has a clear aim, which is regime change, and a clear design, which is war propaganda. And its effects are not solely in the sphere of ‘fake news’ for purely propaganda aims, but also used as the pretext for the initiation of bloody overthrows or cruel, long lasting wars.

A most classic episode, and which represent the reestablishment of the false-flag routine in the post world ward era, was the psy op known as “Gulf of Tonkin incident” enacted on August 4, 1965. Then, the false claim consisted in that Soviet-built North Vietnamese torpedo boats would have attacked the U.S. destroyers “Maddox” and “Turner”. To this false claim followed the same day an order by President Lyndon B Johnson’s for a deadly retaliatory air strike against Vietnam. [13 ]

Amidst the media dramaturgy around this ‘patriotic response’ to the made-up attack in the Gulf of Tonkin, President Johnson obtained the approval of Congress (the “Gulf of Tonkin Resolution”) for the waging of a war which at its ends had killed over one million North Vietnamese –most part civilians– but also over 50,000 American military. [14] President Johnson later blamed the military for the fabricated events in the Gulf of Tonkin. [13]

President Trump and the retaliatory attack “due to” the Khan Shaykhun incident

In resemblance, President Trump’s order on a retaliatory missile strike against Syria this year would have also been based in manipulated information, namely, allegations of a “chemical attack” in Khan Shaykhun attributed to Syrian forces. It was, again, about a routine allegation sourced in testimonies originally provided by the White Helmets, and for which no conclusive evidence has ever been produced.

Military-wise, the tactical damage effected by that missile operation was neither significant (in relation to the weaponry chosen), nor deterrent for the Syrian army. In the general context of the warfare on Syria, the attack could be also considered as a relatively ‘mild’. This would indicate that there were other political factors that prompted Donald Trump to order the show of force on Syria. For instance, Trump’s order on the Tomahawk-missile strike should be also evaluated against the backdrop of his then deteriorated political status in the U.S. domestic sphere, and the missile-attack as contributing to change the public approval rate towards his government. [15]. According to the Gallup poll, the approval rate for Trump was 35% before the missile attack on Syria, increasing to 40% after  that. [16]

Stressing this argument, it could be said that a  similar impact in the approval rating [AR, for brevity] of U.S. presidents can be historically found associated to presidents’ belligerent executive-decisions argued on false flag operations. For example, George W. Bush obtained an increase from  58% to 71% following the invasion of Iraq – based on the false claim regarding ‘Saddam Hussein’s  weapons of mass destruction’. The same phenomenon regarding his father, George H.W. Bush, after the U.S. initiations of hostilities in the Kuwait War, or Ronald Reagan and the Granada / Panama military operations. [15]

Further, there are in my opinion other consideration to include in that background, and that put in doubt the seriousness of the reasoning argued for the Tomahawk-missile attack (the alleged “Khan Shaykhun chemical attack”. I refer to the spectacular military dispay exercised by the Russian armed forces when 26 Russian Kalibr cruising missiles were fired from a submarine and a combat ship in the eastern Mediterranean, to eleven different targets nearly 1,000 miles away in Syria (near Akerbat, Hama province), successfully destroying ISIS weapons depots and ISIS command posts. The New York Times reported at the time, flabbergasted, [17]

“…A demonstration that Russia has the ability to strike from virtually all directions in a region where it has been reasserting its power — from Iran, from warships in the Caspian Sea, from its base in the Syrian coastal province of Latakia and now from the Mediterranean.”

I mean that the 59 Tomahawk-missile strike ordered by Trump may have been an operation also intended to balance a domestic public opinion impressed by the Russian military might, as shown not only by the objective effectiveness of the above mentioned Russian missile launch, but also by the wide reporting of it in the news.

Nevertheless, the Syrian government and the Russian Federation well calibrated their reaction to the U.S. “retaliation”, and thus a risk for World War III was averted. An escalation would possibly have taken the conflict to a scenario similar to a “No-Fly Zone”. Neither Trump pursued a further escalation, as for instance in the line advocated by the U.S. hawk-lobby pursuing a No-Fly Zone in Syria. In these regards,  it is worth to mention the statement by the chairman of the U.S. military’s Joint Chief of Staff, General Joseph Dunford, during a hearing at the U.S. Armed Services Committee: ‘For us, to control all of the airspace in Syria will require us to go to war against Syria and Russia’. [18]

An illogical allegation

As to the allegations that President Bashar al-Assad would have ordered a chemical attack in Khan Shaykhun, I have already pointed out in The Indicter shortly after those claims were made, and thereafter in interviews with media [19] that such “self-destructive” move from Bashar al-Assad appears inconceivable, or plain illogical. His forces were then, as they are now, clearly wining the war. Namely, Assad was on top of an irreversible winning position – militarily and politically – particularly since the recapture of Aleppo last year, or even before, since the debut of the Russian military support (as well as from other allies forces, such as Iran and Hezbollah).

Secondly, at that time, the previous more hostile position of the U.S. government (and by a variety of EU countries) had shifted substantially in reference to the Syrian president. U.S. Ambassador Nikki Haley had declared just a few days prior the incident: [20]

“Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out”

So, why would President Bashar al-Assad indulge in that kind of ‘harakiri’ decision that it would instantaneously decimate all the positive odds his geopolitical position was enjoining by the beginning of April 2017?

Further, as I declared in the Radio Sputnik interview of the same month, [21]  why the international community would be so eager to, and uncritically, to trust ‘denounces’ made by organization such as the White Helmets after it has been demonstrated on and on the spurious or even fabricated ‘evidence’ they have presented in the past regarding similar allegations?

Such attacks initiatives comprising chemical or other prohibited weaponry, are only in the losing parties’ options. Only the side in a war that is desperate to turn the odds, as its total defeat seems imminent, would need to essay the trespassing of that highly hazardous red line.

Another relevant issue is that President Trump had given signals all across his election campaign that he would cooperate with Russia, and eventually with Assad, to end the Syrian conflict. Furthermore, just days before the White Helmets false flag operation, Donald Trump had announced a drastic change in U.S. policy towards Syria. So the question is, why would have the Syrian government issued such a political catastrophic and self-destructive order?

3. From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun.

Phony allegations on ‘massacres’ falsely attributed to the government targeted for a regime change, is a false flag routine that has been repeated in the last decades at increased tempo. While those initiatives most certainly steam from operation rooms of a variety of Western Intelligence services –included on the field– the role of the stream media has been pivotal. In episodes of recent years it can be also observed a more often participation of stream right organizations.

I here review some examples historical examples selected from recent decades, and which ends in this report referring the current situation on Syria.

Timisoara

In fact, the events of December 1989 in Romania were not a revolution, but a putsch. It was a bloody coup that intended a pro U.S. ‘regime change’.

Here we find a classical example of the role of western media, for instance in the dramatic narrative around the staged mass graves, intended to depict an allegedly gruesome massacre in Romania 1989. Namely, a toll of 4,500 bodies it was said been found on exposed mass graves, allegedly been massacred by security forces in a three-days repression orgy ordered by the government in December that year. It was the main argument used to speed by violent means the regime-change in Romania and to legitimate the prompt execution of President Ceausescu and his wife. Subsequently, western media had distributed deceitfully photographs, manipulated to depict the claimed Timisoara mass graves. The world opinion was horrified.

However, according to the testimony given the year after by Dr. Milan Dressler, a lawyer and also pathologist working at the Timis District Morgue, “the mass grave never existed”. In fact, the corpses piled in the infamous picture background have been transported there from a cemetery for indigent people. [22]

The ‘evidence’ turned out being a bunch of manipulated photographic work. One of the pictures [see below] was described by the stream media as a man crying over the massacred body of a mother and her child. It was showed later that the woman wasn’t that man’s wife nor was she the mother’s infant. It was also demonstrated that the bodies depicted in the photograph as massacred victims had instead a completely different causes of dead. The woman in the picture, for instance, has died of cirrhosis, and the infant of crib death. [23]

Meanwhile, the organization Human Rights Watch (HRW) reported, “Immediately after the December revolution, the Bush administration welcomed the changes that had occurred in the country”. HRW also praised the U.S. government of Bush for its commitments in favour of the human rights there. [24]

The Kuwait war

The same type of manipulation for propaganda war and regime change took place when mainstream media all over the world showed in 1991 pictures of an agonizing cormorant (Socotra Cormorant), blackened, drenched in oil, left to die in the Persian Gulf waters. It was said that the “black cormorant” was a victim of a ruthless Saddam Hussein that had opened the oil pipelines. It was instead a manipulated imagery, filmed in another country. No cormorants are present in Kuwait before the spring season; Besides, CNN could not have ever filmed those cormorant scenes in Kuwait since it was a territory at that time occupied by Iraq. Some reporter admitted to have taken a cormorant from a Zoo and purposely soaked it with oil. [25]

Source of the image above, including caption: Alamy Stock Photo

Iraq – “Weapons of mass deception”

Then we have the staged “weapons of mass destruction”, a chapter that would be better known as “weapons of mass distraction”. The same false flag routine was again implemented by the media, now to obtain the public support for a U.S. military intervention that would ultimately obtain the regime-change in Iraq, and the execution of President Saddam Hussein. This at the price of thousands killed in combat, added later fatalities resulted from combat-injury sequelae or related, [26] plus the infamous political consequences in the region. And all in exchange of a misappropriation of Iraqi oil resources.

Among the public protagonists in the false-flag operation “Iraq Weapons of Mass Destruction” –which was a plain lie–  were high rank officials in the U.S. administration. Colin Powell, the then  U.S. Secretary of State, affirmed in the United Nations on the 5 of February 2003:

“My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we’re giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence”. [27]

In fact, his sources were spurious and based in plagiarized excerpts from an older study.  A variety of inspection commissions were set by the UN, the Security Council, and/or belligerent forces, such as the Iraq Survey Group, the United Nations Monitoring, Verification and Inspection Commission (UNMOVIC), and also a team from the International Atomic Energy Agency. No weapons of mass destruction that could pose a threat were ever found.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald affirmed in an interview that,

“Most notoriously, The New York Times did more than everybody to convince Americans of the need to attack Iraq. But even since then the model of the US media is very much to show faith and loyalty to the US government” [28]

Thus, it is no coincidence that the same paper has been advocating for the need to attack Syria, and, in spite of its stance on the Trump presidency, the NYT has echoed staunchly support to the military actions ordered by Donald Trump on Syria. [29]

Libya

The staged massacre routine continued was then essayed in Libya, and again as instrument for regime change and the execution of the government leader.

Amidst reports that Muammar Gaddafi would have ordered the aerial bombing of civilian crowds, the mainstream media reported at the end of February 2011 that over 10,000 have already been killed. It was a plain lie. The source was a Libyan member of the International Criminal Court, the same court that had previously declared an impossibility to estimate the commitment of war crimes in Libya in absence of reliable sources. [30]

While inventing massacres attributed to Gaddafi’s orders, the Western media invented achievements ascribed to the rebel forces, which in fact neither had occurred. For example, the BBC aired in August 2011 a news video intending to show the vast popular support to the rebels in a demonstration said been held in Tripoli’s Green Square. In fact BBC was using footage from a demonstration held in India. [See the Indian the flags in the screenshot from the BBC news program]. [31]

The regime change in Libya, according to Hillary Clinton:

“We came, we saw, he died”.

Click on the image for the video:

Syria – False flags and the staged-massacre routine in the Syrian conflict

There are countless examples of fabricated news about the Syrian conflict, and where the blame about alleged atrocities is regularly put on the Syrian government.

One method used on and on, has been the production of false or retouched photographic material representing ‘victims’ portraits, particularly children. This issue has been well documented elsewhere. For instance, The Independent’s report “Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake ‘Aleppo’ footage”. [32] The image above is a screenshot from the video embedded in the reportage published by The Independent. [32]

Another famous case is “the girl running to survive” (image below)

Or the case of the 8 babies demise reported by CNN sourcing on “a Syrian human rights group”:

The photo of the eight “Syrian babies” reported by CNN (above) was in fact taken in Egypt (below)

However those innumerable falsified photographic material distributed by Western media, a more severe form of disinformation on the Syrian war has been the staged-massacre routine, most often around allegations of “chemical attacks” on civilians.

The debunking around the modus operandis of those false flag operations is well documented, for instance by the work of Professor Tim Anderson, [33] [34] or by the independent researcher Adam Larson in The Indicter Magazine. [35] [36].

As mentioned in the Introduction section above, Swedish Doctors for Human Rights (SWEDHR) had the opportunity to analyze “life-saving” videos published by the propaganda organization  “White Helmets”. [3] [4] The White Helmets materials claimed documenting the alleged clinical/forensic sequelae of a ‘chemical attack’ in Sarmin, in the Syrian province of Idlib. In studying the background and sources used, SWEDHR did review all the published material claimed as the base for such allegations. With the help of these data, I will debunk here accusations done by “the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”, [35] and referred to the “Sarmin attack”.

For the sake of clarity, I repeat that the last report of the “UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic” (COI) of September 2017 did excluded the “Sarmin attack” from the incident-listing of allegations of chemical attacks. [2]

The psy op ‘Sarmin’ and the White Helmets videos

The “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” is a document delivered for the Security Council consideration on 24 August 2016. [37] At the time it was included an alleged ‘chemical attack” on Sarmin [Note that “Sarmin” or “Sarmine” refers to a locality in the Idlib province. Not to be confused with “Sarin”, the chemical agent]. The attack would have occurred on the 16 of March, according to the OPCW report.

As it can be seen in the corresponding ”Sarmin” section (pages 13-14 of the document), the all allegation inculpating the Syrian government is based in one premise: the alleged presence of a Syrian helicopter.

The ‘conclusion’, “there is sufficient information for the Panel to conclude that the incident at impact location N°2 was caused by a Syrian Arab Armed Forces helicopter…” is based solely on that:

a) “Witnesses confirmed that at least one helicopter flew over Sarmin at the time of the incident”.

And,

b) “(The panel) found no evidence that armed opposition groups in Sarmin had been operating a helicopter at the time and location of the incident”.

However, the “Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism” chooses not to provide any information about who or how many those witnesses were, or if the ‘witnesses testimonies’ were independent of each other, and/or independently verified. The panel reports neither how that information was obtained. Why?

Because, as I will show below, the “confirming witnesses” were the same two subjects from the place ascribed to the jihadist forces in Idlib (one of them a White Helmet official) who also were the ones initially making the allegation. That was one main observation in our analysis of the the report published by Human Rights Watch, [38] that echoed the “denounce” done by the White Helmets on the alleged Sarmin incident. I quote here from the SWEDHR analysis in The Indicter Magazine: [3]

The “Sarmin attack” report published by HRW in April 2015 is, in itself, a remarkable feat of evidence engineering. HRW refers to two witnesses – anonymous “Sarmin residents” – stating they have “heard” helicopters “shortly before the attack”.

They heard them but did not see them. Both witnesses also reported hearing “no explosions”. [38] In the entire HRW report there is not one reported sighting of a helicopter, the existence of which should be an essential element of the White Helmet claims, uncritically reproduced by HRW and never questioned by the UN.

One of the key witnesses cited in the HRW, April 2015, report is a White Helmet operative by the name “Leith Fares”: [39]

“Leith Fares, a rescue worker with Syrian Civil Defence, told Human Rights Watch. “A helicopter always drops two barrels.” “You know, we were at first actually happy,” Fares said. “It is usually good news when there is no explosion.” [38]

A notably peculiar factor of the White Helmet footage of this alleged attack is that they do not film any external shots of the attack itself, despite their declared anticipation of being targeted, having “heard” helicopters.

Instead, the only footage is of an enclosed indoor space with no contextual filming to evidence where they are in Syria or that an attack has just taken place. The indoor environment certainly resembles a makeshift hospital emergency room. White Helmet “rescuers” parade in and out, manhandling and maneuvering the limp, lifeless bodies of three children. The naked bodies of these children have no external, visible injuries and do not respond when the various “medics” perform all manner of ostensibly “life-saving” procedures, in a haphazard effort to resuscitate these children.

The operation Sarmine videos to deceive UN Security Council

These ‘Sarmine-videos’ were simultaneously published the very same day in which the news of the Sarmin allegations reached the media (16 March 2015). The two separate uploads in YouTube were made by the White Helmets, [40] respectively by another associated jihadist organization (“Coordinated Sarmine”) which is baring in its video-logo the jihadist Shahada flag used by Al-Qaeda formations. [41]

In the main: The Sarmin videos uploaded by the White Helmets in conjunction with the “al-Nusra flag group” contained fabricated scenes of life-saving, including faked intra-cardial injection procedures on a presumably already deceased infant. This can be shown in sequences shown in the videos below [click on image below for the videos].

Representatives of the Syrian American Society (SAM) then managed to show those fabricated ‘Sarmine videos’ published by the White Helmets, at the UN headquarters in New York on 16 April 2015, [42] at a meeting sponsored by then U.S. ambassador Samantha Powers. She said after the meeting: ““If there was a dry eye in the room, I didn’t see it,” [See the news article, “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. [43]

CNN reproduced, uncritically, fake scenes of a video uploaded simultaneously by White Helmets and an organization presumably derived from the jihadist organization al-Nusra

Based on the deceitful SAM coup at the UN gathering, made possible by the fabricated White Hemelts “Sarmine videos, a series of news articles appeared in mainstream media, e.g. The New York Times, [42] BBC, [44], etc.

The video was subsequently reproduced by CNN. [45] [46] In none of those cases where the Sarmine videos put forward by the White Helmets, “Coordinated Sarmine”, and SAM, were referred or broadcasted, a fact-verification of the content of such a material was ever performed. Or simply the material was reproduced in full awareness of its deceptive content. To this, added the coverup by other mainstream European media. [47] Isn’t this scandalous?

Now have emerged “new” allegations on chemical attacks (the “Khan Shaykhun incident” ) issued to further blame the government of Syria. The sources of the allegations are basically the same: the White Helmets.

(In a brief dialogue I had in Twitter with Dr Zaher Sahloul, the President of SAM and a presenter of the unethical White Helmets video at the above-mentioned UN meeting, I challenged him to retract such a material. [48] He replied that he would. [49] It never happened.

Introducing the next section (“Part II, Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign”) of the series “From Timisoara to Khan Shaykhun. 

Apart of Intelligence outlets, a variety of other actors get together in the war propaganda against Syria, to produce the misinformation that reaches the public. Here we find

a) prominent Western corporate media,

b) mainstream human rights organizations such as Human Rights Watch or Amnesty International, [50] and

c) some new established “NGOs” of ‘first responders” created and financed by Western powers –like the ‘White Helmets’ founded under the Obama administration in 2015, and

d) other façade ‘right-organizations’ set up by the Western powers such the “London-based Syrian Observatory of Human Rights”.

These last two mentioned have retained the assigned role of ‘sources’ regarding the alleged ‘attacks’ claims that we hear from time to time. [More details in the chapter “White Helmets”, in Part II of this series].

Most interesting, is that every such attack-claims are made by the White Helmets and its associated Al Qaeda formations, is accompanied by a pledge for military intervention from the part of the U.S. and it sallies, issue that regularly makes its way to the UN Security Council. For example, an identical pledge for a No-Fly Zone in Syria was done by the White Helmets during their claim on a “chemical attack” in Sarine 2015, as well as now in April 2017 about Khan Shaykhun.

The subject of Part II in this series: “Role of Western media and NGOs in the anti-Syria campaign”. And Part III: “Epidemiological questioning of the ‘UN-Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic’ Report on the Khan Shaykhun incident”.

*

Prof. Marcello Ferrada de Noli is professor emeritus of epidemiology, medicine doktor i psykiatri (PhD, Karolinska Institute), and formerly Research Fellow  at Harvard Medical School. He is the founder and chairman of Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights and editor-in-chief of The Indicter. Also publisher of The Professors’ Blog, and CEO of Libertarian Books – Sweden. Author of “Sweden VS. Assange – Human Rights Issues.” 

This article was originally published by The Indicter.

Notes

[1] Asymmetric Warfare Group, “Russian New Generation Warfare Handbook”, https://info.publicintelligence.net/AWG-RussianNewWarfareHandbook.pdf

[2] “Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic (Advance Edited Version)” http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/CoISyria

[3] M. Ferrada de Noli,  “White Helmets Video: Swedish Doctors for Human Rights Denounce Medical Malpractice and ‘Misuse’ of Children for Propaganda Aims”. The Indicter Magazine, 6 March 2017. http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-video-swedish-doctors-for-human-rights-denounce-medical-malpractice-and-misuse-of-children-for-propaganda-aims/

[4] M. Ferrada de Noli, “White Helmets Movie: Updated Evidence From Swedish Doctors Confirm Fake ‘Lifesaving’ and Malpractices on Children”. The Indicter Magazine, 17 March 2017. http://theindicter.com/white-helmets-movie-updated-evidence-from-swedish-doctors-confirm-fake-lifesaving-and-malpractices-on-children/

[5] Human Rights Watch. “Syria: Chemicals Used in Idlib Attacks”. HRW, 13 April 2015. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/syria-chemicals-used-idlib-attacks

[6] “Report by Swedish Doctors for Human Rights referred in UN Security Council. White Helmets, Syria”. The Indicter Channel. Published in YouTube, 13 April 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6RqQlFXo2A

[7] “Briefing by Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova, Moscow, April 27, 2017”. http://www.mid.ru/en/press_service/spokesman/briefings/-/asset_publisher/D2wHaWMCU6Od/content/id/2739385

[8] “Russian diplomat accuses White Helmets of supporting terrorism”. TASS, 27 April, 2017. http://tass.com/politics/943615

[9]  http://atcontact.de/watch/WAxg9_T-W7Y

[10] M Ferrada de noli, “The Fake News attack by Dagens Nyheter on Swedish Professors and Doctors for Human Rights”. The Indicter Magazine, 22 April 2017. http://theindicter.com/the-fake-news-attack-by-dagens-nyheter-on-swedish-doctors-for-human-rights/

[11] M Ferrada de Noli, “Libellous attack by mainstream journalists angered by SWEDHR denounce of unethical war propaganda”. The Indicter Magazine, 15 April 2017. http://theindicter.com/libellous-attack-by-mainstream-journalists-angered-by-swedhr-denounce-of-unethical-anti-syria-propaganda/

[12] M Ferrada de Noli, “SWEDHR Is An Independent Organization. Article in the Journal of the Swedish Medical Association”. SWEDHR Research & Reports, 9 June 2017. http://reports.swedhr.org/swedhr-is-an-independent-organization-article-in-the-journal-of-the-swedish-medical-association/

[13] Jesse Greenspan, “The Gulf of Tonkin Incident, 50 Years Ago”. History.com, August 1, 2014. http://www.history.com/news/the-gulf-of-tonkin-incident-50-years-ago

[14] “Vietnam War Casualties”. Wikipedia article. Retrieved 15 September 2017. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War_casualties

[15] Jason Le Miere, “Trump’s Approval Rating Likely to Get Boost from Syria Strike. Newsweek, 4/7/2017.  http://www.newsweek.com/trump-approval-rating-syria-strike-580735

[16]  Kaitlan Collins, “Trump’s Approval Rating Remains Steady Following Missile Strike In Syria”. The Daily Caller, 4/10/2017

http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/10/trumps-approval-rating-remains-steady-following-missile-strike-in-syria/

[17]  “Russia Asserts Its Military Might in Syria”. The New York Times, 19 August 2016.https://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/20/world/middleeast/russia-syria-mediterranean-missiles.html

[18] “Swedish elites’ DN endorse H. Clinton No Fly Zone: It’d mean War with Russia & Syria”. Th Indicter Channel. Published in YouTube, 22 November 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S4KTFN4VsM4

[19] M. Ferrada de Noli. UOSSM admits: Doctor reporting alleged aerial Khan Sheikhoun attack “was no expert to determine that”. The Indicter Magazine, 29 April 2017. http://theindicter.com/uossm-admits-doctor-reporting-alleged-aerial-khan-sheikhoun-attack-was-no-expert-to-determine-that/

[20] Michelle Nichols, “U.S. priority on Syria no longer focused on ‘getting Assad out’: Haley”. Reuters, 30 March 2017. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-syria-usa-haley/u-s-priority-on-syria-no-longer-focused-on-getting-assad-out-haley-idUSKBN1712QL

[21] ‘The evidence of chemical attack in Syria is questionable’ – Marcello Ferrada de Noli“. Interview with Sputnik. https://soundcloud.com/radiosputnik/media-should-ask-white-helmets-to-provide-evidence-of-the-chemical-attack-in-syria

[22] “Coroner: Romanian Massacre Never Happened”, Chicago Tribune, 19 March 1990]http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-03-13/news/9001210292_1_grave-nicolae-ceausescu-bodies

[23] Iconic Photos, “Timisoara Massacre” https://iconicphotos.org/2010/08/30/timisoara-massacre/

[24] https://www.hrw.org/reports/1990/WR90/HELSINKI.BOU-02.htm

[25] Marcello Foa, “Fakes in Journalism”, EJO, European Journalism Observatory, Nov 14, 2003. http://en.ejo.ch/ethics-quality/fakes-in-journalism

[26] Marcello Ferrada-Noli M, John I. Apkan, Leif Svanström (2004), “Epidemiological bias in assessments of war-related injuries: the case of Iraq”. Safety 2004. P. 230. Institut Leben/Kuratorium fur Schutz und Sicherheit, Vienna, Austria.

[27] Jonathan Schwarz, “Lie After Lie After Lie: What Colin Powell Knew Ten Years Ago Today and What He Said”. Huffingtonpost.com, 5 February 2013. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-schwarz/colin-powell-wmd-iraq-war_b_2624620.html

[28] RT, “Greenwald: Assange show – Kremlin propaganda? Look who’s talking!” 19 April 2012. https://www.rt.com/news/assange-greenwald-show-kremlin-487/

[29] Nicholas Kristof, “Trump Was Right to Strike Syria”. The New York Times, 7 April 2017. https://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2017/04/07/trump-was-right-to-strike-syria/

[30] Marcello Foa,  “Stragi, fosse comuni e video choc: rischio propaganda sulla verità”. Il Giornale.it, 25 February 2011. http://it.ejo.ch/giornalismo-sui-media/stragi-fosse-comuni-e-video-choc-rischio-propaganda-sulla-verita

[31] “Libya / Incredible media lies – BBC shows ‘Green Square’ in INDIA, 24 August 2011”. YouTube, 24 August 2011. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_-lzI8I0_0

[32] Bethan McKernan, “Egyptian police arrest five people for using children to stage fake ‘Aleppo’ footage. The Independent, 26 December 2016. [see embedded video]. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/aleppo-fake-footage-children-five-peopele-arrested-egyptian-police-a7486541.html

[33] Tim Anderson, “Chemical Fabrications: East Ghouta and Syria’s Missing Children”. Telesur, 11 April 2015. https://www.telesurtv.net/english/bloggers/Chemical-Fabrications-East-Ghouta-and-Syrias-Missing-Children-20150411-0001.html

[34] Tim Anderson, “Systematic Misinformation on Syria. The United Nations AbuZayd-Pinheiro Committee”. Global Research,  11 Septembe 2017. https://www.globalresearch.ca/systematic-misinformation-on-syria-the-united-nations-abuzayd-pinheiro-committee/5608537

[35] Adam Larson, “Analysis of evidence contradicts allegations on Syrian gas attacks”. The Indicter Magazine, 5 April 2017. http://theindicter.com/analysis-of-evidence-contradicts-allegations-on-syrian-gas-attacks/

[36] Adam Larson, “Syria Sarin Allegation: How UN-Panel Report Twists and Omits Evidence”. The Indicter Magazine, 18 September 2017. http://theindicter.com/syria-sarin-allegation-how-an-un-panel-report-twists-and-omits-evidence/

[37] “Third report of the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons ­­­– United Nations Joint Investigative Mechanism”. Document delivered to the UN Securiry Council  24 August 2016.  https://reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1626975-1.pdf

[38] “Syria: Chemicals Used in Idlib Attacks”. HRW, 13 April 2015. https://www.hrw.org/news/2015/04/13/syria-chemicals-used-idlib-attacks

[39] Quoted from the report listed in Reference [3]:

“Leith (or Laith) Fares is repeatedly found in both Arab and Western news giving statements –from a variety of locations in Syria– to visiting Western journalists. For instance, while in the Human Rights Watch report Fares gives the notion of being present at the alleged event in Sarmin, in Arab News is given that Leith Fares is “a rescue worker in Ariha”, and that “(Fares) told AFP his team had pulled at least 20 wounded people out of the rubble.” ‘Laith Fares’ keeps also an uploading account in You Tube with anti-Syria propaganda videos, and on behalf of White Helmets political positions. [5] The YouTube account reaches 204 upload videos.”

[40] “Syrian Civil Defence, Idlib” (“White Helmets”) الدفاع المدني ادلب_سرمين:محاولة لأنقاذ الأطفال بعد اصابتهم بالغاز الكيماوي 26_3_2015”. Uploaded by الدفاع المدني السوري في محافظة ادلب. YouTube video published 16 March 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNt7T32L1AQ&feature=youtu.be

[41] Video uploaded by “Coordinating Sarmine” in YouTube, 16 March 2015.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J6c6A1Qnbbw

[42] “Syria war: ‘Chlorine’ attack video moves UN to tears”. BBC, 17 April 2015. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-32346790

[43] Nick Logan, “UN officials in tears watching video from alleged chlorine attack in Syria”. Global News, 17 April 2017. https://globalnews.ca/news/1945397/un-officials-in-tears-watching-video-from-alleged-chlorine-attack-in-syria/

[44] U.N. Security Council Sees Video Evidence of a Chemical Attack in Syria. New York Times, 16 April 2015. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/17/world/middleeast/un-security-council-sees-video-evidence-of-a-chemical-attack-in-syria.html

[45] CNN, “Chlorine gas attack reported in Syria“. CNN Channel, YouTube, 20 April 2015. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwtok4rcfw8

[46] Just four days after the exhibition of the fraudulent videos at the UN Security Council (in an ad-hoc session sponsored by the then U.S. ambassador), CNN broadcasted on April 20, 2015 a news-program reproducing segments taken from exactly the same videos and propagated for the No-Fly Zone on behalf of “the Syrian doctors” campaigning. The newscast was published by CNN in YouTube on April 20, 2015. [7] The CNN anchor presented the ‘Syrian doctor’ “who has campaigned around the world for a no-fly zone” [See the video through the link indicated in the above reference. For a clearer audio, you may listen to the MP3 file here below]:

Inside Syria Media Center military correspondents in Iraq have recently reported that ISIS members are surrendering in dozens in their stronghold in Iraq’s Al-Hawija area. They estimate that the Iraqi Army has nearly completed the operation on recapturing the city.

It seems that hard times have come for ISIS jihadists on all fronts. 9-month-long standoff in Mosul came to a logical end. Tal-Afar was recaptured after that much faster, in just 11 days.

In Syria, the Islamists have also been demoralized. Thousands of bombs of the Syrian AF and its allies were dropped on their sinful heads in al-Mayadin. Fearing a complete encirclement, ISIS terrorists are trying to escape from the residential areas of Deir Ezzor towards Abu Kamal.

Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Jawad Kadhim Al-Abadi announced a large-scale offensive of the Iraqi regular army against the cities of Al-Qa’im and Rawa located on the banks of the Euphrates River (northwest of Anbar province) near the border with Syria on 26 October 2017.

In addition, daily movement of small columns of SUVs and unsuccessful attempts to force the Euphrates have been spotted. Up to 150 strikes are carried out per day on the hidden areas where the Islamists are located. And the situation for them now is, frankly speaking, dramatic. The moment is drawing near when the armies of the two states (Syria and Iraq) will not only meet at the border but unite their efforts for a joint large-scale operation to clean up the territories and to eliminate the trapped militants.

The question arises, why won’t field commanders and Wilayat Emirs unite their efforts to solve their problems, discuss the further strategy at any secret meeting and organize some kind of a united resistance front? Perhaps the truth is that they are a perfect target from the air at such a gathering, even on the territory controlled by the Islamists and the rivalry is becoming stronger among them.

The only force attempting to save its unique creation is the United States. Rapid liberation of the Euphrates valley clearly goes against their scheme. To achieve its goals, the US-led coalition sharply reduced the intensity of attacks on ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Their At-Tanf base boosted its capacities for infiltration of terrorists to the rear of the advancing Syrian Arab Army (SAA) providing them with all the necessary reconnaissance data. The US SOF (special operations forces) successfully evacuate the unsuccessful IS commanders from the battlefield at the same time.

What choice does ordinary ISIS terrorist have in this situation?  After all, the dreams of a glorious life in the caliphate collapse under the pressure of the true Muslims fighting against the ‘black evil’ for the freedom of their countries and their religion.

Such failed militants have only one way – to surrender at the mercy of the winner and hope for an amnesty as it is now happening as a result of the offensive of the Syrian and Iraqi government armies. They also have a chance to get lost in the crowd of refugees moving around the country seeking asylum and a better life so that to be legalized in this way. Another possible way to save their own skin can be the transfer of terrorists to the West to organize recruitment and subversive activities there. But in that case, most likely, they will also have to join the ranks of suicide bombers.

In addition, IS fighters can certainly concentrate on the Syrian-Iraqi border creating an in-depth defense against the armies advancing from both sides, but this is unlikely to save them from complete failure. Moreover, there will be simply no one to lead such a defense. There are still strong contradictions in the ranks of the high command of the Islamists. Someone from the field commanders is constantly attempting to eliminate competitors and leaks the coordinates of every meeting venue to the government troops.

What would you do in such a difficult situation if you were an ISIS fighter?

Whatever you come up with, definitely you’d better heed one advice. If you still sympathize with Jihadists, support their ways and methods of warfare, eager to earn money, to kill, rape, destroy with impunity, become a human trafficker under the guise of a mysterious jihad allegedly for the sake of supposedly oppressed Muslims and faith and if you then decided to leave your country seeking vague prospects, you must carefully think about the serious risk of dying ingloriously. If you are a terrorists’ supporter you should think about your unprofitable questionable investments and about a way how to transfer assets out of your business. But if you have already been an Islamist you’d better be prepared for the worst.

Follow the latest developments by reading Inside Syria Media Center.

Sophie Mangal is a special investigative correspondent at Inside Syria Media Center where this article and image were originally published.

Shortly following the posting of this article initially published by Zero Hedge, we issued the following Note.

GR Editor’s Advisory to our Readers:

Some elements of this article initially published by Zero Hedge are not fully corroborated. The ARRL does not constitute a fully reliable source of information concerning an activity undertaken and organized by the DoD.

Moreover, Army MARS which is also quoted as a source “is a Department of Defense sponsored program which utilizes Amateur Radio operators to contribute to the mission of the Department of the Army.” The amateur radio operators quoted in this article do not constitute a source on behalf of the DoD.

***

Upon further review of the Zero Hedge article, we decided to remove it due to absence of corroborating evidence.

The original Zero Hedge article can be consulted here

Around the world activists who are strategic thinkers face a daunting challenge to effectively tackle the multitude of violent conflicts, including the threat of human extinction, confronting human society in the early 21^st century.

I wrote that ‘activists who are strategic thinkers face a daunting challenge’ because there is no point deluding ourselves that the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane’ – with its compliant international organizations (such as the UN) and national governments following orders as directed, is going to respond appropriately and powerfully to the multifaceted crisis that it has been progressively generating since long before the industrial revolution.

For reasons that are readily explained psychologically – see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’and, for more detail, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’– this insanity focuses their attention on securing control of the world’s remaining resources while marginalizing the bulk of the human population in ghettos, or just killing them outright with military violence or economic exploitation (or the climate/ecological consequences of their violence and exploitation).

If you doubt what I have written above, then consider the history of any progressive political, social, economic and environmental change in the past few centuries and you will find a long record of activist planning, organizing and action preceding any worthwhile change which was invariably required to overcome enormous elite opposition. In short, if you can identify one progressive outcome that was initiated and supported by the global elite, I would be surprised to hear about it.

Moreover, we are not going to get out of this crisis – which must include ending violence, exploitation and war, halting the destruction of Earth’s biosphere and ongoing violent assaults on indigenous peoples, ending slavery, liberating occupied countries such as Palestine, Tibet and West Papua, removing dictatorships such as those in Cambodia and Saudi Arabia, ending genocidal assaults such as those currently being directed against the people of Yemen and the Rohingya in Myanmar, and defending the rights of a people, such as those in Catalonia, to secede from one state and form another – without both understanding the deep drivers of conflict as well as the local drivers in each case, and then developing and implementing sound and comprehensive strategies, based on this dual-faceted analysis of each conflict.

In addition, if like Mohandas K. Gandhi, many others and me you accept the evidence that violence is inherently counterproductive and has no countervailing desirability in any context – expressed most simply by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. when he stated ‘the enemy is violence’ –  then we must be intelligent, courageous and resourceful enough to commit ourselves to planning, developing and implementing strategies that are both exclusively nonviolent and powerfully effective against extraordinarily insane and ruthlessly violent opponents, such as the US government.

Equally importantly, however, it is not just the violence of the global elite that we must address if extinction is to be averted. We must also tackle the violence that each of us inflicts on ourselves, our children, each other and the Earth too. And, sadly, this violence takes an extraordinary variety of forms having originated no later than the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago. See ‘A Critique of Human Society since the Neolithic Revolution’.

Is all of this possible?

When I first became interested in nonviolent strategy in the early 1980s, I read widely. I particularly sought out the literature on nonviolence but, as my interest deepened and I tried to apply what I was reading in the nonviolence literature to the many nonviolent action campaigns in which I was involved, I kept noticing how inadequate these so-called ‘strategies’ in the literature actually were, largely because they did not explain precisely what to do, even though they superficially purported to do so by offering ‘principles’, ‘guidelines’, sets of tactics or even ‘stages of a campaign’.

I found this shortcoming in the literature most instructive and, because I am committed to succeeding when I engage as a nonviolent activist, I started to read the work of Mohandas K. Gandhi and even the literature on military strategy. By the mid-1980s I had decided to research and write a book on nonviolent strategy because, by then, I had become aware that the individual who understood strategy, whether nonviolent or military, was rare.

Moreover, there were many conceptions of military strategy, written over more than 2,000 years, and an increasing number of conceptions of what was presented as ‘nonviolent strategy’, in one form or another, were becoming available as the 1980s progressed. But the flaws in these were increasingly and readily apparent to me as I considered their inadequate theoretical foundations or tried to apply them in nonviolent action campaigns.

The more I struggled with this problem, the more I found myself reading ‘The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi’ in a library basement. After all, Gandhi had led a successful 30 year nonviolent liberation struggle to end the British occupation of India so it made sense that he had considerable insight regarding strategy. Unfortunately, he never wrote it down simply in one place.

A complicating but related problem was that among those military authors who professed to present some version of ‘strategic theory’, in fact, most simply presented an approach to strategic planning (such as using a set of principles or a particular operational pattern) or an incomplete theory of strategy (such as ‘maritime theory’, ‘air theory’ or ‘guerrilla theory’) and (often largely unwittingly) passed these off as ‘strategic theory’, which they are not. And it was only when I read Carl von Clausewitz’s infuriatingly convoluted and tortuously lengthy book On War that I started to fully understand strategic theory. This is because Clausewitz actually presented (not in a simple form, I hasten to admit) a strategic theory and then a military strategy that worked in accordance with his strategic theory. ‘Could this strategic theory work in guiding a nonviolent strategy?’ I wondered.

Remarkably, the more I read Gandhi (and compared him with other activists and scholars in the field), the more it became apparent to me that Gandhi was the only nonviolent strategist who (intuitively) understood strategic theory. Although, to be fair, it was an incredibly rare military strategist who understood strategic theory either with Mao Zedong a standout exception and other Marxist strategists like Vladimir Lenin and Võ Nguyên Giáp understanding far more than western military strategists which is why, for example, the US and its allies were defeated in their war on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Some years later, after grappling at length with this problem of using strategic theory to guide nonviolent strategy and reading a great deal more of Gandhi, while studying many nonviolent struggles and participating in many nonviolent campaigns myself, I wrote The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach. I wrote this book by synthesizing the work of Gandhi with some modified insights of Clausewitz and learning of my own drawn from the experience and study just mentioned. I have recently simplified and summarized the presentation of this book on two websites: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Let me outline, very simply, nonviolent strategy, without touching on strategic theory, as I have developed and presented it in the book and on the websites.

Nonviolent Strategy

You will see on the diagram of the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel that there are four primary components of strategy in the center of the wheel and eight components of strategy that are planned in accordance with these four central components. I will briefly describe the four primary components.

Source: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy

Before doing so, however, it is worth noting that, by using this Nonviolent Strategy Wheel, it is a straightforward task to analyze why so many activist movements and (nonviolent) liberation struggles fail: they simply do not understand the need to plan and implement a comprehensive strategy, entailing all twelve components, if they are to succeed.

So, to choose some examples almost at random, despite substantial (and sometimes widespread) popular support, particularly in some countries, the antiwar movement, the climate justice movement and the Palestinian and Tibetan liberation struggles are each devoid of a comprehensive strategy to deploy their resources for strategic impact and so they languish instead of precipitating the outcomes to which they aspire, which are quite possible.

Having said that a sound and comprehensive strategy must pay attention to all twelve components of strategy it is very occasionally true that campaigns succeed without doing so. This simply demonstrates that nonviolence, in itself, is extraordinarily powerful. But it is unwise to rely on the power of nonviolence alone, without planning and implementing a comprehensive strategy, especially when you are taking on a powerful and entrenched opponent who has much to lose (even if their conception of what they believe they will ‘lose’ is delusional) and may be ruthlessly violent if challenged.

For the purpose of this article, the term strategy refers to a planned series of actions (including campaigns) that are designed to achieve the two strategic aims (see below).

The Political Purpose and the Political Demands

If you are going to conduct a nonviolent struggle, whether to achieve a peace, environmental or social justice outcome, or even a defense or liberation outcome, the best place to start is to define the political purpose of your struggle. The political purpose is a statement of ‘what you want’. For example, this might be one of the following (but there are many possibilities depending on the context):

• To secure a treaty acknowledging indigenous sovereignty between [name of indigenous people] and the settler population in [name of land/country] over the area known as [name of land/country].
• To stop violence against [children and/or women] in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To end discrimination and violence against the racial/religious minority of [name of group] in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To end forest destruction in [your specified area/country/region].
• To end climate-destroying activities in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To halt military production by [name of weapons corporation]in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To prevent/halt [name of corporation] exploiting the [name of fossil fuel resource].
• To defend [name of the country] against the political/military coup by [identity of coup perpetrators].
• To defend [name of the country] against the foreign military invasion by [name of invading country].
• To defend the [name of targeted group] against the genocidal assault by the [identity of genocidal entity].
• To establish the independent entity/state of [name of proposed entity/state] by removing the foreign occupying state of [name of occupying state].
• To establish a democratic state in [name of country] by removing the dictatorship.

This political purpose ‘anchors’ your campaign: it tells people what you are concerned about so that you can clearly identify allies, opponents and third parties. Your political purpose is a statement of what you will have achieved when you have successfully completed your strategy.

In practice, your political purpose may be publicized in the form of a political program or as a list of demands. You can read the five criteria that should guide the formulation of these political demands on one of the nonviolent strategy websites cited above.

The Political and Strategic Assessment

Strategic planning requires an accurate and thorough political and strategic assessment (although ongoing evaluation will enable refinement of this assessment if new information emerges during the implementation of the strategy).

In essence, this political and strategic assessment requires four things. Notably this includes knowledge of the vital details about the issue (e.g. why has it happened? who benefits from it? how, precisely, do they benefit? who is exploited?) and a structural analysis and understanding of the causes behind it, including an awareness of the deep emotional (especially the fear) and cultural imperatives that exist in the minds of those individuals (and their organizations) who engage in the destructive behavior.

So, for example, if you do not understand, precisely, what each of your various groups of opponents is scared of losing/suffering (whether or not this fear is rational), you cannot design your strategy taking this vital knowledge into account so that you can mitigate their fear effectively and free their mind to thoughtfully consider alternatives. It is poor strategy (and contrary to the essence of Gandhian nonviolence) to reinforce your opponents’ fear and lock them into a defensive reaction.

Strategic Aims and Strategic Goals

Having defined your political purpose, it is easy to identify the two strategic aims of your struggle. This is because every campaign or liberation struggle has two strategic aims and they are always the same:

1. To increase support for your campaign by developing a network of groups who can assist you.
2. To alter the will and undermine the power of those groups who support the problem.

Now you just need to define your strategic goals for both mobilizing support for your campaign and for undermining support for the problem. From your political and strategic assessment:

1. Identify the key social groups that can be mobilized to support and participate in your strategy (and then write these groups into the ‘bubbles’ on the left side of the campaign strategy diagram that can be downloaded from the strategy websites), and

2. identify the key social groups (corporation/s, police/military, government, workers, consumers etc.) whose support for the problem (e.g. the climate catastrophe, war, the discrimination/violence against a particular group, forest destruction, resource extraction, genocide, occupation) is vital (and then write these groups into the columns on the right side of the campaign strategy diagram).

These key social groups become the primary targets in your campaign. Hence, the derivative set of specific strategic goals, which are unique to your campaign, should then be devised and each written in accordance with the formula explained in the article ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’. That is: ‘To cause a [specified group of people] to act in the [specified way].’

As the title of this article suggests, it also explains the vital distinction between the political objective and the strategic goal of any nonviolent action. This distinction is rarely understood and applied and explains why most ‘direct actions’ have no strategic impact.

You can read appropriate sets of strategic goals for ending war, ending the climate catastrophe, ending a military occupation, removing a dictatorship and halting a genocide on one or the other of these two sites: Nonviolent Campaign Strategic Aims and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategic Aims.

The Conception of Nonviolence

There are four primary conceptions of nonviolence which have been illustrated on the Matrix of Nonviolence. Because of this, your strategic plan should:

1. identify the particular conception of nonviolence that your campaign will utilize;

2. identify the specific ways in which your commitment to nonviolence will be conveyed to all parties so that the benefits of adopting a nonviolent strategy are maximized; and

3. identify how the level of discipline required to implement your nonviolent strategy will be developed. This includes defining the ‘action agreements’ (code of nonviolent discipline) that will guide activist behaviour.

It is important to make a deliberate strategic choice regarding the conception of nonviolence that will underpin your strategy. If your intention is to utilize the strategic framework outlined here, it is vitally important to recognize that this framework is based on the Gandhian (principled/revolutionary) conception of nonviolence.

This is because Gandhi’s nonviolence is based on certain premises, including the importance of the truth, the sanctity and unity of all life, and the unity of means and end, so his strategy is always conducted within the framework of his desired political, social, economic and ecological vision for society as a whole and not limited to the purpose of any immediate campaign. It is for this reason that Gandhi’s approach to strategy is so important. He is always taking into account the ultimate end of all nonviolent struggle – a just, peaceful and ecologically sustainable society of self-realized human beings – not just the outcome of this campaign. He wants each campaign to contribute to the ultimate aim, not undermine vital elements of the long-term and overarching struggle to create a world without violence.

This does not mean, however, that each person participating in the strategy must share this commitment; they may participate simply because it is expedient for them to do so. This is not a problem as long as they are willing to commit to the ‘code of nonviolent discipline’ while participating in the campaign.

Hopefully, however, their participation on this basis will nurture their own personal journey to embrace the sanctity and unity of all life so that, subsequently, they can more fully participate in the co-creation of a nonviolent world.

Other Components of Strategy

Once you have identified the political purpose, strategic aims and conception of nonviolence that will guide your struggle, and undertaken a thorough political and strategic assessment, you are free to consider  the other components of your strategy: organization, leadership, communication, preparations, constructive program, strategic timeframe, tactics and peacekeeping, and evaluation.

For example, a vital component of any constructive program ideally includes each individual traveling their own personal journey to self-realization – see ‘Putting Feelings First’– considering making ‘My Promise to Children’ to eliminate violence at its source and participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ to preserve Earth’s biosphere.

Needless to say, each of these components of strategy must also be carefully planned. They are explained in turn on the nonviolent strategy websites mentioned above.

In addition to these components, the websites also include articles, photos, videos, diagrams and case studies that discuss and illustrate many essential elements of sound nonviolent strategy. These include the value of police/military liaison, issues in relation to tactical selection, the importance of avoiding secrecy and sabotage, how to respond to arrest, how to undertake peacekeeping and the 20 points to consider when planning to minimize the risk of violent police/military repression when this is a possibility.

Conclusion

The global elite and many other people are too insane to ‘walk away’ from the enormous violence they inflict on life.

Consequently, we are not going to end violence in all of its forms – including violence against women, children, indigenous and working peoples, violence against people because of their race or religion, war, slavery, the climate catastrophe, rainforest destruction, military occupations, dictatorships and genocides – and create a world of peace, justice and ecological sustainability for all of us without sound and comprehensive nonviolent strategies that tackle each issue at its core while complementing and reinforcing gains made in parallel struggles.

If you wish to declare your participation in this worldwide effort, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Given the overwhelming violence that we must tackle, can we succeed? I do not know but I intend to fight, strategically, to the last breath. I hope that you will too.

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

Around the world activists who are strategic thinkers face a daunting challenge to effectively tackle the multitude of violent conflicts, including the threat of human extinction, confronting human society in the early 21^st century.

I wrote that ‘activists who are strategic thinkers face a daunting challenge’ because there is no point deluding ourselves that the insane global elite – see ‘The Global Elite is Insane’ – with its compliant international organizations (such as the UN) and national governments following orders as directed, is going to respond appropriately and powerfully to the multifaceted crisis that it has been progressively generating since long before the industrial revolution.

For reasons that are readily explained psychologically – see ‘Love Denied: The Psychology of Materialism, Violence and War’and, for more detail, see ‘Why Violence?’ and ‘Fearless Psychology and Fearful Psychology: Principles and Practice’– this insanity focuses their attention on securing control of the world’s remaining resources while marginalizing the bulk of the human population in ghettos, or just killing them outright with military violence or economic exploitation (or the climate/ecological consequences of their violence and exploitation).

If you doubt what I have written above, then consider the history of any progressive political, social, economic and environmental change in the past few centuries and you will find a long record of activist planning, organizing and action preceding any worthwhile change which was invariably required to overcome enormous elite opposition. In short, if you can identify one progressive outcome that was initiated and supported by the global elite, I would be surprised to hear about it.

Moreover, we are not going to get out of this crisis – which must include ending violence, exploitation and war, halting the destruction of Earth’s biosphere and ongoing violent assaults on indigenous peoples, ending slavery, liberating occupied countries such as Palestine, Tibet and West Papua, removing dictatorships such as those in Cambodia and Saudi Arabia, ending genocidal assaults such as those currently being directed against the people of Yemen and the Rohingya in Myanmar, and defending the rights of a people, such as those in Catalonia, to secede from one state and form another – without both understanding the deep drivers of conflict as well as the local drivers in each case, and then developing and implementing sound and comprehensive strategies, based on this dual-faceted analysis of each conflict.

In addition, if like Mohandas K. Gandhi, many others and me you accept the evidence that violence is inherently counterproductive and has no countervailing desirability in any context – expressed most simply by the Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. when he stated ‘the enemy is violence’ –  then we must be intelligent, courageous and resourceful enough to commit ourselves to planning, developing and implementing strategies that are both exclusively nonviolent and powerfully effective against extraordinarily insane and ruthlessly violent opponents, such as the US government.

Equally importantly, however, it is not just the violence of the global elite that we must address if extinction is to be averted. We must also tackle the violence that each of us inflicts on ourselves, our children, each other and the Earth too. And, sadly, this violence takes an extraordinary variety of forms having originated no later than the Neolithic Revolution 12,000 years ago. See ‘A Critique of Human Society since the Neolithic Revolution’.

Is all of this possible?

When I first became interested in nonviolent strategy in the early 1980s, I read widely. I particularly sought out the literature on nonviolence but, as my interest deepened and I tried to apply what I was reading in the nonviolence literature to the many nonviolent action campaigns in which I was involved, I kept noticing how inadequate these so-called ‘strategies’ in the literature actually were, largely because they did not explain precisely what to do, even though they superficially purported to do so by offering ‘principles’, ‘guidelines’, sets of tactics or even ‘stages of a campaign’.

I found this shortcoming in the literature most instructive and, because I am committed to succeeding when I engage as a nonviolent activist, I started to read the work of Mohandas K. Gandhi and even the literature on military strategy. By the mid-1980s I had decided to research and write a book on nonviolent strategy because, by then, I had become aware that the individual who understood strategy, whether nonviolent or military, was rare.

Moreover, there were many conceptions of military strategy, written over more than 2,000 years, and an increasing number of conceptions of what was presented as ‘nonviolent strategy’, in one form or another, were becoming available as the 1980s progressed. But the flaws in these were increasingly and readily apparent to me as I considered their inadequate theoretical foundations or tried to apply them in nonviolent action campaigns.

The more I struggled with this problem, the more I found myself reading ‘The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi’ in a library basement. After all, Gandhi had led a successful 30 year nonviolent liberation struggle to end the British occupation of India so it made sense that he had considerable insight regarding strategy. Unfortunately, he never wrote it down simply in one place.

A complicating but related problem was that among those military authors who professed to present some version of ‘strategic theory’, in fact, most simply presented an approach to strategic planning (such as using a set of principles or a particular operational pattern) or an incomplete theory of strategy (such as ‘maritime theory’, ‘air theory’ or ‘guerrilla theory’) and (often largely unwittingly) passed these off as ‘strategic theory’, which they are not. And it was only when I read Carl von Clausewitz’s infuriatingly convoluted and tortuously lengthy book On War that I started to fully understand strategic theory. This is because Clausewitz actually presented (not in a simple form, I hasten to admit) a strategic theory and then a military strategy that worked in accordance with his strategic theory. ‘Could this strategic theory work in guiding a nonviolent strategy?’ I wondered.

Remarkably, the more I read Gandhi (and compared him with other activists and scholars in the field), the more it became apparent to me that Gandhi was the only nonviolent strategist who (intuitively) understood strategic theory. Although, to be fair, it was an incredibly rare military strategist who understood strategic theory either with Mao Zedong a standout exception and other Marxist strategists like Vladimir Lenin and Võ Nguyên Giáp understanding far more than western military strategists which is why, for example, the US and its allies were defeated in their war on Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

Some years later, after grappling at length with this problem of using strategic theory to guide nonviolent strategy and reading a great deal more of Gandhi, while studying many nonviolent struggles and participating in many nonviolent campaigns myself, I wrote The Strategy of Nonviolent Defense: A Gandhian Approach. I wrote this book by synthesizing the work of Gandhi with some modified insights of Clausewitz and learning of my own drawn from the experience and study just mentioned. I have recently simplified and summarized the presentation of this book on two websites: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategy.

Let me outline, very simply, nonviolent strategy, without touching on strategic theory, as I have developed and presented it in the book and on the websites.

Nonviolent Strategy

You will see on the diagram of the Nonviolent Strategy Wheel that there are four primary components of strategy in the center of the wheel and eight components of strategy that are planned in accordance with these four central components. I will briefly describe the four primary components.

Source: Nonviolent Campaign Strategy

Before doing so, however, it is worth noting that, by using this Nonviolent Strategy Wheel, it is a straightforward task to analyze why so many activist movements and (nonviolent) liberation struggles fail: they simply do not understand the need to plan and implement a comprehensive strategy, entailing all twelve components, if they are to succeed.

So, to choose some examples almost at random, despite substantial (and sometimes widespread) popular support, particularly in some countries, the antiwar movement, the climate justice movement and the Palestinian and Tibetan liberation struggles are each devoid of a comprehensive strategy to deploy their resources for strategic impact and so they languish instead of precipitating the outcomes to which they aspire, which are quite possible.

Having said that a sound and comprehensive strategy must pay attention to all twelve components of strategy it is very occasionally true that campaigns succeed without doing so. This simply demonstrates that nonviolence, in itself, is extraordinarily powerful. But it is unwise to rely on the power of nonviolence alone, without planning and implementing a comprehensive strategy, especially when you are taking on a powerful and entrenched opponent who has much to lose (even if their conception of what they believe they will ‘lose’ is delusional) and may be ruthlessly violent if challenged.

For the purpose of this article, the term strategy refers to a planned series of actions (including campaigns) that are designed to achieve the two strategic aims (see below).

The Political Purpose and the Political Demands

If you are going to conduct a nonviolent struggle, whether to achieve a peace, environmental or social justice outcome, or even a defense or liberation outcome, the best place to start is to define the political purpose of your struggle. The political purpose is a statement of ‘what you want’. For example, this might be one of the following (but there are many possibilities depending on the context):

• To secure a treaty acknowledging indigenous sovereignty between [name of indigenous people] and the settler population in [name of land/country] over the area known as [name of land/country].
• To stop violence against [children and/or women] in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To end discrimination and violence against the racial/religious minority of [name of group] in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To end forest destruction in [your specified area/country/region].
• To end climate-destroying activities in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To halt military production by [name of weapons corporation]in [name of the town/city/state/country].
• To prevent/halt [name of corporation] exploiting the [name of fossil fuel resource].
• To defend [name of the country] against the political/military coup by [identity of coup perpetrators].
• To defend [name of the country] against the foreign military invasion by [name of invading country].
• To defend the [name of targeted group] against the genocidal assault by the [identity of genocidal entity].
• To establish the independent entity/state of [name of proposed entity/state] by removing the foreign occupying state of [name of occupying state].
• To establish a democratic state in [name of country] by removing the dictatorship.

This political purpose ‘anchors’ your campaign: it tells people what you are concerned about so that you can clearly identify allies, opponents and third parties. Your political purpose is a statement of what you will have achieved when you have successfully completed your strategy.

In practice, your political purpose may be publicized in the form of a political program or as a list of demands. You can read the five criteria that should guide the formulation of these political demands on one of the nonviolent strategy websites cited above.

The Political and Strategic Assessment

Strategic planning requires an accurate and thorough political and strategic assessment (although ongoing evaluation will enable refinement of this assessment if new information emerges during the implementation of the strategy).

In essence, this political and strategic assessment requires four things. Notably this includes knowledge of the vital details about the issue (e.g. why has it happened? who benefits from it? how, precisely, do they benefit? who is exploited?) and a structural analysis and understanding of the causes behind it, including an awareness of the deep emotional (especially the fear) and cultural imperatives that exist in the minds of those individuals (and their organizations) who engage in the destructive behavior.

So, for example, if you do not understand, precisely, what each of your various groups of opponents is scared of losing/suffering (whether or not this fear is rational), you cannot design your strategy taking this vital knowledge into account so that you can mitigate their fear effectively and free their mind to thoughtfully consider alternatives. It is poor strategy (and contrary to the essence of Gandhian nonviolence) to reinforce your opponents’ fear and lock them into a defensive reaction.

Strategic Aims and Strategic Goals

Having defined your political purpose, it is easy to identify the two strategic aims of your struggle. This is because every campaign or liberation struggle has two strategic aims and they are always the same:

1. To increase support for your campaign by developing a network of groups who can assist you.
2. To alter the will and undermine the power of those groups who support the problem.

Now you just need to define your strategic goals for both mobilizing support for your campaign and for undermining support for the problem. From your political and strategic assessment:

1. Identify the key social groups that can be mobilized to support and participate in your strategy (and then write these groups into the ‘bubbles’ on the left side of the campaign strategy diagram that can be downloaded from the strategy websites), and

2. identify the key social groups (corporation/s, police/military, government, workers, consumers etc.) whose support for the problem (e.g. the climate catastrophe, war, the discrimination/violence against a particular group, forest destruction, resource extraction, genocide, occupation) is vital (and then write these groups into the columns on the right side of the campaign strategy diagram).

These key social groups become the primary targets in your campaign. Hence, the derivative set of specific strategic goals, which are unique to your campaign, should then be devised and each written in accordance with the formula explained in the article ‘The Political Objective and Strategic Goal of Nonviolent Actions’. That is: ‘To cause a [specified group of people] to act in the [specified way].’

As the title of this article suggests, it also explains the vital distinction between the political objective and the strategic goal of any nonviolent action. This distinction is rarely understood and applied and explains why most ‘direct actions’ have no strategic impact.

You can read appropriate sets of strategic goals for ending war, ending the climate catastrophe, ending a military occupation, removing a dictatorship and halting a genocide on one or the other of these two sites: Nonviolent Campaign Strategic Aims and Nonviolent Defense/Liberation Strategic Aims.

The Conception of Nonviolence

There are four primary conceptions of nonviolence which have been illustrated on the Matrix of Nonviolence. Because of this, your strategic plan should:

1. identify the particular conception of nonviolence that your campaign will utilize;

2. identify the specific ways in which your commitment to nonviolence will be conveyed to all parties so that the benefits of adopting a nonviolent strategy are maximized; and

3. identify how the level of discipline required to implement your nonviolent strategy will be developed. This includes defining the ‘action agreements’ (code of nonviolent discipline) that will guide activist behaviour.

It is important to make a deliberate strategic choice regarding the conception of nonviolence that will underpin your strategy. If your intention is to utilize the strategic framework outlined here, it is vitally important to recognize that this framework is based on the Gandhian (principled/revolutionary) conception of nonviolence.

This is because Gandhi’s nonviolence is based on certain premises, including the importance of the truth, the sanctity and unity of all life, and the unity of means and end, so his strategy is always conducted within the framework of his desired political, social, economic and ecological vision for society as a whole and not limited to the purpose of any immediate campaign. It is for this reason that Gandhi’s approach to strategy is so important. He is always taking into account the ultimate end of all nonviolent struggle – a just, peaceful and ecologically sustainable society of self-realized human beings – not just the outcome of this campaign. He wants each campaign to contribute to the ultimate aim, not undermine vital elements of the long-term and overarching struggle to create a world without violence.

This does not mean, however, that each person participating in the strategy must share this commitment; they may participate simply because it is expedient for them to do so. This is not a problem as long as they are willing to commit to the ‘code of nonviolent discipline’ while participating in the campaign.

Hopefully, however, their participation on this basis will nurture their own personal journey to embrace the sanctity and unity of all life so that, subsequently, they can more fully participate in the co-creation of a nonviolent world.

Other Components of Strategy

Once you have identified the political purpose, strategic aims and conception of nonviolence that will guide your struggle, and undertaken a thorough political and strategic assessment, you are free to consider  the other components of your strategy: organization, leadership, communication, preparations, constructive program, strategic timeframe, tactics and peacekeeping, and evaluation.

For example, a vital component of any constructive program ideally includes each individual traveling their own personal journey to self-realization – see ‘Putting Feelings First’– considering making ‘My Promise to Children’ to eliminate violence at its source and participating in ‘The Flame Tree Project to Save Life on Earth’ to preserve Earth’s biosphere.

Needless to say, each of these components of strategy must also be carefully planned. They are explained in turn on the nonviolent strategy websites mentioned above.

In addition to these components, the websites also include articles, photos, videos, diagrams and case studies that discuss and illustrate many essential elements of sound nonviolent strategy. These include the value of police/military liaison, issues in relation to tactical selection, the importance of avoiding secrecy and sabotage, how to respond to arrest, how to undertake peacekeeping and the 20 points to consider when planning to minimize the risk of violent police/military repression when this is a possibility.

Conclusion

The global elite and many other people are too insane to ‘walk away’ from the enormous violence they inflict on life.

Consequently, we are not going to end violence in all of its forms – including violence against women, children, indigenous and working peoples, violence against people because of their race or religion, war, slavery, the climate catastrophe, rainforest destruction, military occupations, dictatorships and genocides – and create a world of peace, justice and ecological sustainability for all of us without sound and comprehensive nonviolent strategies that tackle each issue at its core while complementing and reinforcing gains made in parallel struggles.

If you wish to declare your participation in this worldwide effort, you are welcome to sign the online pledge of ‘The People’s Charter to Create a Nonviolent World’.

Given the overwhelming violence that we must tackle, can we succeed? I do not know but I intend to fight, strategically, to the last breath. I hope that you will too.

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

Apart from natural beauty with which India has been bestowed with, it also has manmade marvels. And these are attracting not only Indians but people from World over. One of such structures is the Taj Mahal built by Emperor Shah Jahan in memory of his beloved wife Mumtazmahal. It has been voted among the seven wonders of the World and is a UNESCO heritage site. Poet Guru Rabindranath described it emotionally by calling it a ‘drop of tear on the cheek’. It has been attracting tourists all over the World and is undoubted tourist attraction number one in India.

But that is of no concern for the Yogi Government of UP. Just weeks ago, on completion of six months in power, it brought out a brochure related to the tourism development, ‘Uttar Pradesh Paryatan-Apaar Sambhavanaayein’ which when translated in English will mean ‘Uttar Pradesh Tourism – Unlimited Possibilities’.  The booklet has focus on tourist sites of UP and includes places like Gorakhmath Peeth, headed by the Chief minister Yogi Adityanath himself, and has many other places from UP, religious tourism seems to be the focus of the booklet. What it bypasses is the most famous tourist attraction, Taj Mahal.

Earlier after becoming CM. Yogi had asserted that Taj Mahal is not part of Indian culture and that the practice of giving the replica of Taj to the visiting dignitaries should be changed and they should be given Gita or Ramayana, which are symbols of Indian culture, according to him. The communal bias of Yogi and UP administration in turn is very visible in the matter of Taj. When the matter came up for criticism in the media the concerned ministers started saying that Taj is a part of Indian heritage but the booklet was mentioning only sites which needed promotion. They also asserted that separate funds have been allocated for Taj and the plan for international airport at Agra is also being mooted.

Multiple voices are coming forward from BJP camp. It was a Hindu temple, it is a monument of no consequence, it is reflective of India’s slavery etc.! One of BJP leaders Sangeet Som reflected the current change in strategy of BJP about the monuments built by Muslim kings. Reacting to the Taj issue he said that

“Many people were sad the Taj Mahal was removed from the tourism booklet of the State government. What history are we talking about? The history that the builder of the Taj Mahal had imprisoned his father?… The history that the builder of the monument eliminated Hindus from U.P. and from India? It is quite sad and unfortunate that such tyrants are still part of our history,”

Incidentally the tourist traffic to Taj has been declining over last few years and there is an urgent need to promote the site as tourist destination. Question is why the mention of Taj has been left out in the first place? In the background of what Yogi has been saying about Taj earlier, it does smack a discomfort with a structure which was built by Mughal ruler, whom Hindutva-Yogi’s ideology regards as invader. The definition of Indian culture by Indian nationalists like Gandhi is in total variance from what ruling Yogi-Hindutva ideology asserts. For them only elite Hindu culture is Indian culture.

It is not surprising that RSS-Hindutva propaganda so far had been asserting that Taj is a Hindu temple, that of Shiva, Tejo Mahalay! This is contrary to the historical knowledge and the evidences.

Shahjahan’s Badshahnama makes it abundantly clear that the structure was built by Shahjahan. A European traveller Peter Mundy writes that the emperor Shahjahan is in deep grief due to the death of his favourite wife and is building an impressive mausoleum in her memory. A French jeweller Tavernier who visited India at that time corroborates this. The daily account books of Shahjahan do give the detailed record of the expenses incurred, like the money spent for marble and the wages for the workers etc. The only base of this misconception of it being Shiv Temple (Tejo Mahalay) is the mention that the land was bought from Raja Jaisingh for a compensation. It is also to be noted that Jaisingh to whom this Shaiva temple is attributed was a Vaishnav and it is not possible that a Viashnav king would build a Shaiv temple.

Undermining Taj is also a part of the broader Hindutva project to rewrite Indian history, where the communal interpretation of history is being promoted and events are also being given a twist to suit the communal mindset. The most horrific such twist is to say that in the battle of Haldi Ghati between Akbar and Rana Pratap, it was Rana Pratap who won the battle. As such the battle was for power not for religion. One knows both Akbar and Rana Pratap had associates who belonged to the ‘other’ religion. The affiliations were not along religious lines.

It seems Taj and other structures built during the rule of Muslim kings are a thorn in the communal thinking. So, the attempt so far has been to present it as a Hindu temple, now in the seats of power the communal forces want to undermine it, erase it from being a part of Indian culture and to undermine its place in Indian culture. The multipronged Hindutva strategy aims to further marginalize the Muslim community by giving it a miss the way it was done in case of UP brochure. Will it be the turn of Delhi’s Red fort, from where the Prime Ministers of the Country have been giving the speech on day of Independence!

In the light of criticism all around some UP ministers have tried to save their face that Taj is a part of Indian heritage, while the one’s like Sangeet Som are more blunt and forthright. As such all these places of historical and archeological importance need not only to be protected but also promoted as a part of Indian syncretic culture.

This article was originally published by People’s Voice.

Featured image is from the author.

Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that the report of the Joint UN Security Council and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inquiry Mechanism into the events, relating to the alleged use of sarin gas in the northwestern Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4th, was flawed as regards its investigative methods and based on false statements coming from the highly questionable sources. 

Ryabkov’s response came after Vasily Nebenzya, Russia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations, yesterday announced that Moscow is proposing a new report by UN experts and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) on chemical attacks in Syria.

“We have begun to prepare a new document, which has a comprehensive technical character”, said Russian press secretary Fyodor Strzhizovski, adding that it is necessary to conduct such study using experts from different institutions.

“It surprises us once again that Western news agencies are shamelessly publish quotations directly from an internal document of the UN Security Council”, he added.

“The group of international experts is convinced that the Syrian authorities are responsible for the release of sarin gas in Khan Sheikhoun in Idleb province, AFP reported earlier.

The statement came after the Joint UN Security Council and the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons Inquiry Mechanism submitted a report to the Security Council on Thursday evening, which included the results of the investigation into the alleged use of sarin gas in the Syrian town of Khan Sheikhoun on April 4, and the use of mustard gas in the town Oum Al Hosh on 15th and 16th September 2016.

“Once again we see an independent inquiry confirming the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime”, said Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the United Nations, while commenting on the report.

“The UN Security Council must send a strong message that it does not tolerate the use of chemical weapons by any party and must assure its full support to impartial investigations”, she added.

“The Secretary-General of the United Nations Antonio Gutteres expressed his full confidence in the professionalism, objectivity and impartiality of the Joint UN-OPCW Inquiry Mechanism”, Deputy Spokesman for the Secretary-General Farhan Haq said.

The UN Security Council and OPCW unanimously established the Joint Investigative Mechanism in 2015 and renewed its mandate for another year in 2016. Its current mandate expires in mid-November.

Russia, however, rejected the extension of the mandate, stressing that while it was not opposed to the extension as such, it nonetheless had to take a hasty decision as regards the matter, namely after discovering “fundamental problems” in the work of the joint mechanism.

Russia’s permanent representative to the United Nations, Vasily Nebenzya, said earlier this week that Moscow would consider reviewing the extension of the mandate with amendments after discussing the report on Thursday.

It is noteworthy Syria agreed to destroy its entire stock of chemical weapons back in 2013 already, following a deal brokered by Russia and the United States.

The Syrian government has repeatedly denied the use of chemical weapons during the entire war, which has been going on for more than six years now.

Translated by Samer Hussein

Featured image: Sen. Joe McCarthy with lawyer Roy Cohn (right)

In the past, America has witnessed “McCarthyism” from the Right and even complaints from the Right about “McCarthyism of the Left.” But what we are witnessing now amid the Russia-gate frenzy is what might be called “Establishment McCarthyism,” traditional media/political powers demonizing and silencing dissent that questions mainstream narratives.

This extraordinary assault on civil liberties is cloaked in fright-filled stories about “Russian propaganda” and wildly exaggerated tales of the Kremlin’s “hordes of Twitter bots,” but its underlying goal is to enforce Washington’s “groupthinks” by creating a permanent system that shuts down or marginalizes dissident opinions and labels contrary information – no matter how reasonable and well-researched – as “disputed” or “rated false” by mainstream “fact-checking” organizations like PolitiFact.

It doesn’t seem to matter that the paragons of this new structure – such as The New York Times, The Washington Post, CNN and, indeed, PolitiFact – have a checkered record of getting facts straight.

For instance, PolitiFact still rates as “true” Hillary Clinton’s false claim that “all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies” agreed that Russia was behind the release of Democratic emails last year. Even the Times and The Associated Press belatedly ran corrections after President Obama’s intelligence chiefs admitted that the assessment came from what Director of National Intelligence James Clapper called “hand-picked” analysts from only three agencies: CIA, FBI and NSA.

And, the larger truth was that these “hand-picked” analysts were sequestered away from other analysts even from their own agencies and produced “stove-piped intelligence,” i.e., analysis that escapes the back-and-forth that should occur inside the intelligence community.

Even then, what these analysts published last Jan. 6 was an “assessment,” which they specifically warned was “not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact.” In other words, they didn’t have any conclusive proof of Russian “hacking.”

Yet, the Times and other leading newspaper routinely treat these findings as flat fact or the unassailable “consensus” of the “intelligence community.” Contrary information, including WikiLeaks’ denials of a Russian role in supplying the emails, and contrary judgments from former senior U.S. intelligence officials are ignored.

The Jan. 6 report also tacked on a seven-page addendum smearing the Russian television network, RT, for such offenses as sponsoring a 2012 debate among U.S. third-party presidential candidates who had been excluded from the Republican-Democratic debates. RT also was slammed for reporting on the Occupy Wall Street protests and the environmental dangers from “fracking.”

How the idea of giving Americans access to divergent political opinions and information about valid issues such as income inequality and environmental dangers constitutes threats to American “democracy” is hard to comprehend.

However, rather than address the Jan. 6 report’s admitted uncertainties about Russian “hacking” and the troubling implications of its attacks on RT, the Times and other U.S. mainstream publications treat the report as some kind of holy scripture that can’t be questioned or challenged.

Silencing RT

For instance, on Tuesday, the Times published a front-page story entitled “YouTube Gave Russians Outlet Portal Into U.S.” that essentially cried out for the purging of RT from YouTube. The article began by holding YouTube’s vice president Robert Kynci up to ridicule and opprobrium for his praising “RT for bonding with viewers by providing ‘authentic’ content instead of ‘agendas or propaganda.’”

The article by Daisuke Wakabayashi and Nicholas Confessore swallowed whole the Jan. 6 report’s conclusion that RT is “the Kremlin’s ‘principal international propaganda outlet’ and a key player in Russia’s information warfare operations around the world.” In other words, the Times portrayed Kynci as essentially a “useful idiot.”

Yet, the article doesn’t actually dissect any RT article that could be labeled false or propagandistic. It simply alludes generally to news items that contained information critical of Hillary Clinton as if any negative reporting on the Democratic presidential contender – no matter how accurate or how similar to stories appearing in the U.S. press – was somehow proof of “information warfare.”

As Daniel Lazare wrote at Consortiumnews.com on Wednesday,

“The web version [of the Times article] links to an RT interview with WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange that ran shortly before the 2016 election. The topic is a September 2014 email obtained by Wikileaks in which Clinton acknowledges that ‘the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia … are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to ISIL and other radical Sunni groups in the region.’”

In other words, the Times cited a documented and newsworthy RT story as its evidence that RT was a propaganda shop threatening American democracy and deserving ostracism if not removal from YouTube.

A Dangerous Pattern

Not to say that I share every news judgment of RT – or for that matter The New York Times – but there is a grave issue of press freedom when the Times essentially calls for the shutting down of access to a news organization that may highlight or report on stories that the Times and other mainstream outlets downplay or ignore.

And this was not a stand-alone story. Previously, the Times has run favorable articles about plans to deploy aggressive algorithms to hunt down and then remove or marginalize information that the Times and other mainstream outlets deem false.

Nor is it just the Times. Last Thanksgiving, The Washington Post ran a fawning front-page article about an anonymous group PropOrNot that had created a blacklist of 200 Internet sites, including Consortiumnews.com and other independent news sources, that were deemed guilty of dispensing “Russian propaganda,” which basically amounted to our showing any skepticism toward the State Department’s narratives on the crises in Syria or Ukraine.

So, if any media outlet dares to question the U.S. government’s version of events – once that storyline has been embraced by the big media – the dissidents risk being awarded the media equivalent of a yellow star and having their readership dramatically reduced by getting downgraded on search engines and punished on social media.

Meanwhile, Congress has authorized $160 million to combat alleged Russian “propaganda and disinformation,” a gilded invitation for “scholars” and “experts” to gear up “studies” that will continue to prove what is supposed to be proved – “Russia bad” – with credulous mainstream reporters eagerly gobbling up the latest “evidence” of Russian perfidy.

There is also a more coercive element to what’s going on. RT is facing demands from the Justice Department that it register as a “foreign agent” or face prosecution. Clearly, the point is to chill the journalism done by RT’s American reporters, hosts and staff who now fear being stigmatized as something akin to traitors.

You might wonder: where are the defenders of press freedom and civil liberties? Doesn’t anyone in the mainstream media or national politics recognize the danger to a democracy coming from enforced groupthinks? Is American democracy so fragile that letting Americans hear “another side of the story” must be prevented?

A Dangerous ‘Cure’

I agree that there is a limited problem with jerks who knowingly make up fake stories or who disseminate crazy conspiracy theories – and no one finds such behavior more offensive than I do. But does no one recall the lies about Iraq’s WMD and other U.S. government falsehoods and deceptions over the years?

Often, it is the few dissenters who alert the American people to the truth, even as the Times, Post, CNN and other big outlets are serving as the real propaganda agents, accepting what the “important people” say and showing little or no professional skepticism.

And, given the risk of thermo-nuclear war with Russia, why aren’t liberals and progressives demanding at least a critical examination of what’s coming from the U.S. intelligence agencies and the mainstream press?

The answer seems to be that many liberals and progressives are so blinded by their fury over Donald Trump’s election that they don’t care what lines are crossed to destroy or neutralize him. Plus, for some liberal entities, there’s lots of money to be made.

For instance, the American Civil Liberties Union has made its “resistance” to the Trump administration an important part of its fundraising. So, the ACLU is doing nothing to defend the rights of news organizations and journalists under attack.

When I asked ACLU about the Justice Department’s move against RT and other encroachments on press freedom, I was told by ACLU spokesman Thomas Dresslar:

“Thanks for reaching out to us. Unfortunately, I’ve been informed that we do not have anyone able to speak to you about this.”

Meanwhile, the Times and other traditional “defenders of a free press” are now part of the attack machine against a free press. While much of this attitude comes from the big media’s high-profile leadership of the anti-Trump Resistance and anger at any resistors to the Resistance, mainstream news outlets have chafed for years over the Internet undermining their privileged role as the gatekeepers of what Americans get to see and hear.

For a long time, the big media has wanted an excuse to rein in the Internet and break the small news outlets that have challenged the power – and the profitability – of the Times, Post, CNN, etc. Russia-gate and Trump have become the cover for that restoration of mainstream authority.

So, as we have moved into this dangerous New Cold War, we are living in what could be called “Establishment McCarthyism,” a hysterical but methodical strategy for silencing dissent and making sure that future mainstream groupthinks don’t get challenged.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

Featured image: President Faure Gnassingbe

Four people were reportedly killed by security forces during demonstrations organized by opposition forces on October 18-19.

An alliance of 14 political parties and coalition groups openly defied attempts by the government of President Faure Gnassingbe to ban protests by going into to the streets to demand that the current regime resign in lieu of holding democratic elections.

The Gnassingbe family has been in power in the West African state since 1967. The regime is closely aligned with the former colonial power France and other Western states.

Among the dead in the recent wave of unrest included an 11-year-old child who was shot down by security forces in the capital of Lome. Demonstrations have also been held in the second largest city of Sokode where police attacked protesters during the recent period.

ECOWAS Role Compromised by Conflict of Interests

Regional leaders of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have largely remained silent since the outbreak of demonstrations on August 19. However, the severity of the repression and the issuing of statements by France and the United States have prompted ECOWAS to call for dialogue between Gnassingbe and the opposition groups, a position echoed by Paris.

Complicating the role of ECOWAS is the reality that Gnassingbe currently holds the rotating chairpersonship of the regional grouping. Any expectation that the 16-member body with its current composition will take a forceful stand is counterintuitive.

In response to the demonstrations and general strikes, the government did pass legislation ostensibly designed to open up the political process. However, opposition leaders rejected the legislation that purportedly places limits on how many terms a president can stay in office because the measure was not retroactive. Therefore, Gnassingbe could still remain in office until 2025.

A constitution approved during mass unrest in the early 1990s has never been put into full effect and was ignored in the aftermath of the death of Gnassingbe Eyadema in 2005. Eyadema, the father of the current leader, was a French-trained military officer who came to power through a military coup fifty years ago.

Alassane Ouattara, another western-backed leader in neighboring Ivory Coast, claimed that he along with other leaders from Nigeria, Niger, and Ghana held talks with Togo’s president on October 24.

“We believe negotiations are needed … and that these negotiations must lead to constitutional modifications already embarked upon.” (Global News Network, Oct. 26)

The Ivorian leader who himself was installed in power by France in 2011 after the overthrow and kidnapping of former President Laurent Gbagbo and First Simone Gbagbo, said that the ECOWAS leaders eschewed violence noting it was “important there is a climate of peace in Togo”.

“Demonstrations must be able to occur but peacefully,” Ouattara said. He went on to declare that ECOWAS would not tolerate repressive violence and would respond with unspecified “rigorous measures”.

A French foreign ministry spokeswoman Agnes Romatet-Espagne on October 25 said that the government in Lome must “respect the right to protest. Protests should be expressed in a peaceful manner. We strongly condemn the recent violence that has left several people dead or injured (and) call for calm on both sides and dialogue. (Global News Network, Oct. 26)

In addition, the United States Department of State spokesperson Heather Nauert, issued a statement on behalf of the administration of President Donald Trump expressing concern about the escalating violence in the country. Security alerts by the Embassy of the U.S. have cautioned Americans living and working inside the country.

The State Department press release read in part:

“We are particularly troubled by reports of excessive use of force by security forces and reports that Government-sponsored vigilantes are using force and the threat of force to disrupt protests and intimidate civilians. The United States is also concerned with the Government of Togo’s decision to restrict demonstrations during the workweek and to arrest a prominent imam in the city of Sokode. We call on the Government of Togo to uphold its citizens’ human rights, notably their freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and internet freedom and to ensure that all those arrested during demonstrations are afforded the right to due process.”

Opposition Forces Must Set the Course for Political Transformation

Despite these developments, it remains to be seen what actual measures the imperialist governments will take in regard to the current crisis. Obviously, the West and its allies in the region do not want a sweeping revolutionary transformation in Togo. Such a manifestation would have regional implications in light of the character of the current administrations holding power in neighboring Ghana and Ivory Coast.

With the ECOWAS leaders breaking their silence on the political crisis and the governments of France and the U.S. urging restraint may indicate pressure from regional and western powers for the opposition forces to compromise with the Gnassingbe administration. At present the Chair of the African Union (AU) heads-of-state summit is from West Africa in the personage of President Alpha Conde of Guinea.

Togo masses standoff with security forces (Source: Abayomi Azikiwe)

This provides a sense of urgency for the AU to politically intervene in the standoff between opposition parties and coalitions fighting to remove the incumbent regime. Conde revealed on October 27 that he had held talks with Ouattara over both the situation in Togo along with proposals under consideration for the establishment of a common currency among the ECOWAS member-states.

Conde has chimed in on the stalemate saying the Togolese government and opposition parties must discover a “peaceful” resolution to the struggle over a mechanism for a political transition considering the number of lives which have been lost over the last two months. However, what has compelled the mass demonstrations since August is the belief that the ruling party is incapable of reforming itself and therefore must be removed from power.

The AU Chair said of the discussions around economic issues and the Togo unrest:

“We have reviewed a series of questions, notably on the single currency. It’s a goal we have together. We also exchanged views on the situation in Togo. It is extremely important that things evolve peacefully in the country and there should be a solution that would allow the Togolese people to continue moving forward.”

Although Pan-African National Party (PNP) leader Tikpi Atchadam was quoted as saying:

“We believe that President Macron (of France) will intervene. We are waiting.”

Nevertheless, the character of the involvement by Paris is the central question. France’s foreign policy towards its former colonies has never been based upon the desire to empower the progressive forces.

Events in Ivory Coast since 2010 along with Gabon and the Central African Republic convey this axiom out in real terms. In Libya, where the conservative government of Nicolas Sarkozy joined in with the U.S., Britain, Italy and other imperialist nations in 2011 to destroy the sovereignty of the North African state of Libya, this most prosperous country has been rendered to abject poverty as well as a base for instability and human trafficking to Europe.

The PNP opposition party which has spearheaded the mass demonstrations and strikes over the previous months said of Conde that he “tried to meet us. He even sent his plane to get us and it was the day before our departure that the arrests (of opposition supporters) started.”

Meanwhile ECOWAS leaders, particularly in Ghana, are closely monitoring the influx of refugees fleeing the impact of the crackdown by Togolese security forces. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported that approximately 500 Togolese nationals have arrived in neighboring Ghana.

A spokesperson for the refugee agency, Babar Baloch, pointed out that:

“Togolese seeking safety, including women and children, told UNHCR staff earlier this month that they had fled on foot, walking from their homes in Togo’s Mango region, bordering Ghana. They said they were fleeing human rights abuses after the recent political protests.” (VOA, Oct. 27)

Baloch continued saying:

“Togo’s neighboring countries are quite worried that if the situation is not resolved soon, maybe more people would flee. That is why they have approached the U.N. refugee agency to prepare themselves for any further refugee arrivals.”

On Thursday, US President Donald Trump proclaimed the opioid crisis, which killed some 64,000 people last year, a “public health emergency,” a move that, despite appeals from medical professionals and public health advocates, did not include one cent in additional funding.

More people died last year from drug overdoses than American soldiers were killed during the entire Vietnam War, with a staggering 175 people killed every day. Countless millions more have been affected, from friends and family members of addicts whose lives have been upended, to children born addicted to opioids.

Trump’s response to the opioid epidemic mirrors his administration’s response to every social crisis and disaster, such as the hurricanes that struck Texas, Florida and Puerto Rico. The government has provided no meaningful federal aid to Puerto Rico, still suffering from widespread blackouts, while demanding it step up its payments to its Wall Street creditors.

But when it comes to funneling money to the US oligarchy, the White House and Congress are more than willing to oblige. Just hours before Trump’s announcement on the opioid crisis, the House of Representatives passed a budget bill that clears the way for Trump’s tax cut for corporations and the rich to be fast-tracked through Congress, for possible passage before Thanksgiving.

The plan, which would cost taxpayers some $5.8 trillion over the next ten years, would slash the corporate tax rate from the current 35 percent to 20 percent, eliminate the estate tax for multimillion-dollar inheritances, and slash rates for “repatriating” corporate profits held offshore.

These two measures present the outlook of the financial elite that dominates American society and controls both political parties: unlimited cash for the enrichment of the financial oligarchy and nothing to address the pressing social needs of the working population.

This bipartisan policy, which has been carried out for decades under the presidencies of Carter, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton and Barack Obama before its radical escalation under Trump, has created a social catastrophe.

Its most direct manifestation is the persistent rise in mortality rates for the working class, which resulted in a fall in US life expectancy last year. In March, Princeton University economists Anne Case and Angus Deaton concluded that the run-up in mortality, particularly for working-class whites, is driven by what they define as “deaths of despair”—those due to drug overdoses, complications from alcohol and suicide.

In Capital, Marx’s study of the capitalist system, the founder of the modern socialist movement concluded that the “accumulation of wealth at one pole is…at the same time accumulation of misery, agony of toil slavery, ignorance, brutality, mental degradation, at the opposite pole.”

This statement is not only true, but empirically quantifiable. One study by epidemiologists Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett found a direct correlation between social inequality and a series of social ills, including homicides and violent crime, school achievement and dropout rates, teenage births, life expectancy and infant mortality, obesity, mental illness, and more.

Compared to other developed countries, the United States is off the charts on all measures. It is simultaneously the most unequal and the most socially distressed.

The inability and unwillingness of the political system to address any of the underlying causes of the social crisis gripping the United States is the direct product of the stranglehold over American society by the financial oligarchy, which ensures that the first and last priority is the protection and expansion of its wealth.

This reality was driven home in remarks by Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, who said earlier this month that the White House’s tax cuts had to pass because Wall Street would crash the stock market if they did not.

“There is no question that the rally in the stock market has baked into it reasonably high expectations of us getting tax cuts and tax reform done,” he told Politico. “There’s no question in my mind that if we don’t get it done you’re going to see a reversal of a significant amount of these gains.”

The consequences of the Obama administration’s socially regressive policies were on display Thursday in a report by the Swiss bank UBS, which showed that the total wealth of the world’s billionaires shot up 17 percent in 2016, or $1 trillion, to a total of $6 trillion.

The US has more than a third of the world’s billionaires, and roughly half of all billionaire wealth, amounting to $2.8 trillion, according to the report.

One of those billionaires, Jeff Bezos, CEO of Amazon and owner of the Washington Post, became some $7 billion wealthier overnight on Thursday, becoming the world’s richest man, controlling $90 billion.

Bezos’ wealth is the outcome of the sweatshop-like conditions at the fulfillment centers operated by his company, which pays workers $10 per hour, subjects them to searches during the workday, and tracks their every move.

Despite the massive enrichment of the financial oligarchy documented by UBS’s report on the wealth of the world’s billionaires, the authors struck a worried note.

“We are now two years into the peak of the second Gilded Age,” Josef Stadler, UBS’s head of global ultra-high net worth, told the Guardian. “We’re at an inflection point” he said, “Wealth concentration is as high as in 1905… the question is to what extent is that sustainable and at what point will society intervene and strike back?”

Tellingly, the newspaper included in the article a painting depicting Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the Russian Revolution, addressing workers in Petrograd in 1917. The clear implication is that 100 years after the Russian Revolution, which led to a reduction of social inequality all over the world amid a wave of social struggles that it triggered and encouraged, similar revolutionary uprisings are again on history’s agenda.

In response to the drive to even further subject the entire population under the yoke of America’s oligarchy, the working class must fight for its social interests with equal ruthlessness and determination. It must adopt and fight for a socialist program, including the expropriation of the wealth piled up by the ruling elite, to meet immediate and pressing social needs: to provide urgently needed medical care to all those affected by the addiction epidemic, to make whole all those whose lives have been upended by Hurricanes Maria, Harvey and Irma, and to ensure that all people are provided with employment and free, high-quality health care, education and housing.

The Spanish Senate formally voted 214-47 on Friday to authorize the implementation of Article 155 of the Spanish Constitution, suspending parliamentary rule in Catalonia. It handed Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy full powers to suspend the Catalan regional government, proceed with punitive measures outlined in Rajoy’s October 21 speech, and impose an unelected Catalan government answerable only to Madrid.

As Article 155 was being debated in the Senate, where Rajoy’s right-wing Popular Party (PP) has an absolute majority, the Catalan parliament anticipated the outcome of the debate and voted to declare independence. Thousands of protesters surrounded Catalan government buildings in Barcelona Friday night amid calls to defend the newly-declared republic.

Yesterday’s events mark a historic collapse of democratic forms of rule in Western Europe and a return to authoritarianism with far-reaching implications. The Spanish political set-up created 39 years ago, in the so-called Transition from the 1939-1978 fascist regime established by General Francisco Franco, has burst asunder. With the full support of the European Union and Washington, Madrid aims to police 7 million Catalans through unilateral decrees, backed by the police and army, while holding in reserve the invocation of Article 116 to impose a nationwide state of emergency.

The defense of the basic interests of the working class requires determined political opposition to repression in Catalonia. The danger of a bloodbath is looming, as Madrid moves to enforce the diktat of the European financial aristocracy on the workers in Catalonia and across Spain.

EU Council President Donald Tusk reiterated the European powers’ support for the implementation of Article 155 yesterday, writing on Twitter:

“For [the] EU nothing changes. Spain remains our only interlocutor.”

Tusk cynically added that he hoped Madrid would use “force of argument, not argument of force.”

In a speech urging the Senate to adopt Article 155, Rajoy declared that now “there is no alternative.” He continued:

“The only thing that can and therefore must be done in such a situation is to use the law to enforce the law.” He said his government had four goals: to “return to legality” in Catalonia, “win back the people’s confidence,” “maintain the high levels of economic growth and job creation of recent times,” and “organize elections in a situation of institutional normality.”

“What we must protect the Catalans from is not Spanish imperialism, as they claim, but from a minority that in an intolerant fashion is acting as if it owned Catalonia,” Rajoy declared.

Rajoy’s brief for dictatorship in Catalonia is a pack of lies. His claim that there is no alternative to invoking Article 155, which only a few weeks ago was widely described as the “nuclear option” in the Spanish press, is absurd. Scotland held an independence referendum in Britain in 2014, and Quebec held an independence referendum in Canada in 1980 and 1995. But neither London nor Ottawa sent tens of thousands of paramilitary police to assault peaceful voters, as did Rajoy during the October 1 Catalan independence referendum. Nor did they forcibly preempt moves towards secession.

Responsibility for the crisis lies squarely with Madrid, which, after its brutal crackdown on the October 1 referendum, has consistently sought to inflame the conflict. On October 19, Catalan President Carles Puigdemont confirmed that he had suspended moves toward independence and appealed to Madrid for dialogue. With its unilateral rejection of this appeal, its arbitrary imprisonment of Catalan nationalist politicians Jordi Sanchez and Jordi Cuixart, and its moves to invoke Article 155, Madrid forced the Catalan nationalists in Barcelona on the path to a declaration of independence.

Rajoy’s calls for “legality,” “elections” and “institutional normality” are a cynical ruse, presenting the drive to dictatorship as the defense of democracy and constitutional rule. Madrid is well aware that it can impose its agenda only by means of state terror and repression. According to Rajoy’s October 21 speech, he aims to seize control of the Catalan budget, government, education system, police force and public media.

These measures will provoke deep opposition among millions of people, and Madrid is preparing to forcibly repress it. The paramilitary Guardia Civil, the Arapiles motorized infantry regiment and other army units stationed in neighboring regions are all preparing to intervene in Catalonia.

As protests and calls for civil disobedience spread, Madrid is preparing “express” mass sackings of Catalan public sector workers. Yesterday, the Spanish Senate approved measures allowing Madrid to discipline workers “without recourse to previous mechanisms regarding disciplinary measures.”

At a press conference Friday night, after a meeting of his ministerial cabinet to discuss the Senate vote, Rajoy announced the suspension of the Catalan government and the holding of elections on December 21. Madrid also confirmed that it would bring charges of “rebellion,” a crime punishable by up to 30 years in prison, against current Catalan government and parliament members.

These announcements expose Rajoy’s claim that Madrid will organize elections in Catalonia as an Orwellian fraud. If his plans go forward, most of the Catalan political opposition to the PP will be in prison as these elections are held. Moreover, whoever was elected on December 21 would be seated in a legislature stripped of all power to legislate or name a regional government. It could only impotently look on as Madrid imposed its will.

The key concern of Madrid and the new Catalan government will be to continue imposing harsh austerity measures against the workers. Yesterday, the EU sent Madrid a letter demanding further cuts to Spanish public spending to reach a public deficit target of 2.2 percent of gross domestic product. Economy Minister Luis de Guindos and Treasury Minister Cristobal Montoro replied with a statement that they would take “all necessary measures to guarantee the fulfillment of budgetary stability objectives.”

The turn to authoritarian rule in Spain is an urgent warning to the working class. Decades of deep austerity, imperialist war and the promotion of law-and-order measures across Europe since the Stalinist dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, and particularly since the 2008 Wall Street crash, have produced a mortal crisis of capitalist rule. With tens of millions of workers unemployed across Europe, the ruling class is aware of explosive social anger. Its response when it encounters opposition is a rapid resort to dictatorial measures.

The critical question today is the mobilization of workers in Catalonia, in Spain and across Europe in struggle against a return to authoritarian forms of rule. Workers must reject all attempts to justify a turn toward dictatorship and military repression of the population based on calls for the defense of Spanish territorial integrity. The only progressive way to establish the unity of the Iberian Peninsula and Europe as a whole is the mobilization of the working class in a revolutionary and internationalist struggle against dictatorship and war, and for socialism.

The struggle to mobilize the working class must be undertaken on the basis of complete independence from and opposition to the entire ruling establishment, including the trade union bureaucracies and the bourgeois parties claiming to be “left.” Forces such as the CCOO (Workers Commissions) trade union and Spain’s Podemos party are aligning themselves with Rajoy’s drive to dictatorship.

Podemos General Secretary Pablo Iglesias responded to the Senate vote by tacitly backing Rajoy’s call for Catalan elections, saying only that these should be held “without repression.” Adopting a neutral position as Madrid prepares its repression, he said,

“I believe there is a silent majority of Spaniards that is neither for unilateralism [i.e., the Catalan declaration of independence] nor for violence and repression.”

CCOO official Fernando Lezcano insisted that his union would discourage all acts of defiance of Madrid by workers. He warned,

“We will not give a single instruction that could lead to civil disobedience or to public sector workers carrying out actions that could be punished.”

Kurdish Democratic Union Party co-chairman Shahoz Hasan said that his organization’s objective is to impose its system of so-called “democratic autonomy” all over Syria, and despite denying that this amounts to a de-facto internal partition, it’s hard to argue that it’s anything but. Moreover, the Syrian Kurds also just announced that they’ll be annexing Daesh’s former so-called “capital” to their self-proclaimed “Democratic Federation of Northern Syria”, though they plan to “legitimize” this land grab through what’s essentially controlled elections that will ultimately lead to the installation of a puppet government in the Arab-cleansed city.

The Kurds know that they can’t control their majority-Arab conquered corner of northeastern Syria, let alone the entirety of the country, without employing a method which deceptively seems to provide for ethnic equality, but which is in reality controlled by them behind the scenes, hence the cover of “democratic autonomy” to obscure the fact that they envision the “New Syria” to be a Kurdish-led “federation”. Ironically, they’re employing the same tactics that they falsely accused the Alawite minority of doing in supposedly running the country in secret behind the scenes, except this time the Kurds actually plan to do this and it isn’t a fake news conspiracy.

They’re presently working on perfecting their military-political strategies before expanding their model to the rest of the country, whether through “sleeper cells” or sympathetic “opposition” members who opportunistically believe that they could become more powerful stakeholders in this new internally partitioned system than in Syria’s constitutionally unitary one. While it’s true that Syrian Foreign Minister Walid Muallem did indeed say in late September that “autonomy” for the Kurds could be discussed after the defeat of Daesh, this shouldn’t have been taken to imply that “federalization” is in the cards given how vehemently Damascus has opposed this in the past.

In addition, Syria’s Information Minister Mohammed Ramiz Tarjaman reiterated earlier this week that “We do not consider any city liberated until the Syrian Arab army enters it and lifts the Syrian flag over it. This applies to any point of the Syrian map”, which seems to suggest that Damascus won’t negotiate with the Kurds until the Syrian Arab Army restores constitutional sovereignty to their occupied territories in the country’s northeast. However, this might be much easier said than done considering the approximately 10 American bases in the region and the US’ new “train and equip” program for the Syrian Kurds, both of which are designed to deter Damascus.

Barring any decisive action by either side, the most likely outcome is that the post-Daesh battle lines between the Syrian Arab Army and the Kurdish-led “Syrian Democratic Forces” will be frozen in place and enforced by a Russian-American agreement pending a comprehensive political solution to the War on Syria, though the divergent strategic visions between these two Great Powers and their on-the-ground partners will probably lead to this becoming an unresolved frozen conflict for years to come.

The post presented is the partial transcript of the CONTEXT COUNTDOWN radio program on Sputnik News, aired on Friday Oct 27, 2017:

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.

Featured image is from the author.

First published by Geopolitka and Global Research, March 22, 2016

This is the second half of the interview of Prof. John McMurtry specially conducted for the 15^th Anniversary of “Geopolitika” a journal of geopolitical and cultural analysis in Belgrade which will be broadcast on Radio Belgrade by the weekly show “Silen” on March 24 from questions posed by Biljana Đorović.

You have explained ‘globalization’ as transnational money sequences multiplying through societies and environments and devouring life support systems. Given the current paralysis of unifying vision, what is the social alternative?

You are right about the ‘paralysis of unifying vision’. Even philosophers reject any ultimate common value, while no party has a policy framework of alternative. The tacitly ruling morality is that everyone must compete harder to survive while economic systems are stripped everywhere to enrich the corporate rich. Business statistics show that the poorer half of the world has lost over 40% of its wealth in the last five years, while less than one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population has multiplied its wealth and blames ‘overpopulation’ as the problem. But with even the opposition repeating masking slogans like “neo-liberal” and “austerity”, there are no coherent policy drivers to reclaim the life capital base of humanity.

For years before global capitalism went carcinogenic, I thought Marx provided the unifying vision. But close examination reveals that technological determinism is the ultimate driver of society for Marx with no grounding life-value base to control it – Stalinist growth an extreme example of the problem. My research has concluded that life capital is the underlying ground eluding us, the real base of human society and development, and the only concept which unifies across social, ecological and organic systems. It is the unseen foundation of alternative.

What exactly is life capital?

Life capital is an objective and quantifiable process whose criterion is intuitively self-evident, but not yet understood – life wealth/capacity that produces more life wealth/capacity without loss and cumulative gain through generational time. Yet it is crucial to emphasize that life capital does not presuppose a private possessor. It refers to the collective life capital of the planetary ecosystem and all the socially constructed conditions of humanity’s provision of life goods which are reproduced and, at best, gain through time. All life capital, however, can also be run down by a life-blind economic system such as financial capitalism today. The collapse of the Easter Island culture is a paradigm example of this.

Can you illustrate how this ‘unifying alternative’ applies to our daily lives

Life capital is all that we continuously depend on to live and live well – breathable air, potable water, everyday knowledge, energy infrastructures, and life-serving regulations. There is nothing that is reproduced and developed through time that is not life capital, and there is no good of our lives not dependent on it to stay alive and well. In short, life capital is the daily enabling ground of everyone, even though the current system increasingly privatizes, poisons and loots it.

On the individual level, each one of us is also a bearer of life capital which we manage better rather than worse by developing rather than wasting or depleting it. On the micro as well as the macro level, our life capital is far deeper in value than what can be sold in the market. Yet we lack the concept for what ultimately matters to us, that without which every life is reduced, malnourished and dies. This is especially true for social and ecological life capital on which we depend without knowing it – for example, effective societal norms and infrastructures ensuring clean air, water, civil safety, electricity infrastructures, education, healthcare, income security, you name it.

The concepts of’ natural capital’, ‘social capital’, ‘human capital’ and ‘knowledge capital’ have recently become familiar in name. Yet beneath recognition, they are all reversed in meaning when they are assumed as merely means of making private money in the market.

What has gone wrong at the most basic level?

Money becoming more money for private possessors has become the ultimate ruling value on Earth by corporate market indoctrination, treaty commands and armed force. The transnational money-sequence system selects only for more priced commodities without life standards, multiplies more money to the richest, and depredates life capital at all levels. The ruling value system here would be laughably absurd if not so eco-genocidal in effects.

Wall Street has now modelled control of all the water and land in the world for future profit to its ‘investors’, and anything else that can be bought and sold to spike private money sequences. These are called ‘sophisticated financial instruments’ of ‘development’ and invade everywhere with state protection by myriad-article treaties in corporate lawyer code contrived behind closed doors. Every plane of existence from which more money-value can be extracted is in the cross-hairs of this investment regime with no protection for the social and ecological life support systems of the world and a-priori impunity for destroying them. The crowning irony is ‘austerity programs’ for the rest of society, but never for the obese and tumorous money party showing all the hallmark characteristics of a metastasizing global cancer system.

“With captive customers, the cash flows are virtually guaranteed. The only major variables are the initial prices paid, the amount of debt used for financing, and the pace and magnitude of price hikes – easy things for Wall Street to model.” Thomas Berry long ago said more directly, “corporate profit is the deficit of the Earth”. The money-sequence cancer system is how it works with ever more ‘freedom’ to hollow out societies’ life capital bases. Seek exception. We have lost our ultimate value ground without knowing it, and this is the reason people feel ever more helpless and meaningless.

What are the implications for public policy and recovery?

The first is that the life-ground of value is not created by the global market, and even less by individuals in money exchanges – the ruling delusion within which state policies and economic understanding are imprisoned. Our ultimate economic ground begins with reproduction of the planetary atmosphere itself, the oceans, earth’s hydrological cycles, soil cover, forests, fellow species, and so on – all basic forms of universal life capital ignored by the moribund model. So-called ‘Economics’ is geared towards eco-genocide without knowing it.

Yet life capital includes much more than the planet’s physical resources. It denotes all real goods that are reproduced and cumulatively advance through time, including scientific knowledge and human energy sources. Securing our collective life capital base to live by entails policy and regulation to prevent every kind of life capital being run down, wasted or destroyed as it is now.  The binding Ozone Layer Protocol was implemented with success in 1989, but nothing binding since has been allowed by the life-blind system. Instead, the publicly deregulated and subsidized private money-sequence disorder keeps invading across borders with no recognition it is objectively evil as measurable by its laying waste of the collective and individual life capital of society, nature and citizens.

This is where moral and policy deciders must reclaim human purpose and life by binding life standards regulating international trade and investment. We have already significantly achieved these standards in public health and higher education, but these too are now undermined by the corporate profit driver that is alone protected and invades everywhere.

What role do the mass media have in paralyzing us within this carcinogenic system?

The mass media never question the global corporate market. It is assumed as natural and good as enslavement of other peoples and women once were. Mass homicide by system starvation and ecocide are indeed still called ‘development’. Problems of systemic life depredation and ruin are never raised, even as knowledge and information themselves are corrupted into what corporations can sell for profit. Instead, endless images, gossip and tales of fear, appetite and projections rule the public airwaves.

The latest designated Enemy like Putin or other stigma object is the release valve for pent-up hatred and frustrations – with total indifference to hard evidence as long as the story sells and the game keeps going. It is almost comical – the lead New York Times lying at will about the latest whipping boy – if it were not equivalent to a collapsed social immune system in the face of a macro cancer system. Some in the academy seek truth and stand against the perpetual big lies, but this resilient core of evolving human understanding is embargoed in the corporate media.

At the most general level, the mass media are governed by three final goals – selling corporate ads, glorifying money power, and blocking out ruin of life capital bases by the ruling disorder. These are the unseen general laws of the mass media across the West and its allies.

Professional sports exemplify the global corporate system as the unseen but ultimate propaganda site. The more money you get as a star, the more the money-sequence system is glorified, the more ads are sold by the contest spectacles, the more public attention and wealth are diverted from real issues, and the more the ultimate struggle for better life on earth is displaced by sweater-logos fiercely competing for external money prizes.

Big-money sports are a media allegory of the system. Unending battle cries of “everything is at stake here” are the hysteria of the money-driven forces displacing all that really matters to our lives and the future of life on Earth. Even if a real public issue is allowed into the spectacle-sales agenda, like climate destabilization, it too is converted by corporate media into saleable profit opportunities and false images of collective action. The rising cataclysmic storm, sea-rise and weather extremes are themselves euphemized as ‘climate change’, and only market solutions are reported and promoted. No binding policy reduction is made, and ecocidal trends are not connected back to the system as common cause.

The media are also now controlled by monopolies which defund investigative journalism and increasingly strip newspapers for quick cash to their stockholders. Reduced to ad vehicles and infotainment, the media follow one underlying law of meaning. The truth is what sells. The only ‘free’ agency left is the money party behind myriad front names and business lobbies buying elections and minting laws beneath public accountability or glare of publicity on any step.

Yet it is not only the mass media that avert their attention from the objective destruction of life capital bases. There are state propaganda machines abroad like the US ‘National Endowment for Democracy’ and George Soros leveraging billions made from attacking sovereign currencies who together destabilize countries where the transnational media are not yet in control – as in Ukraine before the fascist coup, or the most progressive Latin American countries, or countless other victim societies like Serbia, now on the line for a new US-controlled media empire.

Meanwhile in the background once independent scholarly journals are all bought up by transnational corporations selecting and monopolizing academic knowledge for proprietary profit while bankrupting university libraries with multiplied book and subscription costs for the creations of faculty and scholarly referees paid nothing. Is there any limit to the invasion of even independent original research and dissemination?

Yet even the best known theorists blinker out the occupation. German social philosopher and scientist, Jurgen Habermas rules out any alternative economic order to the global market a-priori. The dominant American justice theories of Rawls and Nozick cannot get beyond self-maximizing agents in a social void with no life capital bases. Even socialist theory and doctrine provide little or no life-grounded analysis and policies for recovery.

What about post-modernism with thinkers like Foucault, Baudrillard and Lyotard who have exposed the inhuman in our institutions and language?

They express the problem by their abhorrence of any objective grounding structure or any universal life value. They proclaim the liberated, the particular and the insurgent in labyrinthine theories while ignoring the actual global command system and any alternative to it. Deleuze and Bourdieu may loathe capitalism, but they have no conception of humanity’s universal life necessities as a grounding step to agreement and resistance. Indeed, any grounding in bonding values across differences is denounced as prescriptive or “terrorist universals”.

Organising principles which bridge from the past through the present to the future by objective common life interests, like universal human life necessities, are effectively out of bounds. Never have integrating life coordinates been more stripped away in theory and practice at once. This is the ultimate crisis – the abandonment of life-coherent reason across domains. As a result, the locked paradigm of liquid mechanics goes on being mapped onto the living world. Not even ecologists connect life-destructive trends back to their common cause. They presuppose the global market system a-priori. Wall Street and NATO meanwhile keep advancing the private money-command system under mutating big lies – as Serbia knows well. After the ‘shock therapy’ of Wall-Street financial ruin and the 78-day bombing to enforce socialist Yugoslavia’s destruction perorated by the show trial of the prior president, most people became afraid and servile to survive. A global terror system is built in beneath consciousness of it.

Where is there hope for countervailing understanding and action?

No system of life-blind oppression works for long once people awake to their common life bases and the enemy system subjugating and destroying them. Yugoslavia led the world in effective struggle against Nazism and in society-rebuilding afterwards across the extremest ethnic and political divides. In the first stage, the enemy was clear by the Nazis’ armed invasion of another state, and the world’s then-greatest military machine was defeated by anti-fascist forces. But the second stage of building an ethnically unified socialist formation was even more impressive to outside observers – at least those caring about humanity’s future.

Yugoslavia’s democratically socialist example inspired me and countless others a generation ago. Worker forces fought back fascist invasion, won, and overcame past divisions in a social state against seemingly impossible odds. Nazism was the clearly evil system to defeat. Yet today’s financial fascism is becoming arguably more life-destructive overall. Here as always, life-grounded understanding of the situation leads effective response to it. Correct me if I am wrong. But it seems that every good step taken in this war against fascism and the non-Stalinist socialist state afterwards was for collective life capital defence and advance.

Can you give some examples of life capital meaning and application to steer by?

A paradigm example is herds of livestock. Their life capital continues so long as they reproduce or gain in collective life capacity of yield in meat, milk-production, pull-power, and hide material, all quantifiable through time. The same can be said in more advanced meaning without animals involved of socially constructed and regulated life capital formations today –public literacy and health systems, clean air and water, electric-light access, recycling garbage and sewage systems, life security in body and speech, book and film libraries, ecological integrity including noise bylaws, biodiverse pathways and surroundings. We find life capital meaning most incisively when we consider our lives without any of them.

Public spending now increasingly going to serve and subsidize the private money-sequence system at every level is, in contrast, the major financial prop of the disorder attacking our life capital bases. Every public investment should be bound by capital standards instead, not only in public health and education, but in ensuring every enterprise is steered to life-coherent technology and regulation by licensing and taxing commodities accordingly.

The life capital base of developed societies is already very evolved beneath market phenomena without connective understanding. Our problem is that no unifying comprehension connects across ecological systems to the means to live as human to applied technology through time. On the contrary, the global money-sequence system destroys life capital and support systems without stop, and never builds them. It has no real life coordinates at all. Life capital provides the long-missing link. It defines the life-coherent set-point of policy deciders at all levels.

Today we have no way out. Heidegger may seem to recover the lost life-ground by his famous notion of our “forgetfulness of Being”. But he has nothing to go on but the “home of language”, like Wittgenstein with his “language games” in the analytic tradition. Economics itself strips even natural language out. We have lost life reason and science at the level of understanding that without which human life capacities are destroyed over time. That is what life capital is in all its forms. “Being” merely mystifies and empties the meaning to pre-Socratic abstraction. We see this on the life-ground of Greece today – a burning example at every step of the transnational money-sequence program devouring the collective and individual life capital of an historical nation . Heidegger saw the Nazi version with no opposition. Today global financial fascism rules with the moribund abstractions of the academy still towing the line.

At the moving edge of the US-EU-led system of dispossession and ruin today, refugees now flee in the millions from the places that NATO and allies have bombed since Yugoslavia. EU authorities then demand that Serbia and Greece, already bled dry by the terror-backed financial system, manage the catastrophic effects landing on them. How do we recognise the moving lines of system depredation by objective measure? The life capital measure enables an objective and unifying meaning of life-value loss throughout – the losing of life security in need, of housing and nourishing food supply, of adequate clean water and sewage cycles, of accessible learning and knowledge, of public facilities and structures of production, art and environmental integrity – in short, the real goods of life without which human capacities shrink, suffer and die. If life capital is not at stake, then the issue of opposition may be diversionary, as in promotion of hate against poor out-groups. Life capital invariably provides the life compass of value ground and direction to guide understanding.

Do Russia and China have a role in stopping the US-EU financial and armed juggernaut expanding on all fronts?

With many others, I felt relief at Russia’s Putin drawing the line on the US-led transnational-corporate occupation of the Ukraine and reclaiming the traditional Russian territory of Crimea given away under the USSR by Khrushchev, himself a Ukrainian. But such understanding is inconceivable within the US-led propaganda system. The inner logic and driver of the US propaganda empire across continents never stops: Blame the designated Enemy for what the US itself is doing as the reason to hate and attack it. Russia and China are no longer cowed by the propaganda line. A stop is being made to the money-sequence cancer system at its fronts of Eastern expansion – which is reverse-projected as always onto those stopping the march.

China’s “win-win” alternative of international development investment is also advancing without the US methods of war, destabilization and death squads. Public banking systems in place of a global financial cancer stem-celling from Wall Street are already established. New international development banks and initiatives are slowly advancing, China leads most successfully on the basis of having more US Treasury bonds and bills than the US can afford to have flooding the global market. Both Russia and China can defend themselves against military and internal attack unlike the always weaker victims helpless against aerial bombing and US-funded takeover from within. China and Russia’s power of veto in the United Nations Security Council as well as on the ground can stop the compulsive US-led aggression, bombing and civil war construction which is built into its “full spectrum dominance” doctrine backed by both US governing parties. The Libya genocide by NATO with Security Council approval has left a lasting impression. Russia and China are in some ways joining to stop the US-led world money-cancer system that invades, subjugates and devours life on Earth.

Yet Russia and China today show no alternative of life-grounded democracy and freedom from want and oppression. It is their armed force capacity and, with China, dollar power which stand in the way of totalized US-led empire and subjugation as it declines. China and Russia, however, have no evident life capital base they ground in to lead out of the global money-sequence end-game. China in fact has already run down and polluted its own life capital bases of breathable air, water sources and rivers, biodiversity, and minimal public life security for all, as with the old workers’ brigades now defunded. Both Russia and China lack developed constitutional rule of life-protective law.

Yet there are good signs – in Russia, investing in public pensions as a priority, repudiation of fracking and GMO degrading of ecological stabilities, and a bred-in-the-bone tradition of life collectivity. In China, a presidential war against corruption and massive green commitment and power production show statesmanship to lead. Most of all, public banking systems have allowed sovereign control over public investment, the secret to real economic development and non-bankruptcy for societies everywhere.

It is worth pointing out here that public banks were also the key to Yugoslavia’s success before US-led foreign loans and compounding interest rates over 20% prime financially broke the multi-ethnic country’s unifying social programs and life security baseline. At the same time, what Russia and China lack, Yugoslavia’s self-governing worker enterprises, democratic processes, and joining of divided peoples together by life serving public programs led the world as example. That is why Yugoslavia was marked for ruin by a still-secret 1981 Reagan directive. Nothing is so abominated and attacked in this ruinous private bank and corporate occupation of the world as collective life capital bases independent of corporate market money sequences accountable to nothing but their self-multiplication. The public option of life capital investment and advance can lead the way beyond the cataclysm.

John McMurtry is an elected Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada and his work is published and translated from Latin America to Japan. He is the author and editor of the three-volume Philosophy and World Problems published by UNESCO’s Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems (EOLSS), and his latest book is The Cancer Stage of Capitalism/from Crisis to Cure.

First published by GR in September 2016

Ilan Pappé is a historian, socialist activist, professor at the University of Exeter, and supporter of the Campaign for Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS). Of Israeli origin, he is a world-renowned scholar on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict and has written numerous books on the subject, including The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine and The Idea of Israel: A History of Power and Knowledge.

Pappé was interviewed by Alejandra Ríos for Left Voice, where this article first appeared.

Alejandra Ríos (AR): You’ve talked and written about the concept of homeland as justification for destroying the native population. What is the meaning of this concept and what are some examples of its use in other places? In what sense is it applied differently in Palestine than in other countries?

Ilan Pappé (IP): The context is the phenomenon of settler colonialism: the movement of Europeans, because they felt unsafe or endangered, into non-European areas in the Americas, Africa, Australia and Palestine. These people were not only seeking a new home, but also a new homeland. Namely, they had no wish or plan to come back to Europe.

The only problem was that the lands they coveted were already inhabited by other people. In most cases, their solution was the genocide of indigenous people. In two cases, the solution was different: apartheid in South Africa and ethnic cleansing in Palestine.

AR: In your book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, you suggest that the objectives of Israel have remained the same since 1948. Can you elaborate?

IP: As any settler colonial movement, the Zionist movement is motivated by the logic of elimination of the native. In the period after the second World War, elimination is more complex and maybe less inhuman, but still drastic. The desire of the Zionist movement to create both a Jewish state and a democratic one means that there is always a wish to take over as much of Palestine as possible and leave in as few Palestinians as possible.

This is the background for the Israeli ethnic cleansing operation in 1948; an operation that ended with expulsion of nearly a million Palestinians and a Jewish takeover of 80 per cent of the land. However, the ethnic cleansing of 1948 was not a complete project. There was still 20 per cent of the land that Israel did not have and there was a Palestinian minority within Israel. The vision of a purely de-Arabized Palestine was still there, though the means differed.

The means included the imposition of military rule over the Palestinians in Israel and refusing to allow the refugees to return. The space was not enough and the opportunity to enlarge it came in 1967, but then the demographic problem emerged again. This time, the means were apartheid, military occupation and cutting the land into enclaves and Bantustans.

AR: You have described Israeli actions in Gaza as “incremental genocide.” What is the meaning of this term?

IP: “Incremental” means that there is no dramatic, massive killing of people of a certain race or nation. However, a strategy like the one Israel has been conducting since 2006 has led to what the UN called “the transformation of the Gaza Strip into an uninhabitable place” – so this is not just the constant killing of civilians that makes it genocidal, but also the destruction of the infrastructure.

AR: Do you think that Israel is carrying out ethnic cleansing in the West Bank and East Jerusalem on a similar scale as what took place in 1948?

IP: Well, the fact is, just in the Greater Jerusalem areas since 1967, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were transferred in various means – from massive expulsion or by moving their neighbourhood to the West Bank or by not allowing them to return if they left the country. After 1967, ethnic cleansing is more about moving Palestinians into enclaves rather than out of the country.

AR: You argue against a two-state solution on the grounds that it is not viable and instead are in favour of a bi-national state. What are your reasons for coming to this conclusion? How do you think a bi-national state could be achieved and how would it operate?

IP: The two-state solution is not viable for three major reasons. First, it only applies to 20 per cent of Palestine and to less than half of the Palestinian people. You cannot reduce the problem of Palestine in such a way either geographically or demographically.

Second, Israel created such a reality on the ground, in terms of settlement and colonization, that it would be impossible to create a normal Palestinian state, even if one were to accept this solution. The best you can hope for are two Bantustans: one in the West Bank and one in the Gaza Strip. This is not a solution.

Finally, there will be no solution to the conflict without respecting the right of the Palestinian refugees to return and the two-state solution does not respect this right.

AR: What has been the effect of the growing international criticism of Israeli actions against the Palestinian people? How has this affected the peace movement in Israel?

IP: In the last ten years, civil societies around the world had enough of their government’s passivity on Palestine. Therefore, they took independent action by supporting the Palestinian civil-right call for boycott, divestment and sanctions against Israel.

The world governments are still not pressuring Israel to change its policy and therefore it is difficult to expect any change from within. There is no peace camp in Israel. There is now a small group of activists who are encouraged by the BDS movement and are trying to educate Israelis about the human and civil rights violations in the past and present. These groups from within will not survive; it is necessary to put more international pressure on Israel.

AR: What role do academics or intellectuals have in the struggle for the liberation of Palestine?

IP: A very important role. They can tell the story about Palestine that Israel wants to hide from the world. There is enough evidence, and today there are enough scholars using it, to tell the history as it really happened. We will need to deal bravely with this history if we would want to have a genuine process of reconciliation in Israel and Palestine.

AR: How important is the BDS campaign? What do you think it can achieve?

IP: Very important. It has two major roles: first, to send a painful but necessary message to Israel that there is a price tag attached to its continued policy of dispossession and colonization. And secondly, to galvanize world public opinion and activism around a campaign that would not let the Palestine issue be forgotten. •

The U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, stated on Thursday that the reign of the Assad family is coming to an end, contrasting his previous comments in March declaring that the Syrian President’s removal was not a priority for the U.S. regime.

“The reign of the Assad family is coming to an end,” Tillerson stated after his meeting with the head of the UN Envoy of Syria, Stephan de Mistura, in Geneva.

Tillerson stated he is unsure of how to bring about Assad’s end, but remained confident this would happen.

The Secretary of State would then take a shot at the Syrian Army, claiming they are only successful because of Russian airstrikes.

“The only reason Syrian forces have been successful has been because of the air support they have received from Russia,” Tillerson concluded.

Featured image is from the author.

The ambitious Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman unveiled a $500 billion project at an investment forum earlier this week in an effort to bring some serious substance to his Vision 2030 project of fundamentally diversifying his country’s oil-dependent economy in the coming decade. The proposal calls for a gigantic city called NEOM to be built at the entrance to the Gulf of Aqaba in the northeastern corner of the Red Sea, with the plan being for it to eventually extend into neighboring Egypt and Jordan as well. The Crown Prince promised that it would be a technologically advanced city with its own laws and administration, and it will also be free from anything “traditional”.

The latter remark hints that Mohammed Bin Salman won’t allow the Kingdom’s traditional Wahhabi socio-cultural “regulations” to be enforced there, which goes along with his other headline-grabbing statement during the event when he said that Saudi Arabia will “return…to moderate Islam” and “swiftly deal a blow to extremist ideologies”. Quite clearly, as analyzed in the author’s earlier piece this month about Saudi Arabia’s shifting grand strategy, a “deep state” conflict is indeed being fought in the country between its monarchic and clerical factions, with the former poised to carry out a “soft coup” against the latter as it seeks to “modernize” the country. This will surely result in some behind-the-scenes tumult in the coming future, if not overt destabilization, but the point of the present article isn’t to dwell too much on that tangent.

Instead, it’s relevant to have brought that up in order to make the case that Saudi Arabia is on the cusp of an unprecedented paradigm change that will likely see it recognizing Israel if the monarchy is successful in snuffing out the clerics’ political influence. Saudi Arabia’s Egyptian and Jordanian NEOM partners have already recognized and signed peace treaties with Israel, and Riyadh is known to be coordinating with Tel Aviv in crafting a comprehensive anti-Iranian regional policy, amongst other strategic commonalities that they share. Moreover, the secret meetings between Saudi Arabia and Israel over the years suggest that their relationship is much warmer in private than either side publicly presents it as for their own respective domestic political reasons.

Israel has always wanted relations with Saudi Arabia, though Riyadh has traditionally shirked away from this because it wanted to present itself as a strong supporter of the Palestinian cause, made all the more symbolic by the Saudi monarchy’s custodianship over the Two Holy Mosques given the religious dimensions of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. However, if Mohammed Bin Salman comes out on top in his “deep state” “soft coup” against the Wahhabi clerics, then he can easily lay the “blame” on them for his country’s refusal to recognize Israel after all of these decades. Not only could he be interested in doing this as the ultimate expression of his country’s radically transformed identity under his stewardship, but he might be just as importantly driven by the geostrategic imperatives related to Vision 2030’s flagship NEOM project.

The Gulf of Aqaba was chosen not just because it would allow NEOM to spread into Egypt and Jordan, but also because of its proximity to Israel, which is promoting its “Red-Med” railway proposal as the perfect Mideast complementary component of the New Silk Road. Tel Aviv keenly knows that the Chinese are always looking for backup plans and transport route diversification in order to not be too dependent on any single connectivity corridor, and in this case, overland rail transit from the Gulf of Aqaba to the Eastern Mediterranean via Israel comes off as exceedingly attractive to Beijing’s strategists. Furthermore, China has fantastic relations with both Saudi Arabia and Israel, so from Beijing’s perspective, this is the perfect Mideast “win-win”, especially if the People’s Republic can find a way to insinuate that its possible financing of both the NEOM and “Red-Med” projects contributed to bringing peace to the Mideast.

In addition, there’s also the Russian factor to take into consideration, and it’s objectively known – though commonly denied in the Alt-Media Community – that Moscow and Tel Aviv are on excellent terms with one another and basically cooperate as allies in Syria. When accounting for the fast-moving Russian-Saudi rapprochement and Moscow’s envisioned 21^st-century grand strategic role in becoming the supreme balancing force in Eurasia, it’s likely that Russia would be in favor of any Saudi recognition of Israel and Tel Aviv’s integration into the NEOM project because it would then allow the Russian business elite both in the Russian Federation and Israel to invest in this exciting city-state and the complementary “Red-Med” Silk Road corridor.

Seeing as how Mohammed Bin Salman is trying to purge the clerics’ political influence from the Kingdom, it’s very possible that Saudi Arabia will end up recognizing Israel in the near future and blaming its decades-long delay in doing so on the Wahhabis. The grand intent behind this isn’t just to formalize the Saudi-Israeli anti-Iranian partnership or to show the world just how serious the Crown Prince is in changing the course of his country, but to please Riyadh’s newfound Multipolar Great Power partners in Moscow and Beijing, both of which enjoy exceptional relations with Tel Aviv but would probably be reluctant to invest in the Kingdom’s NEOM city-state project so long as its connectivity access remained dependent on the Suez Canal chokepoint.

Russia and China would feel more strategically secure if Israel was incorporated into this megaproject so that its territory could be used for overland transshipment between the Red and Mediterranean Seas via the “Red-Med” railway proposal, which would then make NEOM infinitely more attractive from a logistics perspective for all sorts of investors. If Saudi Arabia doesn’t recognize Israel, then this non-Suez workaround is impossible and the NEOM city-state loses its grand strategic significance in the context of the Multipolar World Order, which could consequently lead to a lack of investment and therefore the potential failure of Vision 2030’s flagship project. As such, due to the economic-strategic imperatives associated with NEOM, as well as the geopolitical paradigm shift staking place in Saudi Arabia, Riyadh will probably recognize Israel in the coming future in order to guarantee that its city-state initiative succeeds and ultimately transitions the Kingdom away from its oil-exporting dependency.

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.

All images in this article are from the author.

Featured image: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov speaking at the 2017 Moscow Nonproliferation Conference

Russia and the US have been adhering to the terms of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) since 2011, viewing it as an important practical agreement to control strategic nuclear weapons.  By Feb. 5, 2018, both sides are expected to have met the treaty’s limits on strategic offensive nuclear weapons, which allows each side a maximum arsenal of 1,550 nuclear warheads and 800 deployed and non-deployed launchers and bombers.

Not so long ago analysts in the US media were arguing for the treaty to be extended for an additional five years after it expires in 2021, i.e., to keep it functioning until 2026.

But a number of problems related to Russian-US arms-control issues remain unresolved, ranging from questions about missile defense to the prevention of underwater incidents involving submarines, and much more.

The proposal to extend New START for another five years and to draft a new START IV Treaty could gain traction if it were considered in isolation from other issues that powerfully impact regional and global stability.  That proposal would be more worthy of attention if a genuine “strategic partnership” existed between Moscow and Washington – then, in the resulting atmosphere of complete trust, there would be no diametrically opposed approaches to resolving so many pressing international problems.

But unfortunately, nothing of the sort has been evident for many years.  The relationship between Russia and the US is currently in a state of deep crisis.  Washington has unleashed Cold War 2.0 against Russia, and unlike the initial phase of that conflict (1945-1991), this has taken on an entirely new and more dangerous dimension.

Naturally Moscow is ready to consider Washington’s official proposals to extend New START, but only if they come through official channels and not from the media or the ranks of scientists and researchers, because Article 14 of this treaty stipulates the correct procedure for entertaining such a motion.

What’s more, one could also say that from the perspective of ensuring global stability, it seems strategically dangerous to set limits that would be binding until 2026 on launchers, bombers, and warheads, and also to continue down the path of further reductions under some kind of new treaty (the Newest START), for the following nine reasons:

1. By 2020, i.e., six years before New START’s extended expiration date, the ratio between US ballistic-missile defense systems and Russian strategic offensive weapons will be 2:1, while the ratio between US missile-defense interceptor systems vs. Russian strategic warheads will even reach as high as 3:1 (and neither of these scenarios takes into account the Patriot missile system). The uncontrolled buildup of US missile-defense interceptor systems and the unimpeded expansion of their zone of deployment will seriously worsen this dangerous disparity.  Relying on its advantage in ballistic-missile defense, the United States could easily launch a first nuclear strike not only on Iran or North Korea, but even on Russia or China, and then it would be sure to hide from any retaliatory strike under the cover of such an impermeable “missile shield.”  The lower the ceiling on Russia’s strategic nuclear weapons and the greater the number of interceptors in the US missile-defense system that can deflect them, the more tempting it will be for Washington to launch a first, “preemptive” nuclear strike, on Russia in particular.
2. American tactical nuclear weapons are deployed in four European states and the Asian half of Turkey, and those could be used to launch a first nuclear strike or to amplify nuclear strikes launched with the assistance of strategic offensive weapons. It should also be kept in mind that American nuclear forces that are officially classified as “tactical” can simultaneously carry out both tactical as well as strategic nuclear tasks, depending on their mode of delivery – whether by tactical or strategic aircraft.
3. The United States uses heavy strategic bombers as part of its military exercises or as a “show of force” in Europe, Asia, and the Asia-Pacific region.
4. Washington regularly violates the 1987 Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty. The Pentagon has already violated this treaty 92 times since 2001 while testing the effectiveness of the missile-defense systems of the US and its allies, by using as targets the types of short-, medium-, and intermediate-range ballistic missiles that are prohibited by that treaty.  The US military budget for 2018 has allocated $65 million to create a new ground-launched nuclear cruise missile.   In addition, there are voices in Washington that are arguing for a unilateral US withdrawal from this treaty.
5. The year-round, 24/7 Baltic Air Policing operations continue in the skies of three Baltic states, using “dual-capable” aircraft from the three Western nuclear powers that can carry either conventional or nuclear weapons.
6. The US adheres to a doctrine of “unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence,” allowing for either a massive or a limited first nuclear strike against Russia, China, North Korea, and Iran.
7. Washington stubbornly refuses to come any agreement that would prevent the weaponization of space.
8. The United States and NATO are engaged in an unrestrained buildup of their general-purpose forces, which include heavy weapons, and conduct large-scale military exercises of an offensive nature in regions bordering the territory of Russia and its allies. Since 2014, NATO has expanded the military and aerial reconnaissance it conducts in immediate proximity to Russia by 400% and 900%, respectively.
9. US and NATO framework documents still include inappropriate statements about Russia’s actions on the international stage, and in terms of economics – illegal sanctions are supported that punish as many as 400 different Russian institutions and businesses, plus 200 individuals, which in no way helps to restore mutual trust.

Once the demands of New START have been met in February 2018, Russia will have effectively exhausted its options for continuing negotiations with the Americans to reduce strategic offensive arms on a bilateral basis.

In a similar vein, all nuclear states should be involved in a corresponding process of negotiations.  First off, this should pertain to Britain and France – the primary nuclear allies of the United States, which have reciprocal commitments in the implementation of “unconditional offensive nuclear deterrence.” When calculating how to balance the future nuclear capabilities of Russia vs. the three Western nuclear powers, the combined nuclear arsenal of the United Kingdom, the US, and France should be taken into account, in order to ensure that that does not outweigh the nuclear potential of the Russian Federation.

Western commentators are trying to spread rumors that the Russians have already made up their minds about extending New START.  But that’s not so.  No such decision has been made as yet.  They are currently still thinking through their positions on this issue.  That was the official Russian pronouncement on Oct. 20 at the plenary session of the Moscow Nonproliferation Conference.

The US military establishment will have to get used to the idea that it is futile to exert media pressure on Russia when it comes to disarmament issues and that any further efforts to make progress must begin with steps to restore the mutual trust that has been lost and to address the many arms-control problems in question that are impacting the strategic balance of power between Moscow and Washington.

Vladimir Kozin is a Ph.D., Expert Council member of the Russian Senate’ Foreign Relations Committee, Professor of the Academy of Military Science, former high-ranking diplomat, leading expert on disarmament and strategic stability issues.

All images in this article are from the author.