Syria Peace Talks In Astana. What To Expect?

January 24th, 2017 by South Front

Negotiations between the Syrian government and the so-called “opposition groups” kicked off in the Kazakh capital of Astana on January 23. Jaish al-Islam is the biggest militant group which participates in the talks. Another powerbroker, Ahrar al-Sham, which had been set to participate in the negotiations, rejected the idea last week.

In total 15 armed groups arrived to participate in the event. While the involved groups don’t have a united command, they all have one main foreign backer – Turkey. So, de-facto, the success of the Ankara talks will depend on ability of Ankara, Damasucs, Moscow and Tehran to reach some appropriate compromise.

Meanwhile, Anakra has announced that it does not see a reason to push “Assad must go” mantra and prefers to focus on keeping its influence in northern Syria between Jarabulus and Azaz.

The most practical goal of the talks is to agree terms and conditions of the ceasefire in order to improve the humanitarian conditions in the areas where it’s implemented. However, even in this case, many will depend on ability of Ankara to control its proxies on the ground.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria Peace Talks In Astana. What To Expect?

The powerful pro-Israel Zionist lobby in Britain, which wields money and influence within parliament, is threatening to bring down the entire Conservative-led government over an escalating row which has been simmering for weeks, long before last week’s Israeli Embassy scandal erupted. Zionist support for Israel has often led to accusations of political manipulation inside the British government and the accusations were apparently vindicated when an embassy official was caught on camera plotting to “take down” MPs who are vocal in their support of Palestine.

However, it has now emerged that while the diplomatic spat between the Israeli Embassy and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been played out in banner headlines across the front pages, a far more sinister row has been brewing behind the scenes over the British government’s support for UN Security Council Resolution 2334, which condemned Israel’s illegal settlements. In a copy of a redacted email and other material seen by MEMO, a direct threat was made to the chair of Conservative Friends of Israel, Sir Eric Pickles MP, from one of the most senior figures in the Zionist lobby. The email delivers a blunt message: Prime Minister Theresa May and Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson should be “made to understand that Jewish support for the Conservative Party at the next General Election is at risk.”

The explosive threat was sent to Pickles and copied in to Lord (Stuart) Polak, a long-term Conservative Friends of Israel director who was given a peerage in 2015. He stood down from his CFI role ahead of his appointment to the House of Lords.

With the bold header of “UNSC Resolution 2334”, the email’s author — whose identity is not known by MEMO — wanted to record his “utter dismay” at the British government’s decision to support the resolution, which was passed just before Christmas. The author, whose name is redacted from the email shown to MEMO, lays the blame entirely at the feet of May and Johnson. “This Resolution does much more than merely restate previous policy positions of the UK government in relation to Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. It labels Jewish holy places – including the Temple Mount and the Western Wall — as existing on ‘occupied Palestinian territory.’ In demanding that Israel return to the 1949 armistice lines the resolution imperils the right of Jewish worship in these places, from which – as you know — Jews were barred between 1948 and 1967.”

The writer expresses regret to have to say that British support for 2334 must call into question the sincerity of the recent statement by Mrs May’s government on 12 December 2016 apparently evincing support for the Jewish state. The writer understands that CFI is writing to the prime minister and seeking an urgent meeting with Johnson. “These steps,” the email continues, “are necessary but insufficient. Mrs May and Mr Johnson must be persuaded to apologise to the Jewish people for their failure to veto 2334. If they do not do so, they must be made to understand that Jewish support for the Conservative Party at the next General Election is at risk.”

Details of this email and other correspondence from within the British Board of Deputies of British Jews, the UK Zionist Federation and the Jewish Leadership Council, clearly threaten to destroy the Tory vote at the next General Election in areas where Jewish voting influence has a major impact, such as Glasgow, Manchester and parts of North West London.

The move prompted an urgent meeting with Tobias Ellwood, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the Foreign Office, on Wednesday. While the MP attempted to appease Jonathan Arkush, President of the Board of Deputies, demands were made for face-to-face meetings with May and Johnson.

After the meeting, Ellwood issued what many saw as a placatory statement which read: “While I reiterated the government’s continued belief that settlement building is illegal, I was clear that it is far from the only obstacle to peace and the international community must not forget this. The government is unwavering in its commitment to Israel’s security and we will continue to call out the scourge of Palestinian incitement and terrorism that blights the lives of ordinary Israelis.” Naturally, he made no mention of the brutality of Israel’s military occupation and how that “blights” the lives of all Palestinians.

Following his meeting with Ellwood, Arkush also issued a statement condemning British support for 2334. Around the same time, similar statements were issued by the United Synagogue and the Federation of Synagogues. United Synagogue President Stephen Pack urged his congregation to write to their local MPs.

Days earlier a rally of around 300 pro-Israel supporters was held by leading Zionist groups outside the Houses of Parliament in Westminster to add to the pressure on the government.

According to Jewish historian and political analyst Professor Geoffrey Alderman, “In obsessing over an Al-Jazeera scam involving a minor figure reportedly employed by the Israeli Foreign Ministry the press has been following the wrong story. The real action has involved the quite legitimate activities of UK-based Jewish lobbies and Jewish voters. Once UNSC Resolution 2334 had been passed, Conservative Friends of Israel swung into action, using its influence to demand a meeting with Tory foreign minister Boris Johnson.”

He pointed out that the Jewish community in Britain is small – less than 350,000 — but is concentrated in London, South Hertfordshire and Manchester. “Ever since the days of Maggie Thatcher the Jewish vote has been predominantly Conservative. Any mass abstention by Jewish voters would place several Tory-held seats in jeopardy.”

You would have to go back to the aftermath of the Yom Kippur War in October 1973 to find a similar level of anger amongst Jewish voters, he explained. At that time the anger was directed at the Tory embargo on arms shipments to Israel. “We can assume that Ellwood’s 11 January statement condemning Palestinian terrorism was a late attempt to placate this lobby.”

Alderman, a Professor of Politics and Contemporary History at the University of Buckingham, has authored several books, including The Jewish Community in British Politics and British Jewry Since Emancipation. He says that he is neither a member nor supporter of the Conservative Party or Conservative Friends of Israel.

The high profile involvement of the Board of Deputies was criticised severely by Mick Napier, a co-founder of Scottish Palestine Solidarity Campaign. “The current Zionist leadership of the Board of Deputies of British Jews is more committed to promoting the interests of the Israeli State against the Palestinian people than in furthering any legitimate collective concerns of a group of British citizens. Given that Israel’s settlement building project is a war crime, efforts to align British Jews with such criminality is a reckless and dangerous campaign.”

In the meantime, it has emerged that Israeli diplomats in London issued a warning several months ago that attempts to “operate” British Jewish organisations from Jerusalem could be unlawful. This was long before the Al-Jazeera exposé of the embassy official talking about “taking down” MPs and setting up pro-Israel political groups in British.

“The strategic affairs ministry must understand that ‘operating’ organisations directly from Jerusalem by email and telephone isn’t good for their health,” warned a cable from the embassy in London. “It’s not clear that the strategic affairs ministry understand the local law with regards to the activities of charities.”

The Al-Jazeera documentary, some contents of which were leaked in advance, was actually broadcast on Wednesday. Shai Masot, the official at the centre of the Israeli embassy storm in London, was caught in an undercover sting boasting about plans to “take down” MPs who he regarded as hostile to Israel. One of his targets was Foreign Office Minister Sir Alan Duncan. Israel’s ambassador to the UK, Australian-born Mark Regev, has already issued a grovelling apology to Duncan and said that the embassy considered the remarks “completely unacceptable”.

Described as a “senior political officer” on his business cards, the embassy denied that Masot was a diplomat; it is understood that he will return to Israel before the end of the month. As well as establishing what he has described as “several political support groups in the UK”, Masot claimed credit for persuading the British government to adopt procurement guidelines preventing local authorities and the NHS from boycotting Israeli goods.

The Labour Party and the SNP, along with a number of Conservative MPs, have called for a public inquiry to be launched into what some have described as an issue of “national security”. Others are said to be mystified by Theresa May’s apparent reluctance to take the matter further. This could be explained, however, with the emergence of this latest correspondence which fuels speculation that the prime minister is under pressure not to further anger the powerful Zionist lobby or alienate the Jewish vote.

All of this prompts further questions about how much influence the state of Israel has had on successive British governments and their policies. Anyone who cares anything for democracy in Westminster must have serious concerns about this.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Pro-Israeli Lobby Threatens British Government Over Illegal Settlement Vote at the UN

Distracted Media Fails To Catch Trump Policy Decisions

January 24th, 2017 by Moon of Alabama

For two days the media have been busy counting people gathering in Washington DC. 90.3% of the voters in Washington DC had chosen Clinton.

A recent DC gathering of a Republican aligned crowd on a rainy work-day attracted many people. A following gathering of a Democratic aligned crowd on a work-free day without rain attracted more people.

The media watched, counted and was “astonished”. Thousands of lines of “political analyses” were written to explain the difference of the crowd size without mentioning the significance of where it happened, what day of the week it happened and the environmental circumstances. The result of such analysis was a lot of bullshit.

The new Trump administration was quite happy about this diversion of attention. It additionally lampooned the media when its new spokesperson condemned the press for not being able to count at all. More lines of bullshit analysis were written about that insult.

Just like during the election campaign the media fell for the cheap stunt and thereby missed the serious processes and the decisions that were taking place behind the curtains.

Today the Trump administration announced the end of the Trans Pacific Partnership agreement:

The president’s withdrawal from the Asian-Pacific trade pact amounted to a drastic reversal of decades of economic policy in which presidents of both parties have lowered trade barriers and expanded ties around the world. Although candidates have often criticized trade deals on the campaign trail, those who made it to the White House, including President Barack Obama, ended up extending their reach.

The NYT seems astonished that, unlike Obama, Trump stood by his words. The media had expected different and was distracted. It failed to report the issue until the decision was taken.

The TPP would have imposed “free trade” on more countries and products. The “free” in those trades would have meant that private companies would have been “free” to overrule national governments and their jurisdiction. They could have sued for “compensation” if a country, for public health or environmental reasons, rejected or hindered one of their businesses. Everyone should be happy that this monster died.

In another policy surprise a new coordination between Russian and U.S. intelligence circles in Syria is bearing fruits:

Russia has received coordinates of Daesh targets in Al-Bab, Aleppo Province, from the US via the ‘direct line,’ the Russian Defense Ministry said Monday.The United States has provided coordinates of the terrorists’ targets in the city of Al-Bab in Aleppo province for Russian airstrikes. After the reconnaissance check, Russia and two coalition jets have conducted joint airstrikes on the Daesh targets in the region.

The U.S. military seems to deny:

Any involvement or participation of American assets on the ground in country, in support of a series of Russian airstrikes against the northern Syrian town of al-Bab was “100 percent false,” said Pentagon spokesman Maj. Adrian Rankine-Galloway.

The U.S. coalition spokesperson also said it is:

“not coordinating airstrikes with the Russian military in Syria”

Before jumping up and down and claiming that the Russians are lying the media should take a fine comb and reread the statements.

The DoD only denied it coordinated airstrikes or helped with “assets on the ground”. It does not deny the transfer of coordinates. The Russians do not claim U.S. airplanes took part in the mission – only “coalition jets”. Turkey is part of the U.S. coalition and coordinates airstrikes with the Russian forces in Syria:

Earlier, Russian and Turkish combat planes have carried out a new series of joint airstrikes against Daesh targets in war-torn Syria, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Monday.”The Russian and Turkish planes carried out joint airstrikes against Islamic State terrorists in the outskirts of the town of al-Bab in Aleppo province on January 21,” the ministry said in a statement.

The Russian statement is likely as correct as the DoD statement.

The political significance here is the transfer of ISIS targeting coordinates from some U.S. agency directly to the Russian forces in Syria. That is something Russia has asked for for over a year and it now suddenly seems to happen.

This is next to the TTP decision a second significant change under Trump the media missed to report on as it developed.

While the blustering against Trump in U.S. media as well as in some countries abroad goes on and on, serious decisions are taken and implemented by the new administration. The media fail in some systematic way. Minor diversions from “political correctness” are blown up into big headlines while big policy decisions pass unnoticed. It is simple: The task with reporting on the Trump administration is the same as with any politician. Do not listen to what they say, watch what they do. It is high time for the media to get back to that basic rule.

Digression:

As a German I am embarrassed on how much my government failed to anticipate Trump and, since he is elected, fails to prepare for the coming onslaught on its export orientated economic model. Wages in Germany were held down by all means (including by importing additional workforce from Syria and elsewhere) and a huge export surplus was created that benefited only a few moneyed pockets. The scheme created a huge imbalance in Europe and the credit crisis in Spain, Greece and elsewhere. Trump’s policies will finally blow this model apart.

But neither of the ruling parties in Germany has yet developed an alternative or prepared a way towards one. Germany needs to re-orientate its industry from export to local consumption. That requires higher buying power for the general public via higher wages and lower taxes. A lower degressive VAT compensated by higher progressive taxes on non-work income would be a way to go. If such steps are delayed the economic damage will be serious and further open the way for a demagogic right.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Distracted Media Fails To Catch Trump Policy Decisions

Trump Declares War on Regulations and Offshoring Jobs

January 24th, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

On his first Monday in office, Trump hit the ground running, convening an advisory panel on manufacturing led by Dow Chemical CEO Andrew Liveris.

Other business leaders from Dell, Whirlpool, Ford, Johnson and Johnson, Lockheed Martin, Arconic, US Steel, Telsa Motors, Under Armour Inc, International Paper and Corning were present.

Trump promised regulatory reductions of 75% or more, significant corporate tax cuts, and a “very major” border tax on products imported by US companies made abroad, saying:

If you go to another country and you decide that you are going to close (a US factory) and get rid of 2,000 people or 5,000 people, we are going to be imposing a very major border tax on the product when it comes in, which I think is fair.

“Buy American and hire American” is what his America first policy is all about.

He told business leaders if they plan new domestic plant construction or expansions, they’ll get “approvals really fast.”

He signed executive orders withdrawing from job-killing, anti-consumer TPP and on renegotiating NAFTA with Canada and Mexico, ahead of planned afternoon meetings with labor leaders and workers.

His Friday inaugural address highlighted “rusted-out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape of our nation. (America) “made other countries rich while the wealth, strength and confidence of our country has disappeared over the horizon,” he said, vowing to turn things around.

In earlier campaign addresses to the Detroit and New York Economic Clubs, he outlined the following regulatory steps he’d take if elected:

  • ask all department heads to submit lists of regulations impeding jobs creation for elimination, providing public safety isn’t compromised.
  • revamp the entire regulatory code to keep jobs and wealth at home.
  • end regulations destroying jobs in US communities and inner cities. “We will stop punishing Americans for working and doing business in the United States,” he said.
  • temporarily halt new agency regulations not urged by Congress or needed for public safety – to incentivize US companies to invest domestically and create jobs. “We will no longer regulate our companies and our jobs out of existence,” he said.
  • immediately cancel all “illegal and overreaching executive orders.”
  • eliminate “our most intrusive regulations…”
  • reduce “the size of our already bloated government after a thorough agency review.”

His immediate priority is getting Senate confirmation for his agency heads and other officials. Democrats slowed the process instead of letting it move ahead smoothly.

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

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Declares War on Regulations and Offshoring Jobs

La nueva oleada de nacionalismos

January 23rd, 2017 by Mouris Salloum George

Los secretarios de Hacienda  y de Economía del gobierno de México, Luis Videgaray e Ildefonso Guajardo, respectivamente, serán la avanzada del presidente Enrique Peña Nieto en su excursión a Washington  el próximo 31 de enero.

Conviene puntualizar que, en el equipaje de esos enviados mexicanos, el texto principal del alegato con sus pares norteamericanos lleva una etiqueta: Resistencia a la restauración del proteccionismo.

Por supuesto, en las mesas de alto nivel se conocerá el discurso de los emisarios mexicanos al respecto. Pero, por lo escuchado en México al menos desde el otoño de 2015, ese planteamiento, que pareció irreversible, será el leitmotiv de las conversaciones.

La posición del gobierno mexicano se fijó a punto de formalizarse la inserción del país en el Acuerdo Transpacífico de Asociación Comercial (ATP), cuyo bastión eran en aquellos meses los Estados Unidos, gobernados por Barack Obama.

Hoy mismo se divulga la declaración de la Casa Blanca en el sentido de que Estados Unidos se retira del ATP. De esa brocha, México se ha quedado colgado pero, por lo anunciado hace unas horas por el presidente Peña Nieto, su gobierno se aferrará a la tabla de supervivencia del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (TLCAN).

A ese efecto, el presidente mexicano agregó dos nuevas zanahorias: El inclusión en el clausulado del TLCAN de los sectores Energía y Telecomunicaciones.

El mexiquense anuncia que asistirá al encuentro con Donald Trump con la convicción de que es una cita entre dos países soberanos, en cuyo caso México dialogará “con seguridad, dignidad, firmeza, confianza y la fortaleza” de México. Soberanía de por medio, pues.

La significación del encuentro con Theresa May

En la agenda del nuevo ocupante de la Casa Blanca, desde la semana pasada se anunció como prioridad recibir a la primera ministra del Gran Bretaña, Theresa May.

No es ese un dato menor: Tomar en cuenta que la señora May es sucesora de Margaret Thatcher, quien, con el republicano  Ronald Reagan en la Casa Blanca, proclamaron hace más de tres décadas la Revolución conservadora, punto de partida de la globalización neoliberal.

Para efectos prácticos, Theresa May es la antípoda de Margaret Thatcher. Arribó a su encargo como consecuencia del triunfo del Brexit por el que el Reino Unido abandona la Unión Europea.

Theresa May, la primera ministro del Reino Unido

La significación de ese retiro de Reino Unidos de la UE, radica en que el referéndum fue ganado en 2016 por los más radicales sectores nacionalistas.

Ese es el punto: Sin una declaración explícita de la señora May, los especialistas en Relaciones Internacionales la inscriben en la nómina de gobiernos que, encabezados por Rusia e India, algunos regímenes del Medio Oriente, al menos cuatro latinoamericanos, cada uno con sus peculiaridades, profesan como doctrina política el nacionalismo. ¿Es casual que a Trump se le conceptúe como “amigo” de Vladimir Putin?

En el marco de la reunión del Foro Económico Mundial, reunido en Davos, Suiza, aquella fue una de las preocupaciones más recurrentes.

Si, de acuerdo con los expertos, la globalización va de retirada desplazada por los nuevos nacionalismos, ¿México seguirá embarcado en una embarcación que navega a contracorriente? Es pregunta.

 Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La nueva oleada de nacionalismos

El Mercosur en la era Trump

January 23rd, 2017 by Antonio Elías

Para realizar el análisis de cuáles podrían ser los impactos del gobierno de Trump sobre el Mercosur debe tenerse en cuenta, en primer lugar, que la economía mundial se encuentra en un punto de inflexión: la globalización está retrayéndose y es cuestionada en los países periféricos y en los países centrales. En efecto, genera desocupación estructural, precarización del trabajo y el descenso en el nivel de vida de amplios sectores en los países centrales y, como contracara, provoca la sobre explotación de la mano de obra en los países periféricos.

El programa económico de Trump está dirigido, en parte, a los desplazados de la globalización a los que les prometió reindustrializar los Estados Unidos para que haya fuentes de trabajo para los norteamericanos.

Con ese fin realizaría una política de sustitución de importaciones, cuyos principales instrumentos serían: aumento de los aranceles a la entrada de productos “maquilados”;  redefinir y acotar los tratados de libre comercio, como el NAFTA;  rechazar los tratados plurilaterales como el Transpacífico; bajar los impuestos y subsidiar a las corporaciones que vuelvan a producir dentro de los Estados Unidos.

Para aumentar el nivel de actividad realizaría un shock de demanda tipo keynesiano a través de grandes inversiones en infraestructura financiada en parte por el Estado y en parte por el sector privado, la asociaciones público privadas. La expulsión de los trabajadores inmigrantes “ilegales” -que tienen menores salarios y prestaciones- es otra de las medidas para favorecer  a la mano de obra local. Todo esto enmarcado en un discurso xenófobo,  básicamente contra mexicanos y  musulmanes.

Otro punto de su plataforma de indudable importancia es su rechazo a los acuerdos contra el calentamiento global y su decisión de utilizar al máximo las energías tradicionales, incluido el fracking.

El Mercosur en la periferia

Con la profundización de la crisis han caído sustancialmente los precios de los productos primarios que exportan los países periféricos y se procesa un debilitamiento económico de los mismos y un empobrecimiento creciente de las clases subordinadas.

Complementariamente se está revalorizando el valor del dólar y su papel como principal moneda internacional mientras pierden peso las monedas que se plantearon como alternativas, caso del Euro,  y se deprecian las monedas de los países periféricos.

En ese marco el Mercosur fue severamente afectado con el cambio de ciclo de los precios de sus exportaciones lo cual produjo procesos recesivos en las principales economías del bloque: Argentina y Brasil.

Las políticas de conciliación de clases impulsadas por los gobiernos progresistas decayeron fuertemente por la falta de recursos para atender simultáneamente los requerimientos de los trabajadores, los capitalistas y amplios sectores de la población desocupada o con trabajos precarios que dependen básicamente de las políticas sociales. Por supuesto, a todo lo anterior debe sumársele la corrupción y el burocratismo.

La derecha retomó el gobierno en Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay con posiciones claramente favorables a la firma de acuerdos de libre comercio con los Estados Unidos y, consecuentemente, a la expulsión de Venezuela del Mercosur, habilitado por la abstención de Uruguay que podría haber vetado esta decisión.

 La relación económica

En primer lugar hay que señalar que ni el Mercosur como bloque, ni ninguno de sus países miembros, tiene acuerdos de libre comercio con Estados Unidos y sólo dos países, Argentina (1991) y Uruguay (2005) tienen tratados bilaterales de inversión con dicho país.

La Inversión Extranjera Directa (IED) de los Estados Unidos en los países miembros del Mercosur es relativamente baja, según lo reporta la CEPAL en su informe sobre la IED de 2016. A título de ejemplo, la mayor economía del bloque, Brasil recibe de Estados Unidos 14% del total de la IED, 22% de los Países Bajos y 50% de otros países europeos. En los casos de Argentina y Paraguay, la participación de la IED estadounidense, en 2014, es cercana al 40%; en Uruguay solo llega al 5%. Debe tenerse en cuenta que, aproximadamente, las tres cuartas partes de la IED que llega de Estados Unidos al Mercosur va a Brasil, otra cuarta parte a Argentina y solo un uno por ciento a Paraguay.

Las exportaciones del Mercosur a Estados Unidos llegaron en 2015 a 13,2%, lo que representa solo 2% del total de importaciones de los Estados Unidos. Así lo registró la CEPAL en el “Panorama de la inserción internacional de América Latina y el Caribe – 2016”. Cabe destacar que los productos exportados son en su mayor parte bienes primarios que no desplazan mano de obra estadounidense y no serían afectados por las medidas proteccionistas.

A partir de estos datos, se podría conjeturar que las medidas que se apresta a implementar Trump no tendrían un impacto económico directo y significativo sobre el Mercosur, aunque es muy probable que los impactos que estas políticas tendrán en México y Centroamérica lo afecten en forma indirecta.

Aspectos geopolíticos

Desde el punto de vista geopolítico, para la administración Trump el verdadero enemigo es China, tanto por lo que denomina “competencia desleal”, como por la amenaza que significa la enorme masa de dólares en poder del gobierno chino.

Barak Obama también actuó frente a China como un “enemigo económico” a desplazar para lo cual impulso un conjunto de acuerdos plurilaterales que excluían a China, en particular el Trade in Services Agreement (TISA) y el Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) que  restringirían la expansión comercial y la presencia de la IED China en el mundo.

La estrategia de Trump es mucho más confrontativa planteando un profundo distanciamiento comercial con China y una política de alianzas con Rusia y sus aliados para lograr la estabilidad en Oriente Medio garantizando el acceso al petróleo y reduciendo el flujo de refugiados. Busca, también, el acercamiento con todas aquellas fuerzas políticas europeas de derecha que tienen como bases sociales a los desplazados por la globalización, tales como los líderes del Brexit en Gran Bretaña y Marie Le Pen en Francia.

Con esa misma lógica sus aliados naturales en el Mercosur serán los países gobernados por la derecha –Argentina, Brasil y Paraguay– quienes han acordado la suspensión, paso previo a la expulsión, de Venezuela.

El enemigo, por supuesto, será el gobierno de Venezuela y, obviamente, todos aquellos que fomenten el avance Chino en el continente.

La derecha política y los grandes grupos económicos que operan en el Mercosur –al igual que en los Estados Unidos– hubieran preferido que continuara la estrategia norteamericana basada en los  tratados de “nueva generación”  como el TPP que, según fue anunciado, sería rechazado por Trump. Con dichos tratados buscaban la profundización, hasta sus últimas consecuencias, del modelo de acumulación vigente, lo que implicaba la expansión del capital a los ámbitos que aún están en manos del Estado y la consolidación de una nueva estructura institucional favorable al capital transnacional.

A modo de conclusión

La era Trump augura un proceso de agudización de las contradicciones entre los sectores  ligados al capital transnacional – principales impulsores y beneficiarios de la globalización – y sectores ligados a la producción para el  gigantesco mercado interno norteamericano. El resultado de esa disputa incidirá, sin duda, en las políticas económicas que se apliquen en el Mercosur, pero no afectará la alianza estratégica de las clases dominantes, ni las políticas de sobre explotación del trabajo y de los bienes comunes.

Cualquiera sea la fracción ganadora y los instrumentos que utilice la clase trabajadora debera enfrentar un acrecentamiento de la ofensiva del capital.

Antonio Elías

Antonio Elías: Máster en Economía,  docente de la Universidad de la Republica, Vicepresidente de la Sepla, miembro de Redem y Director del Instituto de  Estudios Sindicales (INESUR). 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on El Mercosur en la era Trump

A Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão (RAWA, na sigla em inglês), organização clandestina e independente de mulheres afegãs que atuam no anonimato em favor dos direitos humanos, especialmente feministas, luta contra quatro inimigos em solo afegão: os senhores da guerra da Aliança do Norte colocada no poder pelos Estados Unidos em 2001, a ocupação norte-americana, o Taliban, e o Estado Islamita recém-surgido.

A representante da RAWA, que se identifica como Friba, concedeu esta entrevista sobre a situação de seu país há 15 anos de ocupação dos Estados Unidos sob promessa de promover liberdade, igualdade e justiça. A voz de Friba, que representa a dos mais de 30 mil afegãos inocentes assassinados e mais de 100 mil feridos por atos de terror e crimes de guerra desde outubro de 2001, enfrenta sérios riscos em um país historicamente estratégico para as grandes potências, e dos mais efervescentes do planeta hoje.

A militante afegã traz à luz fatos ocultados pela mídia predominante que explicam a atual conjuntura global, especialmente as causas do terrorismo e as reais intenções do Império agonizante em promover guerras, e perpetuar ocupações militares. “Os Estados Unidos não se interessam pela prosperidade do Afeganistão. Instabilidade, insegurança, pobreza, analfabetismo e outros problemas sociais e econômicos profundamente enraizados, ajudam os Estados Unidos e seu governo fantoche a permanecer no poder”, afirma a entrevistada, direto de Cabul.

“Os Estados Unidos cometeram crimes hediondos no Afeganistão na década passada, matando milhares de pessoas inocentes em ataques aéreos e incursões noturnas, e torturando afegãos inocentes em seus locais negros dentro de suas bases”, afirma a pacifista ao comentar a “Guerra ao Terror” que, apenas nos primeiros meses, matou muito mais inocentes que nos ataques em solo norte-americano há 15 anos, que apenas tem gerado mais radicalismo e violência no Oriente Médio, e em todo o mundo.

A seguir, a situação afegã vivida por dentro segundo a combativa líder da RAWA, uma das tantas heroínas anônimas de um dos países mais pobres e oprimidos pela propalada Operação Liberdade Duradoura dos Estados Unidos e da OTAN, formulada nos porões do poder global para levar caos e servir como pretexto para uma guerra sem fim.

Edu Montesanti: Por favor, fale sobre a RAWA e as dificuldades que seu país enfrenta hoje.

Friba: A Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão é a mais antiga organização das mulheres no Afeganistão, a qual luta por liberdade, democracia, justiça social e secularismo.

A fundadora da RAWA foi Meena, quem formou este grupo ainda jovem, em 1977, com a ajuda de algumas outras estudantes universitárias em Cabul. Meena foi assassinada em Quetta, Paquistão em 1987 por agentes do KHAD (sucursal afegã da KGB), com a ajuda do grupo fundamentalista sanguinário de Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Ela tinha apenas 30 anos de idade.

O que distingue a RAWA de outras associações é o fato de que somos uma organização política. Quando a RAWA foi fundada, o Afeganistão estava sob a opressão do governo fantoche da União Soviética e, posteriormente, da invasão russa, e Meena percebeu que a luta por independência, liberdade e justiça era inseparável da luta pelos direitos das mulheres.

Depois do martírio de Meena, a RAWA deu seguimento à luta contra os fundamentalistas islamitas afegãos e seus apoiadores internacionais, o que faz até hoje. A RAWA ainda atua na clandestinidade na maior parte do Afeganistão, e enfrenta enormes dificuldades.

Os líderes jihadistas, senhores da guerra com passados sangrentos de crimes horríveis, estão no controle do atual governo e do parlamento, e tem seus domínios separados em diferentes partes do Afeganistão. Abdullah Abdullah, o chefe de Estado do Afeganistão, é um desses líderes jihadistas que pertence ao grupo criminoso de Shorae Nizar.

Isso cria uma situação perigosa para nós já que esses bandidos, nossos maiores inimigos, não param de dificultar nosso trabalho e nos prejudicar. Em outras partes do Afeganistão, onde os fundamentalistas talibans estão no controle, a RAWA enfrenta a mesma opressão. Todas as nossas ativistas usam pseudônimos por precaução, e nunca podemos aparecer em público com nosso trabalho.

Apesar destes obstáculos, ainda é possível continuarmos as atividades políticas na maior parte do país devido ao nosso contato com os habitantes locais, e ao fato de que o ódio destes contra aqueles criminosos traduz-se em apoio a nós.

Nossas atividades políticas incluem a publicação de revistas e artigos, a mobilização de mulheres para que adquiram esta consciência e, assim, juntem-se à nossa luta. Coletamos e documentamos assassinatos, estupros, roubos, extorsões e outros crimes desses senhores da guerra, nas partes mais remotas do Afeganistão.

Nossas atividades sociais são proporcionar educação às mulheres – e não apenas as aulas de alfabetização, mas também a consciência social e política quanto aos seus direitos e como alcançá-los -, ajuda emergencial, criação de orfanatos e atividades relacionadas à saúde.

Edu Montesanti: Como está o Afeganistão hoje, 15 anos após a invasão norte-americana?

Friba: Os Estados Unidos cometeram crimes hediondos no Afeganistão na década passada, matando milhares de pessoas inocentes em ataques aéreos e incursões noturnas, e torturando os afegãos inocentes em suas prisões secretas dentro de suas bases militares.

O massacre de Bala Baluk na província de Farah em 2009, que matou 147 afegãos inocentes, o massacre de Panjwai na província de Kandahar em 2012, que matou 16 afegãos inocentes, a matança de doze crianças inocentes na província de Kunar em 2013, e o ataque ao hospital de Médicos sem Fronteiras em 2015, na província de Kunduz, que matou 42 e feriu mais de 30 pessoas, são apenas alguns casos envolvendo derramamento de sangue causados por forças dos Estados Unidos e da OTAN no Afeganistão.

Apesar disso, a maior traição dos Estados Unidos ao Afeganistão é a reedição de criminosos fundamentalistas islamitas no poder. Como a história tem mostrado sempre e o presente prova, nenhuma intervenção ou ocupação estrangeira é inteiramente bem-sucedida sem a cooperação de um grupo de traiçoeiros internos, mercenários do país ocupante.

Hoje, o Afeganistão é governado por senhores da guerra fundamentalistas sanguinários e criminosos que compactuam com a ideologia do Taliban, e que cometeram crimes piores do que os do Taliban no passado. A Aliança do Norte, composta pelos elementos mais traiçoeiros e misóginos dos senhores da guerra e comandantes militares, foi imposta ao nosso povo através de três eleições historicamente fraudulentas.

Esses criminosos provocaram a guerra civil de 1992 a 1996 que matou mais de 65 mil civis em Cabul, e saquearam a cidade. Suas milícias cometeram assassinatos sistemáticos, estupros, estupros coletivos, extorsões, roubos, detenções arbitrárias, cortaram os seios das mulheres, cravaram pregos em crânios, realizaram rituais de matança horrível e centenas de outros crimes. Em vez de enfrentar a acusação nos tribunais internacionais por tais crimes, esses assassinos desfrutam da mais absoluta impunidade e engordam suas contas bancárias, com o apoio do Ocidente.

Inúmeros relatórios de organismos internacionais como a Human Rights Watch e a Anistia Internacional documentaram os crimes cometidos pelos poderosos senhores da guerra em todo o Afeganistão, tanto no passado quanto no presente. Apesar disso, sabemos que este apoio é inabalável e continuará por décadas.

O novo governo do Afeganistão, denominado “Governo de Unidade Nacional”, é dirigido pelos mercenários de longa-data dos Estados Unidos, Ashraf Ghani e Abdullah Abdullah, ambos da Aliança do Norte que estavam unidos em um acordo quebrado por John Kerry, após os dois não terem concordado com os resultados das fraudulentas e repugnantes eleições presidenciais, repleta de sujeira; o resultado daquelas eleições foi oficialmente lançado um ano depois!

O vice de Ashraf Ghani é Rashid Dostum e outro foi Sarwar Danish, famosos criminosos enquanto os companheiros de chapa de Abdullah foram Mohammad Khan e Mohammad Mohaqiq, outros dois criminosos bem conhecidos. A primeira medida do novo governo foi assinar o Acordo de Segurança Bilateral, que legitima a presença a longo prazo dos Estados Unidos em nossa pátria, e foi o documento que oficialmente vendeu nossa independência aos Estados Unidos.

Não há nenhuma cara nova no governo. A única diferença é que, desta vez, os famosos criminosos das facções Khalq e Parcham, que eram marionetes da União Soviética, também têm recebido uma parte do poder apesar de terem sido incriminados em uma Lista da Morte que revelou os nomes de cinco mil ativistas políticos e intelectuais, mortos pelo regime nas décadas de 1970 e de 1980.

É desnecessário dizer que tal regime fantoche não pode trazer paz, liberdade, democracia, justiça e os direitos das mulheres, mesmo que se submeta a eleições cem vezes.

Segundo a ONU, o alcance do Taliban hoje é o mais amplo desde 2001. Os ataques suicidas do Taliban e a guerra constante entre o governo afegão e Taliban, fizeram um inferno na vida do nosso povo. A taxa de mortalidade civil em 2015 foi a maior já registrada, sendo que grande parte das vítimas era composta de mulheres e crianças.

Enquanto as feridas que o Taliban causou ao nosso povo ainda estão sangrando, as negociações de paz estão em andamento para incluir o Taliban no governo. Em vez de colocá-los em julgamento pelos crimes hediondos, estão sendo convidados para o governo com o objetivo de completar o círculo de fundamentalistas criminosos e mercenários no Afeganistão. Como pode uma força tão criminosa trazer paz ao tomar o poder?

Hoje, a economia do Afeganistão está em frangalhos. Mais de 60 bilhões de dólares foram doados ao Afeganistão para o propalado esforço de reconstrução, mas nem sequer alguns centavos chegaram ao nosso povo enquanto encheram os bolsos da máfia, dentro e fora do governo. Nos últimos treze anos nenhum projeto contribuiu para a reconstrução da base do país. Nenhuma infra-estrutura básica foi construída no país, e o desemprego atinge novos picos a cada dia.

A pobreza e a fome no Afeganistão estão entre as mais altas do mundo, apenas comparável às nações africanas. O Afeganistão tem a maior taxa de mortalidade infantil do mundo, milhões de pessoas sofrem de fome e desnutrição. 25% das crianças no Afeganistão trabalham para alimentar suas famílias, o que as impede de frequentar a escola e de ter acesso a outros direitos básicos.

O Afeganistão foi considerado o país mais corrupto do mundo nos últimos anos. Graças à invasão norte-americana, o Afeganistão é hoje um narco-Estado. Não é apenas o maior produtor de drogas fornecendo 90% do ópio mundial, mas também tem o maior índice [proporcional, grifo nosso] de usuários de drogas, com cerca de três milhões de viciados. Na recente entrevista coletiva de Londres, Ashraf Ghani afirmou que do lucro de 500 bilhões de dólares de drogas no Afeganistão, 480 bilhões fluíram para a Europa.

Isto não apenas revela o fracasso do Ocidente em sua chamada guerra contra as drogas no Afeganistão, como também suscita dúvidas em relação ao seu envolvimento neste negócio.

Edu Montesanti: Anos atrás, a escritora, ativista pelos direitos humanos e ex-parlamentar expulsa injustamente do cargo, Malalaï Joya, denunciou que a CIA segue coordenando o tráfico de drogas a partir do Afeganistão. Em uma entrevista por correio eletrônico (censurada) ao jornal brasileiro O Tempo, mais tarde enviada para mim na íntegra também por correio eletrônico, ela afirmou que “a economia de narcóticos do Afeganistão é um projeto traçado pela CIA, apoiada pela política externa dos Estados Unidos. Há relatos no Afeganistão de que até mesmo o Exército norte-americano está envolvido no tráfico de drogas. A máfia da droga faz parte dos porões do poder, apoiada pelo Ocidente”. O que você pode dizer sobre isso?

Friba: Nós apoiamos fortemente esta declaração de Malalaï Joya, baseada em fatos.

A CIA tem uma longa história de envolvimento no comércio global de drogas em todas as partes do mundo, sob controle dos Estados Unidos ou onde Washington exerce considerável influência. Alguns poucos casos foram investigados e expostos por jornalistas, mas a questão permanece encoberta.

A história da CIA começou na década de 1980. As drogas foram vistas como a maneira mais rápida e mais fácil de se obter dinheiro para financiar representantes da CIA e as forças paramilitares que os serviam, em diferentes países. Gary Webb, o corajoso jornalista que expôs o escândalo do tráfico de drogas dos Contra da Nicarágua, e que acabou sendo levado ao suicídio por uma extensa campanha de difamação pela grande mídia, descreveu o processo desta maneira:

“Nós [CIA] precisamos de dinheiro para uma operação secreta, e a maneira mais rápida para aumentá-lo é vendendo cocaína; vocês a venderão em algum lugar, não queremos saber nada sobre isso.”

Essa tática funcionou com muito sucesso no Afeganistão durante a Guerra Fria, quando as forças mujahideen que servem os EUA foram financiadas através das drogas.

Antes da invasão dos Estados Unidos em 2001, os campos de plantação de papoula foram erradicadas pelos talibans. Logo após a invasão dos Estados Unidos, a produção de drogas começou a aumentar drasticamente, e hoje o Afeganistão produz 90% do ópio do mundo, à beira de se tornar um narco-Estado. Há relatos de que as forças norte-americanas admitem que as drogas são transportadas a partir do Afeganistão em aviões norte-americanos.

Ahmed Wali Karzai, irmão do fantoche dos EUA, Hamid Karzai, ex-governador hoje morto na província de Kandahar, foi ao mesmo tempo o maior traficante não apenas do Afeganistão, mas da região. O tempo todo, ele esteva na folha de pagamento da CIA.

Houve, até mesmo, alegações por parte de oficiais norte-americanos diretamente envolvidos nas operações de drogas no Afeganistão sobre o envolvimento da CIA. Um agente da DEA [Drug Enforcement Administration, agência de fachada dos Estados Unidos, teoricamente anti-narcóticos que funciona como órgão da agência de inteligência norte-americana em todo o mundo], Edwrad Follis, afirmou que a CIA “fechou os olhos” para o tráfico de drogas no Afeganistão. Mais recentemente, John Abbotsford, ex-analista da CIA e veterano de guerra que lutou no Afeganistão, confessou que a CIA desempenhava seu papel em operações de contrabando de drogas.

Mesmo se excluirmos estas reivindicações e relatórios, é difícil acreditar que uma superpotência que possui a mais moderna tecnologia em vigilância e coleta de informações, não consegue encontrar campos de ópio e nem rastrear rotas de fornecimento dentro de um país que ocupa. O fato de que 8 bilhões de dólares foram gastos em esforços de erradicação da droga durante a última década, mas a produção de ópio tem apenas subido, é por si só uma indicação de que o negócio da droga serve a algum interesse dos Estados Unidos no Afeganistão, ou que teria sido concluído há muito tempo.

Outras protagonistas desses tão chamados esforços “antinarcóticos” são empresas privadas norte-americanas que ganham milhões de dólares por meio de contratos antinarcóticos. Uma das maiores beneficiárias é a notória empresa militar Blackwater, agora conhecida como Academi que, de acordo com a [rede de notícias] Russia Today, ganhou 569 milhões de dólares através desses contratos. Empreiteiras privadas têm uma enorme parcela sobre os lucros da guerra no Afeganistão, e essa fracassada guerra às drogas proporciona enormes lucros a elas.

Na verdade, uma das razões para a invasão do Afeganistão pelos Estados Unidos é que os norte-americanos devem manter o controle sobre o negócio de narcóticos, terceiro mais importante produto de comércio em termos de rendimento, depois do negócio das armas e do petróleo.

Edu Montesanti: Qual a situação das mulheres no Afeganistão hoje, as quais os Estados Unidos prometeram libertar da forte misoginia local em 2001?

Friba: A terrível situação das mulheres afegãs sob o regime de mentalidade medieval do Taliban foi explorada pelos Estados Unidos como uma das principais razões para invadir o Afeganistão em 2001. Vejamos como esta “libertação” foi cumprida.

Como todas as pessoas do Afeganistão, as mulheres estão esmagados entre diversas forças em uma guerra contínua, e a insegurança que assola nosso país por mais de uma década: os Estados Unidos e seus aliados, os jihadistas e fundamentalistas do Taliban, e o recém-surgido ISIS [Estado Islamita].

O Parlamento tentou legalizar o apedrejamento até a morte por adultério, a surra na esposa e assassinato em nome da honra [do homem]. A maioria das mulheres em prisões afegãs hoje foram condenadas pelo Judiciário misógino por “crimes morais”, tais como fugir de casa de maridos e de sogros crueis, fugir com amante, etc.

Inúmeros casos de amarração pública e execuções foram realizados pelos tribunais simulados de talibans, senhores da guerra locais e mulás em todas as partes do Afeganistão.

A situação das mulheres hoje é catastrófica. A violência contra as mulheres subiu a níveis sem precedentes hoje. As mulheres sofrem de violência doméstica, estupro, estupro coletivo, abuso sexual, homicídio, imolação, o assassinato honroso, casamentos forçados a menores de idade com homens muito mais velhos que elas, troca de meninas no casamento por mercadorias, e dezenas de outras desgraças semelhantes. As meninas têm sido torturadas nos porões, têm tido narizes, lábios e orelhas decepados, têm sido privadas de comida e espancadas até a morte, pelas famílias ou pelos sogros. O que ficamos sabendo através da mídia é apenas a ponta do iceberg.

Em 2001, os Estados Unidos e seus aliados usaram a situação das mulheres afegãs como pretexto para ocupar o Afeganistão; eles usaram especialmente a imagem de uma mulher afegã chamada Zarmina, assassinada publicamente pelo Taliban no estádio esportivo de Cabul. Contudo, apenas algumas semanas atrás uma mulher afegã foi executada publicamente de maneira semelhante, e os meios de comunicação ocidentais fecharam os olhos diante disso, e ainda não relataram o fato.

As taxas de auto-imolação atingiram novos picos. Muitas mulheres queimam-se vivas ao não enxergar outra solução aos seus problemas. Os legisladores, magistrados e policiais em todo o Afeganistão são fundamentalistas misóginos que impõem suas mentalidades anti-feministas em forma de leis, e oferecem impunidade total aos autores desses horrendos crimes. É natural que, em tal situação, a violência contra as mulheres apenas vai continuar subindo.

No ano passado, o Afeganistão testemunhou o crime mais horrível já cometido contra uma mulher afegã em plena luz do dia, no centro de Cabul, debaixo o nariz dos policiais locais e do governo. Farkhunda, estudante de 26 anos de idade, foi linchada por uma multidão de bandidos que, falsamente, acusaram-na de ter queimado o Alcorão. Ela levou chutes, socos, foi atropelada por um carro, apedrejada e, em seguida, queimada e jogada no seco rio de Cabul. A maioria dos assassinos de Farkhunda foram liberados dias após a detenção. Dos quatro detidos, um foi condenado a apenas dez anos de prisão, e os outros três a 20 anos. Suas penas de morte foram revogadas em sessões de julgamento ridiculamente curtas.

Mais tarde, ainda no ano passado, Rukhshana de 19 anos foi apedrejada até a morte por um tribunal desonesto do Taliban em uma província ocidental do Afeganistão dominada por mulás, por ter fugido. Seus gritos ecoaram por todo o país enquanto ela era lentamente assassinada por uma multidão enfurecida de talibans. Uma delegação foi enviada por Ashraf Ghani, presidente afegão, para investigar e punir os autores dos crimes. A delegação foi chefiada por um mulá, que apoiou o Taliban e defendeu abertamente o apedrejamento da jovem como sendo islamita e juridicamente legal, alguns dias após o incidente. A investigação foi, sem surpresa, inútil.

Talvez o reflexo mais claro da mentalidade da atual legislatura partiu de Nazir Ahmad Hanafi, proeminente legislador afegão cuja acalorada entrevista com Isobel Yeung culminou com uma evidente ameaça: “Talvez eu devesse entregar-lhe a um afegão para que decepasse seu nariz”, em referência à mutilação de uma jovem de 20 anos, Reza Gul, que teve o nariz mutilado pelo esposo pelo “crime moral” de ter fugido de casa.

O Afeganistão ainda tem uma das mais altas taxas de mortalidade materna do mundo, com milhares de mulheres morrendo durante o parto a cada ano. A taxa de alfabetização oficial está em 18%, ainda que considerando a realidade do território nacional a taxa seja muito menor que essa. O Afeganistão é, com razão, chamado de um dos piores lugares para ser mulher.

Os Estados Unidos têm feito uma piada em nome da democracia e com os direitos das mulheres em nosso país, apoiando os criminosos mais misóginos do governo, e descaradamente usando a presença simbólica de funcionárias governamentais, do sexo feminino, para enganar o mundo sobre a situação real. A maioria dessas mulheres estão vinculadas aos mesmos partidos fundamentalistas e criminosos, e são tão antidemocráticas e misóginas quanto seus homólogos masculinos. Os outros estão, simplesmente, usando esta oportunidade para engordar suas contas bancárias com a corrida do ouro da ajuda externa.

As outras realizações das mulheres, tais como reabertura de escolas e de postos de trabalho para mulheres, são limitadas a algumas cidades urbanas do Afeganistão com a maioria das mulheres ainda sofrendo com o atual fogo do Inferno.

Neste momento, o governo fantoche afegão está negociando com Gulbuddin; quer tirar seu nome da lista negra da ONU, dar-lhe proteção jurídica e impunidade. Mas este é o mais notório senhor da guerra afegão, e maior inimigo dos direitos das mulheres que costumava jogar ácido no rosto de mulheres, publicamente.

Os Estados Unidos usam esses “ganhos” superficiais como pretexto para darem seguimento à ocupação militar no Afeganistão, ameaçando que eles serão perdidos após sua chamada retirada. É uma verdade fundamental que os ganhos hard-lutou feitas pela verdadeira luta das mulheres nunca são perdidas, e os EUA usa essas mudanças cosméticas como uma cortina de fumaça para justificar a sua invasão ao povo do mundo.

Edu Montesanti: Como o povo afegão, em geral, vê a longa ocupação dos Estados Unidos?

Friba: Os afegãos estão fartos, sabem que o Ocidente os traiu, que vieram com longas alegações de “direitos humanos”, “direitos das mulheres” e “democracia”, mas na verdade eles empurraram o Afeganistão no sentido de desastres e de um Estado mafioso, e tudo o que fizeram foram apenas mudanças cosméticas.

Eles estão fartos dos crimes e brutalidade das forças dos Estados Unidos no Afeganistão ao longo dos últimos 15 anos, porque dezenas de milhares de afegãos foram mortos por suas bombas e tiroteios, e na verdade o terrorismo foi ainda mais alimentado que antes.

Eles estão fartos com o fato de que o Ocidente está contando com as bandas mais brutais e desumanas, e em nome da “Guerra ao Terror”, na verdade, apoia terroristas e usa o terrorismo como uma arma para derrotar seus rivais como Rússia e China.

Edu Montesanti: Quanto os Estados Unidos são sinceros em libertar o Afeganistão? Você acha que os Estados Unidos desejam um Afeganistão instável?

Friba: O clamor dos Estados Unidos e da OTAN de “libertar” o Afeganistão é apenas slogan barato, e na verdade eles são invasores e destruidores da “libertação”. Os Estados Unidos não têm interesse na prosperidade do Afeganistão. Na verdade, a instabilidade, a insegurança, a pobreza, o analfabetismo e outros problemas sociais e econômicos profundamente arraigados ajudam os Estados Unidos e seu governo fantoche a permanecer no poder, sem nenhuma oposição do povo.

Na verdade, o governo dos Estados Unidos tem as mãos sujas de sangue diante dos acontecimentos das últimas quatro décadas no Afeganistão. Eles apoiaram elementos armados, sedentos de sangue em nosso país, e levaram o Afeganistão a essa atual condição desastrosa. Se os Estados Unidos quisessem estabilidade e prosperidade, teriam dado os bilhões de dólares de ajuda para investimentos em infra-estrutura básica e não para encher os bolsos dos senhores da guerra e ONGs corruptas, que prosperaram sob a ocupação norte-americana. Esta corrida do ouro levou o Afeganistão a se tornar o país mais corrupto do mundo.

Os Estados Unidos e a OTAN tentam transformar não só o Afeganistão, mas toda a Ásia em uma região instável. Enquanto a economia mundial se volta para a Ásia com grandes potências, como Rússia, China, Índia, etc, os Estados Unidos contam com o terrorismo como arma para bloquear o progresso especialmente de Rússia e China, e causam problemas para estes países.

O Afeganistão tornou-se centro deste jogo de poder entre as grandes potências, mais uma vez. Igualmente, temos relatos de que a Rússia também arma o Taliban e os senhores da guerra no Afeganistão, para combater o plano dos Estados Unidos de exportar o terrorismo para repúblicas da Ásia Central e à própria Rússia. Neste jogo, em que ambos os lados usam o terrorismo como arma, os afegãos estão enfrentando um banho de sangue e as coisas estão progredindo rapidamente em direção a novas guerras, e mais derramamento de sangue.

Edu Montesanti: E por que, exatamente, os Estados Unidos estão tão interessados no Afeganistão, a seu ver?

Friba: Neste ponto, depois de mais de uma década de agressão dos Estados Unidos em vários países da região, achamos que não resta nenhuma dúvida na mente de ninguém de que os Estados Unidos estão presentes em nosso país, e em outros países, por seus próprios interesses.

A posição geopolítica do Afeganistão oferece aos Estados Unidos vantagem única na região: acesso aos seus maiores rivais em todo o mundo, Rússia, China, Índia e Irã. Os Estados Unidos construíram [no Afeganistão] bases militares gigantescas e sua segunda maior Embaixada no mundo, e tem milhares de militares e empreiteiros privados estacionados em diferentes partes do Afeganistão.

Essas bases militares oferecem pontos à tentativa dos Estados Unidos de manter seus adversários sob seus domínios, e de continuar perseguindo seus principais objetivos na região. Além disso, e talvez mais importante, o governo traiçoeiro e fundamentalista do Afeganistão, junto de uma população desgastada com a guerra que tem sido executada por quatro décadas, muito cansada de lutar novamente, proporciona as condições ideais para as operações dos Estados Unidos aqui.

Os traidores do Estado afegão não apenas venderam o Afeganistão, mas têm mantido silêncio sobre os crimes brutais das forças dos Estados Unidos, e defendido todos os seus atos de agressão no país.

Os afegãos sabem agora que os Estados Unidos, simplesmente, usam o Afeganistão como frente na Ásia para avançar sua agenda regional, que é promover terrorismo para transformar a Ásia em ponto efervescente na terra com o intuito de deter o avanço das emergentes potências militares e econômicas no continente.

Se você acompanhar cada mudança significativa na situação do Afeganistão – como a transferência do Taliban e da guerra, a insegurança, o terror e a agitação que automaticamente vem em seguida – para as regiões do norte, tudo isso eles serve a um certo interesse de os Estados Unidos. Neste caso, estaria gerando instabilidade nas proximidades da Rússia, e até mesmo a instigando.

É importante salientar aqui que, ao contrário do geralmente propagado sobre os talibans como lacaios do Paquistão e, em menor medida, do Irã, a verdade é que em última análise são os Estados Unidos quem estão segurando a coleira desses indivíduos violentos.

Os talibans são a força de reserva dos Estados Unidos, que irão utilizá-los sempre que virem necessidade para isso. Não é segredo que o regime sanguinário taliban foi criado e alimentado pelos Estados Unidos, e será usado sempre que for necessário.

O Taliban serve a um duplo propósito para os Estados Unidos hoje: eles justificam a continuação da “Guerra ao terror”, e serve como seus procuradores em partes do Afeganistão que não estão sob o controle do propalado governo [nacional].

Hoje, nada no Afeganistão pode ocorrer ou ser alterado sem autorização do Estados Unidos, e seria muito ingênuo pensar de outra forma. Esta situação também expõe a mentira que o governo dos Estados Unidos disse ao mundo em 2014 sobre o término de sua guerra no Afeganistão, retirando as tropas e acabando com a guerra no Afeganistão. Os Estados Unidos continuam tendo uma forte presença no Afeganistão para fins geoestratégicos.

Edu Montesanti: Se eu bem compreendi, Friba, você quer dizer que o Afeganistão está pior agora que antes da invasão liderada pelos Estados Unidos.

Friba: Sim, absolutamente. Para além do que mencionei anteriormente, se considerarmos apenas a deterioração da situação de segurança, vital às pessoas mais que comida e água, podemos entender o quanto a situação está pior do que antes em todo o Afeganistão.

O ópio é outro vírus mortal que infecta nossa nova geração, e é ainda mais perigoso do Taliban e da Al-Qaeda. O número de civis mortos em ataques suicidas por talibans, os ataques noturnos e os ataques aéreos das forças dos Estados Unidos, e os crimes das milícias dos senhores da guerra locais em diferentes partes do Afeganistão aumentam a cada ano.

A economia do país está em ruínas, controlada pela máfia que traça o apoio de poderosos funcionários do governo afegão. Os Estados Unidos e a OTAN invadiram o Afeganistão com importantes alegações de “reconstrução do Afeganistão”, mas não vemos nenhum crescimento em nenhum setor fundamental do Afeganistão.

Apenas a máfia e as ONGs têm crescido em número e tamanho. Os afegãos são o segundo maior grupo de migrantes do mundo, enquanto os jovens se engajam em viagens perigosas a fim de escapar da miséria em suas casas. Muitos jovens hoje são viciados em drogas.

Nas áreas mais isoladas, a pobreza e o desemprego têm levado os jovens a se juntar ao Taliban e ao ISIS [Estado Islamita] já que estes fornecem necessidades básicas, e às vezes até pagam salários. As mulheres afegãs são tão reprimidas e estão sob constante ataque quanto estavam sob a regra medieval do Taliban.

Governos vizinhos como Irã e Paquistão nunca tiveram mãos tão manchadas de sangue diante dos assuntos do Afeganistão, como atualmente.

Este é apenas um breve resumo da situação desastrosa do país, mas é o suficiente para mostrar a devastação que os EUA trouxe sobre o nosso país e as pessoas.

Edu Montesanti: Como você disse, a história e os acontecimentos atuais mostram que ocupação nunca é bem-sucedida. Que alternativas a RAWA defende a fim de mudar definitivamente a catastrófica realidade do Afeganistão? Você vê ajuda externa como produtiva para efetivamente libertar o povo afegão dos personagens e dos grupos altamente violentos, mencionados por você? Se assim for, quem e como poderia ser prestada uma ajuda eficaz ao Afeganistão?

Friba: Sempre dissemos que a independência de um país é a primeira condição para democracia, liberdade e justiça. Há poucos, ou nenhum exemplo na história em que a intervenção estrangeira libertou ou ajudou uma nação, e nos últimos 14 anos da ocupação norte-americana do Afeganistão é uma prova disso.

Os Estados Unidos não apenas não libertaram o Afeganistão, mas impuseram ao nosso povo os maiores inimigos, os criminosos fundamentalistas. Os Estados Unidos são o criador e educador desses violentos grupos. É uma política consciente do governo dos Estados Unidos formar parceria com fundamentalistas islamitas onde quer que ele entra em cena. Vimos isso na Líbia e na Síria também. Os Estados Unidos afirmam estar combatendo o terror, mas os maiores terroristas, os criminosos da Aliança do Norte foram levados ao poder pelos próprios Estados Unidos. Contudo, isso não causou nenhuma surpresa. Logo no início da invasão norte-americana ao Afeganistão, a RAWA declarou que o propósito desta agressão era servir aos objetivos imperialistas dos Estados Unidos, e que naquela tragédia faria parceria com os piores inimigos do nosso país. O que menos importa aos Estados Unidos é o bem-estar do Afeganistão e do seu povo. A situação atual do nosso país, é prova disso.

A chave para a liberdade e para a democracia está em uma luta unida, organizada do nosso povo. Uma luta árdua que seja, mas não há outra maneira de sair deste atoleiro. Apenas as pessoas de um país podem decidir seu destino, e construir um sistema que lhes serve.

A solidariedade das pessoas libertárias e amantes da paz em todo o mundo é muito importante no fortalecimento da luta do nosso povo, também. Este será um processo longo e difícil, mas os afegãos não têm outra alternativa senão unir-se e lutar por liberdade, democracia, justiça e libertação.

Edu Montesanti: A RAWA defende um Afeganistão laico ou islamita, fundamentado na sharia?

Friba: Secularismo tem sido o slogan da RAWA desde sua fundação. Acreditamos que a democracia não tem sentido sem o secularismo. A religião tem sido historicamente utilizada como meio para manter o poder daqueles que governam, e em uma sociedade onde as pessoas são profundamente religiosas, a combinação entre Estado e religião é particularmente perigosa.

Hoje no Afeganistão, a maior ferramenta de fundamentalistas atuais na utilização da força para defender seus atos e se proteger, é o Islã. Todos os criminosos fundamentalistas no poder encobrem seus crimes usando o Islã. Este tem sido utilizado para anular a indignação das pessoas, e o desejo delas de se levantar e de lutar por seus direitos.

O Taliban tem sido capaz de transformar jovens inocentes em mortais atacantes suicidas, através da lavagem cerebral baseada em ideias religiosas. Infelizmente, esse mau uso da religião tem servido muito bem.

Por essa razão, o secularismo é vital ao nosso país hoje, para extirpar o fundamentalismo e construir uma sociedade livre desse vírus mortal. Só assim o Afeganistão pode dar um passo em direção ao progresso e à prosperidade.

Edu Montesanti: A misoginia é senso-comum no Afeganistão, ou reduzida aos senhores da guerra e ao Taliban?

Friba: Não há dúvida de que o Afeganistão é atormentado pelo atraso, cultural e economicamente. Durante séculos, os monarcas reacionários injetaram e utilizaram ideias reacionárias para manter-se no poder. No entanto, nas últimas três décadas, quando os fundamentalistas islamitas dominaram o Afeganistão, o atraso do país tornou-se mais comum e extremo que nunca.

Um dos aspectos do Islã amplamente propagado por radicais islâmicos, é a degradação e a opressão das mulheres, vistas mais como animais que como seres humanos. As mulheres vivem apenas para serem vistas como servas que trabalham em casa, dar à luz a filhos e satisfazer as necessidades sexuais dos homens.

A violência familiar é um dos mais desgastantes e dolorosos problemas das mulheres no Afeganistão, assim como na maioria dos outros países muçulmanos, e é principalmente apoiada pelos governos de linha dura. Este problema, em parte alimentado com os ensinamentos islamitas que são dados aos homens… e mulheres desde a infância.

Há versos do Alcorão a este respeito, que dizem que:

“Suas mulheres são uma lavoura para você (cultivar); assim, vá à sua lavoura como quiser” (2: 223)

“Os homens estão a cargo das mulheres… Quanto àquelas a quem vocês temem rebelião, as admoestem e as isolem em camas separadas” (04:34)

Há um monte de versos deste tipo no Alcorão. Homens justifica sua superioridade e o tratamento desumano e relação às mulheres com base e, tais versos. E, é claro, em uma série de declarações do profeta Maomé ou de outras fontes religiosas, e sobre uma grande quantidade de poemas e histórias; aliás, poetas populares reforçam estes versos e, todos juntos, afetam homens de maneira tão maléfica que se eles tratam as mulheres com ligeira humanidade e bondade, sentem-se como se estivessem cometendo o maior pecado de suas vidas! Nos livros e fontes mencionadas, existem algumas palavras de compaixão e bondade para com as mulheres, mas fracassaram em proteger as mulheres do sofrimento contra elas.

Nos países muçulmanos onde os princípios seculares têm encontrado algum espaço dentro da sociedade, a profundidade desta violência não é tão ruim quanto naqueles infestados pelo fundamentalismo.

Edu Montesanti: As ativistas da RAWA acreditam no Alcorão? Qual a religião das mulheres da RAWA?

Friba: Acreditamos que a religião é um assunto completamente pessoal, e que não importa para nós se alguém na RAWA é religiosa ou não. O que é importante para nós é que elas sejam livres do aspecto reacionário da religião que impede qualquer luta, especialmente a luta revolucionária.

Os versos mencionados são amplamente utilizados por clérigos fundamentalistas para justificar seu tratamento desumano contra as mulheres, e para encorajar este tratamento entre as pessoas. Enquanto nossa luta não tem como objetivo a própria religião, em vez daqueles elementos que abusam de religião, esses versos têm de ser mencionados como eles são os mais comumente usados.

Nós acreditamos em secularismo, o qual simplesmente separa Estado e religião e que tem o maior respeito por quaisquer crenças pessoais, de qualquer um. Toda a nação do Afeganistão, salvo uma minoria muito pequena, é muçulmana, mas ela seguem apenas as boas ações estabelecidas pelo Islã e nunca o usa para justificar maus tratos contra mulheres, contra os não-muçulmanos, etc. Esta versão do Islã é respeitada por nós, mesmo que não seja aceita como parte de nossas crenças.

Sua página sobre cultura afegã parece ótima [Cultura & Arte Afegã, em www.edumontesanti.skyrock.com]. No entanto, existem algumas práticas culturais importantes do Afeganistão que são completamente ignoradas. O evento que você descreveu, o Eid, é uma celebração religiosa. Os fundamentalistas afegãos acabaram propagando o Eid como a celebração mais popular do Afeganistão devido ao seu aspecto islamita.

No entanto, isso não é verdade. Os afegãos seguem o calendário solar e comemorar seu ano novo em 20 ou 21 de março de cada ano. Isso é chamado de ‘Nowroz’ – Novo Dia. As pessoas usam roupas novas, vão a piqueniques com suas famílias e comemoram com música e dança. Eles fazem um prato de doce de sete frutas secas embebidas em calda doce, e cozinham o prato tradicional de arroz branco com espinafre. Esta tradição vem de antepassados afegãos não-islamitas, os Zardosht – ou aqueles que adoravam o fogo. É o acontecimento mais amplamente comemorado no Afeganistão.

Mesmo décadas de guerra e de dominação fundamentalista não foram capazes de apagar essa tradição. Por favor, dê uma olhada nisto: Why Afghanistan’s Nowruz has been interrupted. Este acontecimento é particularmente importante, uma vez que remete aos nossos primeiros ancestrais quando o Islã não era nem nascido ainda. Mais importante, apesar da propaganda generalizada e dos esforços por parte do clérigo, tanto do Taliban quanto do governo, as pessoas comemoraram amplamente o evento deste ano, e continuarão a fazê-lo.

Edu Montesanti: Como vivem as ativistas da RAWA, especialmente com seus cônjuges em uma sociedade altamente misógina como esta? Como seus maridos aceitam e o quanto apoiam seus pontos de vista revolucionários?

Friba: As ativistas da RAWA são mulheres de excepcional sorte em uma sociedade devastada. Nossos maridos e outros familiares do sexo masculino são muito favoráveis, apesar de não desempenharem nenhum papel na organização, propriamente. Na verdade, temos um grupo muito grande de apoiantes do sexo masculino.

Há outros grupos revolucionários e de esquerda no Afeganistão que são predominantemente comandados por homens – ao contrário de nossa organização, somente feminina – que nos apoiam também. Nosso próprio líder, o marido de Meena, Faiz Ahmad, o líder da Organização de Libertação Afeganistão, organização de esquerda radical que existe até hoje e única organização de esquerda que sobreviveu à opressão de quatro décadas de guerra.

Faiz Ahmad foi assassinado alguns meses antes de Meena, pelo mesmo criminoso Gulbuddin Hekmatyar, quem também matou Meena. As atividades de Meena e de Faiz tinham se tornado um espinho nos olhos dos fundamentalistas islâmicos no Paquistão e da inteligência secreta do Afeganistão, por isso foram mortos.

Edu Montesanti: Como você avalia a cobertura do Afeganistão por parte da mídia predominante? Como a RAWA avalia as organizações internacionais de “direitos humanos”, e a posição da chamada comunidade internacional relativos à Questão Afegã?

Friba: Não é mais segredo que a grande mídia é utilizada como uma arma nas guerras modernas. A grande mídia mundial, em especial a dos Estados Unidos, tem servido aos propósitos imperialistas dentro de seus países melhor que qualquer outra ferramenta.

Os povos desses países não têm a verdadeira imagem das guerras dos Estados Unidos para tomar decisões adequadas e bem-informadas sobre elas. O Afeganistão raramente faz parte de alguma cobertura e quando vira notícia, é sistematicamente noticiado de acordo com a política geral dos Estados Unidos.

Os crimes das forças dos Estados Unidos tais como assassinatos, torturas e ataques noturnos nunca serão mostrados, assim como a insegurança e a instabilidade do nosso país, e da situação devastadora das mulheres e das pessoas não recebe nenhuma atenção. São mostrados os horrores dos crimes do Taliban para justificar a guerra dos Estados Unidos, ou isoladas “histórias de sucesso” para pintar um quadro cor-de-rosa da situação do Afeganistão.

Com que frequência as pessoas são incentivadas a discutir o envolvimento dos Estados Unidos em guerras pelo mundo, fornecendo-lhes fatos verdadeiros? O mesmo vale para outros países onde os crimes de ditadores como Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi e Bashar Assad são enviados continuamente, mas a completa devastação do Iraque e da Líbia pelas forças dos Estados Unidos e de seus governos fantoches, e o apoio incondicional dos Estados Unidos aos elementos do Estado Islamita (renomeado de Al-Nusra e Al-Qaeda, por exemplo) na Síria nunca são mostrados. Na verdade, eles encontram formas cobrir com cal tais ações dos Estados Unidos.

Enquanto algumas organizações internacionais de direitos humanos têm desempenhado importante papel no Afeganistão em quatro décadas de guerra documentando crimes, publicando relatórios e chamando a atenção do mundo para estas questões, o mesmo não pode se dizer em relação a toda a comunidade internacional. A comunidade internacional e seus parceiros no Afeganistão têm sido envolvidas apenas em questões superficiais que não têm nenhuma relevância ao povo afegão, tais como projetos de curto prazo e a instituição de ONGs inúteis. Eles não têm lançado luz sobre o conjunto de questões fundamentais do Afeganistão como a ocupação norte-americana, a presença de fundamentalistas no poder e seus crimes. De fato, eles dão uma mão amiga aos principais meios de comunicação do mundo para retratar a situação no Afeganistão como “melhor” do que era há 15 anos.

Mas é claro que a mídia alternativa como Democracy Now!, etc, reflete a realidade, mas suas reportagens são enterradas sob as peças de propaganda veiculadas pelos grandes meios de comunicação, tais como CNN, BBC, AP, Fox News, etc, que têm grande cobertura e recursos para fazer as pessoas de bobas.

Edu Montesanti: Quem são os maiores inimigos dos afegãos?

Friba: Os afegãos são esmagados entre quatro inimigos atualmente: as forças dos EUA e da OTAN, os criminosos e senhores da guerra da Aliança do Norte no governo, o Taliban e um Estado Islamita emergente.

Os Estados Unidos têm gerado todos esses elementos fundamentalistas criminosos, e ainda têm licença para cumprir seus propósitos na região. Isso significa que os criminosos da Aliança do Norte apreciam a maior parte do apoio ocidental, tanto financeira quanto politicamente, o que os torna mais perigoso que outros bandos. A crueldade do Taliban e do Estados Islamita é bem conhecida do mundo, e recebem apoio militar e financeiro dos Estados Unidos, do Paquistão e até mesmo do Irã.

Todos esses inimigos são poderosos e controlam diferentes partes do país. Nas batalhas entre essas forças, nos terríveis ataques aéreos, suicidas e de foguetes levados a cabo por eles, apenas nosso povo sofre.

Edu Montesanti: Quais as perspectivas da RAWA para o Afeganistão diante do atual cenário? O que você gostaria de dizer ao mundo e, em especial, para o Ocidente, para os norte-americanos e ao governo deles?

Friba: Se a situação política do Afeganistão permanece inalterada, a situação atual apenas vai se tornar mais sombria. O povo do Afeganistão continuará sofrendo com insegurança, pobreza, corrupção, desemprego e outros problemas devastadores. Nosso povo vai continuar sendo vítima dos crimes das forças dos Estados Unidos, dos senhores da guerra, do Taliban e dos jihadistas. Há apenas um caminho para a atual situação poder mudar: através das próprias pessoas que lutam por seus direitos e por um país melhor, contra seus principais inimigos, os senhores da guerra dos EUA, o Taliban, jihadistas).

Não temos nada a dizer aos governos ocidentais que têm o sangue de nossos pessoas inocentes manchados em suas mãos. Nossa mensagem às pessoas amantes da paz destes países é que eles têm que enxergar a realidade do Afeganistão, e de todos os outros países que os Estados Unidos invadiram. O que eles veem como raras notícias da situação catastrófica nesses países, é a realidade cotidiana do povo.

Eles precisam pressionar seus governos para que mudem esta política de invasões e de ocupação, e serem solidários às pessoas que são vítimas dessas guerras. Esta solidariedade internacional fortalecerá a luta pela liberdade e pela democracia nesses países.

Eles devem saber que o imposto que pagam é usado por seus governos para tornar o Afeganistão e outros países em guerra em um Inferno, que irá impactar diretamente suas vidas e tornar os países ocidentais inseguro, como o que testemunhamos hoje nas cidades europeias.

 

Artigo original em inglês :

rawa

US War Crimes against Women: The Revolutionary Association of the Women of Afghanistan (RAWA): Interview, 17 de Maio de 2016

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on A Associação Revolucionária das Mulheres do Afeganistão (RAWA) sobre Crimes de Guerra dos EUA no Afeganistão

Eis como a Presidência de Trump se irá desenrolar

January 23rd, 2017 by Pepe Escobar

A era de Trump começa agora – com uma série de episódios plenos de suspense, ligados à geopolítica e à geoeconomia, iminentes e imprevisíveis.

Eu defendi que a estratégia de oposição do guru de Trump para a política externa, Henry Kissinger, ao poderoso trio de integração da Eurásia – Rússia, China e Irão – é uma mistura de dividir para reinar; seduzir a Rússia, afastando-a da sua parceria estratégica com a China, e acossar o elo mais fraco, o Irão.

Na verdade, é isso que está a acontecer – como se vê pelas ofensivas dos membros escolhidos para o gabinete de Trump durante suas audiências no Senado dos EUA. As fações dos EUA próximas do Think Tankland, defensores da política de Nixon para a China projetada por Kissinger, estão animadas com as possibilidades de contenção em relação a pelo menos um desses poderes “potencialmente virado contra a América.” Kissinger e o Dr. Zbig “Grande Xadrez” Brzezinski são as duas principais autonomeadas sumidades ocidentais – mestres fantoches – que se disputam na área da geopolítica. Em oposição a Kissinger, o mentor da política externa de Obama, Brzezinski, fiel à sua russofobia, propôs uma lógica de dividir para reinar, apostada na sedução da China.

No entanto, um influente homem de negócios de Nova Iorque, muito próximo dos reais e discretos Mestres do Universo, que previu corretamente a vitória de Trump semanas antes do fato, depois de examinar o meu argumento ofereceu-me não só uma avaliação mordaz dessas queridas sumidades; ele dispôs-se a detalhar-me como a nova normalidade será estabelecida, tendo sido negociada pelos Mestres diretamente com Trump. Vamos designá-lo por “X”.

A China em observação ininterrupta

“X” começa por dizer algo que aqueles que regularmente mantém ligações ao Deep State e que reverenciam os seus ídolos, nunca ousam dizer, pelo menos em público: “É importante não atribuir muita importância a Kissinger ou Brzezinski, pois eles são apenas fachadas para aqueles que tomam as decisões e o seu trabalho é recobrir e justificar as decisões com um refinamento de intelectualidade. O seu contributo não vale nada. Eu uso os nomes deles de vez em quando pois não posso usar os nomes daqueles que realmente tomam as decisões “. Está então aberto o caminho para” X ” detalhar a nova normalidade:

“Trump foi eleito com o apoio dos Mestres para se inclinar para a Rússia. Os Mestres têm os seus instrumentos nos media e no Congresso mantendo uma campanha de difamação contra a Rússia, e têm o seu boneco Brzezinski também a pregar contra a Rússia, afirmando que ‘a influência global da América depende da cooperação com a China’. O objetivo é pressionar a Rússia para ela cooperar, colocando essas fichas negociais na mesa de Trump. Em termos de uma abordagem tradicional de polícia-bom, polícia-mau, Donald é retratado como o polícia bom querendo boas relações com a Rússia, sendo o Congresso, os media e Brzezinski os policias maus. Trata-se de ajudar Trump nas negociações com a Rússia supondo que Putin, à medida que for vendo o seu amigo numa posição mais ´precária´, estará disposto a fazer maiores concessões.”

E isso leva a explicar como é que Taiwan – e o Japão – entram em cena:

“Donald mostrou a sua inclinação para a Rússia conversando com os taiwaneses, de forma a demonstrar que a mudança é a sério. Mas foi decidido fazer entrar o Japão na peça como sendo um predador contra a indústria dos EUA, através de um ataque à Toyota, bem merecido. Isso moderou a nossa posição já que os Mestres recearam que a perceção de que estávamos a apoiar o Japão contra a China seria considerada uma provocação excessiva “.

Por isso, espera-se que a China – que “não tem demasiada importância”, como afirmou Kissinger – seja mantida sob controlo ininterrupto:

“Os Mestres decidiram reindustrializar os Estados Unidos e querem trazer de volta os postos de trabalho da China. Isso é aconselhável do ponto de vista chinês; por que razões devem eles vender seu trabalho aos EUA por um dólar que não tem valor intrínseco, não recebendo realmente nada pelo seu trabalho. Cada trabalhador chinês deve ter um carro na sua garagem e a China deve tornar-se num produtor de carros maior do que a UE, EUA e Japão combinados, mantendo a sua riqueza no seu próprio país “.

E porquê a China e não a Rússia?

“A Rússia, no que toca a este tema, é um país com muitos recursos naturais, com um gigantesco complexo industrial militar (sendo este o único motivo pelo qual é secretamente respeitada), mas está fora destas difíceis negociações, pois quase não exporta nada além de recursos naturais e equipamentos militares. Os Mestres querem os empregos de volta do México e da Ásia, incluindo do Japão, de Taiwan, etc., e isso é já visível no ataque de Trump também ao Japão. A principal razão subjacente a esta estratégia é que os EUA perderam o controlo dos mares e não podem defender os seus destacamentos militares durante uma grande guerra. Esta é a realidade que interessa ter em conta no momento presente e esta é a verdadeira história que se desenrola nos bastidores. ”

Em poucas palavras, “X” resume o conteúdo da reversão de um ciclo econômico:

“Os Mestres ganharam dinheiro com a transferência da indústria para a Ásia (A Bain Capital especializou-se nisso) e Wall Street ganhou dinheiro com taxas de juro mais baixas sobre os dólares reciclados dos défices comerciais. Mas agora, a questão é estratégica; eles ganharão dinheiro de novo com o regresso das indústrias que reduzirão os seus investimentos na Ásia devolvendo-os aos Estados Unidos, à medida que reconstruímos a produção aqui “.

” X ” continua a ser um grande admirador da estratégia de negócios de Henry Ford, e esse é o ponto que ele vai usar para trazer à baila um tema crucial: a defesa nacional. De acordo com “X”:

“Ford dobrou os salários que pagou e ganhou mais dinheiro do que qualquer outro fabricante. A razão é que um salário mínimo mais elevado que permitiu à mulher ter muitos filhos, dependendo só do salário do marido, foi psicologicamente bom para o aumento da produtividade nas suas fábricas de automóveis, além de que permitiu aos próprios trabalhadores comprar-lhe os seus carros. Desse modo ele reconheceu que numa sociedade deve haver uma mais justa distribuição da riqueza, coisa que o seu admirador, Steve Jobs, não pode fazer.

A produção em série e a produtividade de Henry foi a maravilha que fez os Estados Unidos ganharem a Segunda Guerra Mundial. A Amazon não contribui em nada para a defesa nacional, sendo apenas um serviço de marketing na Internet baseado em programas de computador, nem o Google que simplesmente organiza e fornece melhor os dados. Nada disso constrói um míssil ou um submarino melhor, exceto de modo marginal. ”

É o Pentágono, estúpido

Pois sim; tudo isto tem a ver com a reorganização do poder militar dos EUA. “X” fez questão de se referir a um relatório do CNAS (Centro para uma Nova Segurança Americana), que citei na minha coluna inicial:

“É muito importante o que se depreende do relatório. E é por isso que estamos em grande dificuldade por estarmos tecnologicamente atrás da Rússia em várias gerações de armamento, o que vem na sequência da afirmação de Brzezinski, que diz que já não somos uma potência global”.

Esta é uma análise completa e abrangente de como a Rússia conseguiu organizar as melhores forças armadas do mundo. E o relatório nem sequer leva ainda em conta o sistema de defesa de mísseis S-500, que agora está sendo ultimado e que, sem dúvida, vai fechar por completo a totalidade do espaço aéreo russo. E a próxima geração – S-600? – Será ainda mais poderosa. “X” aventura-se mesmo no território tabu do Deep State, referindo a forma como a Rússia, ao longo da última década, conseguiu posicionar-se muito à frente dos EUA, “eclipsando-o como o poder militar mais forte”. Mas a vantagem deles no jogo deve estar perto do fim – seja isso desejo auto- realizável ou seja lá o que for:

“Esperamos que o Secretário de Defesa James Mattis entenda isso e que o Secretário Adjunto de Defesa tenha as competências técnicas, a capacidade organizacional e de previsão para entender que as armas da III Guerra Mundial são mísseis ofensivos e defensivos, e submarinos, e não poder aéreo, tanques e porta-aviões. ”

Um realista, “X” admite que o status quo neoconservador / neoliberal – representado pela maioria das fações do Deep State dos EUA – nunca abandonará a postura padrão de hostilidade incessante em relação à Rússia. Mas ele prefere concentrar-se na mudança:

“Deixe Tillerson reorganizar o Departamento de Estado de acordo com a eficiência da Exxon. Ele pode ser válido nessa tarefa. Ele e Mattis podem parecer falhos de coragem mas se você disser a verdade ao Senado você nunca vai poder ser confirmado. Por isso, o que eles lá dizem não significa nada. Mas veja o que se passou no caso da Líbia. A CIA tinha um objetivo de empurrar a China para fora da África e por isso criou o AFRICOM (Comando dos EUA para a África). Esse foi um dos segredos da nossa intervenção na Líbia.”

Não que tal tenha tido sucesso; A NATO / AFRICOM transformou a Líbia num terreno baldio dirigido por milícias, e a China ainda não foi afastada do resto da África.

“X” também admite: “A Síria e o Irão são linhas vermelhas para a Rússia. Assim como o é o leste da Ucrânia a partir do Dnieper. ”

Está também plenamente consciente de que Moscovo não permitirá qualquer ameaça de mudança de regime em Teerão. E está também ciente de que “os investimentos da China no petróleo e no gás iraniano implicam que a China também não permitirá o derrube por Washington do governo iraniano”.

As coisas vão tornar-se complicadas no que toca à NATO; “X” está convencido de que a Rússia: “invadirá a Roménia e a Polónia se os mísseis não forem retirados da Roménia e se o compromisso de aceitação de mísseis pela Polónia não for rescindido. A questão não são os mísseis defensivos não perigosos dos Estados Unidos, mas a possibilidade de os substituir por mísseis nucleares ofensivos nesses silos. A Rússia não tolerará esse risco. Esses mísseis não estarão sujeitos qualquer negociação. ”

Em contraste com a “perpétua ameaça”, contínua propaganda do Partido da Guerra dos Estados Unidos, Moscovo dá é atenção aos factos reais que ocorrem no terreno desde a década de 1990; a rutura do histórico aliado eslavo, a Sérvia; a anexação pela NATO das nações do Pacto de Varsóvia e até mesmo de ex-repúblicas da URSS, para não mencionar as tentativas de incluir também a Geórgia e a Ucrânia; o apoio e a organização, pelos EUA, de revoluções coloridas; o fiasco “Assad deve ir”, na tentativa de mudança forçada do regime da Síria, incluindo inclusive o armamento de Salafi-jihadis; as sanções económicas, a guerra de preços do petróleo e os ataques ao rublo; o continuado assédio da NATO. “X”, plenamente consciente destes factos, acrescenta:

“A Rússia sempre quis a paz. Mas eles não vão jogar um jogo com os Mestres do Universo que apresentam Trump como o tipo bom e o Congresso, CIA, etc., como o tipo mau, usando tal cenário como um estratagema de negociação. É assim que eles veem a situação. Eles não acham que este circo seja real. ”

O circo pode ser apenas uma ilusão. Ou uma wayang – uma espécie de teatro de fantoches indonésio – como eu já sugeri. “X” avança uma interpretação nítida deste jogo de sombras do ponto de vista de Moscovo, admitindo que “vão ser necessários vários meses para ver se Putin pode aceitar negociar um desanuviamento com Trump que essencialmente passará por uma Ucrânia oriental autónoma, um tratado de paz na Síria com Assad no lugar, e uma retirada das forças da NATO, regressando esta à linha de defesa que existia no tempo de Ronald Reagan. ”

Quem prevalecerá; Os Mestres, ou o Deep State? Prepare-se para a colisão.

Pepe Escobar

Artigo em inglês aqui :

 

Tradução : Júlio Gomes (Docente na Faculdade de Economia da Universidade de Coimbra, Portugal, atualmente reformado.) para Global Research.

  • Posted in Português
  • Comments Off on Eis como a Presidência de Trump se irá desenrolar

We bring to the attention of our readers excerpts of an important article by Asra Q  Nomani published by Women in the World in association with the New York Times under the title: “Billionaire George Soros Has Ties to More than 50 ‘Partners’ of the Women’s March on Washington”.  January 20, 2017 

The Guardian has touted the “Women’s March on Washington” as a “spontaneous” action for women’s rights. Another liberal media outlet, Vox, talks about the “huge, spontaneous groundswell” behind the march. On its website, organizers of the march are promoting their work as “a grassroots effort” with “independent” organizers. Even my local yoga studio, Beloved Yoga, is renting a bus and offering seats for $35. The march’s manifesto says magnificently, “The Rise of the Woman = The Rise of the Nation.”

To understand the march better, I stayed up through the nights this week, studying the funding, politics and talking points of the some 403 groups that are “partners” of the march. Is this a non-partisan “Women’s March”?

Roy Speckhardt, executive director of the American Humanist Association, a march “partner,” told me his organization was “nonpartisan” but has “many concerns about the incoming Trump administration that include what we see as a misogynist approach to women.” Nick Fish, national program director of the American Atheists, another march partner, told me, “This is not a ‘partisan’ event.” Dennis Wiley, pastor of Covenant Baptist United Church of Christ, another march “partner,” returned my call and said, “This is not a partisan march.”

Really? UniteWomen.org, another partner, features videos with the hashtags #ImWithHer, #DemsInPhily and #ThanksObama. Following the money, I pored through documents of billionaire George Soros and his Open Society philanthropy, because I wondered: What is the link between one of Hillary Clinton’s largest donors and the “Women’s March”?

By my draft research, which I’m opening up for crowd-sourcing on GoogleDocs, Soros has funded, or has close relationships with, at least 56 of the march’s “partners,” including “key partners” Planned Parenthood, which opposes Trump’s anti-abortion policy, and the National Resource Defense Council, which opposes Trump’s environmental policies. The other Soros ties with “Women’s March” organizations include the partisan MoveOn.org (which was fiercely pro-Clinton), the National Action Network (which has a former executive director lauded by Obama senior advisor Valerie Jarrett as “a leader of tomorrow” as a march co-chair and another official as “the head of logistics”). Other Soros grantees who are “partners” in the march are the American Civil Liberties Union, Center for Constitutional Rights, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. March organizers and the organizations identified here haven’t yet returned queries for comment.

To read the complete article in the NYT click here

Asra Q. Nomani is a former Wall Street Journal reporter. She can be reached at [email protected] or on Twitter.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on What is the Link between One of Hillary Clinton’s largest Donors and the Women’s March?

The new U.S. administration of Donald Trump has made it public that it will seek a regime change policy in Venezuela disguised in “transition to democracy” rhetoric, the country’s potential new Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said in an interview this week.

“If confirmed, I would urge close cooperation with our friends in the hemisphere, particularly Venezuela’s neighbors Brazil and Colombia, as well as multilateral bodies such as the OAS, to seek a negotiated transition to democratic rule in Venezuela,” the former executive in ExxonMobil told Latin America Goes Global.

He further claimed that the economic crisis in the oil-rich South American country was “largely a product of its incompetent and dysfunctional government, first under Hugo Chavez, and now under his designated successor, Nicolas Maduro.”

The government of President Maduro has, however, blamed the recent crisis on an economic war by right-wing politicians as well as corporations who are hoarding products and halting production to put pressure on the socialist administration.

Meanwhile, Tillerson struck a less aggressive tone when pressed about how he would deal with the standoff between the government and the opposition-led national assembly in Venezuela.

 

“The U.S. should continue to support legitimate dialogue to resolve the political crisis between the Maduro government and the opposition that now controls the National Assembly.”

But then he called for sanctions against what he called “human rights violators” when asked about political prisoners while also slamming Maduro’s government for “undemocratic practices.”

The right-wing website also asked the nominee for U.S. top diplomat post “about the controversial and misguided decision to normalize relations with Cuba” to which he did not suggest a full rollback from Barack Obama’s steps on Cuba.

“I will engage with Cuba but continue to press for reform of its oppressive regime. I will support human rights defenders and democracy activists in Cuba, empower civil society, defend freedom of expression, and promote improved internet access and I will ask our allies to do the same,” he said.

He added that he would engage in bilateral and multilateral talks with Havana in order to “press Cuba to meet its pledge to become more democratic and consider placing conditions on trade or travel policies to motivate the release of political prisoners.”

However, when the interviewer pressed further Tillerson said he would stand by statements made by Vice President Mike Pence stating that the Trump administration would reverse Obama’s Cuba rapprochement policy.

“Yes. There will be a comprehensive review of current policies and executive orders regarding Cuba to determine how best to pressure Cuba to respect human rights and promote democratic changes.”

Tillerson and Venezuela, in fact, have a bitter history and some say he might pursue personal revenge against the socialist government as he takes the international diplomatic stage in Washington.

In 2007, late President Hugo Chavez ordered the nationalization of 22 major multinational corporations operating in the country including ExxonMobil, then headed by Tillerson.

He rejected the compensation deal offered by the government of US$1 billion and took Venezuela to the international arbitration court demanding instead US$10 billion. But the rarely defeated CEO lost and his company settled for US$1.6 billion.

“(Tillerson) took it very personal with Chavez,” said Ghassan Dagher, a Venezuelan oil industry consultant to the New York Times in December.

 

 

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Rex Tillerson Already Talking Regime Change in Venezuela

Last weekend, Syrian government forces, led by the Syrian Army’s Tiger Forces and backed up by the Russian Aerospace Forces, continued to make gains in the eastern countryside of Aleppo city, moving closer to the ISIS stronghold of al-Bab.

Government troops liberated Suran, Sarjah Kabirah, Sarjah Saghirah, Maran, and reached the villages of Madyunah and Sarbas. If government forces keep up with such rapid advances along the Aleppo-al-Bab road, they will reach Turkish forces storming the ISIS stronghold of al-Bab in northern Syria within few days.

Meanwhile, reports are circulating that Moscow, Damascus, and Ankara have made a deal to unite efforts in combating terrorists in al-Bab and to involve the army in cutting off ISIS units deployed there from the southern direction.

The situation will likely become more clear after the start of the Astana talks.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Moscow-Ankara-Damascus Deal to Combat ISIS-Daesh: Syrian Army Advancing In Direction of Islamic State Stronghold Of Al-Bab

Trump is barely two days in office, and already a lawsuit is set to be filed against the newly inaugurated president. According to press reports, a group of lawyers, including former White House ethics attorneys will file a lawsuit on Monday accusing the President of allowing his businesses to accept payments from foreign governments in violation of the U.S. Constitution.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) announced Sunday night it is bringing a suit “to stop President Trump from violating the Constitution by illegally receiving payments from foreign governments.” The group said the suit will be filed in the Southern District of New York at 9 a.m. on Monday.

Piggybacking on popular displeasure with the Clinton Foundation likewise accepting hundreds of millions in foreign payments, Deepak Gupta, a Supreme Court litigator working on the case, said the lawsuit will allege that the Constitution’s emoluments clause forbids payments to Trump’s businesses and will seek a court order forbidding Trump from accepting such payments. The case is part of a wave of litigation expected to be filed against Trump by liberal advocacy groups. It will be filed in a Manhattan federal court, Gupta said, and plaintiffs will include Richard Painter, a former ethics lawyer in Republican President George W. Bush’s White House.

“We did not want to get to this point. It was our hope that President Trump would take the necessary steps to avoid violating the Constitution before he took office,” CREW Executive Director Noah Bookbinder said. “He did not. His constitutional violations are immediate and serious, so we were forced to take legal action.”

“President Trump has made his slogan ‘America First,’” Bookbinder added. “So you would think he would want to strictly follow the Constitution’s foreign emoluments clause, since it was written to ensure our government officials are thinking of Americans first, and not foreign governments.”

The litigation will focus on Trump’s refusal to divest from his business or place his assets into a blind trust, which would separate him entirely from his business empire. He has said his adult sons will run his business while he is in office, that they will not conduct any foreign deals and will subject any domestic deals to an ethics review.

The group says that because Trump has not divested from his businesses, he is “now getting cash and favors from foreign governments, through guests and events at his hotels, leases in his buildings, and valuable real estate deals abroad.”

Meanwhile, Trump lawyer Sheri Dillon recently said that under the business plan, Trump will not be in violation of the Constitution’s “Emoluments Clause.” “Paying for a hotel room is not a gift or a present, and has nothing to do with an office,” she said. “It is not an emolument. The Constitution does not require President-elect Trump to do anything here.”

But, as The Hill notes, CREW charges that because Trump does business with such countries as China, India, Indonesia, and the Philippines, “now that he is President, his company’s acceptance of any benefits from the governments of those countries violates the Constitution.” It also warns that, “When Trump the president sits down to negotiate trade deals with these countries, the American people will have no way of knowing whether he will also be thinking about the profits of Trump the businessman.”

The lawyers behind action include constitutional law professors Laurence Tribe and Erwin Chemerinsky, as well as former White House ethics lawyers and CREW board members Norm Eisen and Richard Painter, as well as Bookbinder, Zephyr Teachout and Deepak Gupta.

Trump’s son Eric responded, telling the Times on Sunday that the company had taken more steps than required by law to avoid any possible legal exposure, such as agreeing to donate any profits collected at Trump-owned hotels that come from foreign government guests to the U.S. Treasury. “This is purely harassment for political gain,” Trump told the newspaper.

It may be, but it will also be yet another major distraction for Trump as he prepares to unveil his various stimulus packages. Furthermore, should a adversarial judge be appointedon the case, it is possible that the case will drag out extensively, leading to even more damage for the administration, and even more confusion and chaos for markets, which may be why

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Ethics Group to Sue President Trump Over Foreign Government Payments

EE.UU.-México: ¡Cuidado! con el juego del gato y el ratón

January 23rd, 2017 by Mouris Salloum George

No hay más cera, que la que arde. A contrapelo de la atmósfera de sicosis desencadenada especialmente en México, una vez rendida su protesta constitucional, Donald Trump empieza a recibir el aval de las cúpulas financieras y políticas que ejercen el poder universal real.

Desde Davos, Suiza, donde se congregan los socios del Foro Económico Mundial, la directora gerente del Fondo Monetario Internacional (FMI), Christine Lagarde ha saludado con beneplácito al Presidente número 45 de los Estados Unidos.

Ha anunciado la economista francesa que, quien se ha abanderado con el spot Volver a ser grandes, tendrá en 2017 uno de sus mejores años de recuperación. Se consolidará este año el crecimiento económico.

Si en Dios confiamos, como reza la leyenda impresa en el dólar, a Trump le favorecen los astros. Pero el asunto no es acreditable a la providencia. Es resultado de la gestión económica de Barack Obama, quien rescató la economía del profundo bache en la que la hundió la crisis financiera 2007-2009.

Los rapaces usufructuarios del 1 por ciento de la riqueza estadunidense, no se andan con remilgos por las calidades morales o políticas del nuevo Presidente norteamericano. Si se han logrado apoderarse de la colosal renta nacional, lo han hecho con independencia de quién despache en el Salón Oval de la Casa Blanca.

La lectura del anuncio del FMI, tiene una implicación mayor. Si 2017 es de bonanza para los Estados Unidos, Trump tiene una preocupación menos en el año inaugural de su mandato.

Atrincherado en esa fortaleza, su prioridad entonces es otra y su primera víctima será la propia sociedad estadunidense.

Nos explicamos. Aun durante los dos periodos presidenciales del demócrata Obama, calificados intelectuales estadunidenses, algunos de ellos, dicho sea de paso, de nuestras ediciones de Voces del Periodista, han denunciado la tendencia hacia la institucionalización el Estado policiaco en la Unión Americana.

Esos pensadores norteamericanos, no pasan por alto que un Estado policiaco en el interior del territorio estadunidense, tendrá su inevitable y nefasta repercusión en las democracias latinoamericanas.

La ostensible orientación del discurso de Trump, ha dejado de lado todo signo liberal del que blasonaba el poder político desde  Washington. Ese discurso tiene todos los tufos a fascismo.

En la nueva era que hoy se abre desde la Casa Blanca, México se encuentra entre la sartén y el fuego. Desde hace al menos dos décadas, México fue puesto de espaldas a América Latina, de la que antes fue considerado líder.

Por el lado septentrional, Canadá ha pintado su raya en la perspectiva de renegociación o suspensión del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte.

Es hora de dejarse de ver el ombligo

Frente a esa galopante realidad, el gobierno mexicano se ha plegado a una reacción casuística. En términos deportivos parece dispuesto a jugar con el score.

Hace unas horas, el presidente Enrique Peña Nieto declaró que  estará atento a fijar sus posiciones conforme actúe Donald Trump. Esto es, reaccionará a la defensiva. No puede exponerse a México al juego del gato y el ratón.

Se requiere, primordialmente, tomar la iniciativa, fundada en una diplomacia activa y soberana, cuyo soporte no puede ser otro que el del apoyo de todos los sectores internos actuantes, sin exclusiones ni arreglos unilaterales o cupulares concebidos para favorecer a los privilegiados de siempre.

Es cierto, que el Presidente parece haber perdido el capital político que acumuló en los primeros tres años. No obstante, no resulta ilusorio imaginar una nueva generación del Pacto por México, a condición de que se inserte en un esquema democráticamente incluyente, que remonte el exclusivismo que marcó su primera edición, que ha exacerbado la polarización socioeconómica.

En estos momentos de destino, cabe la disyuntiva de los hombres del campo: O cabresteas, o te ahorcas. Hacerlo, antes de que se suelten los demonios de la sucesión de 2018.

El tiempo se agota. Hay que dejar de verse el ombligo.

Mouris Salloum George

Mouris Salloum George: Director general del Club de Periodistas de México A.C.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on EE.UU.-México: ¡Cuidado! con el juego del gato y el ratón

It’s kinda sneaking up on us like an East Texas copperhead pit viper. It began to get some wide attention in 2016, with prominent economists and financial media suddenly talking about the wonderful benefits of a “cashless society.” Then the government of Narenda Modi completely surprised his citizens by suddenly announcing withdrawal of larger denomination currency notes from circulation, forcing Indians to put their cash into banks or lose it. Now, everywhere we turn, it seems, someone is arguing the Nirvana benefits of a cashless, “digital” money world. It reminds me in an eerie way of a statement attributed to then US Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger in the 1970’s. He reportedly stated, “If you control oil, you control entire nations; if you control food, you control the people; if you control money, you control the entire world.” Consider the following in this regard.

Modi and a USAID ‘Catalyst’

On November 8, 2016 in a surprise televised address, Indian Prime Minister Narenda Modi announced that, within a deadline of days, all Indian currency notes of 500 and 1,000 Rupees must be put in a bank account and exchanged for smaller denomination notes. At today’s exchange rate 1,000 Rs is roughly equal to $15. This would perhaps be equivalent to the US Treasury outlawing all cash notes larger than a $10 bill.

Overnight, Modi’s government de facto outlawed an estimated 86 percent of all cash in circulation by value. People had 50 days to hand in the notes or they become worthless. Yet the government, despite stating it would issue new, more secure 500Rs and 1000Rs bills, had nowhere near the equivalent value of new notes ready for replacement. They say it may take up to a year to print enough, which means confiscation, de facto. Faked opinion polls with slanted questions done only via smart phone apps of which only 17% of the population has access, claimed that “90% of Indians approve” the demonetization.

Yet it’s far worse. India is an underdeveloped country, the largest in the world in population terms with more than 1.3 billion people. By demanding Indians turn in all 500Rs and 1,000Rs bills to banks, Modi is forcing major change in how Indians control their money in a country high on the corruption scale where few trust government let alone private banks, and prefer to deal strictly in cash or hoard gold for value. Nearly half the population, some 600 million Indians, do not hold a bank account and half of those, some 300 million Indians, lack a government identification, necessary to open an account.

When he presented his shock announcement, Modi pitched it in terms of going after India’s black economy. Soon he shifted gears and was praising the benefits of a “cash-less society” to enable Indians to enter the digital age, appealing to younger Indians, savvy in smart phones and digital networks, to convince the older of the benefits of online banking and consuming. The drastic demonetization declaration was planned by Modi and five other inner-circle ministers in complete secrecy. Not even the banks were told before. The question is what is behind, or rather who is behind this drastic form of monetary shock therapy?

Beyond Cash

The answer is as sinister as it is suggestive of a larger global agenda by what I call in one of my books the Wall Street “Gods of Money.” The Modi cash-less India operation is a project of the US National Security Council, US State Department and Office of the President administered through its US Agency for International Development (USAID). Little surprise, then, that the US State Department spokesman, Mark Toner in a December 1, 2016 press briefing praised the Modi demonetization move stating, “…this was, we believe, an important and necessary step to crack down on illegal actions…a necessary one to address the corruption.”

Keep in mind that USAID today has little to do with aiding poorer countries. By law it must follow the foreign policy agenda of the President’s National Security Council and State Department. It’s widely known as a conduit for CIA money to execute their dirty agendas abroad in places such as Georgia. Notably, the present head of the USAID, Gayle Smith, came to head USAID from her post as Senior Director at the US National Security Council.

German economist and blogger, Norbert Haering, in an extensive, well-documented investigation into the background of the bizarre Modi move to a cash-less India, found not only USAID as the key financial source of the project. He also uncovered a snake-pit of organizational vipers being funded by USAID to design and implement the India shock therapy.

USAID negotiated a co-operation with the Modi Indian Ministry of Finance. In October, 2016 in a press release USAID announced it had created and funded something it named Project Catalyst. The title of their report was, “Catalyst: Inclusive Cashless Payment Partnership.” Its stated goal it said was to bring about a “quantum leap” in cashless payment in India.

They certainly did that. Maybe two quantum leaps and some.

If we dig a bit deeper we find that in January, 2016, USAID presented the Indian Finance Ministry a report titled, Beyond Cash: Why India loves cash and why that matters for financial inclusion. Financial “inclusion” for them means getting all Indians into the digital banking system where their every payment can be electronically tracked and given to the tax authorities or to whomever the government sees fit.

Astonishingly, the report, prepared for USAID by something called the Global Innovation Exchange, admitted that “97% of retail transactions in India are conducted in cash or check; Few consumers use digital payments. Only 11% used debit cards for payments last year. Only 6% of Indian merchants accept digital payments…Only 29 percent of bank accounts in India have been used in the last three months.” The US and Indian governments knew very well what shock they were detonating in India.

The Global Innovation Exchange includes such dubious member organizations as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, a major donor to the Modi war on cash initiative of USAID. It also includes USAID itself, several UN agencies including UNICEF, UNDP, UNHCR. And it includes the US Department of Commerce and a spooky Maclean, Virginia military contractor called MITRE Corporation whose chairman is former CIA Director, James Rodney Schlesinger, a close associate of Henry Kissinger.

The USAID Project Catalyst in partnership with the Indian Finance Ministry was done, according to the USAID press statement, with a sinister-sounding organization called CashlessCatalyst.org. Among the 35 members of CashlessCatalyst.org are USAID, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, VISA, MasterCard, Omidyar Network of eBay billionaire founder Pierre Omidyar, the World Economic Forum-center of the globalization annual Alpine meetings.

War on Cash

However, a most interesting member of the USAID Project Catalyst together with the Indian Ministry of Finance is something called Better Than Cash Alliance. In point of fact the US-government-finance Project Catalyst grew out of a longer cooperation between USAID, the Washington-based Better Than Cash Alliance and the Indian Ministry of Finance. It appers to be the core public driver pushing the agenda of the global “war on cash.”

India and the reckless (or corrupt) Modi government implementing the USAID-Better Than Cash Alliance agenda is clearly serving as a guinea pig in a mass social experiment about how to push the cash war in other countries. The Better Than Cash Alliance is described by the UNCDF, which is its Secretariat, as “a US $38 million global alliance of governments, private sector and development organizations committed to accelerating the shift from cash to electronic payments.”

The Better Than Cash Alliance website announces that the alliance, created in 2012, is a “partnership of governments, companies, and international organizations that accelerates the transition from cash to digital payments in order to reduce poverty and drive inclusive growth.” It’s housed at the UN Capital Development Fund (UNCDF) in New York whose major donors, in turn, surprise, surprise, are the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and MasterCard Foundation. Among the Better Than Cash Alliance’s 50 members are, in addition to the Gates Foundation, Citi Foundation (Citigroup), Ford Foundation, MasterCard, Omidyar Network, United States Agency for International Development, and Visa Inc.

Recently the European Central Bank, which has held negative interest rates for more than a year, allegedly to stimulate growth in the Eurozone amid the long-duration banking and economic crisis of almost nine years, announced that it will stop printing the €500 note. They claim it’s connected with money laundering and terror financing, though it ominously echoes the Modi India war on cash. Former US Treasury Secretary Larry Summers, whose shady role in the 1990’s rape of Russia through his Harvard cronies has been documented elsewhere, is calling for eliminating the US $100 bill. These are first steps to future bolder moves to the desired Cash-less society of Gates, Citigroup, Visa et al.

US Dual Standard: Follow the money…

The move to a purely digital money system would be Big Brother on steroids. It would allow the relevant governments to monitor our every money move with a digital trail, to confiscate deposits in what now are legal bank “bail-ins” as was done in Cyprus in 2013. If central banks move interest rates into negative, something the Bank of Japan and ECB in Frankfurt are already doing, citizens have no choice than to spend the bank money or lose. It is hailed as a way to end tax avoidance but it is far, far more sinister.

As Norbert Haering notes, “the status of the dollar as the world’s currency of reference and the dominance of US companies in international finance provide the US government with tremendous power over all participants in the formal non-cash financial system. It can make everybody conform to American law rather than to their local or international rules.” He adds, referring to the recent US Government demand that Germany’s largest bank, Deutsche Bank pay an astonishing and unprecedented $14 billion fine, “Every internationally active bank can be blackmailed by the US government into following their orders, since revoking their license to do business in the US or in dollar basically amounts to shutting them down.”

We should add to this “benevolent concern” of the US Government to stimulate a War on Cash in India and elsewhere the fact that while Washington has been the most aggressive demanding that banks in other countries enact measures for full disclosure of details of Swiss or Panama or other “offshore” secret account holders or US nationals holding money in foreign banks, the USA itself has scrupulously avoided demanding the same of its domestic banks. The result, as Bloomberg noted following the suspiciously-timed Panama Papers offshore “leaks” of May, 2016, is that the United States is rapidly becoming the world’s leading tax and secrecy haven for rich foreigners.

Perversely enough, in 2010 the US passed a law, the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act, or FACTA, that requires financial firms to disclose foreign accounts held by US citizens and report them to the US IRS tax office or the foreign banks face steep penalties. The EU signed on to the intrusive FACTA despite strong resistance. Then, using FACTA as the model, the Paris-based OECD drafted an even tougher version of FACTA in 2014 to allegedly go after tax avoiders. To date 97 countries have agreed to the tough OECD bank disclosure rules. Very few have refused. The refusers include Bahrain, Nauru, Vanuatu—and…the United States.

World’s Biggest Tax Haven

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist, a financial wizard or a Meyer Lansky to see a pattern. Washington forces disclosure of secret bank accounts of its citizens or companies abroad, while at the same time lifting control or disclosure inside the United States of private banking accounts. No surprise that such experienced private bankers as London’s Rothschild & Co. have opened offices in Reno Nevada a stone’s throw from Harrah’s and other casinos, and according to Bloomberg, is doing a booming business moving the fortunes of wealthy foreign clients out of offshore havens such as Bermuda, or Switzerland which are subject to the new OECD international disclosure requirements, into Rothschild-run trusts in Nevada, which are exempt from those disclosure rules.

Rothschild & Co. Director, Andrew Penney noted that as a result, the United States today, “is effectively the biggest tax haven in the world.” Today Nevada, Meyer Lansky’s money laundering project of the 1930’s with established legalized gambling, is becoming the “new Switzerland.” Wyoming and South Dakota are close on the heels.

One area where America’s institutions are still world class is in devising complex instruments of financial control, asset theft and cyber warfare. The US War on Cash, combined with the US Treasury and IRS war on offshore banking is their latest model. As Washington’s War on Terror had a sinister, hidden agenda, so too does Washington’s War on Cash. It’s something to be avoided at all costs if we human beings are to retain any vestige of sovereignty or autonomy. It will be interesting to see how vigorously Casino mogul Trump moves to close the US tax haven status. What do you bet he doesn’t?

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.”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Demonetization: The Sinister Agenda Behind Washington’s “War On Cash”

El presidente Evo Morales demostró hoy con cifras irrefutables el avance de Bolivia en 11 años del proceso de cambio que dirige, y que supera en todos los órdenes lo hecho en 180 años de anteriores gobiernos republicanos.

El informe anual de Morales -que duró cuatro horas y 20 minutos- mostró un Estado Plurinacional sólido, soberano, y cuyos beneficios sociales y económicos fundamentan la demanda de organizaciones sociales para continuar el mandato del primer presidente indígena del país hasta el 2025.

Tal vez uno de los indicadores que mejor refleja la obra de esta Revolución Democrática y Cultural es la pobreza extrema en Bolivia, que se redujo a menos de la mitad entre 2005 y 2015 del 38,2 al 16,8 por ciento de la población.

En su informe, Morales precisó que en 2005 la extrema pobreza en el área urbana era de 24,3 y en la rural de 62,9 por ciento, pero en 2015 esas cifras bajaron a 9,3 y 33,3 por ciento, respectivamente, en tanto la pobreza moderada descendió del 60,6 por ciento en 2005 al 38,6 por ciento en 2016

Al mismo tiempo, el incremento de ingresos del sector poblacional que lo ubican como clase media aumentó del 13 al 32 por ciento, mientras la desigualdad de ingresos entre el 10 por ciento más rico frente al 10 por ciento más pobre, se redujo en los últimos 11 años de 128 a 37 veces.

Esto se explica, en palabras del propio Morales, por la recuperación y defensa de la soberanía política y económica, y muy en especial la nacionalización de los recursos naturales y de las empresas estratégicas, cuya política ha impulsado el desarrollo económico del país.

Tan cierta es esa afirmación que, según estimaciones preliminares de organismos internacionales, Bolivia liderará el mayor crecimiento económico de Suramérica en 2016 con 4,3 por ciento del Producto Interno Bruto (PIB), conjuntamente con Paraguay, y ocupará el cuarto lugar en América Latina.

Este liderazgo regional en los últimos años ha sido posible gracias a nuestro modelo, la nacionalización y recuperación de recursos naturales y empresas estratégicas, la diversificación de los productos bolivianos y su exportación a 97 países, afirmó Morales.

De acuerdo con el informe del mandatario, el PIB de esta nación andina creció en promedio 2,8 por ciento en casi 55 años de era republicana (1951-2005), frente al cinco por ciento logrado como promedio durante su gestión entre 2006 y 2016.

Ante el pleno de la Asamblea Legislativa, en este Día del Estado Plurinacional de Bolivia, Morales subrayó que más del 50 por ciento de sus 166 legisladores titulares son mujeres, 41 curules están ocupados por representantes de los pueblos indígenas y 29 por jóvenes.

Ratificó a la salud y educación como derechos ciudadanos y pilares de la Revolución boliviana, agradeció el apoyo de Cuba en la Operación Milagro que ha devuelto la vista a más de 676 mil bolivianos en 10 años y destacó la labor integral de unos 700 integrantes de la Brigada Médica Cubana en todo el país.

La reducción de las tasas de mortalidad infantil y desnutrición crónica son importantes logros en esta nueva Bolivia, dijo, donde se construyen 47 nuevos hospitales y más de tres mil puestos de salud, se vacuna contra 19 enfermedades y entregan medicamentos sin costo a los de escasos recursos.

Recordó Morales que en 2001 el índice de analfabetismo en el país rebasaba el 13 por ciento de la población, mientras en la actualidad es solo de 2,8 por ciento, y su gobierno ha invertido más de tres mil millones de dólares para la calidad de la enseñanza en todos los niveles.

Después de Cuba, Bolivia es el país que más invierte para mejorar la educación, aseguró, y destacó la creación de 128 nuevos institutos tecnológicos durante los 11 años de su gobierno, hasta en los lugares más aislados del país y acondicionados con moderna tecnología.

En este sentido, expuso datos que corroboran el avance en áreas como salud, educación, deporte, economía y finanzas, infraestructura, hidrocarburos y energía, empoderamiento social, autonomía y reducción de la pobreza, entre otros indicadores.

A su juicio, Bolivia se ha convertido en un país modelo en la lucha de los movimientos sociales y el aumento de la consciencia social y política del pueblo, encabezado por el Movimiento al Socialismo y el Instrumento Político por la Soberanía de los Pueblos. En más de 100 tablas demostró los avances logrados en 11 años tras ganar las elecciones el 2006 con casi un 54 por ciento de los votos, en todos los sectores de la economía, en especial hidrocarburos y generación de energía, en lo cual proyectan convertirse en líderes regionales.

La integración vial, en un país de más de un millón de kilómetros cuadrados, fue otro de los grandes sueños realizados, tanto en la construcción de carreteras y puentes como en aeropuertos nacionales e internacionales que hay proyectado el incremento del turismo.

Podemos equivocarnos, tener dificultades, somos seres humanos, no es sencillo administrar un país. Es derecho de todos observarnos, criticarnos, corregirnos, pero lo más importante es que todos pensemos en Bolivia y en cómo acabar con la pobreza, recalcó finalmente Morales ante su pueblo.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Evo Morales demostró con cifras impresionante avance de Bolivia

Venezuela tiende la mano de la paz a Estados Unidos

January 23rd, 2017 by Luis Beaton

Venezuela tendió su mano de paz a Estados Unidos en momentos en que una nueva administración guiará los destinos de la nación norteña en medio de serios desafíos en el orden interno y externo.

El presidente Nicolás Maduro, fue claro cuando dijo el 18 de enero: ‘Yo quiero unas relaciones de respeto, de altura, de cooperación con el gobierno de Estados Unidos. Ojalá lo podamos lograr, ojalá’.

Miraflores espera que la Casa Blanca le de un giro al timón y se imponga una política pragmática de buena vecindad, respeto e intercambio entre dos economías que en cierta medida se complementan, una por ser productor de muchas manufacturas, por ejemplo, y la otra por tener las mayores reservas mundiales del llamado ‘oro negro’.

En referencia a Donald Trump, el mandatario venezolano dijo: ‘Pido a Dios que cambie su política hacia Venezuela y América Latina y mientras tanto nosotros estaremos aquí, firmes, libres, independientes y soberanos’.

En su breve discurso cuando asumió el mando, el 45 presidente estadounidense dejó la duda sobre cuál será su proyección hacia afuera, sus palabras estuvieron dirigidas más a los oídos de los millones de sus compatriotas inconformes con el llamado establishment que le dieron su voto para una nunca imaginada victoria.

En días recientes un diputado afín al gobierno nos preguntaba que pensábamos de Trump con respecto a Venezuela.

Brevemente le recordábamos palabras del ex presidente demócrata Jimmy Carter quien lo calificaba como una persona ‘pragmática’, ‘moldeable’, un empresario que verá las relaciones, presumiblemente desde esa óptica.

En ese tono las declaraciones del gobierno de Maduro se mantienen en un ambiente de respeto cauteloso, sin ceder posiciones y dispuesto a una mejora en las relaciones que alcanzaron un punto crítico cuando la administración del presidente Barack Obama vio a Venezuela como un peligro para Estados Unidos.

Muchos factores flotan en este ambiente, entre ellos el aparente acercamiento entre Moscú y Washington, para iniciar una nueva época de convivencia, lo que sin dudas tiene un peso en Venezuela.

Si bien es prematuro hablar de lo que hará Trump en el caso de América Latina, llama la atención que ratificó a varios altos funcionarios del Departamento de Estado, entre ellos a Thomas Shannon, el facilitador para Venezuela, quien ya estuvo por aquí en octubre cuando se inició el dialogo del gobierno con sectores opositores.

Según el académico y escritor Atilio Boron, ‘de ningún presidente estadounidense podemos esperar nada bueno. No porque sean malvados sino porque su condición de jefes del imperio les impone ciertas decisiones que en la soledad de su escritorio probablemente no tomarían’.

Ahora, hay que ver, y por supuesto, esperar, si el gobierno en la sombra, que Boron describe como el entramado de agencias federales, comisiones del Congreso, lobbies multimillonarios que por años y años han financiado a políticos, jueces y periodistas, el complejo militar-industrial-financiero, las dieciséis agencias que conforman la ‘comunidad de inteligencia’, entre otros, lo dejan hacer las cosas a su forma.

En términos generales, el equilibrio geopolítico mundial es mucho menos favorable para Washington, por lo que no se espera un avance de posiciones de fuerza cuando a lo interno la situación pudiera ser caótica.

Además, a lo externo, muchos países como el Grupo de los 77 más China llaman al nuevo gobierno de Estados Unidos a evaluar e implementar alternativas para entablar el dialogo con la Venezuela Bolivariana, en consonancia con el principio de respeto a la soberanía y autodeterminación de los pueblos.

Muchos analistas no descartan que se imponga la cordura, y al menos, en estos inicios Washington y Miraflores tomen el ramo de olivo de la paz.

Luis Beaton

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Venezuela tiende la mano de la paz a Estados Unidos

El ingreso de Colombia a la OTAN

January 23rd, 2017 by Carolina Jiménez

El pasado 23 de Diciembre el presidente Juan Manuel Santos anunció que la OTAN aceptó la solicitud del Estado Colombiano para establecer un Acuerdo de Cooperación Estratégica y Militar. Este anuncio tiene como antecedente el Acuerdo de Intercambio  y Seguridad de Información firmado en Bélgica el 6 de Junio de 2013, ratificado por el Congreso de la República en 2014 y declaro inexequible por la Corte Constitucional al año siguiente. Al decir del Ministro de Defensa de la época a través de este acuerdo se buscaba, 

“tener acceso a conocimiento, experiencia, buenas prácticas en materia de misiones de paz, misiones humanitarias, derechos humanos, justicia militar, procesos de transformación y mejoramiento del sector de defensa y seguridad, además de ayudar en la lucha contra el narcotráfico”.

Así las cosas, se trataría desde la perspectiva gubernamental, de una cualificación de las FFMM colombianas en asuntos de operaciones humanitarias y de paz.

El acuerdo Colombia-OTAN de 2013 tenía como uno de sus objetivos estratégicos que el país sudamericano se constituyera en un aliado para combatir “la delincuencia trasnacional y otras amenazas” a la seguridad hemisférica.

Esto es, un territorio para el control geo-estratégico de un continente que durante la última década había puesto en cuestión la capacidad hegemónica de los EEUU.  De ahí, el amplio rechazo que generó el acuerdo en los gobiernos boliviano, venezolano, ecuatoriano y brasileño.

En su momento, estos gobiernos señalaron que este acuerdo ponía en cuestión la integración regional y los acuerdos establecidos en el marco de la CELAC y UNASUR  a través de los cuales se reconoció a América Latina y el Caribe como zona de paz. Así, la condición de “aliado extra-OTAN” fue catalogada como una amenaza a los equilibrios geopolíticos alcanzados en la región,  para Atilio Boron esta iniciativa tenía unas graves implicaciones en tanto conducía a,

tensar la cuerda de las relaciones colombo-venezolanas; amenazar a sus vecinos y precipitar el aumento del gasto militar en la región; debilitar a la UNASUR y la  CELAC; alinearse con Gran Bretaña en el diferendo con la Argentina por Las Malvinas, dado que esa es la postura oficial de la OTAN. Y quien menciona esta organización no puede sino recordar que, como concuerdan todos los especialistas, el nervio y músculo de la OTAN los aporta Estados Unidos y no los otros estados miembros, reducidos al triste papel de simples peones del mandamás imperial. En suma: una nueva vuelta de tuerca de la contraofensiva imperialista en Nuestra América.

Este nuevo anuncio del presidente Santos revive algunos de los temores señalados tres años atrás, aunque en un contexto regional menos favorable para frenar los embates imperialistas de esta fuerza político-militar.

Esto a razón del giro a la derecha en Argentina y Brasil y  su firme propósito de debilitar los procesos de integración regional, el caso de Venezuela ante el MERCOSUR es ilustrativo de esta cuestión.  También, debe leerse este acuerdo como un intento por frenar los espacios ganados en los últimos años por Rusia en la región.

Por eso, es importante el comunicado del gobierno venezolano manifestando su rechazo a dicho anuncio,

El Gobierno venezolano se opone firmemente ante el intento de introducir factores externos con capacidad nuclear en nuestra Región, cuyas actuaciones pasadas y recientes reivindican la política de la guerra (…) Este anuncio desvirtúa los principios de Bandung que dieron origen al Movimiento de Países No Alineados (Mnoal), que prohíbe expresamente a sus Estados Miembros formar parte de alianzas militares.

Ahora bien, es importante señalar que aunque este anuncio va en contravía de los anhelos de paz del pueblo colombiano y de Nuestra América y de los importantes espacios que abren los acuerdos de paz con las insurgencias, no implica, en si mismo, un freno a lo allí acordado.

Los Acuerdos alcanzados con las FARC-EP son de una gran envergadura política ya que generan condiciones de posibilidad para que se desate la lucha popular en unas condiciones más favorables.

Por esa razón, es fundamental que el movimiento popular y la sociedad civil en general exijan la implementación de todo lo acordado. De igual modo, el gobierno de Juan Manuel Santos debe asumir con férreo compromiso la defensa de la vida de nuestros líderes y lideresas sociales que están siendo sistemáticamente asesinados y amenazados por grupos paramilitares y un sector de la clase dominante enemiga de la paz. Son muchos retos y desafíos a los que nos enfrentamos, por eso saludamos el esfuerzo que hacen los ciudadanos y ciudadanas del Movimiento Político “Voces de Paz y Reconciliación” en procura de la construcción de una paz estable y duradera.

 Carolina Jiménez

Carolina Jiménez: Politóloga de la Universidad Nacional de Colombia, doctora en Estudios latinoamericanos de la Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México (UNAM).

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on El ingreso de Colombia a la OTAN

Parece que hemos entrado en el Imperio del Caos, entendido como lo que resulta de la negativa a aceptar el propio declive hegemónico. Parece que Obama lidió con la decadencia de Estados Unidos, como Gorbachov en la ex URSS. Con la paliza que recibieron los Demócratas en EE.UU., los perdedores principales son los globalistas, con los banqueros de Wall Street (City Bank, los Rothschild, etc.) y sus empresas transnacionales que operan en los países emergentes así como los principales medios masivos bajo su control (CNN, etc.). Con la pretensión de California, Hawai y Puerto Rico de separarse de la Unión de Estados parece anunciarse incluso la Perestroika en Occidente.

Las tendencias nacionalistas amenazan también la desintegración de la Unión Europea y se vislumbra un retorno al proteccionismo y nacionalismo. Al no prosperar los tratados de libre comercio empujados por Obama (ATP, el TTIP y TISA) un proceso de des-globalización se pone en marcha a menos que se lo impongan a la fuerza.

Es preciso saber que en Estados Unidos existe un Estado profundo o gobierno de sombra. Así como Clinton sufrió un ataque del Estado Profundo en la recta final de las elecciones cuando el FBI presentó nuevos correos electrónicos relacionados con el mal manejo de información clasificada, también Trump puede ser comido por el omnipotente ´Deep State´.

Todo sucede en un paisaje económico con alto riesgo de otra crisis financiera mundial. Al asumir Trump la presidencia las tasas de interés subirán porque necesita dinero rápido para su proyecto de invertir un millón de millones de dólares en infraestructura. Es un proyecto que constituye un genuino neo-keynesianismo anti-neoliberal que conllevaría a la des-globalización.

Con aumento en las tasas de interés, en el entorno de una inmensa pirámide invertido de crédito y deudas, otra gran crisis financiera global se pondrá en marcha. La nueva política económica no podrá evitarla, pero los globalistas sí podrían hacerle responsable a la administración Trump por el caos que resulte de ello.

En semejante coyuntura el capital financiero globalista (el verdadero responsable de la especulación financiera) se presentará como los salvadores del caos global. Ante la tesis que los nacionalismos solo generan caos, racismo, xenofobia y hasta fascismo, trabajan para poner nuevo orden en el mundo, con un proyecto del Estado Global que estaría por encima de las naciones e incluso por encima de los EE.UU. Para lograr su cometida no se puede descartar en este contexto un golpe, la ley marcial para no mencionar la eliminación física del nuevo presidente.

Lo prioritario en este contexto es lograr que se conserve la paz. No se olvide que ahora, si algo se rompe, estamos en pie de guerra, todos contra todos. No está nada claro que exista una red de seguridad internacional. Y ni Trump ni nadie puede estar seguro de que no la necesitará. La salida más sensata en el momento parece ser ir por un nuevo orden multipolar con diferentes regiones en el mundo sin guerra. La paz mundial tiene también su precio cuando China y Rusia, deberían ser solidarios y ayudar incluso a Estados Unidos a salir de su marasmo civilizatorio y económico.

En un mundo multipolar más proteccionista se erosiona el comercio internacional. La suma de las cuentas nacionales daría negativa, o sea, habrá decrecimiento económico a escala mundial y sin mayor perspectiva que lo habrá en el futuro. Tal vez se anuncia una nueva era  de decrecimiento estructural sin otra salida que la lucha social por otra civilización donde la re-producción de la vida colectiva está en el centro de nuestros valores y para lograrlo hemos de dar vida colectiva a las cosas que producimos. Solo así también podamos devolver la vida a la naturaleza y saber ser parte de ella.

Wim Dierckxsens

Wim Dierckxsens: Doctor en Ciencias Sociales de la Universidad de Nimega, Holanda. Tiene postgrado en demografía por la Sorbonne. Fue funcionario de las Naciones Unidas; Investigador del Instituto de Estudios para el Desarrollo, Universidad Tilburg, Holanda. Fue director del Postgrado en Economía de la UNAH en Honduras y fundador de la Maestría en Política Económica, UNA, Costa Rica.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Panorama internacional – Ante qué coyuntura nos encontramos

Norte de Mali: Sangre y uranio

January 23rd, 2017 by Guadi Calvo

El norte de Mali, Kidal, Tombuctú y Gao, tiende a convertirse en una de las regiones más inestables del planeta, extraordinariamente rica en uranio padece el accionar de los diferentes grupos con intereses propios y obviamente contrapuestos.

Fundamentalistas vinculados a al-Qaeda para el Magreb Islámico (AQMI); El Movimiento Nacional para la Liberación del Azawad (MNLA), de origen imazaghen que reclama la independencia del ancestral territorio tuareg, divididas en Alto Consejo para la Unidad del Azawad (HCUA) y el Movimiento Árabe del Azawad (MAA), el ejército del presidente malí Ibrahim Boubacar Keïta, y la organización pro Bamako Gatia, (Grupos de Auto-Defensa tuareg  imghad y aliados) liderada por Fahad Ag Almahmoud que se opone a la independencia de Azawad; militares franceses de las operaciones Serval y Barkhane, que desde 2013, se encuentran en la región con una dotación de 14 mil hombres a los que hay que sumar un pequeño contingente de 700 hombres del ejército alemán; numerosas bandas que trafican: armas, tabaco, combustible, drogas y personas y la agrupación Ansar al-Din, (Defensores de la Fe) liderada por Iyad Ag Ghaly, que bajo la cobertura de organización salafista, opera para los intereses de Argelia.

Este extraordinario mosaico de intereses, a la que habría que sumarles la fuerte rivalidad tribal tuareg entre imghad e imazaghen, convierte a esta región, más extensa que Francia, el tercer país más pobre de África, en una bomba de tiempo, que al parecer ha comenzado su cuenta regresiva.

Cuando todavía no se había disipado la estela del dulce y pegajoso perfume del presidente François “Flanby” Hollande, en el aeropuerto de Bamako, capital de Mali, tras su corta visita para participar en la cumbre XXVII África-Francia, última para Flanby, entre los días 13 y 14 de enero, a la que asistieron 35 mandatarios del continente, para discutir con la antigua metrópoli, temas de seguridad y económica; en la ciudad de Gao, a 1130 kilómetros, al noroeste de la capital el miércoles 18, en el interior de una base militar conjunta Francia-ONU para la Estabilización de Malí (Minusma), Abdul Hadi al-Fulani, un miliciano de la organización al-Mourabitoun, (los que firman con sangre), subsidiaria de AQMI, hizo estallar el camión que conducía, matando cerca de ochenta soldados e hiriendo a otros 120, del ejército malí y brigadistas de las auto-defensa de imghad.

Según los testimonios la explosión, produjo una nube de polvo que alcanzó a cubrir  gran parte de la  ciudad Gao, de cerca 90 mil habitantes, provocando la lógica conmoción. De inmediato comercios y escuelas, fueron cerrados y toda la actividad en la ciudad se detuvo.

Gao, capital del estado de mismo nombre, ubicada a orillas del río Níger, vive desde abril de 2012, tras la última sublevación tuareg, en permanente estado de alerta. La ciudad tras lo que fue la tercera sublevación tuareg desde la independencia de Mali en 1960, estuvo bajo control de AQMI, durante diez tremendos meses en que la sharia, se aplicó con todo rigor.

Como consecuencia del ataque del miércoles último, el sábado 21, se produjo un choque entre bandos antagónicos que operan junto al ejército malí. Un puesto en la localidad de Tinassako, en la región de Kidal, fue cercado por un grupo de  tuareg  independentistas de la Coordinadora de Movimientos del Azawad (CMA), produciendo catorce bajas a los  milicianos pro-Bamako de las auto defensas imghad.

El reinicio de las hostilidades entre estos grupos tuaregs, tras los acuerdos de paz de 2015, no del todo vigente, pone literalmente al norte de Mali, en estado de guerra civil. De la que sin duda intentará sacar ventaja al-Mourabitoun, esta organización creada en agosto de 2013 con la fusión al-Moulathamoun, el Movimiento por la Unicidad y la Yihad de África Occidental  (MUJAO) y el ya mencionado Ansar al-Din, está liderado por el mítico Mokhtar Belmokhtar, veterano de la guerra afgana contra los soviéticos, quien a lo largo de casi cuarenta años en el extremismo musulmán ha tenido sus idas y vueltas con AQMI.

La organización al-Mourabitoun, ha sido protagonista de los ataques  al hotel Radisson Blu en  Bamako, en noviembre de 2015 y al Hotel Splendid en Ouagadougou capital de Burkina Faso, en enero de 2016 y al mes siguiente en el balneario Grand Bassam, en Costa de Marfil,  que dejaron un total de 63 muertos, aunque en el caso de Costa de Marfil, pudo haber sido un ajuste de cuentas entre al-Mourabitoun y los nigerianos de Boko Haram y algún cartel narcotraficante que mantiene negocios con ambas organizaciones.

Un país demasiado central

Son varios los países de la región, que se verían muy afectados por la profundización y extensión de la crisis en Mali. Senegal, Costa de Marfil, Burkina Faso y hasta el sur de Níger podían quedar gravemente implicados de seguir en aumento la actividad salafista.

Habría que tener en cuenta dos factores determinantes para que esto suceda, la presencia de Boko Haram quien está recibiendo fuertes golpes en su país de origen Nigeria y podría buscar una alianza regional con al-Mourabitoun-AQMI y el posible retorno de veteranos de la guerra en Siria, a quienes tampoco les está yendo mejor en su teatro de operaciones.

De producirse una ecuación similar a la expuesta, el caos en el oeste africano podría adquirir, todavía formas más virulentas, lo que para contenerla se verían obligados a participar fuerza extracontinental, involucrándose en extenuante intervención. Entiéndase solo la OTAN, podría hacer frente a una situación semejante, claro si es que Donald Trump, estuviera dispuesto a intervenir.

La centralidad de Mali, en el noroeste africano, la hace clave al momento de los desplazamientos regionales, cercana al conflictivo golfo de Guinea, ubicada parte en el Sahara y el Sahel, sumado a la crónica porosidad de las fronteras, cualquier tipo de organización delincuencial o terrorista convierte a Mali, en un excepcional corredor por el que se pueden desplazarse a su antojo.

Según el informe de la Federación Internacional de Derechos Humanos, durante 2016, en el norte y centro del país, se registraron al menos 385 ataques terroristas, en el que se produjeron 332 muertes de ella 207 civiles. Lo que demuestra claramente que a pesar de la intervención militar francesa la región sigue siendo convulsa.

En julio del 2016, un ataque  contra una base militar en la ciudad Nampala en la región central de Segú, cerca de la frontera con Mauritania, dejó una veintena de soldados muertos y otros treinta heridos, sin que las fuerza malienses pudieran repelerlo, hasta que los atacantes se retiraron.

En el sur negro, que practica de manera mayoritaria el animismo, con algún sincretismo musulmán, y que ha dado como resultado un sufismo sui-generis, acumulado una gran cantidad de adeptos, al rigorismo wahabita practicado por al-Qaeda, no le procura ninguna simpatía, por lo que se podría esperar allí, grandes matanzas takfiristas, de asentarse al-Mourabitoun-AQMI.

Dos cuestiones más restan por analizar de afianzarse el salafismo en el norte de Mali, el peligro más concreto es la permeable, larga, y descontrolada frontera con Mauritania, de poco menos de 2300 kilómetros, un país con más del 99% musulmán de mayoría sunita en su versión sufí, absolutamente inerme para enfrentar una invasión fundamentalista.

Y la última y fundamental tiene que ver con los ricos yacimientos de uranio que explota la empresa estatal francesa Areva, en las minas de Arlit y Akouta, en la región tuareg de Agadez, en la frontera entre Malí y Níger, aunque sería prácticamente imposible que los hombres de AQMI, pudieran hacer algo con ese uranio, de acceder a él. Aunque  tecnológicamente, les sería mucho más factible utilizar las toneladas de desechos nucleares como uranio, cadmio, plomo y mercurio que Francia sin ningún control, ni cuidado abandona desde hace décadas en el desierto de Mali y zonas aledañas.

Quizás  Francia, que han hecho del expolió y  el latrocino de los territorios conquistados a sangre, engaño y fuego, su más genuino modo de vida, alguna vez, pueda comprender que cuándo sus ciudadanos son ametrallados, destrozados por una bomba o aplastados por un camión, existen razones que se esconden en lo más recóndito de los desiertos y las selvas, sumergidas en mares de la sangre de otros pueblos.

Guadi Calvo

Guadi Calvo: Escritor y periodista argentino, analista Internacional especializado en África, Medio Oriente y Asia Central. 

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Norte de Mali: Sangre y uranio

La Celac en los tiempos de Donald Trump

January 23rd, 2017 by Lilliam Oviedo

Los acontecimientos posteriores a la toma de posesión de Donald Trump, lejos de restar importancia a la V Cumbre de la Celac y al encuentro de movimientos sociales y fuerzas políticas “Por la Paz, la Unidad y la Integración de Nuestra América”, contribuyen a poner en evidencia la necesidad de dar seguimiento a ambos eventos y, más importante aún, dejan claro que es urgente fortalecer la Celac como mecanismo de integración regional.

En el discurso y en la práctica

En el discurso de toma de posesión, Donald Trump no mencionó a América Latina, pero la carga contra los inmigrantes y el énfasis en el objetivo de recuperar el orgullo yanqui y validar la visión panestadounidense en la política, anuncian que la nueva administración dará continuidad a la lucha contra el avance político en la región y rediseñará, con el propósito de lograr mayor efectividad, la conspiración contra los gobiernos progresistas.

En cuando a las relaciones con Cuba, es preciso recordar que Mike Pence y Donald Trump, en sus respectivas cuentas de Twitter celebraron la muerte de Fidel Castro. Trump dijo en ese momento que desde el gobierno haría “todo lo posible para asegurar que el pueblo cubano pueda iniciar finalmente su camino hacia la prosperidad y libertad”.

En el plano comercial, las relaciones con Cuba son del interés de varios grupos empresariales estadounidenses, pero el mantenimiento de las embajadas no implica el cese de la conspiración ni evita su recrudecimiento.

Sobre Venezuela, Trump ha sido explícito al demandar el excarcelamiento de los opositores que han ido a prisión por acciones deleznables, como es el caso de Leopoldo López. Rodeado de enemigos de Venezuela (el general John Kelly, por ejemplo, es el nuevo secretario de Seguridad Nacional), es obvio que Trump tiene en carpeta fortalecer la agresión.

La existencia del proyecto queda confirmada con la reciente declaración del embajador de Colombia en Estados Unidos, Juan Carlos Pinzón, quien asegura que Trump ve a Colombia como la puerta de entrada hacia América Latina. ¿Se puede poner en duda después del avance de las negociaciones entre el gobierno dirigido por el ultraderechista Juan Manuel Santos y la Organización del Tratado del Atlántico Norte, OTAN? ¿No es evidente la amenaza para todo proyecto de avance político en América Latina?

La Celac

La Celac es el mecanismo de integración idóneo para dar respuesta a la nueva situación.

Los jefes de Estado que asistieron a la Cumbre de la Unidad (Méxixo 2010), se manifestaron “Decididos a construir un espacio común con el propósito de profundizar la integración política, económica, social y cultural de nuestra región y establecer compromisos efectivos de acción conjunta para la promoción del desarrollo sostenible de América Latina y el Caribe en un marco de unidad, democracia, respeto irrestricto a los derechos humanos, solidaridad, cooperación, complementariedad y concertación política; y convencidos de que la región de América Latina y el Caribe debe seguir reafirmando su presencia en los foros de los que forma parte y pronunciarse sobre los grandes temas y acontecimientos de la agenda global”

En diciembre del año 2011, en la Cumbre Fundacional de ese espacio común, que es la Celac, Hugo Chávez expresó: “¿Hasta cuándo vamos a ser nosotros la periferia atrasada, explotada y mancillada? Estamos poniendo aquí la piedra fundamental de la unidad, la independencia y el desarrollo Sudamericano. Vacilar sería perdernos”.

Estas palabras conservan vigencia. El 20 de enero del año 2017 será recordado como el día en que esa periferia fue vilipendiada por un presidente yanqui que proclama que los capitales de su país han enriquecido a otros países y los militares de su país los han protegido.

Donald Trump, igual que sus antecesores, llama ayuda al saqueo capitalista y protección a la grosera injerencia militar yanqui. Su proclama es ofensiva para el resto del mundo y en particular para América Latina.

Como candidato, dijo que levantaría un nuevo muro en la frontera como México y habló de deportaciones. Como presidente, ¿qué se puede esperar de él?

La Organización de Estados Americanos, OEA, históricamente ha coincidido con Estados Unidos en los aspectos políticos esenciales.

En la Celac no participan Estados Unidos y Canadá, y esto la define como organismo regional latinoamericano.

Desde el 2013, las cumbres anuales se han realizado en el país con la presidencia pro tempore: Chile, Cuba, Costa Rica y Ecuador.

El 25 de noviembre, iniciará la V Cumbre, en Punta Cana, República Dominicana. Ese día, los mandatarios recibirán el documento emanado de la reunión de movimientos sociales y fuerzas políticas “Por la Paz, la Unidad y la Integración de Nuestra América”, una manifestación organizada de apoyo a la Celac y un llamado de atención sobre la necesidad de fortalecerla.

El bloqueo contra Cuba, las políticas anticubanas que Estados Unidos realiza desde sus agencias gubernamentales, así como la conspiración contra Venezuela, deberán constituir temas de primer orden.

Toda América Latina debe exigir que cese la conspiración desde el Norte.

La ultraderecha en acción

El tiempo de Trump es la continuidad del tiempo de la ultraderecha.

El saliente gobierno de Estados Unidos legalizó golpes de Estado y fomentó la política de golpe blando en América Latina, y ahora la ultraderecha se propone utilizar la figura del rancio magnate (misógino, homófobo, xenófobo y racista) para aplicar los métodos que considere más efectivos sin compromiso con la continuidad y sin necesidad de guardar las formas.

La efectiva preparación para dar respuesta a la situación creada a partir de esa decisión, incluye el fortalecimiento de la Celac y la creciente capacidad de la región para actuar como bloque.

Por eso, la V Cumbre merece la atención de todos los hombres y mujeres conscientes en la región y el reconocimiento de que los temas a discutir son de interés para América Latina y para el resto del mundo.

Los estrategas imperialistas han apadrinado a la derecha en la región para favorecer la actuación particular de cada país. Barack Obama dio un espaldarazo a Mauricio Macri en Argentina y lo mismo han hecho los miembros del equipo de Trump. Sobre Colombia, nada hay que decir.

Entre los asesores de Donald Trump sobre América Latina está Freddy Balsera, de origen cubano y nacido en Miami, quien asesoró durante más de cuatro años a Obama, y Julio Ligorría, ex embajador de Guatemala en Washington y ligado a varios casos de corrupción.

No hay duda de que, en materia de agresión, se ligan la continuidad y el recrudecimiento de la conspiración.

La unidad es necesaria en el presente, y lo es también de cara al futuro. No se equivocó en esto Hugo Chávez y tampoco Fidel Castro, quien siempre reconoció como urgente dar pasos hacia la integración continental.

En 1998, en la Cumbre Iberoamericana realizada en Portugal, Fidel dijo: “Les confieso sinceramente que es difícil resignarse a la idea de la integración circunscrita solo al MERCOSUR. Y digo aquí lo que pienso sinceramente y creo, y a muchos visitantes europeos y a muchos amigos y dirigentes políticos que visitan a Cuba, muchas veces calladamente, siempre les planteo el principio de que hay que ayudar a América Latina a unirse, que hay que ayudar a Suramérica a unirse. No me canso de predicar esa idea. Para tener más fuerza, hay que unir fuerzas”.

Ciertamente, de unir fuerzas se trata. En este momento, para unir fuerzas, es preciso dar impulso a la Celac.

Lilliam Oviedo

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on La Celac en los tiempos de Donald Trump

Trump o el fin del neoliberalismo progresista

January 23rd, 2017 by Nancy Fraser

La elección de Donald Trump es una más de una serie de insubordinaciones políticas espectaculares que, en conjunto, apuntan a un colapso de la hegemonía neoliberal. Entre esas insubordinaciones, podemos mencionar entre otras, el voto del Brexit en el Reino Unido, el rechazo de las reformas de Renzi en Italia, la campaña de Bernie Sanders para la nominación Demócrata en los EEUU y el apoyo creciente cosechado por el Frente Nacional en Francia.

Aun cuando difieren en ideología y objetivos, esos motines electorales comparten un blanco común: rechazan la globalización de las grandes corporaciones, el neoliberalismo y el establishment político que los respalda. En todos los casos, los votantes dicen “¡No!” a la combinación letal de austeridad, libre comercio, deuda predatoria y trabajo precario y mal pagado que caracteriza al actual capitalismo financiarizado. Sus votos son una respuesta a la crisis estructural de esta forma de capitalismo, crisis que quedó expuesta por primera vez con el casi colapso del orden financiero global en 2008.

Sin embargo, hasta hace poco, la repuesta más común a esta crisis era la protesta social: espectacular y vívida, desde luego, pero de carácter harto efímero. Los sistemas políticos, en cambio, parecían relativamente inmunes, todavía controlados por funcionarios de partido y elites del establishment, al menos en los estados capitalistas poderosos como los EEUU, el Reino Unido y Alemania. Pero ahora las ondas de choque de las elecciones reverberan por todo el planeta, incluidas las ciudadelas de las finanzas globales.

Quienes votaron por Trump, como quienes votaron por el Brexit o contra las reformas italianas, se han levantado contra sus amos políticos. Burlándose de las direcciones de los partidos, han repudiado el sistema que ha erosionado sus condiciones de vida en los últimos treinta años. Los sorprendente no es que lo hayan hecho, sino que hayan tardado tanto.

No obstante, la victoria de Trump no es solamente una revuelta contra las finanzas globales. Lo que sus votantes rechazaron no fue el neoliberalismo sin más, sino el neoliberalismo progresista. Esto puede sonar como un oxímoron, pero se trata de un alineamiento, aunque perverso, muy real: es la clave para entender los resultados electorales en los EEUU y acaso también para comprender la evolución de los acontecimientos en otras partes.

En la forma que ha cobrado en los EEUU, el neoliberalismo progresista es una alianza de las corrientes dominantes de los nuevos movimientos sociales (feminismo, antirracismo, multiculturalismo y derechos LGBTQ) por un lado y, por el otro, el más alto nivel de sectores de negocios “simbólicos” y de servicios (Wall Street, Silicon Valley y Hollywood). En esta alianza, las fuerzas progresistas se han unido efectivamente con las fuerzas del capitalismo cognitivo, especialmente la financiarización. Aun sin quererlo, lo cierto es que las primeras le han aportado su carisma a las últimas. Ideales como la diversidad y el “empoderamiento”, que en principio podrían servir a diferentes propósitos, ahora dan lustre a políticas que han resultado devastadoras para la industria manufacturera y y para lo que antes era la clase media.

El neoliberalismo progresista se desarrolló en los EEUU durante estas tres últimas décadas y fue ratificado por el triunfo electoral de Bill Clinton en 1992. Clinton fue el principal organizador y abanderado de los “Nuevos Demócratas”, el equivalente estadounidense del “Nuevo Laborismo” de Tony Blair.

En vez de la coalición del New Deal entre obreros industriales sindicalizados, afroamericanos y clases medias urbanas, Clinton forjó una nueva alianza de empresarios, residentes de los suburbios*, nuevos movimientos sociales y juventud: todos proclamando orgullosos la honestidad de sus intenciones modernas y progresistas, a favor de la diversidad, el multiculturalismo y los derechos de las mujeres.

Aun cuando el gobierno de Clinton respaldó esas ideas progresistas, también cortejó a Wall Street. Pasando el mando de la economía a Goldman Sachs, desreguló el sistema bancario y negoció tratados de libre comercio que aceleraron la desindustrialización. Lo que se perdió por el camino fue el Rust Belt (Cinturón del Óxido), otrora bastión de la democracia social del New Deal y ahora la región que ha entregado el Colegio Electoral a Donald Trump. Esa región, junto con nuevos centros industriales en el Sur, recibió un duro revés con el despliegue de la financiarización más desenfrenada durante las últimas dos décadas. Las políticas de Clinton -que fueron continuadas por sus sucesores, incluido Barak Obama- degradaron las condiciones de vida de todo el pueblo trabajador, pero especialmente de los trabajadores industriales.

Para decirlo sumariamente: Clinton tiene una pesada responsabilidad en el debilitamiento de las uniones sindicales, en el declive de los salarios reales, en el aumento de la precariedad laboral y en el auge de las familias con dos ingresos que vino a substituir al difunto salario familiar.

Como sugiere esto último, cubrieron el asalto a la seguridad social con un barniz de carisma emancipatorio, tomado prestado de los nuevos movimientos sociales. Durante todos estos años en los que se devastaba la industria manufacturera, el país estaba animado y entretenido por una faramalla de “diversidad”, “empoderamiento” y “no-discriminación”. Al identificar “progreso” con meritocracia -en lugar de igualdad-, se equiparaba la “emancipación” con el ascenso de una pequeña elite de mujeres, minorías y gays “con talento” en la jerarquía empresarial basada en la noción de “quien-gana-se-queda-con-todo” (validando la jerarquía en lugar de abolirla).

Esa noción liberal e individualista del “progreso” fue reemplazando gradualmente a la noción emancipadora, anticapitalista, abarcadora, antijerárquica, igualitaria y sensible al concepto de clase social que había florecido en los años 60 y 70. Con la decadencia de la Nueva Izquierda, su crítica estructural de la sociedad capitalista se debilitó, y el esquema mental liberal-individualista tradicional del país se reafirmó a sí mismo al tiempo que se contraían las aspiraciones de los “progresistas” y de los autodenominados “izquierdistas”. Pero lo que selló el acuerdo fue la coincidencia de esta evolución con el auge del neoliberalismo. Un partido inclinado a liberalizar la economía capitalista encontró a su compañero perfecto en un feminismo empresarial centrado en la “voluntad de dirigir” del “leaning in”** o en “romper el techo de cristal”.

El resultado fue un “neoliberalismo progresista”, amalgama de truncados ideales de emancipación y formas letales de financiarización. Esa amalgama fue desechada en su totalidad por los votantes de Trump. Entre los marginados por este bravo mundo cosmopolita tienen un lugar prominente los obreros industriales, sin duda, pero también hay ejecutivos, pequeños empresarios y todos quienes dependían de la industria en el Rust Belt (Cinturón Oxidado) y en el Sur, así como las poblaciones rurales devastadas por el desempleo y la droga. Para esas poblaciones, al daño de la desindustrialización se añadió el insulto del moralismo progresista, que estaba acostumbrado a considerarlos culturalmente atrasados. Los votantes de Trump no solo rechazaron la globalización sino también el liberalismo cosmopolita identificado con ella. Algunos –no, desde luego, todos, ni mucho menos— quedaron a un paso muy corto de culpar del empeoramiento de sus condiciones de vida a la corrección política, a las gentes de color, a los inmigrantes y los musulmanes. Ante sus ojos, las feministas y Wall Street eran aves de un mismo plumaje, perfectamente unidas en la persona de Hillary Clinton.

Esa combinación de ideas fue posible debido a la ausencia de una izquierda genuina. A pesar de estallidos como Occupy Wall Street, que fue efímero, no ha habido una presencia sostenida de la izquierda en los EEUU desde hace varias décadas. Ni se ha dado aquí una narrativa abarcadora de izquierda que pudiera vincular los legítimos agravios de los votantes de Trump con una crítica efectiva de la financiarización, por un lado, y con una visión emancipadora antirracista, antisexista y antijerárquica, por el otro. Igualmente devastador resultó que se dejaran languidecer los potenciales vínculos entre el mundo del trabajo y los nuevos movimientos sociales. Separados el uno del otro, estos polos indispensables para cualquier izquierda viable se alejaron indefinidamente hasta llegar a parecer antitéticos.

Al menos hasta la notable campaña de Bernie Sanders en las primarias, que bregó por unirlos después de recibir algunas críticas del movimiento Black Lives Matter (Las vidas negras importan). Haciendo estallar el sentido común neoliberal reinante, la revuelta de Sanders fue, en el lado Demócrata, el paralelo de Trump. Así como Trump logró dar el vuelco al establishment Republicano, Sanders estuvo a un pelo de derrotar a la sucesora ungida por Obama, cuyos apparatchiks controlaban todos y cada uno de los resortes del poder en el Partido Demócrata. Entre ambos, Sanders y Trump, galvanizaron una enorme mayoría del voto norteamericano.

Pero sólo el populismo reaccionario de Trump sobrevivió. Mientras que él consiguió deshacerse fácilmente de sus rivales Republicanos, incluidos los predilectos de los grandes donantes de campaña y de los jefes del Partido, la insurrección de Sanders fue frenada eficazmente por un Partido Demócrata, mucho menos democrático. En el momento de la elección general, la alternativa de izquierda ya había sido suprimida. Lo único que quedaba era la elección de Hobson (“tómalo o déjalo”): elegir entre el populismo reaccionario y el neoliberalismo progresista. Cuando la autodenominada izquierda cerró filas con Hillary, la suerte quedó echada.

Sin embargo, y de ahora en más, este es un dilema que la izquierda debería rechazar. En vez de aceptar los términos en que las clases políticas nos presentan el dilema que opone emancipación a protección social, lo que deberíamos hacer es trabajar para redefinir esos términos partiendo del vasto y creciente fondo de rechazo social contra el presente orden. En vez de ponernos del lado de la financiarización-cum-emancipación contra la protección social, lo que deberíamos hacer es construir una nueva alianza de emancipación y protección social contra la finaciarización. En ese proyecto, que se desarrollaría sobre el terreno preparado por Sanders, emancipación no significa diversificar la jerarquía empresarial, sino abolirla. Y prosperidad no significa incrementar el valor de las acciones o los beneficios empresariales, sino mejorar los requisitos materiales de una buena vida para todos. Esa combinación sigue siendo la única respuesta victoriosa y de principios para la presente coyuntura.

A nivel personal, no derramé ninguna lágrima por la derrota del neoliberalismo progresista. Es verdad: hay mucho que temer de una administración Trump racista, antiinmigrante y antiecológica. Pero no deberíamos lamentar ni la implosión de la hegemonía neoliberal ni la demolición del clintonismo y su tenaza de hierro sobre el Partido Demócrata. La victoria de Trump significa una derrota de la alianza entre emancipación y financiarización. Pero esta presidencia no ofrece solución alguna a la presente crisis, no trae consigo la promesa de un nuevo régimen ni de una hegemonía segura. A lo que nos enfrentamos más bien es a un interregno, a una situación abierta e inestable en la que los corazones y las mentes están en juego. En esta situación, no sólo hay peligros, también hay oportunidades: la posibilidad de construir una nueva Nueva Izquierda.

De que ello suceda dependerá en parte de que los progresistas que apoyaron la campaña de Hillary sean capaces de hacer un serio examen de conciencia. Necesitarán librarse del mito, confortable pero falso, de que perdieron contra una “banda de deplorables” (racistas, misóginos, islamófobos y homófobos) ayudados por Vladimir Putin y el FBI. Necesitarán reconocer su propia parte de culpa al sacrificar la protección social, el bienestar material y la dignidad de la clase obrera a una falsa interpretación de la emancipación entendida en términos de meritocracia, diversidad y empoderamiento. Necesitarán pensar a fondo en cómo podemos transformar la economía política del capitalismo financiarizado reviviendo el lema de campaña de Sanders –“socialismo democrático”— e imaginando qué podría  significar ese lema en el siglo XXI. Necesitarán, sobre todo, llegar a la masa de votantes de Trump que no son racistas ni próximos a la ultraderecha, sino víctimas de un “sistema fraudulento” que pueden y deben ser reclutadas para el proyecto antineoliberal de una izquierda rejuvenecida.

Eso no quiere decir olvidarse de preocupaciones acuciantes sobre el racismo y el sexismo. Quiere decir demostrar de qué modo esas antiguas opresiones históricas hallan nuevas expresiones y nuevos fundamentos en el capitalismo financiarizado de nuestros días. Se debe rechazar la idea falsa, de suma cero, que dominó la campaña electoral, y vincular los daños sufridos por las mujeres y las gentes de color con los experimentados por los muchos que votaron a Trump. Por esa senda, una izquierda revitalizada podría sentar los fundamentos de una nueva y potente coalición comprometida a luchar por todos.

Artículo original en inglés:

The End of Progressive Neoliberalism, publicado el 2 de enero de 2017

Traducido por María Julia Bertomeu

Nancy Fraser

Nancy Fraser: Profesora de filosofía y política en la New School for Social Research de Nueva York. Su último libro se titula Fortunes of Feminism: From State-Managed Capitalism to Neoliberal Crisis (Londres, Verso, 2013).

Notas de la editora de Socialismo21:

* En el original “suburbanite”; se refiere a los habitantes de los suburbios de Estados Unidos, que son áreas residenciales en las que vive mayoritariamente gente blanca, con niveles de ingreso medios o altos.

** La frase “leaning in” procede del léxico empresarial y significa literalmente “inclinarse”; se refiere al gesto de enfatizar lo que se dice inclinando el cuerpo hacia adelante, al dirigirse a las personas sentadas alrededor de una mesa en una reunión de negocios. Surgió en 2013 y proviene del título de un libro de consejos para mujeres de negocios: Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead, escrito por Sheryl Sandberg, Jefa de Operaciones de Facebook, en colaboración con Nell Scovell.

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Trump o el fin del neoliberalismo progresista

The Trump transition team is developing a federal budget based on a blueprint drawn up by the right-wing Heritage Foundation that will slash $10.5 trillion from government spending over the next decade, according to a report Thursday in the Hill.

The main budget priorities of the Trump administration are to be published within 45 days of the inauguration and the full budget proposal is expected sometime in April.

According to the Hill, the Trump administration’s budget proposal is being drawn up by Russ Vought and John Gray, former Heritage Foundation employees and one-time aides to Vice President Mike Pence. Vought was also the executive direction of the Republican Study Group, which has proposed similar cuts in recent years, while Gray served as an aide to Republican Speaker of the House Paul Ryan when he led the House Budget Committee.

The implementation of the reported budget cuts would mark a massive escalation in the social counterrevolution and attack on the living standards of the working class carried out by the Democrats and the Obama administration over the last eight years.

Among the “dramatic” reductions that are being prepared are significant cuts to funding for the Commerce Department and the Department of Energy, with programs currently under their jurisdiction either eliminated entirely or transferred to other departments.

Other federal departments that will reportedly be significantly impacted by cuts and program elimination include the Department of Transportation, Justice Department and State Department.

Under the Heritage Foundation plan, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB), which oversees the operations of the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR), would be entirely privatized. While the CPB still relies on the federal government for a portion of its funding, it has increasingly relied on donations from large corporate sponsors and from the wealthy.

The Heritage Foundation’s budget blueprint is a litany of attacks on benefits and social programs which benefit the poor, as well as an assault on scientific research.

Under the guise of “reducing fraud,” the foundation calls for new restrictions on the Earned Income Tax Credit, which benefits millions of single mothers and low-wage workers. Other reactionary measures under consideration are new work requirements for adult Food Stamp recipients and eliminating Social Security payments for disabled children.

Federal funding for the arts and humanities research would be totally phased out with the elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Scientific research carried out across multiple departments, including in the Department of Energy, will be completely or partially defunded.

The savagery of the reported budget proposals is yet another expression of the fundamental class character of the incoming Trump administration, in which billionaire oligarchs are taking direct control of the federal government, rather than pulling the strings from behind the scenes.

Reports of the incoming administration’s budget plans came as the Senate held cabinet hearings Thursday for multimillionaire corporate raider and former Goldman Sachs executive Steven Mnuchin, nominated to serve as the Treasury Secretary, and former Texas governor Rick Perry for head of the Department of Energy, an agency which Perry called to eliminate in 2012.

Mnuchin, if confirmed, would join a cabinet comprised of billionaires, multimillionaires and former generals. While Mnuchin has an estimated net worth of $400 million, that puts him well behind Trump’s picks for Education Secretary, Betsy DeVos ($5.1 billion), Commerce Secretary, Wilbur Ross ($2.5 billion), and the Small Business Administration, Linda McMahon ($1.35 billion).

During his testimony Thursday, Mnuchin defended his time as the head of California-based IndyMac Bank, renamed OneWest, where he made massive profits aggressively pursuing foreclosures against homeowners during the height of the foreclosure crisis.

Mnuchin sought in his remarks to present himself as a savior moved by the plight of homeowners who was hindered in his efforts to help by too many government regulations. “If we had not bought IndyMac,” he said, “the bank would likely have been broken up and sold in pieces to private investors, where the outcome for consumers could have been much bleaker.” (And Mnuchin just happened to make millions in the process!)

He promised that if confirmed as Treasury Secretary, he would work to eliminate financial regulations that had kept him from becoming even wealthier. Mnuchin will also be taking the lead in formulating Trump’s tax plan, which is to include cutting the corporate tax rate from 35 percent to only 15 percent.

Demonstrating the practically nonexistent character of the vetting process for Trump’s ultra-wealthy nominees, the Washington Post reported Thursday that Mnuchin had failed to report his corporate interests in the Cayman Islands as well as more than $100 million in real estate and art holdings in an initial submission to the Senate panel reviewing his nomination. Though this lapse drew some flak from committee Democrats, it did little to hurt the former Goldman Sachs executive’s chances of confirmation by the Republican-controlled Senate.

While some of Trump’s nominees may take their time to get through the confirmation process, Democratic Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer announced Thursday that a deal had been reached to approve retired Marine Corps Gen. James “Mad Dog” Mattis as Pentagon chief and retired Marine Corps Gen. John F. Kelly as head of the Department of Homeland Security shortly after Trump’s inauguration today.

“I looked at their records…and I think they’d be very good,” Schumer noted approvingly. He also indicated that Republican Representative Mike Pompeo would be confirmed as CIA director either today or on Monday.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Budget Austerity under Trump, Prepares to Slash Federal Budget by $10.5 Trillion Over Next Decade

One day after US President Donald Trump delivered an ultranationalist speech at his inaguration, and even as millions in the US and hundreds of thousands more around the world were protesting his inauguration, Trump went to the Langley, Virginia headquarters of the Central Intelligence Agency to pledge his “love” and “1,000 percent” support.

The bulk of his rambling remarks, however, consisted of an attack on the media. Trump first accused the press of fabricating a feud between his transition team and the intelligence agencies and then charged it with deliberately underreporting the turnout for his inauguration the previous day. The new administration’s open feud with the corporate-controlled media underscores the degree of conflict and tension within the state as Trump takes office.

“And the reason you’re my first stop,” Trump told the audience of some 400 CIA employees, “is that, as you know, I have a running war with the media. They are among the most dishonest human beings on earth… they sort of made it sound like I had a feud with the intelligence community.”

Just ten days before, Trump had used his first postelection press conference to accuse the CIA of leaking a report claiming that the Kremlin had a dossier of compromising information on him. He compared the CIA’s alleged leak to the tactics of Nazi Germany.

This was a high point in a months-long public conflict between Trump and the bulk of the intelligence establishment over official claims of Russian government intervention in the 2016 election, allegedly aimed at undermining Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and tipping the vote to Trump.

Spearheaded politically by the Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign, and promoted by most of the corporate media, the McCarthyite-style campaign portrayed Trump as a stooge of Russian President Vladimir Putin because he talked of seeking improved relations with the Kremlin. This warmongering agitation, carried out without any factual substantiation of Russian meddling in the election, was initially aimed at attacking Trump from the right and creating the conditions for a Clinton administration to sharply escalate US military preparations against Russia. After Trump’s unexpected election victory, the campaign was revived in an attempt to block any rapprochement by the incoming government with Moscow.

Despite the complicity of the media in this reactionary campaign, Trump’s attempt to portray his feud with the CIA as a media invention is a patent lie. In Langley, he followed up this charge with a harangue against the press for allegedly underestimating the turnout for the inauguration in order to discredit his administration.

He estimated the attendance at “a million, a million and a half people,” an absurdly inflated figure refuted by aerial photographs showing a far smaller crowd than for Barack Obama’s 2009 inauguration and by Washington Metro statistics pointing to a crowd of about 250,000.

Saying “we caught them in a beauty” of a lie, he declared ominously, “And I think they’re going to pay a big price.”

He then made much of an inaccurate report published Friday by Timemagazine, and quickly retracted, that Trump had moved a bust of Martin Luther King, Jr. out of the Oval Office.

Several hours later, the new White House held an, if anything, even more bizarre event. Trump press secretary Sean Spicer called a news conference in the White House briefing room at which he angrily attacked the press corps for lying about the inauguration turnout and all but accused it of sedition. After lashing out for some ten minutes, spouting a series of falsehoods about the attendance at the previous day’s event, he turned on his heels and walked out, refusing to take questions from the stunned reporters.

At neither appearance was any acknowledgment made of the unprecedented character and massive scale of the anti-Trump demonstration taking place a few blocks away and the hundreds of others taking place across the country and internationally.

Declaring Friday’s turnout to be “the largest audience to ever witness an inauguration, period, both in person and around the globe,”—a complete fabrication—Spicer added, “These attempts to lessen the enthusiasm of the inauguration are shameful and wrong.”

He then accused the media of “sowing division” with “deliberately false reporting” in an effort to undermine the new president, whose address was about “unifying the country.”

“There’s been a lot of talk in the media about the responsibility to hold Donald Trump accountable,” he warned, “and I’m here to tell you that it goes two ways. We are going to hold the press accountable as well.”

This was followed up by further threats against the press by Trump spokespeople who appeared on the Sunday morning news interview programs.

White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus told “Fox News Sunday” that “The media, from day one, has been talking about delegitimizing the election, talking about the Russians, talking about everything you can imagine, except the fact that we need to move this country forward.”

He continued: “I’m saying there’s an obsession by the media to delegitimize this president, and we are not going to sit around and let it happen. We’re going to fight back tooth and nail every day, and twice on Sunday.”

Top Trump aide Kellyanne Conway reinforced the attack in an appearance on NBC News’ “Meet the Press.” Speaking of Trump, she declared, “He has just absorbed an unprecedented…deluge of negative criticism and coverage that’s frankly unfair and a little bit dangerous to our democracy.”

In relation to press accounts of Spicer’s performance, she said, “It is completely irresponsible, if not worse, for members of the media to be calling our press secretary a liar or worse…” She called Spicer’s lies “alternative facts” and followed with a direct threat: “If we are going to keep referring to our press secretary in those type of terms, I think we are going to have to rethink our relationship here.”

Trump’s anger is directed in the first instance against an utterly corrupt and subservient corporate-controlled press, which is rightly held in contempt by broad sections of the population because of its role as a purveyor of government lies and propaganda.

The new government, a direct instrument of the financial oligarchy, is nevertheless out to further muzzle the media in order to carry through a violent attack on the democratic rights and social conditions of the working class and prepare bigger and bloodier wars internationally.

Cowardly to its core and thoroughly bribed by the corporate elite, the establishment press is incapable of offering a principled defense of freedom of the press and speech.

Nor will the Democrats oppose Trump’s assault on democratic rights. This has already been demonstrated by the attempts of leading Democrats to attack Trump’s appearance at CIA headquarters from the right.

The New York Times, which functions as the unofficial house organ of the Democratic Party, managed to incorporate an attack on WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange in its coverage of Trump’s appearance, writing: “He did not mention his apparent willingness to believe Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, who is widely detested at the CIA, over his own intelligence agencies.”

Adam Schiff of California, the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, and Charles Schumer, the Democratic Senate minority leader, both attacked Trump for showing insufficient deference to the CIA. Neither of them even raised the threat to press freedom and democratic rights posed by the administration’s broadsides.

Schiff said: “While standing in front of the stairs representing CIA personnel who lost their lives in the service of their country—hallowed ground—Trump gave little more than a perfunctory acknowledgment of their service and sacrifice.”

Schumer, appearing on ABC News’ “This Week” program, denounced Trump for raising the possibility of reducing sanctions against Russia. He touted legislation he is cosponsoring with Republican war hawks John McCain and Lindsey Graham to block the executive branch from easing the sanctions.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Delivers Diatribe Against Press at CIA Headquarters

En 1985, miembros del temible escuadrón del Ejército discutieron cómo implementar la “próxima campaña antisubversiva”. Los datos surgen de la desclasificación de Obama.

A fines de marzo de 1985, un año y medio después de la asunción presidencial de Raúl Alfonsín, miembros del Batallón 601 de Inteligencia del Ejército se reunieron para discutir cómo mantener activa la “lucha contra la subversión” en plena democracia. El que tomó la voz cantante fue el coronel Luis Faustino Adolfo Suárez, identificado como jefe de Contrainteligencia del Batallón, quien afirmó que era indispensable establecer canales informales y discretos de comunicación con agentes de la Policía Federal Argentina para involucrar a dicha fuerza en la “próxima campaña antisubversiva”.

El dato surge de uno de los archivos secretos de los Estados Unidos que fueron desclasificados esta semana por el gobierno de Barack Obama, según lo que el mandatario le había prometido a Mauricio Macri durante su visita en marzo a la Argentina. El documento es  otra prueba de que, durante los primeros años del regreso a la democracia, las estructuras represivas de la dictadura militar se mantuvieron activas. De hecho, el Batallón 601 fue disuelto recién en 1985.

El despacho de inteligencia remitido desde Buenos Aires al Consejo de Seguridad Nacional de la Casa Blanca, entonces encabezado por el presidente Ronald Reagan, señalaba que en la reunión se había conversado sobre supuestos “preparativos militares de gran escala por parte del PRT-ERP y de un amplio tráfico clandestino de armas en la Argentina” que podían ser tomados como “indicios de que actividades subversivas podrían volver a tener lugar en la Argentina”. Suárez también le dijo al puñado de agentes presentes del Batallón –entre los que también estaba el mayor Rodolfo Dellatorre, vicejefe de Contrainteligencia– que él veía críticamente el modo en que la represión política había sido llevada a cabo durante los años setenta debido a una extendida “falta de experiencia, coordinación entre fuerzas y conducción clara y decidida”.

Suárez señaló que la “próxima campaña antisubversiva” debía realizarse en base a un programa “bien supervisado y centralizado”, que tuviera como elemento clave la coordinación con la Policía. Manifestó que “el Batallón debía proceder cuidadosamente en el establecimiento de contactos con la PFA y asegurarse de que los policías elegidos para cooperar fueran discretos y confiables”. Y dijo contar con una lista de altos jerarcas policiales a los que podrían consultarles qué oficiales eran recomendables para lo que buscaba el Batallón 601.

Al igual que muchos otros documentos incluidos en esta segunda tanda de desclasificaciones –la primera se difundió en agosto–, el archivo en cuestión tiene tachaduras que posiblemente buscan preservar la identidad de las fuentes.

Jugosos. Carlos Osorio, director del Proyecto Cono Sur del Archivo de Seguridad Nacional (NSA), una institución no gubernamental con sede en la Universidad George Washington que se dedica a sacar a la luz papeles confidenciales acumulados durante décadas por los distintos gobiernos estadounidenses, se ocupó de relevar y difundir esta nueva desclasificación. “Esta segunda tanda de archivos tiene la mitad de tamaño que la anterior, pero es mucho más jugosa –dijo Osorio a PERFIL–. Han sido muy abiertos con esta desclasificación, hay archivos marco que incluso podrían citarse en causas judiciales”.

Los documentos también aportan información sobre la Operación Cóndor y, en particular, sobre los tempranos planes que tenían las dictaduras de Argentina, Uruguay y Chile para exportar la coordinación represiva y la persecusión a disidentes hacia Europa. “Sabíamos que eso había existido, pero no conocíamos que con ese nivel de osadía y descaro –agregó Osorio–. Incluso hay pruebas de que planearon asesinar a miembros de Amnesty International”. El conocimiento histórico sobre la Operación  Cóndor ha sido siempre fragmentario, producto del trabajo de rompecabezas de investigadores. En esta desclasificación aparecen informes detallados de la CIA donde el cuadro de la represión extraterritorial empieza a verse más completo.

Facundo F. Barrio

  • Posted in Español
  • Comments Off on Argentina – Archivos secretos de EE.UU.: el Batallón 601 planeó seguir operando en plena democracia

Life Without Bees: The Effects on Food

January 23rd, 2017 by Jennifer Forbes

Due to climate change, the increased use of pesticides and a range of other causal factors, bee populations have decreased steadily over the past years. This could result in a huge impact on our food supply and indeed, our health.

As a matter of fact, one in every three bites of food consumed around the world depends on pollinators, bees in particular, for a successful crop, and without these hard-working insects most of our favorite foods would sadly not exist.

Furthermore, bees are responsible for the reproduction of alfalfa and clover, which feed cattle and other grazing animals, so without them we would lose a significant portion of our milk, cheese, butter, yogurt and ice creams.

There is no doubt that without these delicious foods, our lives would become duller. Yet, there is an even more frightening reality. With the decline of bees, not only would the foods we love disappear, but also the food we need. Some of the most vitamin and mineral-rich foods are dependent on insect pollination. Deficiencies in these nutrients can have devastating effects on human health, with an increased risk of diabetes, cancer and heart disease, as well as malnutrition and mortality in less-developed regions.

Below we have taken a look at foods that are under direct threat if we do not save the bees, and it is not just honey.

Breakfast

How your Breakfast is affected

Almonds (granola)

Almond blossoms rely entirely on pollination by bees, and it is not just the almonds that need the bees for survival; the bees need almonds. The blossoms provide the first good pollen in California (where 80% of the world’s almonds are harvested), and this source is hugely important for the bees as it gives them valuable strength at the start of the season.

Blueberries

90 percent of all blueberry crops are pollinated by bumble bees and blueberry bees, which means that scarcity would drive skyrocketing prices for these antioxidant-packed super berries.

Coffee

The coffee plant is self-pollinating but still needs cross-pollination from bees to develop healthy yields. The flower of the coffee tree is only open for pollination for three or four days, and if it does not get pollinated in that short window, the crop will become weaker and more prone to disease. Although coffee would be likely to exist without bees, it would become very expensive and rare.

Orange juice

90 percent of orange trees depend on pollination by bees. There are, however, some varieties that are self-pollinating types, such as the Navel Orange.

Pumpkin seeds (granola)

Pumpkin seeds contain high levels of magnesium, which is beneficial for your blood pressure and can help prevent sudden cardiac arrest, heart attack and stroke. These nutritional power seeds are heavily dependent on squash bees and it is estimated that 90 percent of crops would disappear without them.

Rapeseed (oil) spread

Both rapeseed (including canola) oil and spread are at risk from the decline of bees. The furry pollinators benefit vastly from the nutrition of these bright yellow flowers, but sadly the crops are often heavily treated with pesticides.

Raspberries

Raspberries require insects to insure pollination as the crops otherwise would be misshapen, smaller and fewer. These powerful berries can help reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer and diabetes.

Strawberries

Bee pollination is not essential, but many farmers use bees to complement wind pollination as insect pollination can help produce berries of higher quantity and quality.

Sunflower spread (oil) and seeds

The heavy and sticky character of sunflower pollen requires it to be carried by bees and other pollinators rather than wind. If you are using sunflower spread on your sandwich or eat granola with sunflower seeds, you might need to switch to an alternative if bees die out.

Lunch / Dinner

How your Lunch / Dinner is affected

Cucumbers

Without bees, the majority of cucumber crops would not exist (so no more pickles on your burger). It has been reported that cucumber farmers have already seen a significant decrease in their crop yields.

Mustard

One third of all mustard plants require bee pollination, meaning a significantly smaller dash of mustard to go with your meal. Mustard is not solely used as a condiment; the seeds can help treat inflammatory conditions such as arthritis.

Onions

Onions are harvested before blooming and only require pollination when grown to produce seeds. Fewer bees would make it difficult and expensive for farmers to acquire seeds, which would result in a diminished supply and increased prices.

Peppers

Bees are not entirely necessary to pollinate peppers as wind tends to circulate the pollen, but the quality and quantity is significantly improved when pollinated by insects. Today, bees are often used to pollinate peppers growing in sheltered locations or greenhouses, which means we are able enjoy locally-sourced peppers, even out of season. That would change without bees.

Potatoes

Although the potato plant does not require bee pollination to produce, it needs to be pollinated in order to breed, which means supply would most likely decrease significantly.

Sesame seeds

More than 80% of all pollination is performed by insects, and bees comprise nearly 80% of the total insect population. Due to their rich nutritional value, sesame seeds play an important role in many people’s diets. A decline in bees would not only result in seed-free bread for your burger, it could, more importantly, lead to increased malnutrition in some of the world’s poorest countries.

Tomatoes

While most tomato types are self-pollinating, bees can help increase fruit production and quality significantly. Hence, without bees, the supply of one of our best-loved vegetables would sadly diminish.

Dessert

How your Dessert is affected

Apples

Apples are heavily reliant on cross-pollination and are one of the foods that would suffer most if bees disappeared. An absence of bees would result in a drastic price increase as well as a lower quality of crop, taste and nutrient profile.

Blackberries

These delicious summer berries are dependent upon bees for pollination. If bees died out, the effectiveness of pollination would drop and plants would produce significantly fewer seeds.

Kiwi

Bumblebees are especially effective pollinators of kiwifruits as their large and furry bodies carry a great amount of pollen. Without bees, these vitamin C rich fruits are at risk.

Pumpkins

Massively dependent on pollinators, it is estimated that 90% of pumpkin, squash and gourd crops would disappear with the bees. That means no pumpkin carving or pumpkin pies.

Conclusion

In a world without bees, our food would not be as tasty, nutritious or plentiful. Some of our favorite foods would disappear completely whilst others would be scarce and expensive. Here we have highlighted the vegetables, fruits, nuts and seeds that are dependent on bees, but even meat and dairy products would be at risk as many cows’ diets consist mainly of pollinator-dependent alfalfa and clover.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Life Without Bees: The Effects on Food

It seemed an unnecessarily grand gesture, but the English Premier league discovered last week that Manchester United had appointed its own counterterrorism manager.  The person is said to be a former inspector from Greater Manchester Police’s specialist research unit.  As with everything else in matters of security, such a move will stir and spark discussion: if they have one, why not us? Club boards are bound to be meeting over the subject.

This has happened despite the Football Association’s keen confidence that the standards of security at English football venues are second to none.  “Irrespective of league position, stadium size or attendance; the way in which the grounds of our football clubs are operated ensures that crowd safety, accessibility and enjoyment are world class as standard.”[1]

The UK Government has its own Guide to Safety at Sports Grounds, which was commissioned by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. In its fifth edition, it has come to be known as The Green Guide, the salient benchmark.

The Green Guide acknowledges the need for counter-terrorist approaches, including the necessity of searching “spectators more thoroughly prior to entry.  This may require extra temporary arrangements and the deployment of additional resources on the approaches to the turnstiles or entry points, which in turn may reduce the rate at which spectators can enter.”[2]

The authors of the report also note the Counter Terrorism Protective Security Advice for Stadia and Arenas produced by the National Counter Terrorism Security Office.  With such an array of advising documents, the spectator can be either assured or irritated that appropriate measures are going to be in place against attack.

Despite supposedly exemplary state of stadium security, breaches do take place.  Manchester United’s appointment came in the wake of two incidents designated by The Guardian as blunders. May’s Premier League match with Bournemouthwas a disruptive affair: a questionable package had been discovered in a toilet.  A moment of panic ensued, then evacuation.

As things transpired, the suspected item proved harmless enough. The package had been, of all things, actually placed there by a security firm, a costly oversight that meant the match had to be rescheduled.

The lavatories were again the site of another breach, this time featuring two United fans who wished to capitalise on their tour of Old Trafford by icing the cake.  Their method proved childishly simple: conceal themselves in the good old water closet long enough to sneak in to see the match against Arsenal. The ploy failed, and the police duly tidied up.

As with much in the world of counter-terrorism speak, inconsistencies reign.  A counter-terrorism system can be lauded, yet breached in the twinkling of an eye.  This can happen despite the fact that Old Trafford remains heavily policed.  Turning up at a match entails searches of cars of owners wishing to avail themselves of the car park; spectators are searched at the turnstiles.  A perfect detection system, should it ever exist, would be intolerably intrusive.

Sporting officials have every reason to fear vulnerability of their sports venues, though football’s, at times pugilistic history, suggests that some of the greatest threats have been the fans themselves.  As is the fashion these days, fearing the next Islamic State attack or inspired attack, governs discussion and deliberation.

However an attacker is inspired (the lone-wolf term remains all too convenient and problematic), the danger in any such attack remains inherent and genuine.  As with everything else in the business of inflicting terror, theatrics and horror are ingredients to the pudding of mayhem.  The problem, as ever, remains detection, an imperfect science at best.

Manchester United’s appointment shines a light on the securitisation of the very pleasure of attending sporting venues, a process that has, in truth, been going on for some years.  Baroness Ruth Henig has even insisted on law changes to make entertainment venues through the UK undergo counter-terror training.[3]

The clubs, it would seem, have decided to buy into the rhetoric of counter-terrorism paradoxically making football seem lesssafe.  Counter-terrorist czars are being sought.  Clubs, as always, wish to be seen to be doing something. But nothing will ever eliminate the element of chance.

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

Notes

[1] http://www.thefa.com/football-rules-governance/more/stadium-safety

[2] http://www.safetyatsportsgrounds.org.uk/sites/default/files/publications/green-guide.pdf

[3] http://www.bbc.com/sport/football/38661302

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Sports and Security: Manchester United’s Counter-Terrorism Chief

The push to commercialise the growing of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is currently held up in court due to a lawsuit by Aruna Rodrigues. The next hearing is due in February. Rodrigues has indicated at length that, to date, procedures and tests have been corrupted by fraudulent practices, conflicts of interests and gross regulatory delinquency.

Dr Deepak Pental, lead researcher into the crop at Delhi University, has now conceded that the GM mustard in question has not even been tested against varieties of non-GM mustard for better yields. That seems very strange given that the main argument for introducing GM mustard is to increase productivity in order to reduce edible oils imports (a wholly bogus argument in the first place).

All of this should in itself provide sufficient cause for concern and have alarm bells ringing. It raises the question: what then is the point of GM mustard?

Consider too that the drive to get India’s first GM food crop into the field and on the market also goes against the recommendations of four high-level reports that have advised against the adoption of these crops in India: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal; The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (August 2012); The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012); and The ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (June-July 2013).

These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that existing proper biosafety and regulatory procedures are inadequate. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the TEC was scathing about the regulatory system prevailing in India, highlighting its inadequacies and inherent serious conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on commercial release of GM crops. The PSC also arrived at similar conclusions.

It might seem perplexing that the current Modi-led administration seems to be accelerating the drive for GM given that the BJP manifesto stated: “GM foods will not be allowed without full scientific evaluation on the long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers.” Yet none of this has occurred.

According to eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, these official reports attest to just how negligent and unconcerned India’s regulators are with regard to the risks of GMO contamination. They also attest to a serious lack of expertise on GM issues within official circles.It now clear that placing GM crops on the commercial market in the first place (in the US) was based on the subversion or bypassing of science and that their introduction poses a risk to food securityhuman health and animal, plants and soil as well as the environment in general.

In India, the only commercialised GM crop (bt cotton) is a failing technology that has severely impacted farmers’ livelihoods.

As bad as all of this might seem, the real significance of GM mustard lies in the fact it could be India’s first GM food crop. In this sense, it should be regarded as a pioneering crop that would open the doors to a range of other GM food crops that are currently in the pipeline for testing.

GM provides a handful of companies with an ideal tool for securing intellectual property rights over seeds (and chemical inputs) and thus gaining corporate control over farming and agriculture. Despite the GMO industry saying that GM should be but one method within a mix, evidence indicates that this is impractical due to cross-contamination and that corporations and their mouthpieces are seeking to denigrate/replace existing food production practices in order to secure greater control over global agriculture. In effect, the only reason for imposing GM crops on India seems to be to facilitate corporate imperialism.

The issue of GM mustard is not only about a crop but is central to a development paradigm that wants to see a fully urbanised India with a small fraction of people left in agriculture and living in the countryside.US companies and Washington, via the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, are driving the agenda. Does India want to mirror what is effectively a disastrous US model of agriculture? If this is the case, it is highly disturbing, given that it is an unsustainable taxpayer-subsidised sector that has produced a range of social, environmental and health costs outlined in that last link.

We must therefore ask: does India want denutrified food, increasingly monolithic diets, the massive use of agrochemicals, food contaminated by hormones, steroids, antibiotics and a wide range of chemical additives, spiralling rates of ill health, degraded soil, contaminated and depleted water supplies and a cartel of seed, chemicals and food processing companies that seek to secure control over the global food production and supply chain to provide people with low-grade but highly profitable food products?

Things do not look good. A recent UN report said that by 2030, Delhi’s population will be 37 million. In 1991, it was just over 9.4 million. Such rapid, ongoing urbanisation will eat up highly productive farmland on the edges of cities and will place smallholder farmers under even more duress. Quoted in The Guardian, the report’s principal authors, Felix Creutzig, says:

The emerging mega-cities will rely increasingly on industrial-scale agricultural and supermarket chains, crowding out local food chains.

In India, the push to drive at least 400 million from the land and into cities is already underway at the behest of the World Bank: a World Bank that is, under the guise of ‘enabling the business of agriculture’, committed to opening up economies to corporate seeds and agrochemicals and securing global supply chains for transnational agribusiness from field to plate.

The drive is to entrench industrial farming, commercialise the countryside and to replace small-scale farming: small-scale farming that is the backbone of food production in India (and globally) and which is more productive than industrialised agriculture, more sustainable and capable of producing more diverse, nutrient- dense diets. Contrast this with what Green Revolution technologies and ideology has already done to India, including the degradation of its water, its soils and its people’s health (see this and this).

Contrast it with an industrial farming that would bring with it all the problems outlined above. And an industrial farming that would destroy hundreds of millions of livelihoods with little guarantee of work for those whose productive system is to be displaced by that which is to be imposed by the likes of Cargill, Monsanto/Bayer and other corporate entities that fuel industrial agriculture.

The issue of GM mustard is part of a drive that seeks to restructure India to benefit foreign capital; a process that regards as being India ripe for a 30-trillion-dollar corporate hijack.

Food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma describes the situation:

India is on fast track to bring agriculture under corporate control… Amending the existing laws on land acquisition, water resources, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and food processing, the government is in overdrive to usher in contract farming and encourage organized retail. This is exactly as per the advice of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as well as the international financial institutes.

Dr Pental’s GM mustard has roots that trace its origins back to Bayer. Mr Modi, Arvind Subramanian (Chief Economic Advisor to the Indian government) and former governor of the Reserve Bank of India Raghuram Rajan also have roots that can be traced back to Washington, the IMF and the World Bank.

There is an agenda for India. An agenda that regards the peasantry, small farms and India’s rural-based traditions, cultures and village-level systems of food production/processing as backward, as an impediment to ‘progress’. An agenda that regards alternative approaches to agriculture that have been advocated by numerous high-level reports as a hindrance: approaches that would in effect build on and develop the current rural infrastructure and not eradicate it.

There is a push to displace the current productive system with a corporate-controlled model geared towards the maximisation of profit and the erosion of existing deeply-embedded and culturally relevant social relations. For all the fraud and corruption surrounding GM mustard, this alone should convince any bystanders to question the ongoing drive – against all the recommendations – to introduce GM food crops to India.

Finally, none of this is about being ‘anti-GMO’. It is about understanding and challenging the politics of GM and development. Wealthy corporations are flexing their financial and political muscle and are effectively hijacking public institutions for their own ends by slanting, science, politics, policies and regulation (these claims are discussed herehere and here) . It should not be about whether we are pro-GMO or anti-GMO. It is more the case of whether we are anti-corruption and pro-democratic.

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on Development and India: Why Genetically Modified Mustard Really Matters

The push to commercialise the growing of genetically modified (GM) mustard in India is currently held up in court due to a lawsuit by Aruna Rodrigues. The next hearing is due in February. Rodrigues has indicated at length that, to date, procedures and tests have been corrupted by fraudulent practices, conflicts of interests and gross regulatory delinquency.

Dr Deepak Pental, lead researcher into the crop at Delhi University, has now conceded that the GM mustard in question has not even been tested against varieties of non-GM mustard for better yields. That seems very strange given that the main argument for introducing GM mustard is to increase productivity in order to reduce edible oils imports (a wholly bogus argument in the first place).

All of this should in itself provide sufficient cause for concern and have alarm bells ringing. It raises the question: what then is the point of GM mustard?

Consider too that the drive to get India’s first GM food crop into the field and on the market also goes against the recommendations of four high-level reports that have advised against the adoption of these crops in India: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal; The ‘Sopory Committee Report’ (August 2012); The ‘Parliamentary Standing Committee’ (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012); and The ‘Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report’ (June-July 2013).

These reports conclude that GM crops are unsuitable for India and that existing proper biosafety and regulatory procedures are inadequate. Appointed by the Supreme Court, the TEC was scathing about the regulatory system prevailing in India, highlighting its inadequacies and inherent serious conflicts of interest. The TEC recommended a 10-year moratorium on commercial release of GM crops. The PSC also arrived at similar conclusions.

It might seem perplexing that the current Modi-led administration seems to be accelerating the drive for GM given that the BJP manifesto stated: “GM foods will not be allowed without full scientific evaluation on the long-term effects on soil, production and biological impact on consumers.” Yet none of this has occurred.

According to eminent lawyer Prashant Bhushan, these official reports attest to just how negligent and unconcerned India’s regulators are with regard to the risks of GMO contamination. They also attest to a serious lack of expertise on GM issues within official circles.It now clear that placing GM crops on the commercial market in the first place (in the US) was based on the subversion or bypassing of science and that their introduction poses a risk to food securityhuman health and animal, plants and soil as well as the environment in general.

In India, the only commercialised GM crop (bt cotton) is a failing technology that has severely impacted farmers’ livelihoods.

As bad as all of this might seem, the real significance of GM mustard lies in the fact it could be India’s first GM food crop. In this sense, it should be regarded as a pioneering crop that would open the doors to a range of other GM food crops that are currently in the pipeline for testing.

GM provides a handful of companies with an ideal tool for securing intellectual property rights over seeds (and chemical inputs) and thus gaining corporate control over farming and agriculture. Despite the GMO industry saying that GM should be but one method within a mix, evidence indicates that this is impractical due to cross-contamination and that corporations and their mouthpieces are seeking to denigrate/replace existing food production practices in order to secure greater control over global agriculture. In effect, the only reason for imposing GM crops on India seems to be to facilitate corporate imperialism.

The issue of GM mustard is not only about a crop but is central to a development paradigm that wants to see a fully urbanised India with a small fraction of people left in agriculture and living in the countryside.US companies and Washington, via the Knowledge Initiative on Agriculture, are driving the agenda. Does India want to mirror what is effectively a disastrous US model of agriculture? If this is the case, it is highly disturbing, given that it is an unsustainable taxpayer-subsidised sector that has produced a range of social, environmental and health costs outlined in that last link.

We must therefore ask: does India want denutrified food, increasingly monolithic diets, the massive use of agrochemicals, food contaminated by hormones, steroids, antibiotics and a wide range of chemical additives, spiralling rates of ill health, degraded soil, contaminated and depleted water supplies and a cartel of seed, chemicals and food processing companies that seek to secure control over the global food production and supply chain to provide people with low-grade but highly profitable food products?

Things do not look good. A recent UN report said that by 2030, Delhi’s population will be 37 million. In 1991, it was just over 9.4 million. Such rapid, ongoing urbanisation will eat up highly productive farmland on the edges of cities and will place smallholder farmers under even more duress. Quoted in The Guardian, the report’s principal authors, Felix Creutzig, says:

The emerging mega-cities will rely increasingly on industrial-scale agricultural and supermarket chains, crowding out local food chains.

In India, the push to drive at least 400 million from the land and into cities is already underway at the behest of the World Bank: a World Bank that is, under the guise of ‘enabling the business of agriculture’, committed to opening up economies to corporate seeds and agrochemicals and securing global supply chains for transnational agribusiness from field to plate.

The drive is to entrench industrial farming, commercialise the countryside and to replace small-scale farming: small-scale farming that is the backbone of food production in India (and globally) and which is more productive than industrialised agriculture, more sustainable and capable of producing more diverse, nutrient- dense diets. Contrast this with what Green Revolution technologies and ideology has already done to India, including the degradation of its water, its soils and its people’s health (see this and this).

Contrast it with an industrial farming that would bring with it all the problems outlined above. And an industrial farming that would destroy hundreds of millions of livelihoods with little guarantee of work for those whose productive system is to be displaced by that which is to be imposed by the likes of Cargill, Monsanto/Bayer and other corporate entities that fuel industrial agriculture.

The issue of GM mustard is part of a drive that seeks to restructure India to benefit foreign capital; a process that regards as being India ripe for a 30-trillion-dollar corporate hijack.

Food and trade policy analyst Devinder Sharma describes the situation:

India is on fast track to bring agriculture under corporate control… Amending the existing laws on land acquisition, water resources, seed, fertilizer, pesticides and food processing, the government is in overdrive to usher in contract farming and encourage organized retail. This is exactly as per the advice of the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as well as the international financial institutes.

Dr Pental’s GM mustard has roots that trace its origins back to Bayer. Mr Modi, Arvind Subramanian (Chief Economic Advisor to the Indian government) and former governor of the Reserve Bank of India Raghuram Rajan also have roots that can be traced back to Washington, the IMF and the World Bank.

There is an agenda for India. An agenda that regards the peasantry, small farms and India’s rural-based traditions, cultures and village-level systems of food production/processing as backward, as an impediment to ‘progress’. An agenda that regards alternative approaches to agriculture that have been advocated by numerous high-level reports as a hindrance: approaches that would in effect build on and develop the current rural infrastructure and not eradicate it.

There is a push to displace the current productive system with a corporate-controlled model geared towards the maximisation of profit and the erosion of existing deeply-embedded and culturally relevant social relations. For all the fraud and corruption surrounding GM mustard, this alone should convince any bystanders to question the ongoing drive – against all the recommendations – to introduce GM food crops to India.

Finally, none of this is about being ‘anti-GMO’. It is about understanding and challenging the politics of GM and development. Wealthy corporations are flexing their financial and political muscle and are effectively hijacking public institutions for their own ends by slanting, science, politics, policies and regulation (these claims are discussed herehere and here) . It should not be about whether we are pro-GMO or anti-GMO. It is more the case of whether we are anti-corruption and pro-democratic.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Development and India: Why Genetically Modified Mustard Really Matters

Trump’s Top Priorities

January 22nd, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

What he should and will do may be world’s apart. His top priorities should be world peace, stability, mutual cooperation with all nations, making America a model state, unlike its current pariah status, along with equity and justice for everyone.

No president in US history reached that standard. Jack Kennedy came closest. Franklin Roosevelt gave Americans vital New Deal policies during the nation’s Great Depression. In large measure, he also bore responsibility for WW II.

Lyndon Johnson waged war on poverty while waging far greater war abroad, dividing the nation in the process, his unpopularity forcing him out of the 1968 race despite his Great Society achievements.

Ignore what politicians say. Follow only what they do. Trump delivered a promising inaugural address, striking a far different tone than most of his predecessors, refreshingly omitting phony rosy scenario hyperbole.

He pledged to serve all Americans straightaway. Saying he’ll “fight for you with every breath in (his) body, and (he’ll) never, ever let you down” is hollow rhetoric without meaningful policy initiatives backing it.

Replacing corporate enriching Obamacare with something worse is no way to fulfill his pledge. Nor is waging war on social justice if that’s what he has in mind.

The pro-Hillary, anti-Trump New York Times outrageously called his ascension to power “a hostile takeover” of the nation’s capital. The self-styled newspaper of record is unrelenting in its maliciousness – furious over an outsider defeating its favorite, wanting revenge, disgracing itself more than already.

Trump:

“We will no longer accept politicians who are all talk and no action, constantly complaining but never doing anything about it.”

The time for empty talk is over. Now arrives the hour of action. Do not allow anyone to tell you that it cannot be done.”

Strong stuff! Nothing Obama, Bush/Cheney, the Clintons and most other US presidents matched it in words or deeds.

Trump no longer is a private citizen. He’s America’s 45th president and armed forces commander-in-chief, an enormous responsibility for anyone.

He’s got bully pulpit power, along with the power and influence of his incumbency. Will he back his lofty rhetoric with positive actions?

Will he serve all Americans responsibly as promised or just its privileged few – the way it’s largely worked before?

Will he be a warrior or peace president? Is his pledge to combat terrorism real or just another ploy to continue US imperial madness?

Will he get along with Russia, China and all other sovereign independent nations or maintain adversarial relations?

Will he do the right things or be just another dirty politician? Will the Trump era be looked back on as transformational or disturbing continuity?

According to Sputnik News, “(t)he Trump Administration will consider the invitation to (Syrian conflict resolution) negotiations in Astana after its official receipt, and will not participate in any negotiations until the formation of a clear US vision of a resolution to the Syrian crisis.”

Earlier Trump complained about wasting trillions of dollars on foreign wars, accomplishing nothing but disaster. Will he curb imperial madness or continue it? Pretexts are easy to create to do what he wishes.

He took dead aim at destructive trade deals sending US jobs abroad. He wants NATO used to combat terrorism, not wage war on other countries, so he said earlier.

He rhetorically challenged longstanding US tradition. Will he initiate the most sweeping changes in American policy since FDR’s New Deal, LBJ’s Great Society, and the Reagan era?

Will his agenda improve things at home and abroad or worsen them? As a newly inaugurated president, it’ll take time to tell.

He deserves a chance to prove his mettle. He’s the first US president letting ordinary Americans communicate with his administration directly – via Twitter.

I’ve done it numerous times, urging him to do the right things in brief comments and links to some of my articles. He’ll get this one.

Incoming tweets are read by staff, checking for possible threats, along with likely gauging public sentiment, other than what polls reveal.

Trump used his inaugural address to communicate directly with ordinary Americans, hoping for improved public approval.

The only way to get it is through responsible governance – legislatively and by executive actions as necessary.

On January 20, a new era in America began – the fullness of time to tell if for good or ill.

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

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com.

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Top Priorities

The US secret intelligence community bet everything on de-legitimizing Donald Trump by claiming that secret sources and methods demonstrated that the Russians hacked the US election. The evidence has not been forthcoming, and there has been such a powerful collection of voices to the contrary that it is the secret world that has de-legitimized itself, at least in the USA.

The US mainstream and progressive media bet everything on the assumption that Hillary Clinton was the inevitable candidate, and in the process demonstrated such a bias against the winning candidate and such a blindness to the will of the public that the US media is now called “fake news” – the public rejects the assertion that skeptical citizens are purveying “fake news.”

The US political duopoly – the Republican and Democratic parties that some say are two wings of the same bird – fought against Donald Trump to the very end. Julian Assange has promised an exciting 2017 – some expect him to do to the Republicans what he did to the Democrats. Political parties are now impotent.

For those in Europe who worry about what an “unshackled” Donald Trump might do to America – and to America’s relations with Europe – it may be helpful to reflect on the fact that Trump has spoken clearly about being against war and waste; against trade deals with secret clauses that disadvantage the public; and against political corruption – “play to pay.” He is, in short, against conventional wisdom and against the “Establishment” that has spent centuries fencing the commons and marginalizing the individual citizen.

For all of his flaws, Donald Trump, according to some observers represents a restoration of the voice of the people. As Europe deals with the millions of illegal immigrants displaced by America’s elective wars in the Middle East, North Africa, and Central Asia, it might do well to consider the possibility that Donald Trump represents the end of the central banking and central politics era – and the end of centralized secret intelligence without accountability – and the beginning instead of a new era where US foreign policy will be about legitimate commerce and peace for all instead of forced globalization and war as a profit center for the few.

It is too early to tell if Donald Trump will be a populist president. While he has chosen business and military elites to replace the political elites in the service of Wall Street – Donald Trump is a “Main Street” president – it remains to be seen if he will follow his instincts and pursue intelligence reform, media reform, and electoral reform.

What might a new world order look like if Donald Trump were to rebuild the US Government?

An end to waste and over-charging. Iran and Donald Trump have one big thing in common: they both believe that Boeing and Airbus and everyone else are double-charging, and we should be paying half the list price for everything. Under Donald Trump the various complexes, from the military-industrial to the pharmaceutical to the agricultural complex are headed for a sharp decline in earnings and excess profits.

The beginning of the open source era. While there is no evidence that Donald Trump intends to create the Open Source Agency (OSA) that his National Security Advisor Michael Flynn was briefed on in 2014, it is clear that a new era of evidence-based governance relying on ethical legal open sources to produce Open Source Intelligence (OSINT), has begun. The spies can no longer repress what they have long called “open sores.” It will take time, but it is possible that a Trump Administration could see that the open source era should include two new elements no one is talking about yet:

Creating the World Brain. Education, intelligence, and research are all broken. They do not do holistic analytics and true cost economics. Bearing in mind the centrality of the five billion poor as the engine of future prosperity, a Trump Administration may reject the neo-conservative attempts to double-down on investments in propaganda – lies – and instead seek to create a means for providing everyone in the world with free access to truthful information “one cell call at a time.” The education of the individual on a just enough, just in time basis, not government regulation and micro-management, is how we heal ourselves.

Open Source Everything Engineering (OSEE). Beyond OSINT lies OSEE – OSEE can achieve the Sustainable Development Goals (SDG) in a fraction of the time as a fraction of the cost of the current dysfunctional industrial-donor paradigm. As a businessman, Donald Trump understands that the cheapest way to keep all those pesky illegal immigrants home is to stop supporting dictators while simultaneously enabling free solar energy, unlimited free desalinated water, free Internet, and free open source housing and other infrastructure advances. The industrial era that concentrated wealth is over – the information era of distributed 3D-printing and a re-birth of local sustainability has begun.

An end to elective wars, regime change operations, and drone assassinations. The foreign policy coup of the neo-conservatives that led to multiple foreign wars is over; the year-long soft coup against Donald Trump by the Establishment has been defeated. Europe should expect America to stop supporting both the United Nations (UN) and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO); to stop placing our military in overseas bases where they serve other countries instead of our own; and to re-focus the US intelligence community on producing decision-support relevant to peace and prosperity instead of engaging in crimes against humanity around the world.

New possibilities for Internet-enabled democracy. Although the Internet is very broken – and Facebook and Google have shown themselves to be above the law and ready to censor any opinion not approved by Eric Schmidt or George Soros – Parag Khanna among others has illuminated possibilities is his two books Connectography and Technocracy. If Donald Trump created the Trump Channel that places before the public a balanced budget with line item detail; if he demands that all legislation be posted in advance of being voted on; and most importantly, if he created a 24/7 interactive polling infrastructure that empowers all citizens including the 47% that did not vote at all in 2016, to be engaged informed citizens, not only would he bury the two-party tyranny, he would create new national conversation Of, By, and For all US citizens – a new global standard.

An end to Empire, an end to Central Banking. The Holy Grail of democracy is to be found in the death of Central Banking. Central banking – the creation of false wealth out of nothing and the imposition of both interest and exchange rates too easily manipulated with income taxation that exempts banks and fraudulent non-profits from taxation, have been the death of democracy. While the soft coup has been defeated, there is still a war going on in America, between those who wish to continue sacrificing the American public at the altar of globalization and concentrated wealth; and those who wish to end the Empire rooted in central banking and secret agencies managing global criminal networks, in favor of a restored America the Beautiful.

Emergence is not pretty. In my view, Donald Trump is the ugly duckling. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. This may surprise many in Europe, but from where I sit as a former infantry officer, former spy, and champion of open source everything, Donald Trump is the change agent we have all been praying for. He absolutely merits every possible courtesy.

Robert David Steele

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump Intelligence: Sometimes Really Big Lies Are Good – When Seen to Be Lies!

During six years of Obama’s war, three rounds of Geneva talks failed – because of US obstructionism.

Neocons infesting Obama’s administration wanted endless war for regime change, not peace; mass slaughter and destruction, not conflict resolution; chaos, not calm.

Will Trump go a different way? It’ll take a while to find out. Much depends on what he decides. Sunday is his third day in office.

Though active pre-inauguration, Friday and Saturday, he won’t hit the ground running until Monday – even though working days are every day for presidents.

Russia extended an invitation to his administration to participate in Astana, Kazakhstan Syria peace talks – specifically National Security Advisor Michael Flynn. Delegations from Syria, Russia, Iran, Turkey, an umbrella group representing opposition terrorists (excluding ISIS and al-Nusra), and pro-Western UN special envoy Staffan de Mistura are attending.

According to acting State Department spokesman Mark Toner, “(g)iven our presidential inauguration and the immediate demands of the transition, a delegation from Washington” won’t be participating.

Trump’s secretary of state designee Rex Tillerson hasn’t yet been confirmed. On Monday, Senate Foreign Relations Committee members will vote on his nomination.

Republicans hold a one seat majority. Neocon senators Marco Rubio (FL) and John McCain (AZ) haven’t said if they’ll support or oppose him.

With or without majority Foreign Relations Committee approval, he’s likely to get the needed 50 or more full Senate votes to become Trump’s chief foreign policy official.

Until then, the office of secretary of state is being run by lower-level bureaucrats, including Obama holdover Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Thomas Shannon, Jr.

US ambassador to Kazakhstan George Krol will attend Syria peace talks as an observer. On February 8, follow-up discussions will be held in Geneva, hopefully with full US participation, committed for conflict resolution – not rage for endless war like Obama.

Astana talks will focus on confirming ceasefire terms agreed to by Russia, Iran and Turkey, based on the provisions of Security Council Resolution 2254 – effective midnight December 29, ISIS and al-Nusra excluded.

According to an unnamed source close to the talks, no new initiatives are planned. “The key task is to confirm” ceasefire agreement terms.

From the opposition’s side at the talks will be exclusively representatives of armed groups, who can undertake straight obligations to observe truce.

For the first time, Syrian officials and opposition group representatives will hold face-to-face talks. Whether success is possible this time, unlike earlier, remains to be seen.

Astana was chosen as a neutral venue. Talks are scheduled for January 23 and 24, maybe longer if necessary – to be followed by a news conference when completed.

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

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Syria Peace Talks in Astana. Will Trump Administration Participate?

Just hours ago Donald Trump was finally sworn in as the President of the United States. Considering all the threats hanging over this event, this is good news because at least for the time being, the Neocons have lost their control over the Executive Branch and Trump is now finally in a position to take action. The other good news is Trump’s inauguration speechwhich included this historical promise “We do not seek to impose our way of life on anyone, but rather to let it shine as an example for everyone to follow”. Could that really mean that the USA has given up its role of World Hegemon? The mere fact of asking the question is already an immensely positive development as nobody would have asked it had Hillary Clinton been elected.

The other interesting feature of Trump’s speech is that it centered heavily on people power and on social justice. Again, the contrast with the ideological garbage from Clinton could not be greater. Still, this begs a much more puzzling question: how much can a multi-millionaire capitalist be trusted when he speaks of people power and social justice – not exactly what capitalists are known for, at least not amongst educated people. Furthermore, a Marxist reader would also remind us that “imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism” and that it makes no sense to expect a capitalist to suddenly renounce imperialism.

But what was generally true in 1916 is not necessarily true in 2017.

For one thing, let’s begin by stressing that the Trump Presidency was only made possible by the immense financial, economic, political, military and social crisis facing the USA today. Eight years of Clinton, followed by eight years of Bush Jr and eight years of Obama have seen a massive and full-spectrum decline in the strength of the United States which were sacrificed for the sake of the Anglo-American Empire. This crisis is as much internal as it is external and the election of Trump is a direct consequence of this crisis. In fact, Trump is the first one to admit that it is the terrible situation in which the USA find themselves today which brought him to power with a mandate of the regular American people (Hillary’s “deplorables”) to “drain the DC swamp” and “make America”, as opposed to the American plutocracy, “great again”. This might be somethhing crucial: I cannot imagine Trump trying to simply do “more of the same” like his predecessors did or trying to blindly double-down like the Neocons always try to.

I am willing to bet that Trump really and sincerely believes that the USA is in a deep crisis and that a new, different, sets of policies must be urgently implemented. If that assumption of mine proves to be correct, then this is by definition very good news for the entire planet because whatever Trump ends up doing (or not doing), he will at least not push his country into a nuclear confrontation with Russia. And yes, I think that it is possible that Trump has come to the conclusion that imperialism has stopped working for the USA, that far from being the solution to the contradictions of capitalism, imperialism might well have become its most self-defeating feature.

Is it possible for an ideological system to dump one of its core component after learning from past mistakes? I think it is, and a good example of that is 21st Century Socialism, which has completely dumped the kind of militant atheism which was so central to the 20th century Socialist movement. In fact, modern 21st Century Socialism is very pro-Christian. Could 21st century capitalism dump imperialism? Maybe.

Furthermore, Trump inaugurational speech did, according to RT commentators, sound in many aspects like the kind of speech Bernie Sanders could have made. And I think that they are right. Trump did sound like a paleo-liberal, something which we did not hear from him during the campaign. You could also say that Trump sounded very much like Putin. The question is will he now also act like Putin too?

There will be a great deal of expectations in Russia about how Trump will go about fulfilling his campaign promises to deal with other countries. Today, when Trump pronounced the followings words “We will seek friendship and goodwill with the nations of the world – but we do so with the understanding that it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first” he told the Russians exactly what they wanted to hear: Trump does not pretend to be a “friend” of Russia and Trump openly and unapologetically promises to care about his own people first, and that is exactly what Putin has been saying and doing since he came to power in Russia: caring for the Russian people first. After all, caring for your own first hardly implies being hostile or even indifferent to others. All it means is that your loyalty and your service is first and foremost to those who elected you to office. This refreshing patriotic honesty, combined with the prospect of friendship and goodwill will sound like music to the Russian ears.

Then there are Trump’s words about “forming new alliances” and uniting “the civilized world against Radical Islamic Terrorism, which we will eradicate completely from the face of the Earth”. They will also be received with a great deal of hope by the Russian people. If the USA is finally serious about fighting terrorism and if they really wants to eradicate the likes of Daesh, then Russia will offer her full support to this effort, including her military, intelligence, police and diplomatic resources. After all, Russia has been advocating for “completely eradicating Radical Islamic Terrorism from the face of the Earth” for decades.

There is no doubt in my mind at all that an alliance between Russia and the USA, even if limited only to specific areas of converging or mutual interests, would be immensely beneficial for the entire planet, and not for just these two countries: right now all the worst international crises are a direct result from the “tepid war” the USA and Russia have been waging against each other. And just like any other war, this war has been a fantastic waste of resources. Of course, this war was started by the USA and it was maintained and fed by the Neocon’s messianic ideology. Now that a realist like Trump has come to power, we can finally hope for this dangerous and wasteful dynamic to be stopped.

The good news is that neither Trump nor Putin can afford to fail. Trump, because he has made an alliance with Russia the cornerstone of his foreign policy during his campaign, and Putin because he realizes that it is in the objective interests of Russia for Trump to succeed, lest the Neocon crazies crawl back out from their basement. So both sides will enter into negotiations with a strong desire to get things done and a willingness to make compromises as long as they do not affect crucial national security objectives. I think that the number of issues on which the USA and Russia can agree upon is much, much longer than the number of issues where irreconcilable differences remain.

So yes, today I am hopeful. More than anything else, I want to hope that Trump is “for real”, and that he will have the wisdom and courage to take strong action against his internal enemies. Because from now on, this is one other thing which Putin and Trump will have in common: their internal enemies are far more dangerous than any external foe. When I see David Horowitz declaring himself a supporter of Donald Trump, I get very, very concerned and I ask myself “what does Horowitz know which I am missing?”. What is certain is that in the near future one of us will soon become very disappointed. I just hope that this shall not be me.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump’s Inaugural Speech: Promises, Hopes and Opportunities

In my previous article, titled “The End of Ideology in Cuba?,” I created a fair amount of controversy in stating, “I have always maintained that the most dangerous opposition to the Cuban Revolution comes from the so-called left, and not from the openly right Plattists, or annexationists.”

The majority of readers praised the article; many others participated in the serious debate; and only a couple very strongly objected to it, mainly singling out that particular sentence.

Thus, let us deconstruct the perception. It mentions the “openly right Plattists, or annexationists.” This means that there exists in Cuba both the openly pro-U.S. opposition and the hidden annexationists. The latter comprises these so-called “leftists.” Their narratives are carefully constructed to include some (mild) criticism of the American economic, social and political systems. They do not openly accept capitalism as an alternative, as opposed to the annexationists, who quite frankly do hold the U.S. up as their model. An American who has been living in Cuba as the adopted country for a number of years wrote some thoughtful positive comments on the article and the issue of socialism versus capitalism:

“Up North, in its simplest form, you could reduce it to acceptance of the ‘lesser evil.’ Both systems are flawed, but conveniently, socialism is more flawed, so let’s simply not go there. Any changes to capitalism are purely cosmetic with the objective of avoiding socialism. Here [in Cuba], since we have already arrived at socialism, the argument presented is: capitalism has some good features, let us just add (‘sumar’) those to socialism. Since the approach is to add to (‘sumar’), rather than subtract from (‘restar’), capitalism – that is what makes the objective here reverse to the one up North. Instead of improving socialism with the goal of avoiding capitalism, their idea is to adopt capitalism’s best features, as though both systems were compatible, with interchangeable parts, which of course they are not.”

This is a very good point indeed. One Cuban whom I consulted likened it to “using the spare parts of a Timex watch to fix a Rolex.” In this analogy, of course, the Rolex is socialism, while the Timex is capitalism. Nevertheless, the pieces making up both brands are just not compatible. It may be argued by some of the so-called “left” that Cuba is introducing certain market economy measures that amount to capitalism. However, the market economy existed long before capitalism, even in the most “primitive” systems. It is not an exclusive feature of any one system: capitalism did not invent it. In contrast, Cuba’s changes amount to improving the Rolex but with Rolex brand parts, and not some old pieces from a totally different and incompatible brand.

Thus, the “left” opposition objectively contributes to the American Dream of restoring capitalism in Cuba, even though they of course vehemently deny this. To portray their anti-capitalist image, some of them even define themselves as “democratic-socialists” as opposed to the Cuban socialist system, which is supposedly an authoritarian-type of socialism. The U.S.-centric view of systems specializes in adding hyphenated tickets to concepts, such asdemocratic-socialists. “Democracy” is perhaps the most manipulated concept in politics, an analysis that goes beyond the scope of this short article. Suffice it to mention for the moment that, based on the U.S.-centric view, the term democracy serves as a code word to contradict socialism. In Cuba, when this “democracy” tag is appended by sleight-of-hand, those in the North interested in subverting the Cuban Revolution know that the individuals espousing hyphenated socialism are in their ideological camp.

These and other similar trends within the “leftist” opposition, although seemingly in contradiction with each other, have at least one feature in common. Coming from different angles, they all converge into one common mindset: the Cuban system and government are “authoritarian,” the Communist Party of Cuba and the Army are omnipresent, and the system is centralized whereby the state plays too much of a leading role (even though Cuba has been decentralizing since 2008, but on its own terms within socialism). This opposition outlook ostensibly favours socialism, but their “socialism” is so very democratic. In order to foster this image, every incident in the Cuban system is pounced upon in order to paint Cuba as authoritarian. By relying mainly on some intellectuals, the “leftists” have set their sights on atomizing and dividing Cuban society, with the goal of destroying the unity it has been building since 1959.

In contrast, other Cuban commentators supporting the openly right annexationist trend criticize the Cuban government for not going far enough or fast enough in adopting what they also call “capitalist measures.” The annexationists openly advocate capitalism for Cuba under the tutelage of the U.S. This tendency also blames the “authoritarian” government for holding back what they envisage as Cuba’s inevitable slide into capitalism. Thus, “democracy” is manipulated by both the so-called “leftists” and the openly pro-U.S. and capitalist right.

There is another common denominator linking these two seemingly opposite extremes. There is no doubt that in Cuba today people engage in lively discussion and debate about improving Cuba’s socialism and political system. The attitude toward the U.S. in the new and complicated post-December 17, 2014 context is, of course, tied to these controversies. These deliberations are taking place at many levels and in various circumstances in the Cuban social and political systems. Carrying on a long-standing tradition, these debates constitute a feature of Cuban political culture. If, at this time, one takes the Cuban media as an example, a range of opinion articles is increasingly being published in the official press, such as Granma and Juventud Rebelde. Some of the pieces are written by what one could call “alternative” journalists and writers, such as Iroel Sánchez, Elier Ramírez, Enrique Ubieta, Luis Toledo Sande and Esteban Morales, just to name a few. These intellectuals and many others have their own active blogs and they participate daily through social media to resist the U.S.-led cultural war.

However, when the “left” or right opposition describes Cuba for the benefit of both foreign and some domestics consumption (and make no mistake about it, their views can be found in the foreign press hostile to Cuba), they invariably applaud and highlight what they call “opposition” or “alternative” journalists. The “leftist” opposition forces, supposedly the epitome of pluralism, cite only themselves and like-minded opponents, a very monolithic approach. This is also how the U.S. establishment media deals with debate. They cite only their own kind: a perverse consanguinity. In contrast, the real Cuban alternative intellectuals (only some of whom are mentioned above), those who work within the system for improvements, are blacklisted (or even vilified) by the “leftists.” They bestow these credentials on what they consider bona fide “alternatives,” invariably stirring up a backwash of invitations for both the “left” and right to travel to the U.S. or appear on foreign media in Cuba in exchange for delivering the goods: “Cuba is authoritarian or a dictatorship. Amen.” This quid pro quo is quite flagrant, to the extent that for a Cuban to receive these credentials from them could be considered the kiss of death.

Thus, both the “leftist” opposition and the openly right-wing annexationists are two wings of the same American eagle. One cannot underestimate their influence on some intellectual sectors in Cuban society – it would be naive to do so. However, it would also be wrong for the two wings to overestimate their appeal to Cuban society, because Cuban socialism is characterized by an exceptionally high level of political consciousness broadly accumulated over many decades. This allows Cuban revolutionaries and patriots to see through their manipulation and thus in the process further enrich the Cuban Revolution’s ideological heritage.

Source Prensa Latina

http://www.plenglish.com/index.php?o=rn&id=8265&SEO=cuban-left-opposition-and-annexationists-two-wings-of-same-eagle

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

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Cuban “Left” Opposition and Annexationists: Two Wings of the Same Eagle

Trump and the Deep State

January 22nd, 2017 by Michael Welch

You have to go back to Nixon to find a president with as strong negative views about the agency. But the agency did not get this kind of public disparagement from Nixon.” –

Paul Pillar, a former senior CIA official, in an interview with AlterNet. [1]

 

 

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:28)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)  

Donald Trump has finally taken his oath of office and assumed the role of President of theUnited States of America.

His inauguration on Friday, January 20th coincided with numerous protests both in Washington and in cities across the US and around the world.

Trump’s rise to power and his cabinet picks have provoked numerous questions. Will he indeed build a wall between Mexico and the US? Will he register Muslims? What will become of the Free trade agreements like NAFTA which he has vowed to scrap or renegotiate? If he is mending relations withRussia, what will that mean for current hot-spots Syria and Ukraine, and for foreign policy generally?

On this week’s Global Research News Hour we take a look behind the scenes to determine how political events such as the recent election, are being manipulated to achieve elite ends, and the consequences for US democracy, and perhaps the future of Humanity.

Dr. Jack Rasmus is a progressive journalist, radio host, former union organizer and local president, and author. Hs upcoming book, ‘Central Bankers on the Ropes: Monetary Policy and the Next Depression’ will be released in April.

Professor Michel Chossudovsky is an award-winning author, Professor of Economics (emeritus) at the University of Ottawa, Founder and Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Montreal, and Editor of Global Research.

Mark Robinowitz is a writer, political activist, ecological campaigner and permaculture practitioner and publisher of oilempire dot us, a political map to connect the dots. campaigner and permaculture practitioner for over three decades.

 LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Play

Length (59:28)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)  

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 every Thursday 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 

Notes:

1) http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/trump-cia-war

According to German broadcaster Deutsche Welle (DW), German security and intelligence agencies were particularly familiar with the Berlin attacker, Anis Amri, long before he plowed a large truck into a Christmas market, killing 12 and injuring many more.

In an article titled, “All the cracks that Berlin suspect Amri slipped through,” a now familiar litany of excuses are peddled before audiences in a bid to explain why the suspect wasn’t stopped, weeks, months, even years before he carried out his attack, as soon as it became apparent he was both violent and a danger to society.

DW’s article admits:

The suspect first caught authorities’ attention in November 2015, when he unwittingly told an informant for the investigative police unit (BKA) in the state of North-Rhine Westphalia that he wanted to “do something in Germany,” according to a document obtained by the daily Süddeutsche Zeitung. He also claimed that he could get an AK-47 for an attack.

The article claims that from that point onward, Amri was “watched” by German agencies. DW also admits:

Further, he was apparently aggressively seeking an opportunity to undertake an attack in Germany. Information pointing to his dangerous potential became so overwhelming that authorities designated him a threat last February. 

DW then reports:

All information was then handed over to the Berlin public prosecutor’s office. The suspect was observed from March on. He raised no suspicion in the months that followed, and authorities stopped surveilling him in September.

In December, Amri would carry out his deadly attack, just as attackers in France and Belgium did after being surveilled – in some cases  for years – before being allowed to drop off security and intelligence agencies’ radars just ahead of their respective, deadly attacks.

Germany’s weak excuses for not apprehending a man who openly admitted he sought to acquire weapons and take human lives echo similarly convenient excuses provided by the French government following a string of fatal attacks across its territory.

Paris has claimed a lack of resources to process the large number of potential terrorists returning from battlefields France itself has helped send arms, fighters, and other forms of material support to on behalf of terrorist organizations and their allies.

Germany’s excuses might seem plausible if not for the fact that virtually every terror attack that has unfolded  not only in Germany, but across all of Europe follows a similar pattern where suspects are surveilled, questioned, entrapped, even arrested and released multiple times, before ultimately carrying out spectacular, politically convenient attacks across Europe.

Another “Gladio” 

Such purposeful negligence matches another chapter in Europe’s more recent history – that during the Cold War in which NATO security and intelligence agencies maintained a myriad of pan-European terrorist organizations of every imaginable variety, used to assassinate political opponents, carry out deadly and spectacular terror attacks, and otherwise use violence, fear, and intimidation to manipulate both public perception and political outcomes during elections in respective states.

Called “Operation Gladio,” it would be described by the New York Times in a 1990 article titled, “EVOLUTION IN EUROPE; Italy Discloses Its Web Of Cold War Guerrillas,” as:

In Europe’s new order, they are the spies who never quite came in from the cold, foot soldiers in an underground guerrilla network with one stated mission: To fight an enemy that most Europeans believe no longer exists. Theirs is a tale of secret arms caches and exotic code names, of military stratagems and political intrigues. At best, their tale is no more than a curious footnote to the cold war. The question is if, at worst, it could be the key to unsolved terrorism dating back two decades.

The New York Times would also reveal:

The focus of the inquiry is a clandestine operation code-named Gladio, created decades ago to arm and train resistance fighters in case the Soviet Union and its Warsaw Pact allies invaded. All this week, there have been disclosures of similar organizations in virtually all Western European countries, including those that do not belong to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. 

The New York Times would also describe how Gladio was used to manipulate public perception, use the specter of fear regarding communism after staged terror attacks to coerce populations to vote in governments of Washington’s liking, and essentially frame opposition groups for violence the US and NATO were carrying out with their own terror cells.

The real question is – are there similar networks being created and perpetuated by Western intelligence agencies today, to fill both the ranks of foreign mercenary armies everywhere from Libya and Yemen, to Syria and the borders of Iran – as well as manipulate and impose fear upon the populations of Western states at home?

Spectacular terrorist attacks like those in Paris, Brussels, and Berlin have certainly proven themselves potent events for swaying public opinion regarding political support of particular parties and candidates, as well as fomenting support for wars abroad against “Muslim” nations. There is also the inescapable fact that the very terrorists the West poses as fighting at home are armed, funded, and backed either directly by the West abroad, or through the West’s closest allies in the Middle East – namely Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

While it is tempting for people to fall into the false debate crafted in this newly forming “Cold War,” the lessons of history should teach us that not all is what it appears to be. And when absolutely every terror attack is carried out by suspects deeply intimate with Western security and intelligence agencies, both at home and in Western-sponsored wars abroad, tempting “clashes of civilization” narratives should be replaced with the prospect of Gladio’s inglorious return to Western political calculus.

Additionally, the next time agencies are told to “stop watching” a suspect, perhaps it would be in their best interest to watch them twice as closely, as well as those telling them to “stop watching.”

Tony Cartalucci, Bangkok-based geopolitical researcher and writer, especially for the online magazine New Eastern Outlook”.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Gladio Again: Germany Could Have But Didn’t Stop Berlin Attacker. Why?

Following rhetoric regarding Europe’s refugee crisis, one might assume the refugees, through no fault of Europe’s governments, suddenly began appearing by the thousands at Europe’s borders. However, this simply is not true.

Before the 2011 wave of US-European engineered uprisings across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) transformed into Western military interventions, geopolitical analysts warned that overthrowing the governments in nations like Libya and Syria, and Western interventions in nations like Mali and the Ivory Coast, would lead to predicable regional chaos that would manifest itself in both expanding terrorism across the European and MENA region, as well as a flood of refugees from destabilized, war-racked nations.

Libya in particular, was singled out as a nation, if destabilized, that would transform into a springboard for refugees not only fleeing chaos in Libya itself, but fleeing a variety of socioeconomic and military threats across the continent. Libya has served for decades as a safe haven for African refugees due to its relative stability and economic prosperity as well as the Libyan government’s policy of accepting and integrating African refugees within the Libyan population.

Because of NATO’s 2011 military intervention and the disintegration of Libya as a functioning nation state, refugees who would have otherwise settled in Libya are now left with no choice but to continue onward to Europe.

For France in particular, its politics have gravitated around what is essentially a false debate between those welcoming refugees and those opposed to their presence.

Absent from this false debate is any talk of French culpability for its military operations abroad which, along with the actions of the US and other NATO members, directly resulted in the current European refugee crisis.

France claims that its presence across Africa aims at fighting Al Qaeda. According to RAND Corporation commentary titled, “Mali’s Persistent Jihadist Problem,” it’s reported that:

Four years ago, French forces intervened in Mali, successfully averting an al Qaeda-backed thrust toward the capital of Bamako. The French operation went a long way toward reducing the threat that multiple jihadist groups posed to this West Africa nation. The situation in Mali today remains tenuous, however, and the last 18 months have seen a gradual erosion of France’s impressive, initial gains.

And of course, a French military presence in Mali will do nothing to stem Al Qaeda’s activities if the source of Al Qaeda’s weapons and financial support is not addressed. In order to do this, France and its American and European allies would need to isolate and impose serious sanctions on Saudi Arabia and Qatar, two nations who exists as the premier state sponsors of not only Al Qaeda, but a myriad of terrorist organizations sowing chaos worldwide.

Paradoxically, instead of seeking such sanctions, the French government instead sells the Saudi and Qatari governments billions of dollars worth of weaponry, proudly filling in any temporary gaps in the flow of weapons from the West as each nation attempts to posture as “concerned” about Saudi and Qatari human rights abuses and war crimes (and perhaps even state sponsorship of terrorism) only to gradually return to pre-sanction levels after public attention wanes.

The National Interest in an article titled, “France: Saudi Arabia’s New Arms Dealer,” would note:

France has waged a robust diplomatic engagement with Saudi Arabia for years. In June, Saudi Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman visited France to sign deals worth $12 billion, which included $500 million for 23 Airbus H145 helicopters. Saudi and French officials also agreed to pursue feasibility studies to build two nuclear reactors in the kingdom. The remaining money will involve direct investment negotiated between Saudi and French officials.

The article would also note that Saudi Arabia’s junior partner in the state sponsorship of global terror, Qatar, would also benefit from French weapon deals:

Hollande’s address was delivered one day after he was in Doha, where he signed a $7 billion deal that included the sale of 24 French Rafale fighter jets to Qatar, along with the training of Qatari intelligence officers.

In order to truly fight terrorism, a nation must deal with it at its very source. Since France is not only ignoring the source of Al Qaeda’s military, financial and political strength, but is regularly bolstering it with billions in weapons deals, it is safe to say that whatever reason France is involved across MENA, it is not to “defeat” Al Qaeda.

The refugee crisis that has resulted from the chaos that both Western forces and terrorists funded and armed by the West’s closest regional allies, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, is a crisis that is entirely self-inflicted. The rhetoric surrounding the crisis, on both sides, ignoring this fundamental reality, exposes the manufactured and manipulative nature of French government and opposition agendas.

The chaos across MENA is so significant, and terrorism so deeply rooted in both Western and their Arab allies’ geopolitical equations that even a complete reversal of this destructive policy will leave years if not decades of social unrest in the wake of the current refugee crisis.

But for anyone genuinely committed to solving this ongoing crisis, they must start with the US, European, and Gulf monarchies’ culpability, and resist blaming the refugees or those manipulated into reacting negatively to them. While abuses carried out by refugees or locals are equally intolerable, those responsible for the conflicts and for manipulating both sides of this crisis are equally to blame.

Until that blame is properly and proportionately placed, and the root of the crisis addressed, it will only linger and cause further damage to regional and global security.

Ulson Gunnar, a New York-based geopolitical analyst and writer especially for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook”.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on France’s Self-Inflicted Refugee Crisis. The Result of NATO-Led Wars

Saddam Hussein’s Grandson: Only Turkey Can Enter Mosul

January 22nd, 2017 by Middle East Eye

Mesut Torun rejects allegations of links between IS and Baath Party and says battle of Mosul is ‘war of liberation’ against Iran, US

Mesut Torun is the grandson of the former Iraqi ruler Saddam Hussein. Born and raised in Turkey, the 33-year-old still flies the flag for the now-banned Baath Party and its struggle for what he calls the “liberation” of Iraq from Iran and the US.

Iraqi government forces fighting to capture Mosul from Islamic State militants are committing “genocide” against the population, and are facing resistance from Baathists and other Sunni forces in the city, according to Torun.

Mesut Torun says of the Mosul battle against the Iraqi government: ‘This is a war of liberation, a struggle for independence. We are fighting against Iran, the United States and more than 60 countries’ (MEE)

Baath militants are fighting the Islamic State group, as well as Iran, the US and Shia militias operating in Iraq, claims the late ruler’s grandson, who says that only Turkey should enter the city to protect its Sunni population.

‘This is a war of liberation, a struggle for independence. We are fighting against Iran, the United States and more than 60 countries’

“This is a war of liberation, a struggle for independence. We are fighting against Iran, the United States and more than 60 countries. If only the Iranian militia would withdraw from our territory, we will be able to regain Baghdad within 48 hours,” Torun told Middle East Eye.

Torun, based in Turkey, says the Baath party and its leader Izzet Ibrahim al-Duri has expressed support for the Turkish government and his own relatives came out on the streets in Istanbul during the 15 July coup attempt against President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Torun denies that the Baath cooperate with IS, which is reported to have recruited many former Baath party supporters. Senior Baath intelligence and military officers became instrumental in the militant group’s seizure of swathes of Iraqi territory in 2014, according to several reports.

Torun claimed that the US and Iran control IS, and that the power of the group has been greatly exaggerated by international forces. Stating that there were more than 70 groups in Iraq fighting against government forces, Torun said that the main strength is not IS, but Baath militants. “Kerame Units, Liberation and Peace Brigade and Naqshbandi Army are fighting in Mosul with the Jihad and the High Command of Salvation. All of these groups answer to our leader Izzet Ibrahim al-Duri. Sunni tribes were also involved in this war in 2012. These tribes also belong to our leader.

Of course, there are also small Sunni groups not affiliated to the Baath. The Baath Party and Sunni tribes in Mosul are fighting [the government and foreign forces] not ISIS. This is a struggle for independence against more than 60 countries.

Torun claims IS are in a “state of panic” in Mosul and that the Baath, under the banner of the Naqshbandi Army, have launched attacks against the group in recent days inside Mosul. The Baath Party is part of a coalition of Sunni resistance forces seeking to remove IS and end the Iranian “occupation” of Iraq, he said.

Since the 2003 invasion, we have given 160,000 martyrs. Most of them are senior officers, teachers, engineers. Ba’ath is not just a structure that fights for power in Iraq. Our leader al-Duri does not have a goal to be the prime minister. This is a war of liberation, a struggle for independence.

Torun sums up the demands of the Baath Party for the solution to the crisis in Iraq: “Initially, the end of the Iranian occupation in the country, a new transition government, the beginning of constitutional work and stopping the exclusion of the Sunnis.”

Son of Uday Hussein

Torun’s mother Sevim, who died in 2010, was Turkish. She visited Iraq during the Saddam era and married his eldest son Uday, who met her after she entered a Baghdad beauty contest in 1982. However, the relationship with the Iraqi ruler’s notoriously violent son quickly deteriorated and Sevim, discovering she was pregnant, moved back to Turkey without the knowledge of Uday. Torun was then born.

Torun is one of the few survivors of Saddam Hussein’s family after many, including his father Uday, were killed following the US invasion of Iraq in 2003. He is in contact with the Baath Party, which is still known to be active in Iraq, and shares its view of the situation in the country.

IS power ‘exaggerated’

According to Torun, who argues that IS is a common project of the US and Iran, the power of the organisation is deliberately exaggerated as part of a strategy to destroy the legitimacy of the “Iraqi resistance”.

ISIS is a terrorist organisation, there is no dependence on them. In the past days, the Naqshbandi Army organised major operations against ISIS in Mosul. As a result, we know that there is great panic in the organisation. So we are fighting inside Mosul against ISIS, and outside we are fighting against Iran, the US and Shia militias. I know it’s hard to believe but Baath does not want to put itself in the foreground. It is a part of our strategy. We [the Baath Party] do not ignore IS’ existence in the country, but they [IS] are not the main strength in the conflict.

Torun, who believes that it is not possible for IS to maintain its existence in Iraq, said: “The people of the region, the local forces and the tribes, are permanent here. They are the true owners of the country” and not IS.

‘Genocide’

Describing the conditions and US-backed offensive to capture Mosul as “genocide”, Torun criticises the international community for being silent on the situation.

Civilians are being targeted by a very heavy bombardment. It is very sad that the international community has not reacted to this situation. This is genocide. People are surrounded and struggling in hunger and without medical support. Despite all this, our troops are exhibiting extraordinary resistance.

Torun argues that Mosul is the fortress of the Sunni insurgency. “If Mosul is overtaken by government forces, the security of Turkey will be in danger. We know that Iranian Shia militias have threatened Turkey before. However, we know that the same militias also want to go to Syria to support the Assad regime. If Mosul is lost, all the Sunnis will lose,” he said.

Only Turkey can enter Mosul

Saddam’s grandson said that Turkey would be forced from its Bashiqa base in northern Iraq by pressure from Iran, which wants Turkey pushed out of Iraq.

However the “resistance” forces in Mosul wanted Turkey alone to send its forces to take the city, said Torun. “Iran wants Turkey to be pushed out of the game in Iraq. As the Iraqi resistance, we say that only Turkey can enter Mosul. No other force can enter Mosul. We have also called on Turkey before to solve the problems in the region. Our leader, al-Duri, had previously congratulated the Turkish government after the [2015] election. He ended the statement by saying “your brother Ibrahim” to President Erdogan. We are with the present government for the interests of the region and Turkey.”

Torun also said: “Only the Turkish flag is the unbeaten flag of Islam. It is the flag of the Ottoman Empire, so it is the flag of all of us. That’s what the Baath Party thinks.”

Saddam’s heir?

Torun denied any aspiration to take over the leadership of the Baath party as the heir of Saddam Hussein in Iraq. He said those in the party who believed this “should not talk dreamy. I have no personal passions. I depend on our leader al-Duri.

I do not want to put myself in the foreground. We have a party and an army. Our party has directors. There are people who are martyred in this struggle and who pay a big price. My job as the grandson of Saddam Hussein is to support our party. My only goal is to be a servant and a soldier of Sheikh Izzet Ibrahim al-Duri, our leader. The claims I deserve from my grandfather’s heritage are not true. If I have a right, be merciful to the people of Iraq.

Torun, who is also known as Mesut Uday Saddam Hussein, stated that he wanted to carry his grandfather’s last name, and that this was of spiritual importance to him.

He defended his grandfather’s record, saying that he was a bulwark against the expansion of Iran in the region for many years. “We believe that the US wants to link Iraq to Iran and open up the Shia expansion in the Middle East. My grandfather Saddam Hussein was the safety valve of the Gulf states and Arab society, which prevented the formation of the present Shia sickle. After this safety valve was removed, everyone found himself neighbouring Iranian and sectarian militias.”

Noting that the Trump administration’s Iraq policy was unclear, Torun said the new administration “should develop realistic solutions.”

Links to Turkish militants

Despite keeping a low profile, Torun has been working with radical Islamist associations known in Turkey for their closeness to the Iraqi Baath Party and has made several press statements in front of the Iranian and US consulates. He said that he occasionally received death threats from Kurdish nationalists and Shia militias.

In March 2015, a bomb attack targeted the Istanbul office of Adimlar magazine, where Torun has a senior editorial role. The magazine is known for its ties to the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front or İBDA-C, a militant Salafist group that opposes secular rule in Turkey and has claimed responsibility for small-scale attacks in the country in the past.

The magazine has expressed support for IS, the Iraqi Baath Party and the Sunni population in Iraq. The suspects in the attack that killed one person and injured three others have not been found.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Saddam Hussein’s Grandson: Only Turkey Can Enter Mosul

The last few years were marked by the debate on the characteristics of world politics after the end of the cold war. The majority of major analysts of the Anglo-American political-academic realm left no doubt that we were moving towards the formation of a unipolar world dominated by the United States. The evidence of the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, during the government of George W. Bush, founded on a document under the name of Project for a New American Century, left no margin for debate. This was heightened by the political crisis of the Western political system and the Anglo-Saxonization of International Relations, repeating the “scientific” discourses of the gurus, for example Kaplan, Kagan, Nye, Fukuyama, etc.

In the year 2008, among various experts we published the Diccionario Latinoamericano de Seguridad y Geopolítica (Latin American Dictionary of Security and Geopolitics), where we were among the few voices to note that we were moving towards a multipolar world, contrary to the opinions of the gurus; moreover, while there existed great expectations for the new President of the United States, we said that nothing indicated a change of foreign policy with respect to Bush junior.

Today, coinciding with the end of the presidency of Obama (the Nobel Peace Laureate who bombarded 7 countries in less than six years), we should note, in passing, that the Nobel Prize implies no guarantee. Alfred Nobel was the inventor of dynamite. President Wilson applied dollar diplomacy to the Caribbean, Theodore Roosevelt applied the policy of the bludgeon and Kissinger the so-called “Condor Plan”, and all were Nobel Prize winners. So Obama is one more confirmation that one must take a careful look when a US president gets a Nobel Prize.

In spite of the fact that he began with promises to withdraw his country from international conflict after the Bush junior mandate, Obama leaves office after having maintained the US nation in conflict for a longer period than any other president of the United States.

He expanded the air wars and the use of special forces throughout the world. The number of countries where US special forces are present has grown from 60 in 2009 to 138 in 2016 (in 70% of the countries of the world), according to data of the US Special Operations Command.

To analyse the legacy of President Obama, the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), that specializes in US foreign policy and international affairs, presented data on aerial attacks launched against foreign countries. In 2016 alone, the Obama government dropped at least 26,171 bombs.

While the majority of the bombardments took place in Syria and Iraq, US bombs also reached Afghanistan, Libya, Yemen, Somalia and Pakistan, seven of the biggest Muslim countries.

During the eight years of the Obama mandate, his government not only ordered numerous air attacks, but also reached a record in the sale of arms since the Second World War, attaining 265,471 million dollars.

All this allows us to understand a most important but little known occurrence, that took place on 9th of January 2017, and that we believe to be central. The National Intelligence Council (NIC) of the United States, in their intelligence report for the new President of the US, Mr. Trump, implicitly recognizes the failure of Obama’s war diplomacy, and our now aged Dictionary (surely taken as a “political and ideological essay” by the majority of the Argentinian “neutral scientific” community) is in tune with the report of January 9th. If there were a trial for bad practice in social sciences, many of the sacred monsters would be shaking. This is not a vulgar irony, but a profound reflection that we must all undertake, from the social sciences and the university realm, on the evolution and events of the world system.

For almost two decades, the Global Trends Report of the National Intelligence Council has given rise to strategic conversations inside and outside of the US Government. Since the First Global Trends Report was launched in 1997, a new report is published every four years after the US elections.

Afficher l'image d'origine

Global Trends constitutes an important and strategic report on the evaluation of intelligence services of the forces—and elections—that will shape the world during the coming two decades.

The latest edition of the report “Global Trends: Paradox of Progress” of the National Intelligence Council, presented on January 9th 2017, explores trends and scenarios for the next twenty years.

Critical to its insight and policy-relevance have been meetings worldwide with a wide range of interlocutors—including government officials, scholars, business people, civil society representatives, and others—in workshops and exchanges. There they have examined the perspectives of the economy, demographics, ecology, energy, health and governability, identity and geopolitics and it is vital to understand their consequences for the peace and security of the world.

The NIC crystallizes ideas gleaned from these meetings as well as extensive research in each Global Trends Report published every four years, between the US Presidential Election Day and Inauguration Day.

In general lines, the report of January 9th alerts us about a “close, obscure and difficult” future, due to the increase of hostilities among Nations at levels that have not been seen since the Cold War; as global growth decelerates, the post Second World War “order” is being eroded, and as nationalisms in the framework of globalization are accentuated.

The uncertainty about the United States, together with a “West that looks inwards” and the weakening of international human rights and standards of conflict prevention, have induced Russia and China to put US influence to the test”, says the report.

And it adds “…these challenges will be under the shadow of a hot war, but will generate profound risks of errors in calculation”.

Russia and China already appear as actors able to dispute US influence, recognizing the loss of hegemony, as well as regional conflicts, terrorism and an increase in inequality.

The entity, in their 226-page report published January 9th, alerts “that the new world panorama is bringing the US domination, that followed the cold war, to an end” and hence the next five years “will put the resilience of the United States to the test”. On the other hand, the NIC foresees a growth of populism in the political field at a world level that will “represent a threat to liberalism”. Here we should add that the report does not distinguish the xenophobic parties that have appeared in Europe and regional nationalisms for the preservation of sovereignty, such as occur in Iran or could take on new strength in South America.

More than ever, in the Patria Grande, we must seek to build an Ethical, Political and Strategic Power and we face the tension: Patria Grande taken seriously or nothing. Here is our future, as Manuel Ugarte said.

Translated from Spanish By Cuba-Network in Defense of Humanity
  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US Intelligence Recognizes the End of Unipolar World? “Growth of Populism… End of US Domination”

Trump at Langley, the CIA’s Lion’s Den

January 22nd, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

On Saturday, Trump entered the lion’s den, visiting and speaking at CIA headquarters.

The agency under departed director John Brennan wanted his scalp – delegitimized and undermined, based on phony claims of Russian US election hacking, helping him defeat Hillary.

He’s now America’s 45th president. His incoming CIA director Mike Pompeo has yet to be confirmed. Senate Democrats Ron Wyden (OR), Patrick Leahy (VT) and Richard Blumenthal (CT) delayed his confirmation, solely for political reasons.

It was scheduled for Friday, Trump’s inaugural day. A joint statement said “in these dangerous times, (his) nomination (must) be thoroughly vetted, questioned and debated.”

With or without Pompeo in charge, the CIA constitutes a major threat to Trump, all other prominent figures challenging dirty business as usual – and most important world peace.

The late Chalmers Johnson called the agency incompatible with democratic freedoms. Its “unchecked power” threatens everyone everywhere. Its existence “shorten(s) the life of the American republic.”

At Langley, Trump spoke to around 400 CIA personnel, coming in on their day off to hear him. With Pompeo accompanying him, he criticized Senate Democrats for delaying his confirmation, saying they’re “playing little political games.”

Trump wants him heading the agency posing his greatest threat, saying he was the only one he interviewed for the job. “I didn’t want to meet anybody else. I said cancel them, cancel them.”

He told House Speaker Paul Ryan “I don’t want to lose this guy.” Does he believe Pompeo as his man heading the CIA can protect him from potential agency anti-Trump long knives?

Does he believe a peace offering by showing up as his “first (post-inaugural) stop,” and saying he’s “behind you 1000%…(N)obody…feels stronger about the intelligence community and CIA than Donald Trump” can save him if agency dark forces want him eliminated?

Last week, he blasted now departed CIA head John Brennan for being “the leaker of (anti-Trump) fake news”- referring the fabricated dodgy dossier, claiming Russia has compromising information about him, alleging it could be used for manipulative purposes.

No one is afforded a honeymoon with America’s leading rogue agency without playing by its rules, established by America’s deep state.

If Trump goes his own way, contrary to longstanding US practices, especially geopolitically, he’ll be vulnerable to impeachment or assassination.

Peacemaking at Langley, with his man in charge once confirmed, won’t help if he’s targeted for removal.

His vulnerability, or lack of it, will be better known once his policies become clear. Unprecedented vilification throughout the political season and post-election aftermath isn’t an encouraging sign.

The best advice he should heed is watch your back. Even that won’t help if America’s deep state wants him removed and replaced. Rough and tumble times ahead seem likely.

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

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Trump at Langley, the CIA’s Lion’s Den

Did Trump Just Suggest Another Invasion of Iraq?

January 22nd, 2017 by The New Arab

President Donald Trump on Saturday flippantly suggested to CIA staff that the US might have another chance to invade Iraq and steal the country’s oil wealth.

In unscripted remarks at the CIA headquarters on Saturday, and while introducing Mike Pompeo, his nominee to head the spy agency, Trump said the Islamic State group would have never existed if the US had seized Iraq’s oilfields.

Trump has repeatedly made the erroneous claim, which is contrary to the opinion of most foreign policy experts, on the campaign trail.

Did Trump just suggest another invasion of Iraq?

Trump said the US should have kept Iraqi oil [Getty]

“Now I said it for economic reasons, but if you think about it, Mike, if we kept the oil, you probably wouldn’t have ISIS because that’s where they made their money in the first place, so we should have kept the oil. But, OK, maybe we’ll have another chance,” Trump said.

Trump’s visit to the CIA headquarters came as part of efforts to mend his relationship with intelligence agencies, which he likened to Nazis only ten days earlier.

The remarks demonstrate a complete disregard to international laws that prohibit stealing another country’s resources.

They also signify a complete insensitivity to the tragic consequences of the invasion of Iraq that was based on cooked up intelligence by the same agency at which Trump was speaking.

However, the remarks should not come as a surprise given the following exchange the new US president had with CNN in 2015.

If we would have taken the oil, you wouldn’t have IS, because IS formed with the power and wealth of that oil. They have among the largest oil reserves in the world. We go in, we spend $3 trillion, we lose thousands and thousands of lives, and then, we get nothing. It used to be to the victor belong the spoils. I always said: Take the oil.

Q: “You said you want to bomb the oil fields in Iraq to take on IS?”

A: “The only way you’re going to beat them is that. You know why they’re rich? Because they have the oil.”

Q: “But I don’t think the government of Iraq would want us to bomb their oil fields.”

A: “There is no government in Iraq. The so-called government in Iraq went to Iran to meet with Iran. Iran is going to take over Iraq. That’s as simple as that. I don’t care about the government of Iraq. They’re totally corrupt. Who cares?”

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Did Trump Just Suggest Another Invasion of Iraq?

On January 21st, 2017, the Bank of China has officially opened its regional branch headquarters in Serbian capital Belgrade, to provide banking services for cooperation in investments, trade, tourism and other fields, for countries in the region – Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and others. The ceremony was held in the Government`s Palace and attended by President of the Republic Tomislav Nikolic and members of the Government.

This important development follows last June`s state visit of the President of the Republic of China Xi Jinping to Serbia and also, his talks last week with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic at Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland.

Establishment of the Bank of China`s regional headquarters in Belgrade, is today the main news in all major medias in Serbia and beyond. This morning I commented this event at the private regional network “TV Pink”. Among other, I noted that cooperation under OBOR, as the global initiative, is not important only for development of CEE countries, but for the whole of Europe. Through win win OBOR cooperation Europe and China are getting closer, what is equally positive form economic, cultural and political point of view, particularly now when EU is passing through serious difficulties.

Serbia`s role in the implementation of the China – CEE cooperation under OBOR is growing. Two countries are strategic partners cooperating in various fields.  In the past five years only, partners from the two countries have been constructing or modernizing roads, highways, railways, ports, bridges, tunnels, thermo-electric plant, steelwork factory, strengthening people to people exchange.  As of 1st January this year, no-visa system for citizens of the two countries came into force. A number of infrastructure projects, already implemented, or under implementation in Serbia, are highly important for modernization of connectivity in the CEE region, or in Europe.

Cooperation under CEE-OBOR has proved to be very important for Serbia`s overall economic development, modernization of industry and infrastructure and improvement of international standing.

 

  • Posted in Uncategorized
  • Comments Off on China Extends Economic Influence in Balkans and Southeast Europe, Bank of China Regional Headquarters in Belgrade

On January 21st, 2017, the Bank of China has officially opened its regional branch headquarters in Serbian capital Belgrade, to provide banking services for cooperation in investments, trade, tourism and other fields, for countries in the region – Serbia, Rumania, Bulgaria, Greece, Albania, Macedonia, Montenegro, Bosnia and Herzegovina and others. The ceremony was held in the Government`s Palace and attended by President of the Republic Tomislav Nikolic and members of the Government.

This important development follows last June`s state visit of the President of the Republic of China Xi Jinping to Serbia and also, his talks last week with Serbian Prime Minister Aleksandar Vucic at Davos Economic Summit in Switzerland.

Establishment of the Bank of China`s regional headquarters in Belgrade, is today the main news in all major medias in Serbia and beyond. This morning I commented this event at the private regional network “TV Pink”. Among other, I noted that cooperation under OBOR, as the global initiative, is not important only for development of CEE countries, but for the whole of Europe. Through win win OBOR cooperation Europe and China are getting closer, what is equally positive form economic, cultural and political point of view, particularly now when EU is passing through serious difficulties.

Serbia`s role in the implementation of the China – CEE cooperation under OBOR is growing. Two countries are strategic partners cooperating in various fields.  In the past five years only, partners from the two countries have been constructing or modernizing roads, highways, railways, ports, bridges, tunnels, thermo-electric plant, steelwork factory, strengthening people to people exchange.  As of 1st January this year, no-visa system for citizens of the two countries came into force. A number of infrastructure projects, already implemented, or under implementation in Serbia, are highly important for modernization of connectivity in the CEE region, or in Europe.

Cooperation under CEE-OBOR has proved to be very important for Serbia`s overall economic development, modernization of industry and infrastructure and improvement of international standing.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on China Extends Economic Influence in Balkans and Southeast Europe, Bank of China Regional Headquarters in Belgrade

US intervention in Syria? Not under Trump

January 22nd, 2017 by Gareth Porter

The Trump administration may recognise that the Syrian army is the only institution committed to resisting terrorism in its country

A new coalition of US-based organisations is pushing for a more aggressive US intervention against the Assad regime. But both the war in Syria and politics in the United States have shifted dramatically against this objective.

When it was formed last July, the coalition hoped that a Hillary Clinton administration would pick up its proposals for a more forward stance in support of the anti-Assad armed groups. But with Donald Trump in office instead, the supporters of a US war in Syria now have little or no chance of selling the idea.

One of the ways the group is adjusting to the new political reality is to package its proposal for deeper US military engagement on behalf of US-supported armed groups as part of a plan to counter al-Qaeda, now calling itself Jabhat Fateh al Sham.

But that rationale depends on a highly distorted presentation of the problematic relations between those supposedly “moderate” groups and al-Qaeda’s Syrian offshoot.

Plan for a Clinton White House…

The “Combating al-Qaeda in Syria Strategy Group” was formed last July by the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), according to the policy paper distributed at an event at the Atlantic Council on 12 January.

The “Strategy Group” also includes Charles Lister of the Middle East Institute and Jennifer Cafarella of the Institute for the Study of War, both of whom have advocated direct US military force against the Syrian regime in support of the armed opposition.

The new coalition of think tanks began meeting last summer when the politics in Washington seemed favorable toward a political campaign for decisive US intervention in Syria

But it was CNAS that had the political clout to bring the coalition together under what appeared to be very favourable circumstances. Michele Flournoy, the founder and CEO of CNAS and a former third-ranking Pentagon official, was reported to be Clinton’s likely choice for secretary of defence during the 2016 presidential primaries. And the June 2016 report of a CNAS “study group” co-chaired by Flournoy was in line with Clinton’s openly declared support for a more muscular US intervention in Syria.

 

That report had called for a US-declared “no bombing zone” to protect armed opposition groups, vetted by the CIA, from Syrian and Russian attacks. Flournoy had then described the policy in an interview as telling the Russian and Syrian governments: “If you bomb the folks we support, we will retaliate using standoff means to destroy [Russian] proxy forces, or, in this case, Syrian assets.”

The new coalition of think tanks began meeting last summer when the politics in the United States seemed favorable for a political campaign for US military intervention in Syria.

On 30 September, Lister published a lengthy essay calling on the United States to provide shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles to ”moderate” opposition groups as well as to threaten attacks on the Syrian army if it violated the ceasefire. Lister was obviously hoping that President Clinton would adopt that policy option a few months later.

…repackaged for a Trump presidency

Now the new strategy group is trying to sell the same proposal to Trump, calling it “a holistic, preventative counter-terrorism policy that empowers moderate Syrians… to overcome extremists in Syria….” It argues that al-Qaeda is seeking to gain control over areas now controlled by “moderate” forces in order to establish “an enduring Sunni extremist order in Syria”.

But the argument that these armed groups, which the US has supported in the past, would be prepared to resist al-Qaeda’s long-term caliphate with more money and arms and US bombing of Assad’s air force, is too divorced from reality to have traction in Washington now. In fact, the so-called “moderate” armed groups have never been truly independent of al Qaeda in Syria. They have depended on the highly disciplined troops of al-Qaeda and its closest allies and the military strategy devised by al-Qaeda commanders to pressure the Assad regime.

The so-called “moderate” armed groups have never been truly independent of al Qaeda in Syria

Lister himself has been clear on this point. Under his proposed plan for the United States to use the threat of military force against the regime, the CIA-vetted “moderate” armed opposition groups were not expected to end their military cooperation with Fateh al-Sham or to separate themselves physically from its forces, as had been provided in both the February and September ceasefire agreements.

Lister stated explicitly his assumption that such cooperation was “unlikely to diminish significantly” – even if his proposal were to be carried out.

Rather, the idea of Lister’s plan was to force negotiations on the Assad regime. That aim would still obviously have required the continued military power of Fateh al-Sham and Ahrar al-Sham to succeed.

Lister and his fellow coalition members are not likely to be able to sell the new administration on the idea that any of the Syrian armed groups the CIA has supported would even consider seriously resisting Fateh al-Sham under any remotely believable circumstances.

Syrian army: The only alternative?

Washington Post columnist David Ignatius recently recalled meeting with leaders of Harakat al-Hazm, considered the most promising “moderate” armed group in Syria, at a safehouse in Turkey in late 2014. He found them “despondent”, because the United States had just carried out a rare air strike on al -Qaeda operatives believed to be plotting a terrorist attack on the West.

They told Ignatius that, because of the US bombing what was then called the Nusra Front would no longer tolerate the group’s operations. Soon after the meeting, the Nusra Front did indeed eliminate Harakat al-Hazm and appropriate all the TOW missiles and other military equipment the CIA had given them.

It recognised that, despite the serious faults of the Assad regime, the Syrian army was the only Syrian institution committed to resisting the terrorist presence in Syria

The Ignatius account reflects a fundamental reality throughout northern Syria, from 2013 onwards, that was simply ignored in media coverage: all of the opposition groups have been absorbed into an al-Qaeda-controlled political-military order. The idea that the “moderate” groups could be a bulwark against al-Qaeda, which is now being peddled by Lister, Cafarella and CNAS, no longer has any credibility even in those quarters in Washington that were once open to it.

A tell-tale sign of the shift in attitude toward those groups’ mood in Washington is the fact that Ignatius used the past tense in referring to the CIA’s programme of arming the “moderate” groups in Syria in his article last month.

The US military leadership was never on board with the policy of relying on those armed groups to advance US interests in Syria in the first place.

It recognised that, despite the serious faults of the Assad regime, the Syrian army was the only Syrian institution committed to resisting both al-Qaeda and Islamic State.

It seems likely that the Trump administration will now return to that point as it tries to rebuild a policy from the ashes of the failed policy of the Obama administration.

– Gareth Porter is an independent investigative journalist and winner of the 2012 Gellhorn Prize for journalism. He is the author of the newly published Manufactured Crisis: The Untold Story of the Iran Nuclear Scare.

Photo: Syrian pro-government forces manoeuvre a tank in the newly retaken area of Sahat al-Melh and Qasr al-Adly in Aleppo Old City on 8 December 2016 (AFP)

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on US intervention in Syria? Not under Trump

From January 17th to 21st, the Swiss enclave of Davos-Klosters is the venue of the 47th World Economic Forum. This gathering constitutes one of the exclusive clubs where the principal corporations coordinate orientations and launch strategic alignments. Together with the Bilderberg Club — a less visible and more reduced space of similar characteristics — the Davos Forum aims to become a kind of parallel private global government, placing leadership, entrepreneurial spirit, technological innovation and vertical forms of direction over and above democratic national order and traditional forms of international interrelation such as the United Nations.

In this opportunity, the last day of the meeting coincides suggestively with the inauguration of the forty-fifth US President, property magnate Donald Trump. In spite his having a relatively adequate profile for the meeting –at least with respect to monetary capacity — Trump, elected mandatory of a country belonging to the G-20, was not formally considered in the invitations, since his mandate had not yet begun. Nevertheless, members of his Government were expected, such as the designated Director of The National Economic Council, Gary Cohn — former president of Goldman Sachs and a regular participant in Davos.

Image: Telesur

Other significant – and somewhat surprising – absences, from the political world, are the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and the French President Hollande. Another announced absence is the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, who also announced that he will not attend the protocol acts in which Trump will assume his mandate, a decision that is highly relevant, considering that the two countries are related through the economic space of NAFTA.

With respect to the World Economic Forum, the most outstanding participant will without doubt be Xi Jinping, this being the first time that a Chinese President comes to this hyper summit of capitalism.

But Trump, the great absent figure, will be present in all the roundtables, interventions and dialogues. The phantasm of discontent generated by financial hypertrophy and the concentration of capital scares the members of the club of the wealthy and has a name: populism.

The succession of neo-nationalist triumphs, such as Trump or the Brexit, together with the expectation of possible political advances of the ultra-right in upcoming elections in the Netherlands, France, Germany or the Czech Republic, sounded an alarm among the governors of the corporate world. The real threat that protectionism could modify the chess-board of globalization that the corporations have put together to facilitate their movements, is a scenario in the face of which the Davos conclave cannot not remain passive.

The perspective that an important part of the populations suffering from austerity and poverty, because of the systemic debacle, would decide to turn their backs on the regionalisation projects controlled by economic power, such as the European Union, is an image that could hardly be accepted by the Davis clan.

As the call to the 2017 Davos Forum, whose leitmotif is “Responsive and responsible leadership”, points out:. “The weakening of multiple systems has eroded confidence at the national, regional and global levels. And, in the absence of innovative and credible steps towards their renewal, the likelihood increases of a downward spiral of the global economy.”

If it were not for the political events, the Forum would continue advancing impassively towards the capitalist reconversion that it proposes and which has been called the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

This ‘revolution’ — in the words of the Founder and President of the Forum, the almost eighty-year-old German professor Klaus Schwab – “is characterized by the fusion of technologies that are erasing the lines between the physical, digital and biological spheres.”  The earlier technological revolutions, Schwab points out, used water and steam to mechanize production, electricity to massify it and electronics and computing to automate it.

In this ‘new world’ in development, the promoters of Davos — the principal enterprises of the planet — see exponential opportunities for business. In the framework of refined business prospects, designed to outline the possible advantages for those who acquire their products and adhere to their illusions, it is clear that they feel obliged to also allude to the enormous possibilities that this could bring to millions of persons. In these arguments over potential benefits, there is a possible “and complete (!)” reconversion of the degenerative environmental process — that these same enterprises have brought about – with unlimited possibilities that are derived from combined and integrated action — says Schwab — of “artificial intelligence, robotics, the internet of things, autonomous vehicles, 3D printing, nano- and biotechnology, the sciences of matter, new devices for storing energy and quantum computing.”

These knights of the order (and under the order) of money are daring and they dare to revolutionize the world. The only thing that seems unchangeable in their imagination is the existence and pre-eminence of economic power over the well-being and the sovereign decision of the majorities.

Nonetheless, in this edition of Davos, it does not appear viable to advance in the absolutist plans of social technologization without taking into account, at least minimally, the social chaos that they have produced in the past. And they will produce even more, if the technological innovations take on the increased velocity that they desire. While today, extreme poverty, hunger and social inequality are already devastating vast latitudes, there is a risk they will increase even more if the “fourth revolution” is managed by these corporations and their lackeys.

A complete and integrated automation in production brings about the elimination of millions of jobs. In absence of an inversion of power relations, between the effective power of peoples and concentrated economic power, we can expect brutal competition among wage earners begging for subsistence in exchange for their total existential surrender.

Even the analysts of the corporate camp foresee a probable widening of the gaps between the better paid segments — those that require knowledge and specialization — and other kinds of tasks — essentially services of little value added, habitually reserved for the poorest among the poor.

From a positive perspective, for human beings the technological transformation could signify a growing liberation from tasks, an increase of creative options and possibilities, an extension of life and well-being, which could lead to a profound and interesting reconsideration on life perspectives that do not have work as the centre, the main condition or the cause of exclusion.  But without a true social and popular mediation, it would simply bring about an increase in business efficiency, leaving a great part of humanity in the garbage bin of maladaptation and the consequent disqualification as waste material.

What the worried businessmen, academics and politicians in Davos fear, associating it with the tragedies of fascism of the past century, what they despise, calling it “populism”` — thus indicating a visceral and plutocratic rejection of the “popular” — is in fact a clear signal that the peoples are emitting in rejection of the prior business visions that promised marvellous benefits for all through the route of neoliberalism.

In a sense, in the present edition of Davos, there may be something that is beginning to be socialized. Uncertainty no longer appears to be an exclusive prerogative of the dispossessed.

16/01/2017

(Translated for ALAI by Jordan Bishop)

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on A Spectre Hovers over Davos World Economic Forum: Populism and the Trump Presidency

La fine dell’ideologia a Cuba?

January 21st, 2017 by Arnold August

Nel 1960, il sociologo ed accademico USA Daniel Bell (1919-2011) pubblicò “La fine dell’ideologia”, opera che è diventata un classico nelle scienze politiche ufficiali. La pubblicazione è stata catalogata, dal Times Literary Supplement, come uno dei 100 libri più influenti della seconda metà del XX secolo.

Nonostante che negli anni 1950 ed inizi anni ’60 ci sono stati altri sostenitori della “Fine dell’ideologia” Bell è considerato come il più influente. Anche se si ebbero alcuni cambiamenti, questa scuola di pensiero ha un denominatore comune. Cercando di non semplificare troppo questa importante tendenza, ai fini del presente articolo, è possibile affermare che sorse a causa del percepito fallimento sia del socialismo, nell’ex URSS, come del capitalismo in Occidente. Vale a dire, nacque in opposizione all’ “estremismo”.

Nel novembre del 1968, insieme ad altri studenti di scienze politiche della McGill University di Montreal, fondiamo l’Associazione degli Studenti di quella disciplina. Organizziamo uno sciopero e presentiamo due principali rivendicazioni: la prima, esigere la partecipazione degli studenti nei comitati di contrattazione della Facoltà; la seconda -associata a questo potenziale rafforzamento studentesco- reclamare un insegnamento ed un curriculum più inclusivo.

Quest’ultimo poteva includere pubblicazioni non solo di Daniel Bell -naturalmente considerato obbligatorio e un indiscutibile riferimento nelle scienze politiche-, ma anche di scienziati sociali progressisti, così come le opere di Marx e di Lenin. Allora quest’ultimo era escluso. Dopo dieci giorni di occupazione e sciopero, la richiesta degli studenti fu accettata dall’università.

Bell non vide giungere l’inevitabile insurrezione che si stava preparando negli USA tra i cittadini di origine africana, poco dopo che il suo best-seller uscisse alle stampe. Quelle lotte progressiste, così come quella dei popoli indigeni, hanno la loro origine, all’inizio delle Tredici Colonie. Negli anni 1960, gli studenti USA furono attratti da ideologie e politiche alternative. Di fatto, il movimento giovanile era onnipresente in tutto il Nord America ed in gran parte dell’Europa.

Mentre negli anni ’60 questa tendenza si caratterizzava per diversi aspetti della sinistra politica ed ideologica, e sperimentava i suoi alti e bassi, sembrava l’addio delle tesi della fine dell’ideologia. Tuttavia, l’eredità di Bell continua a perseguitarci.

Nell’ultimo anno, all’incirca, a Cuba si è registrato un continuo aumento di articoli in un linguaggio indiretto circa l’idea della fine dell’ideologia, scritti da alcuni marginali blogger ed intellettuali cubani. All’inizio erano timidi, ma poi sempre più audaci.

Parlano della “sterile dicotomia tra socialismo e capitalismo”, consigliando ai rivoluzionari cubani di essere “equilibrati e profondi nei loro giudizi” quando si tratta di criticare l’imperialismo USA, o di evitare l’estremo di essere “fidelista o anti-castrista,” etichettando come “estremisti” o “fanatici” i marxisti-leninisti o i fidelisti, scrivendo su due grandi errori del rivoluzionario a Cuba, la destra e la sinistra come un “dogma escludente” e, infine, postulando che “la vita è più complessa anche delle ideologie”.

Leggendo questi articoli ritornavano, continuamente, alla mia mente quei giorni universitari del 1968. Come poteva essere possibile che noi ci opponessimo alla fine dell’ideologia, nel cuore del capitalismo, e che ora essa torni a sorgere – tra tutti i luoghi immaginabili- proprio a Cuba? Si potrebbe sostenere che l’opposizione a Cuba sta venendo da “sinistra”, vale a dire da coloro che affermano di sostenere la rivoluzione. Bene, da dove altro potrebbe sorgere se non dalla cosiddetta sinistra?

Non dimentichiamo che Bell si considerava di sinistra e che la sua opposizione all’ideologia era, apparentemente, da una prospettiva di sinistra e non di destra. E’ così che riuscì a costruire la sua credibilità. Bell si era disilluso del socialismo e non vedeva alcuna alternativa, per cui portò una battaglia sia contro il capitalismo che contro il socialismo. Il suo lavoro riflette il suo dilemma personale e politico. Tuttavia, oggettivamente parlando, questa cosiddetta neutralità rispetto agli estremi consistette nel lanciare un salvagente al capitalismo. Non è un caso che Bell sia così apprezzato dalle élite dominanti dell’Occidente.

Ho sempre affermato che la più pericolosa opposizione alla Rivoluzione cubana proviene dalla cosiddetta sinistra, e non dalla destra apertamente Plattista. Si tratta di un cancro nella società cubana che, se si lascia crescere senza una forte resistenza ideologica, potrebbe influire su qualche ingenuo, soprattutto tra i giovani, gli intellettuali e gli artisti.

Allo stesso tempo, quando Bell scriveva i suoi saggi alla fine degli anni 1950, compilati nel suo volume del 1960, Cuba costituiva lo scenario della più evidente confutazione della sua teoria: l’attacco al Moncada, del 1953, il suo risultante programma ed il trionfo della rivoluzione il 1 gennaio 1959. Fidel Castro ed il Movimento 26 luglio costituirono l’embrionale cammino di una nuova ideologia marxista-leninista a Cuba.

Lungi dall’essere un periodo segnato dalla fine dell’ideologia, Cuba diede al mondo la rinascita e la fiducia nella necessità dell’ideologia. Cuba rappresentò il termine della fine dell’ideologia. La rivoluzione cubana sorse durante l’auge della guerra fredda, ma si erse, risolutamente, contro ogni intimidazione da parte della cosiddetta sinistra o dell’imperialismo. Per la sinistra di quel tempo, e ancor più per la destra, questa posizione non corrispondeva al politicamente corretto. Così, Fidel ebbe la perspicacia di non rivelare l’intero scenario nel periodo iniziale. Tuttavia, l’ideologia era al centro del pensiero e dell’azione.

Dal 1953 Cuba è sempre stata -ed è ancora- la quintessenza dello sviluppo dei principi ideologici. Ogni parola scritta e pronunciata da Fidel è intrisa di ideologia. Cuba non è anchilosata, al contrario continua evolvendosi seconda la situazione. In caso contrario, non avrebbe potuto sopravvivere ai suoi nemici per tutto questo tempo.

Sono convinto che uno dei principali obiettivi di fondo della campagna mediatica corporativa internazionale contro Fidel, poco dopo la sua morte, consisteva in una vendetta dell’imperialismo contro di lui per il suo rifiuto a capitolare sul tema dell’ideologia.

Ma perché? -potranno chiedersi i media interminabilmente- la rivoluzione cubana mai sottoscrisse la fine dell’ideologia, come avrebbe dovuto fare, secondo le scienze politiche ufficiali? In tutti questi anni, dal 26 luglio 1953 fino al 25 novembre 2016, Fidel visse e morì come lo richiese agli altri: come un umile rivoluzionario.

Nell’attuale contesto storico, cercano d’impregnare la cultura politica cubana di “neutralità” riguardo l’ideologia: l’opposizione agli “estremi”, “equidistanza” tra il socialismo ed il capitalismo, ecc, non costituisce una sfida al dogmatismo della sinistra come cercano di presentarlo.

La vera sfida è contro il socialismo e l’ideologia marxista-leninista. Negli anni 1960, la teoria di Bell compiaceva i circoli dominanti che volevano mantenere lo status quo. Le elites erano al potere e non avevano paura di essere sloggiate dal loro stesso capitalismo! La Fine della ideologia e la sua critica al capitalismo era solo un pretesto per criticare il socialismo. Nel 1968, presso la McGill University, questo fu il principale argomento degli insegnanti e amministratori conservatori.

Apparentemente loro non erano né a favore né contro alcuna ideologia. “Tutte le opzioni politiche sono benvenute”, assicuravano. Nonostante, Bell fu ancora più accettato. Egli si opponeva, loro dicevano, sia al capitalismo che al socialismo. Tuttavia, coloro che favorivano lo status quo del capitalismo sostennero la fine dell’ideología.

Coloro che si oppone all’ideologia “estrema” della sinistra furono totalmente integrati nell’ideologia capitalista e aiutarono ad elaborarla e diffonderla. Lo scopo della “Fine della ideologia”, negli anni 1960, e ora rispetto a Cuba, è porre fine alle ideologie marxiste-leniniste e socialista.

Arnold August 

 

Castro Révolution cubaine

¿El final de la ideología en Cuba?By Arnold August, January 06, 2017

Italiano : http://firmas.prensa-latina.cu/

Arnold August : Giornalista e relatore canadese

  • Posted in Italiano
  • Comments Off on La fine dell’ideologia a Cuba?

Every time one of these barrels strikes, it is the seismological equivalent of a 7.6 magnitude earthquake, and it happens around 50 times a day.  (In Syria)You can’t dial 911. You can’t dial the fire service. You can’t call the local police department. They don’t exist.” ~ James Le Mesurier, British ex-military trainer of the NATO-state, multi-million-dollar-funded White Helmets, based in Gaziantep, Turkey.

In an interview with CNN in May 2015, this is the claim made by British mercenary trainer of the White Helmets to Dr Sanjay Gupta. Again, in June 2015, Le Mesurier made a similar claim to an audience during a speech at The Performance Theatre, Lisbon  entitled very grandly, “Act 1: Witnesses to history in the making”.

On the front page of the fraudulently named Syria Civil Defence aka the NATO state sponsored, White Helmets, there is the same claim made by the extensively discredited, Ammar Al Salmo“leader” of the Syria Civil Defence in Aleppo:

barrel-bombs-al-salmo

Al Salmo’s “evidence” was pivotal to the US alliance claims that, on 21st September 2016, Russian jets had targeted a humanitarian convoy to the west of Aleppo – Urum al Kubra, causing international outcry and almost precipitating a terrifying escalation of the conflict between Russia and the US on Syrian soil. Claims that were universally debunked, as were so many before them. Syricide on Twitter produced a video that demonstrates the grave anomalies in the Al Salmo report, that was used to trigger international outrage against Russia and the Syrian government.

In November 2016, Raed Saleh, president of the White Helmets and “humanitarian” poster boy for the international community supporting the terrorist support group, gave an acceptance speech for the Right Livelihood Award. During this speech, Saleh reinforced the barrel bomb/earthquake imagery and increased the magnitude to a whopping 8:0

raed-saleh-sppech

Here is the segment of the speech in which Saleh presents the barrel bomb case. Watch ~

Just after the liberation of East Aleppo by the Syrian Arab Army and allies, BBC Radio 4 interviewed James Le Mesurier who trotted out the usual platitudes regarding his band of “selfless humanitarians”, described, universally as “Nusra Front civil defence” by Syrian civilians freed from almost five years of Nusra Front-led terrorist and extremist imprisonment, supported by the interventionist alliance of the US, UK, EU, Gulf States, Turkey, Israel, Canada, Jordan & Australia & Co.

This time the BBC, themselves, announce that one barrel bomb is equivalent to an earthquake of an 8:0 magnitude, so parroting the White Helmet and NATO-state-aligned NGO narrative without hesitation. Listen to the interview here. 

We have compiled statements by James Le Mesurier into a short video. They include the bare-faced lie, presented to CNN, that in Syria there is no emergency number to call for rescue or fire services, an attempt by this UK regime intelligence operative & OBE recipient, to disappear the REAL Syria Civil Defence, established in 1953: Watch ~

Do they have us over a Barrel?

Just a casual check on scientific charts correlating Richter scale magnitude with corresponding amounts of explosives will show that anything above a 7.0 magnitude would require as much as 20 billion kilograms of TNT, or according to other charts as much as 10 megatons, something approaching the output of an atom bomb, greater than the one used against Hiroshima by the US.

21st Century Wire had previously debunked CNN claims, in October 2016, that a White Helmet centre in Damascus had been targeted by a barrel bomb:

A NOBEL LIE: CNN’s Claim That ‘White Helmets Center in Damascus’ Was Hit by a Barrel Bomb

In August 2015, Ken Roth, director of Human Rights Watchtweeted that “Assad’s barrel bombs” were equivalent to the US nuclear bomb that had destroyed Hiroshima.

YallaLaBarra’s blog addressed Ken Roth’s unhealthy obsession with barrel bombs:

“This was the first of a whopping 200 Syria tweets that he has posted about “barrel bombs”. These don’t include at least an equal number of other anti-government tweets that range from Assad’s “use of chemical weapons against his people” to fawning praise of militants in Syria. Between 12 November 2013 and December 2014, Ken Roth tweeted about “barrel bombs” (BB) a total of 65 times. This is no small number, but it pales in comparison to the 135 barrel bomb tweets he posted in 2015 – thus far. During the first 8 months of 2015, the frequency of barrel bomb tweets varied from month to month. For example, after having posted 27 BB tweets in February of 2015, he surprisingly controlled his urges and kept it at under 15 for each of the following 4 months (March -June). In July his obsession got the best of him and he graced us with 28 BB tweets.Things got worse in August with a staggering 40 BB tweets. One of the reasons the BB tweeting became so trigger happy in the last two months is because he is now frantically inserting “barrel bombs” into tweets that are unrelated to the topic.”

Now lets consider the earthquake magnitude claim, bearing in mind that, at various stages, members of the NATO-aligned White Helmets and associated NGOs, & corporate media outlets have stated that as many as 50 of these earthquakes are hitting Syria per day for possibly the last six years.

Here’s a look at the 2010 earthquake in Haiti, which struck January 12, 2010. The earthquakemeasured a “mere” (by White Helmet standards) 7.0 magnitude:

earthquake-haiti

Figures taken from Dec.org reports.

Corporate Media Plays Along

On the 10th January 2017, the Independent’s headline was – “Assad ‘dropped 13,000 barrel bombs on Syria in 2016’, watchdog claims” .

So according to this headline, Syrian president, Bashar Al Assad, personally dropped 13, 000 (equivalent to) atom bombs on his own country and people in 12 months. Even the war-hungry US administration, with its penchant for obliterating entire nations would struggle to match that accolade!

snhr

The “watchdog” that has been cited by The Independent is none other than the Syrian Network for Human Rights, a long term purveyor of the barrel bomb myth and one of the multitude of NGOs affiliated with the anti-Syria-war-propaganda-impresario, George Sorosalong with the Ford Foundation & the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Helicopters Carry Two Bombs

James Le Mesurier confirms what independent warfare analysts had previously told me, that a helicopter will carry two barrel bombs at at time.

SNHR report:

“The report documents that Syrian regime helicopters dropped 12,958 barrel bombs in 2016. Most of these barrel bombs were dropped in Damascus suburbs governorate, followed by Aleppo and then Hama, Idlib, Daraa, and Homs. Furthermore, November 2016 saw the most of these barrel bombs with 1946 dropped followed by June, and then January and August.”

In order to achieve this, the Syrian Airforce would have to fly 19 helicopter missions per day every day for the whole year. That is with limited airports available to them, the effect of sanctions,resulting in fuel shortages, and taking into consideration daylight hours and distances to and from alleged targets. Not to mention, downtime, maintenance etc.

Also, if there had been 19 helicopter flights per day over this time period, is it not strange that we dont see footage of these helicopters other than the oft recycled images & video that are used to depict these attacks? The NATO state funded, Turkish based and trained “citizen journalists” cameramen and women, “activists” have the equipment to record such flights, surely?

In this video which is a 9 minute alleged compilation of barrel bomb attacks, we actually see what looks suspiciously like reused shots of barrel bombs, or rudimentary finned Mortar-type bombs, being dropped by helicopters. The majority of the footage is actually of airforce, air to ground missile attacks on various terrorist and extremist held positions in Syria. There is the clear sound of Combat jets prior to the bombing.

James Longman of the BBC, embedded with such “activists & citizen journalists” in Homs & Damascus in 2011, during the early days of the NATO state-fomented armed uprising against the Syrian state, told the Frontline Club that they had impressive technological/media capabilities. So why is there not better coverage of the 19 helicopter missions per day?

danny-longman

Taken from James Longman’s Facebook post. I was blocked for 7 days on Facebook for violating “community standards” when I reposted a screenshot of our debate and Longman has now blocked me on Twitter.

The Nusra Front-led factions, with whom these so called “activists” and “citizen journalists” are embedded, certainly have the “equipment” to shoot helicopters down..as with the Russian helicopter flying in humanitarian aid in August 2016.

The Numbers Game

In their report, SNHR claim:

“According to the report, the barrel bombs that were dropped by Syrian regime warplanes in 2016 resulted in the killing of 653 civilians including 166 children and 86 women.”

How reliable these figures are, is hard to analyse. The majority of the statistics reported by these weaponized NGOs come from the SOHR (Syrian Observatory for Human Rights) that is notorious for mingling “civilian” deaths with those of the NATO-state funded and armed terrorist & extremist factions. The SOHR is in reality, Rami Abdulrahman, an EU funded one-man-band operating out of Coventry in the UK and communicating with “activists” via Skype.

“Abdulrahman of the SOHR admitted in 2012: “I have thousands of rebels in the civilian list. I put all the non-defectors in the civilian list…It isn’t easy to count rebels because nobody on the ground says ‘this is a rebel.’ Everybody hides it.” In another interview he confirmed the view that “most of Syria’s dead were combatants, not civilians.” ~ The Death Toll in Syria, What do the Numbers Really Say?

According to a former US diplomat who had served in Syria:

“I have serious problems with all the talk about military intervention in Syria. Everyone, especially the media, seems to be relying solely on anti-regime activists for their information. How do we know 260 people were killed by the regime in Homs yesterday? That number seems based solely on claims by anti-regime figures and I seriously doubt its accuracy.” ~ Veteran US Diplomat Questions Syria Storyline by Sharmine Narwani.

barrel-bombs-syria-e1459968742827

According to their previous meme, for the period between March 2011 and March 2016, over 35, 956 barrel bombs have been dropped by the Syrian airforce, killing 14, 652 civilians. Now this is a fascinating piece of analysis by SNHR, as even, NATO intervention sympathiser, Elliot Higginsaka Brown Moses of Bellingcat states that the first recorded barrel bomb attack in Syria, was in August 2012. A fact, corroborated by Wikipediain their list of barrel bomb attacks.

So if we rely upon Soros-allied SNHR, the barrel bomb attacks started 17 months before they were first recorded. Impressive. This immediately skews the numbers they are presenting.

In “The Barrel Bomb Conundrum”, Craig Murray states, (emphasis added):

“It is a fascinating example of a propaganda meme. Barrel bombs are being used by Syrian government forces, though on a pretty small scale. They are an improvised weapon made by packing conventional explosive into a beer barrel. They are simply an amateur version of a conventional weapon, and they are far less “effective” – meaning devastating – than the professionally made munitions the UK and US are dropping on Syria, or supplying to the Saudis to kill tens of thousands of civilians in Yemen, or to Israel to drop on children in Gaza.”

East Aleppo Liberation Opens Pandora’s Box?

If an earthquake has occurred anywhere in Syria, it is the tectonic plates of corporate media obscurantism and deceit being torn assunder by the truth that has emerged from the liberated districts of East Aleppo.  Civilians escaping their almost five year ordeal of life under Nusra Front-led occuption and brutal imprisonment, exposed the truth behind the corporate media pre-fabricated narratives that had in effect prolonged the suffering of these people, while amplifying the voices of their captors, described euphemistically as “rebels” by the majority of the predatory NATO-aligned “mockingbird” media and NGOs

img_1295

Nusra Front Hell Cannon, captured in Sheikh Saeed, East Aleppo. 12/12/2016. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

img_1813

Nusra Front Hell Cannon, captured in Sukare, East Aleppo. 24/12/2016. (Photo: Vanessa Beeley)

No mention is made by this media-propaganda juggernaut of the 11,000 recorded and documented dead civilians, among them thousands of children, murdered by the “hell cannon” mortar fire, sniper fire and explosive bullets from Nusra Front-led terrorists in East Aleppo fired deep into Syrian state protected West Aleppo. These figures were given to me by Head of Forensics in Aleppo, Dr Zahar Hajjo and confirmed by Eva Bartlett during her debate with Dilly Hussain on RT.

Nor is there any mention of the recent discoveries of what look suspiciously like barrel bombs, previously stored by Nusra Front and assorted extremist factions in ammunuition depots in the liberated areas of East Aleppo:

There has also been a recent discovery of a vast quantity of gas canisters in the liberated Kalaseh district of East Aleppo.

 Lets have a look at the technical specification of the barrel bomb. According to an animated depiction of the composition of the barrel bomb, they are filled with “twisted shards of metal shrapnel. When detonated the metal explodes in every direction causing tremendous damage to the immediate area”.

bb

Barrel bomb as depicted in video. Screenshot. 

Compare this to a description of the Nusra Front Hell Cannon mortars, from an Aleppo resident:

“The terrorists are using mortars, explosive bullets, cooking-gas cylinders bombs and water-warming long cylinders bombs, filled up with explosives and shrapnel and nails, in what they call “Hell Cannon”. (google these weapons or see their YouTube clips. The cooking-gas cylinder is made of steel, and it weighs around 25 kg. Imagine it thrown by a canon to hit civilians? And imagine knowing that it’s full with explosives?… Yet, the media is busy with the legendary weapon of “barrel bombs”! They came to spread “freedom” among Syrians! How dare they say that Syrian army shouldn’t fight them back?”

Can you tell them apart? 

Many civilians that I interviewed as they were streaming out of the liberated areas of East Aleppo told me that the Nusra Front-led terrorist and militant gangs had often attacked civilian homes, schools and hospitals in the same areas and then blamed it on the Syrian national army.

Is it so far fetched to suggest that the barrel bomb myth is just that, a myth propagated by those who are claiming to be under attack while attacking civilians in the areas occupied or besieged by these terrorist factions?

Here is one such testimony from one of the first civilians I spoke to, on the 10th December 2016, in Hanano which had been fully liberated two days previously. Watch: 

Conclusion

It is surely time to put the barrel bomb to bed? It is now an outdated and debunked, mass produced myth. 50 earthquakes per day of an 8.0 magnitude would have obliterated the entire region. Enough of these theatrics designed to obfuscate the very real bloodshed that is being witnessed daily in Syria as a result of the dirty war being waged against it by the US neocons and war hawks, hell-bent on regime change and the weakening of the sovereign nation to please their Israeli allies in the region.

I leave you with a timeless classic, “The Barrel Bomb Song” featuring Ken Roth, a fitting epitaph for one of the most flagrant media fabrications and distortions of the almost six year war of aggression against Syria led by a multitude of NATO & Gulf state funded and armed atrocity committing extremists.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syria: Consign “Barrel Bombs” to the Propaganda Graveyard

The Russian Aerospace Forces and the Turkish Armed Forces have been conducting a joint military operation in the area of al-Bab, the Russian Defense Ministry said on Wednesday. The operation involves 9 Russian warplanes [4 Su-24, 4 Su-25 and 1 Su-34] and 8 Turkish warplanes. At the same day, the Syrian army gained two more villages south of al-Bab – Afrin and Rasm al-Abed – which had been controlled by ISIS and entered into Shamer. Joint efforts of Damascus, Moscow and Ankara will easily lead to liberation of Aleppo province from the rests of ISIS terrorist if the Turkish military is able to keep under the control their moderate jihadists operating in the area.

The military situation remains tense in Deir Ezzor. Government troops, backed up by warplanes, are repelling ISIS attacks. However, the pocket is still split into two and this is a big problem for defenders.

The Ahrar al-Sham militant group announced on Wednesday that it will ignore talks between the government and representatives of the so-called ‘opposition’ in the Kazakh capital of Astana next week. The group blamed Moscow and Damascus for violations of the ceasefire and airstrikes across Syria, adding that this was the man reasons behind decision. Ahrar al-Sham was the most powerful entity armed groups that signed the ceasefire deal brokered by Russia and Turkey in December 2016.

According to Ahrar al-Sham, the Syrian army’s operation in the Wadi Barada area northwest of Damascus is an example of violations of the ceasefire agreement. The group forgot to add that government forces launched operation there after Ahrar al-Sham and its friends from Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra) damaged the water supply line to Damascus.

Last night, the Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) captured the crossing of Abo Salem and Wadi Tamamah north of Dayr Miqrin in Wadi Barada. This move isolated the village of Afrah from the rest of militant-held pocket and allowed to increase a military pressure on Ayn al-Fijah, Dayr Miqrin and Kafr Az-Zayat. Earlier this week, army and NDF troops entered the village of Ayn al-Fijah. Clashes are now ongoing there.

Another powerful militant group, Jaish al-Islam, will likely participate in the Astana talks. According to reports, Mohammed Alloush, one of the group’s leaders, may head the delegation. Jaish al-Islam controls waste areas in the Eastern Ghouta region and has recently faced a notable military pressure by the Syrian army. The critical military situation, especially near Hazrama, is likely behind the decision to participate in the talks.

Summarizing these reports, it’s clear that Moscow and Damascus keep to implement their main strategy, putting military pressure on various armed anti-government factions to force them to negotiations with the Syrian government. Meanwhile, groups and factions, which show their inability to separate themselves from Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and to negotiate with the government, become a legitimate target of military efforts by the joint Rusian-Syrian-Iranian forces.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Contradictory “Alliances”: Joint Russia-Turkey Military Operation in Syria against US-Saudi Supported ISIS-Daesh

The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF), supported by attack helicopters, have advanced southwest of the Tiyas Airbase, recapturing from ISIS several hills overlooking Phosphate area near al-Qaryatayn. The village of Al-Baridah is the most likely target of the offensive.

Pro-government sources report that over 30 ISIS members were killed in the recent clashes. ISIS supporters say that the army lost 1 battle tank, 2 vehicles equipped with a machine gun and a Shilka anti-aircraft gun.

The ISIS offensive in Deir Ezzor bogged in the Syrian army’s defenses. Government troops, supported by the Russian-Syrian air power, have repelled at least 5 ISIS attacks in various parts of the city, killing and wounding some 15 militants. However, the army has not been able to successfully counter-attack to increase its chances to link-up the separated pockets.

ISIS is now deploying reinforcements to develop the tactical success gained in the city.

At least three YPG members were killed and five wounded in an ISIS attack on a YPG security center in the village of Suwaydiya in the province of Raqqah. The YPG, backed up by the US-led coalition, is now preparing for further military operations in the Raqqah countryside in order to isolate this major ISIS stronghold.

Last night, the US Air Force bombed a military camp belonging to Jabhat Fatah al-Sham (formerly Jabhat al-Nusra, the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda) near Daret Izza in western Aleppo, according to pro-militant media outlets. Up to 110 members of Jabhat Fatah al-Sham and Nour al-Din al-Zenki were killed as result of the air raid. Members the so-called “White Helmets” were first to arrive the scene to help terrorists.

On January 19, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham attacked a number of Ahrar al-Sham checkpoints and local headquarters in the militant-held province of Idlib.

After a series of clashes, Jabhat Fatah al-Sham units seized from Ahrar al-Sham the Khirbet al-Jawz crossing on Turkish border, few checkpoints and a local headquarters in Khirbet al-Jawz. Some Ahrar al-Sham members were taken captive. An infighting between the militant groups were also reported near Darkoush, Jisr ash-Shugur and Bdama.

The groups blame each other in the social media for undermining the “values of Syrian revolution”.

Local sources say that the clashes are result of the ongoing “political” standoff among militant groups for the power in the province of Idlib which became the main militant stronghold in Syria after the liberation of the Aleppo city. Earlier this week, Ahrar al-Sham announced that the group will not participate in the Astana talks and preferred to play in local games in Idlib.

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

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian War Report: ISIS Repelled, Heavy Clashes between Ahrar Al-Sham and Al-Nusra in Idlib

Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir currently stated that the Syrian talks in Astana would lead to ceasefire in the country.

However, in this context, the minister’s statement sounds a little bit strange as throughout the Syrian conflict, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states have been providing comprehensive assistance to Islamic State terrorists, supplying weapons, equipment and mercenaries to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. There are undeniable proofs of these “acts of good will” on behalf of Saudi Arabia.

Large chemical reserves seized by the Syrian army last week in eastern Aleppo destined for the manufacture of explosives can be characterized as striking example of “act of a good will”. The bags with chemical materials had the name of the Saudi chemical plant Sachlo printed on them. Besides, the previous month, Saudi Interior Ministry stated that more than 1,500 Saudi Arabia subjects fought in the ranks of ISIS in Syria.

Moreover, along with the strong evidence of the Saudi presence in Syria, there are also witnesses and even participants of Riyadh’s intervention. At the very beginning of conflict, Daily Telegraph journalists stated that Syrian Army arrested several opposition militants who confessed in being paid from the representatives of Saudi Arabia directly through their commanders. They also admitted that they got about $25 per day without including $400 for their participation in military operations against the Syrian government.

It should be mentioned that Saudi Arabia’s Defense budget is still one of the biggest in the world and equals to $18.7 billion while the manpower of Saudi Arabia estimates some 200,000 servicemen. In comparison, China spends $17 billion on defense with the strength of 2,4 million servicemen. Consequently, it is believed that the military budget is spent on financing terrorist and radical organizations, due to which the KSA government tends to overthrow the legitimate government of Syria.

After beginning of the conflict Syrian citizens in order to save their lives flooded different European countries and other parts of the world, instead of going to the Gulf States. At the same time a lot of terrorists under the guise of refuges entered Europe in order to commit terrorists act and spread Islamist propaganda. Consequently Gulf States are exporting terrorism all around the world but trying not to be blamed for these actions.

To be mentioned is that Al-Jubeir’s statement drastically differs for the earlier stated goal as Saudi Arabia is unlikely interested in peaceful settlement of the Syrian crisis. Saudi Arabia also fears that if the Syrian government gets an upper hand over terrorists, they will have to return home. Thus, the major part of the militants is the Persian Gulf citizens and it is a direct threat to the Saudi Arabia regime.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Riyadh Continues to Supports ISIS-Daesh, Contradictory Saudi Stance on Syria Peace Talks

The outgoing U.S. President Barak Obama will freeze some of the economic and trade sanctions on Sudan, different news agencies reported on Thursday.

The suspension which was contested by some members of Obama administration, is mainly based on “the findings of Sudan’s security cooperation with Washington”. “It was mainly backed by the State Department,” an American source told Sudan Tribune.

The media cited Sudan’s collaboration in the fight against terrorism, including limiting the movements of Islamic State fighters.

Regarding the file of peace in Darfur, the partial freezing takes into account the end of military bombardments on civilians areas in the western Sudan, improvement of humanitarian access to civilians in the conflict affected areas.

Also, the decision takes into account Sudanese government efforts to achieve peace in South Sudan and its neutrality in the conflict that started in December 2013. American officials say Khartoum refused to allow rebels to operate from its territory and also stemmed the flow of weapons into the troubled country, despite Juba support to Sudanese rebel groups.

Citing officials at the While House, The Associated Press says Washington will “announce a five-track engagement process with the Sudan, including the easing of sanctions, responding to positive actions by the government. They say these include improved Sudanese counterterrorism efforts”

However, the suspended sanctions could be reinstated if the Sudanese government backtracks on its progress.

U.S. Special Envoy for Sudan and South Sudan, Donald Booth, kept working tirelessly on the file of peace in Sudan. Several sources said President Obama wished to close the file of Sudan sanction before to leave the White House like Cuba and Burma.
Congressmen and rights activists say still conditions in Sudan are far from their expectations and have demanded to maintain to maintain the sanctions on the regime of President Omer al-Bashir.

The State Department and the Department of Treasury since last October, held three meetings in Washington, London and Dubai to encourage commercial banks to avoid de-risking humanitarian and non-governmental remittances stressing the trade and financial embargo target only the Sudanese government.

Despite the strong impact of the sanctions on the Sudanese government, officials at the State Department points to the negative impact of the measure on the ordinary Sudanese. It also feeds anti-Americanism in the region and Islamic world they say.

Sudan has been under American economic and trade sanctions since 1997 for its alleged connection to terror networks and remains on the U.S. list of state sponsors of terror. The first batch of sanctions restrict U.S. trade and investment with Sudan and block government’s assets of the Sudanese government.

Additional sanctions in relations with the conflict in Darfur region were introduced by two Executive Orders in 2006.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Outgoing President Obama Announced Partial Suspension of Economic Sanctions on Sudan

The Trudeau government has significantly undermined its stated commitment to human rights by going ahead with a $15-billion sale of light armoured vehicles (LAVs—combat transports that can be armed with lethal high-calibre weapons) to Saudi Arabia.

The Saudi regime’s vicious repression of its own population is well documented by human rights groups, and a two-year bombing campaign against Houthi rebels in neighbouring Yemen has claimed as many as 10,000 lives, more than half of them civilians by United Nations accounts. Depending on when they arrive, the Canadian-made LAVs could enter the battle on the Saudi side, and would be used in future, as they were in Bahrain in 2011, to quell domestic protest against the regime or its allies.

“We are concerned that this is the largest arms deal in the history of Canada and the military equipment is going to a country which is a human rights pariah, holding among the very worst such records, according to every organization that tracks this issue,” says Cesar Jaramillo, executive director of Project Ploughshares, a Waterloo, Ontario–based NGO focused on preventing war and building peace.

If Saudi Arabia, with such a dire human rights record, both internally and externally, is eligible to receive Canadian military exports, then which country would not be?

The U.S.-backed Saudi royal family suppresses virtually any dissent, criticism, democratic aspirations and civil rights. Saudi women are among the least free in the world; in 2013, King Abdullah granted women the right to run and vote in municipal elections, but they are still not permitted to drive, and make up a very small fraction of the national workforce. Beheadings or long jail terms, extensive flogging, the cutting off of hands and torture are common sentences for political crimes.

Saudi Arabia’s actions have also destabilized the region, for example, by invading Bahrain in 2011 and then Yemen in March 2015. The latter conflict has destroyed a country that was already one of the poorest in the world. Saudi bombing has targeted Yemen’s markets, houses, schools, factories, hospitals and health clinics (all war crimes), injuring 35,000 and starving the country’s 7.6 million people through the imposition of a blockade, according to the UN’s Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs.

The Saudi regime is also a financier of international terrorism, including the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), as revealed in a recent leak of Hillary Clinton’s emails from when she was U.S. Secretary of State. “We need to use our diplomatic and more traditional intelligence assets to bring pressure on the governments of Qatar and Saudi Arabia, which are providing clandestine financial and logistic support to Isis and other radical groups in the region,” said a memo dated August 17, 2014. A 2009 email sent under Clinton’s name, also leaked by Wikileaks, says “Saudi Arabia remains a critical financial support base for al-Qaeda, the Taliban, LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba in Pakistan].”

Yet, in April 2016, Foreign Affairs Minister Stéphane Dion referred to the Saudi warfare state as Canada’s “strategic partner in an increasingly volatile region, particularly in the armed conflict against the so-called Islamic State” (emphasis added). The Liberal government is therefore determined to stand by a Conservative-brokered sale of LAVs—from one ally to another. “We will not weaken the credibility of the signature of the Government of Canada,” said the same government press release.

Ottawa also justifies the LAV sale by highlighting the economic benefits, such as the 3,000 jobs it claims will be sustained at General Dynamics Land Systems’ Canadian plants. However, most Canadians asked about the issue want the government to cancel the sale (an Angus Reid poll in February 2016 found only 19% support for the deal). “It is a pernicious argument to assert that Canadian jobs must depend on the killing, maiming, injuring and repressing of innocent civilians abroad,” says Peggy Mason, president of the Rideau Institute in Ottawa.

Jaramillo agrees. He points out there “are very strong ethical questions to be asked about linking the economic well-being of Canada to the suppression of human rights in other countries.” If jobs are the key consideration, he asks, “then what’s to stop Canada from selling weapons to ISIS or to the Mexican drug cartels? Sadly whenever commercial interests are pitted against the protection of human rights, the former often win.”

Richard Sanders, co-ordinator of the Ottawa-based Coalition to Oppose the Arms Trade (COAT), says if the Canadian government were really interested in creating jobs it would be investing in more labour intensive sectors such as health and education, “which also have added social benefits that weapons exports obviously don’t provide.” In contrast, the military industry “creates relatively few jobs as it is so capital intensive,” he says. “It is one of the least efficient ways to create jobs.”

In Canada, military exports are reviewed to ensure there is no reasonable risk of the buyer government using Canadian weapons against civilians or otherwise to violate human rights. According to a report in the Globe and Mail in November, Minister Dion blocked a shipment of military goods to Thailand last year because the military junta running the country since 2014 has silenced the press, imprisoned political opponents and prevented public protests. The Globe has persistently highlighted the contradictions of a Canadian policy that blocks some arms sales but allows them to countries with a human rights record as poor as Saudi Arabia’s.

Sanders, who has been studying Canadian arms exports for 30 years, says Canada’s export controls actually “have no teeth whatsoever.” Canada has guidelines but no firm rules, which explains why the government is able to sell billions of dollars worth of military technology to the United States, the most warring country on the planet. “The controls are a facade which protect the official mythology that Canada is a promoter of peace and human rights. That is their real function. The narrative that Canada has these so-called rules fits into the grand myth that this country is a force for peace in the world.”

Sanders emphasizes that when we are speaking about the impact of Canada’s arms sales on peace and human rights, the U.S. is the unmentioned “elephant in the room.” The U.S. government “is constantly at war,” he says. Canada’s exports to the U.S. consist of essential components for about 40 major U.S. weapons systems used in Iraq and Afghanistan. These included helicopters, warplanes and gunships, but also electronics for radar and communications, and targeting and guidance systems that do not go through any export screening at all.

“Washington is also the godfather of Saudi Arabia and many other countries that violate human rights,” says Sanders. “The mainstream peace movement seems to want to shy away from this central issue.”

Jaramillo agrees this “historic loophole” is a major issue. “This is the biggest chunk of exports annually and they get almost blanket approval from Ottawa. Of course, the U.S. has direct or indirect involvement in any number of conflicts around the world and is the biggest arms exporter globally.” Jaramillo opposes such exceptional treatment for any nation and wants Canada to treat all its trading partners in a similarly transparent manner. For him, all military exports should be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

The Canadian government has failed to respond adequately to a number of Ploughshares’ concerns about the Saudi arms deal and “may be wilfully blind” to the reasonable risk that the monarchy might use the LAVs against civilians, says Jaramillo. “At the end of the day, what matters are the actual arms deliveries that are going to threaten civilians’ lives, enable human rights violations, cause human suffering, embolden dictators and sustain oppressive regimes.”

Asad Ismi is an independent journalist and activist who covers international affairs for the CCPA Monitor. 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on There Is a Way to Control Arms Exports, but Does Canada Have the Will?

The Birth of Trumpland: Notes on an Inauguration

January 21st, 2017 by Dr. Binoy Kampmark

With the country ridden by woe and revulsion; with the discontent so profound and vicious, the Trump presidency began.  It did so by way of comparison – of the chalk-cheese variety.  In 2008, when the shining armour of Knight Obama took centre stage, there were sighs, ecstatic releases, heavy exhalations of hope.  The theme, then, to start this presidency: numbers of attendees.

The notes and observations initially resembled a cock fight of history. Pictures were disseminated through the main news sites: the conspicuously larger numbers at the 2009 inauguration measured against the thinner ones in 2017.  The “popular vote” was mentioned, a sneer against legitimacy. (Inside every believer in democracy is a dormant petty tyrant.)Ignorance also finds a loud, jabbering voice, not all of it stemming from Trump’s aisle.  He is characterised as exceptional – negatively so.  There is a dogmatic refusal that he is not the legitimate president.

It is easy to ignore, in the age of the vacuous tweet or the dribbling that counts for a Facebook post, that there were presidencies that almost took the world to nuclear conflict.  There were presidencies that established torture and extraordinary rendition as necessary practices.  There were presidencies engaged, much against the wishes of the initial founders of the US Republic, in the blood soaked game of empire, with its alliances and territories of control.  Even the armour on Knight Obama began to suffer from imperial rust.

Where there is little to say – Trump’s presidential record is embryonic; where there is sheer bewilderment, minds vanish and vacation into the night of dark ponderings.  Visceral senses take over.  In Trumpland, those senses have become the format of a program, the US as the greatest reality television show. But it would be ridiculous to see this as pure televisual evocation, as the total negation of reality.

For one, he is the astringent fruit of a broken US, a cruel reality that has somehow been locked away in a cupboard of theoretical curiosities. “This American carnage,” as he termed it, “stops right here and stops right now.”  The carnage, he explained on the steps of the Capitol, involved closing factories, vicious crime rates, a failed education system.

Visions of fracture, disappearance, decay.  “We, the citizens of America, are now joined in a great national effort to rebuild our country and to restore its promise for all our people.” The theme of repair writ through, with the accusation that the managers had failed the country. “Together, we will determine the course ofAmerica, and the world, for many years to come.”

The return of power to the people, a populist seizing of the day that suggests revolution.  “January 20th, 2017, will be remembered as the day the people became rulers of this nation once again.  The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer.”

Well that may be, but there is little doubt that the art of being frivolous will also be practiced.  The message of reclaiming sovereignty may well be strong one, but the new president remains, at heart, a businessman.  Trump, as president, was delighted by his pens and the signatures in the President’s Room soon after being sworn in.  “Are we getting some more pens back there?” he ribbed.

Trump’s triumph, the essence of mockery, has been the cathartic cleansing of the mirage of harmony, of conciliation, and acceptance.  It was a rough, extensive puke at the pointy-headed intellectuals, as the four time Alabama governor George Wallace termed them.  It was a decidedly firm middle-finger directed against the acceptance of the electoral experts, or experts of any sort.  Nostalgia tied the knot with a snorting revenge.

That nostalgia has already taken its first bite: a scrubbing of the government website of various Obama administration initiatives.  Gone from the White House site is any reflection about the existential threat posed by climate change. It is too gloomy, not America First enough.

Nostalgia, therefore, would not tolerate it. Instead, what Trump has supplied is “An America First Energy Plan”: “For too long, we’ve been held back by burdensome regulations on our energy industry.  President Trump is committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan and the Waters of the US rule.”

The goal of such adjustments to reality?  To “greatly help American workers, increasing wages by more than $30 billion over the next 7 years.”[1] America First is not a terrain of complexity, but one that appeals to red tape cutting simplicity. Out of that idea, jobs are supposedly going to emanate like bright sparks.

This inauguration has been a painful birth.  The mother continues to writhe in disgust and amazement, pondering whether the child needs strangling, if not smothering.  But in the end, it has remained yet another inauguration, another birth, the dawn of another era.  Dullness will find some way of entering the Oval Office, lumbering away to make matters plain and perhaps less terrifying.

There might – the thought is considered surprising – be a tedium, only ruptured by the chatter of the news room or the speculation of the pundit.  Trump may start using the @POTUS handle to tweet, which would be a representative surrender to establishment officials over the populist hotline of Twitter.  The court expert will be heard, and the President will operate accordingly.  Whether he will be permitted to do by electoral blessing remains the dangerous, unanswered question.

Dr. Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar atSelwyn College, Cambridge.  He lectures at RMITUniversity, Melbourne.  Email:[email protected]

Notes

 [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/america-first-energy


  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on The Birth of Trumpland: Notes on an Inauguration

An agreement signed by Russia and Syria stipulates that up to eleven Russian warships will be able to dock in the Syrian port of Tartus at any one time. The move is designed to boost defense capabilities, the document states.

The maximum number of the Russian warships allowed at the Russian naval facility at one time is 11, including nuclear-powered warships, providing that nuclear and ecological security rules are observed,” the agreement says.

Up to 11 Russian warships allowed simultaneously in port of Tartus, Syria – new agreement

The nuclear-powered heavy cruiser Peter the Great © / Sputnik

The agreement has been signed for 49 years and could be prolonged by 25 more years if both sides agree.

The Syrian Arab Republic gives consent to the Russian Federation to expand the territory of its naval facility and upgrade its infrastructure to conduct repair works, restock supplies and give crews time for rest,” the document says, adding that the use of the naval facility will be free of charge.

Under the agreement, signed on Wednesday and made public on Friday, Russian warships will be allowed to enter the port after an appropriate Syrian body has been notified, not later than 12 hours before the planned entry.

However, “in case of operational need Russian warships may enter the port after an appropriate Syrian body has been notified, not later than six hours before the entry.”

Russia is allowed to bring in and out any kind of “weaponry, ammunition, devices and materials” to provide security for the facility staff, crew, and their families throughout the territory of the Syrian Arab Republic “without any duties or levies.”

According to a protocol signed on Wednesday and released on Friday, Russia has also been given the right to use the Syrian Khmeimim Air Base in the Latakia province free of charge.

“The Syrian side gives the Russian side a part of the Khmeimim airbase territory to locate the Russian air group there for the duration of the agreement and the protocol, according to attachment documents 1 and 2,” the agreement says.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Eleven Russian Warships Deployed to Syria, Russia’s Tartus Mediterranean Naval Facility. New Agreement with Syria

 H.E. President Bashar Al-Assad gave the following interview to the Japanese TBS TV channel:

Question 1:  Thank you Mr. President, thank you for availing us of this opportunity to know your perspective of what is happening in Syria, and the future of this country. First of all, I have one question: now that the Astana talk nears, what do you seek and expect from this conference?

President Assad: First of all, you’re most welcome in Damascus, and I am glad to speak to the Japanese audience for the first time during this war on Syria. We don’t have expectations, let’s say, we have hopes from Astana, that it’s going to be a podium for talks between different Syrian parties regarding everything, but I think it’s going to focus more at the very beginning – it’s going to be the priority, as we see it – is about the ceasefire in different places in Syria in order to protect lives, to allow the humanitarian aid to reach different areas in Syria. It’s not clear yet whether this meeting is going to be about any political dialogue, because it’s not clear who’s going to participate in it. So far, it’s about talking between the government and the terrorist groups in order to make ceasefire and to allow those terrorist groups to join the reconciliations in Syria, which means giving up your armaments and having amnesty from the government. This is the only thing that we can expect in the meantime.

Question 2: And do you accept the formation of transitional government to be discussed in this conference?

President Assad:  Anything that will be discussed should be based on the constitution, because it’s not about the government and the opposition or the government and the terrorist groups; it’s about every Syrian citizen who has the right to define the future of Syria. So, in our constitution there’s nothing called transitional government. You can have regular government that represents different parties and different political entities in Syria. This is our proposition. So, yes, if anybody wants to join this government, what we call it national unity government, this is viable for every party outside or inside Syria, and after that government, you can talk about, let’s say, legislative elections or parliamentarian elections, that would be followed by another government later, which is based on the results of the elections.

Question 3: New United States President Mr. Donald Trump is going to be inaugurated soon. What do you expect of Mr. Trump, and what kind of policy change do you expect from this?

President Assad: As you know, he’s one of few American presidents that weren’t in politics before. Most of the previous presidents, they used to have certain kinds of political jobs or positions. This one is not so. If you read different media, even the American media, they look at him as unpredictable, because they know little about his vision. The only thing that we have that we can base our judgment upon is his rhetoric during the campaign, and if you want to pick up the thing that we can say that it’s good in those rhetorics is our priority today, which is fighting the terrorism, and that’s what he said, President Trump, he said that his priority is to fight ISIS. Of course, ISIS is one of the aspects of terrorism, one of the organizations; when you talk about ISIS you have to talk about al-Nusra, and you have so many Al Qaeda-affiliated groups now within Syria, but he meant by ISIS, I think, the terrorism, so I think this priority that he put is very important. So, we expect, and we hope, that the next administration will be genuine in implementing this rhetoric regarding the terrorism and help not only Syria, because the terrorism today is not a Syrian problem; it’s a Middle Eastern and global problem. So, we hope that they are genuine to forge a real and realistic alliance to fight the terrorists in the region, and that of course will include Syria first of all.

 

Question 4: And I have read one interview in which you mentioned lobbies in Washington DC. They are disturbing the policy change, you think so?

President Assad: It’s very clear that the mainstream media, the different establishments, the different lobbies… this is one combination, one combination that they don’t need to see any change, because they have their own interest in the policy of the United States, in the destructive policy of the United States that we’ve been seeing at least for the last nearly 17 years since George Bush came to power in 2000. We only see the United States launching a war, directly or indirectly through proxies, and those different companies, lobbies, media, they have interest in this kind of problems. It could be financial interest in most of the cases. So, it’s very clear today that they are going to put obstacles and to impede any direction of the policy of the new President regarding either fighting terrorism or respecting the sovereignty of other countries, or even having detente around the world through the good relation with Russia, or with any other great power, like China, for example.

Question 5: In the course of the fight against the so-called Islamic State, would you seek coordination with players like Turkey, Kurds, and the United States?

President Assad:  First of all, if you want to be very transparent, ISIS was created under the supervision of the United States, whether in Iraq in 2006; before it was ISIS, it was IS, Islamic State, it was in Iraq only, restricted to Iraq. Then when the conflict started in Syria, it became ISIS, of Syria and Iraq, and later Turkey sponsored this State, because they used to use the Syrian oil fields in order to export and to get money and to recruit more fighters, and Turkey was directly involved in the smuggling of oil, with the involvement and complicity of Erdogan himself with ISIS. So, we cannot expect to have genuine fight against ISIS by Turkey or the United States, and the recent, more stark example is the attack on Palmyra a few weeks ago, when they could retake Palmyra under the supervision of the Americans, under the surveillance of the American drones; they came through the desert and they occupied Palmyra. Today, we are talking, and ISIS has been attacking Deir Ezzor in the eastern part of Syria, and the Americans did nothing to stop ISIS. This is where the so-called international alliance against terrorism has been working for more than one year and a half now, and they achieved nothing, because they are not serious. For Turkey, Erdogan is Muslim Brotherhood, he’s instinctively and innately sympathetic and linked and close and adhered to the ISIS and to Al Qaeda because they have the same ideology, he cannot be away from them. He tries to do some maneuvers, to show that he’s against those terrorists, ISIS and al-Nusra, but actually on daily basis he supports those organizations, and without his support, they cannot survive.

Question 6: In Aleppo, and elsewhere, your armed forces and Russian forces have been criticized for bombing residential areas, quarters, and hospitals from air. Would you say those human tragedies were inevitable to liberate Aleppo?

President Assad:  Actually, the ones who accused Russia and Syria about the bombardment or committing crimes and so on are the same countries who supported the terrorists, starting from the United States, UK, France, Turkey, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, and other similar countries. Those who supported the terrorists directly through the media, through the politics, and through sending armaments and money and every logistical support, have no right to cry for the Syrian citizens, because they are the reason why the Syrian civilians, innocent people, have been killed during the last six years. This is first.

Second, our role, as a government, by the constitution, by the law, and our moral obligation toward the Syrian people and the Syrian citizens, is to liberate them from the terrorists. Would anyone accept that a government would see any area in any country under the control of terrorists killing people and destroying everything and implementing their hateful ideology, the Wahabi ideology, on the people, and expect the government to stand by and watch? Of course, if you want to talk the casualties, every war has casualties, every war is a bad war. Every war has blood and killing, every war, any kind of war; you cannot talk about good war, this is self-evident. But if you have to resort to a war to fight terrorism, you will have casualties, unfortunately. We did our utmost not to have any casualties, but those who’ve been out crying for the civilians, did they present any shred of evidence about Syria killing civilians, or Russia? The other question: how can a government morally kill its own people? And if we kill our own people, the civilians, how can we withstand six years, as a government or as army or as President? This is not logical, this is not realistic. We are here because we have the public support. But at the end, as I said, there’s always casualties, and we hope that we can really end this war as soon as possible; this is the only way that we can save Syrian blood through.

Question 7: Your force has been suspected to be using bombs containing chlorine gas. Would you deny it?

President Assad:  Actually, you are talking about chemical weapons, talking about chemical weapons means killing thousands of people in very short time, something that hasn’t happened in Syria since the beginning of the crisis. But the most important thing is that morally, as a government, you wouldn’t do it, you wouldn’t, as I just said, kill your own people, you wouldn’t use mass destruction weapons against your own people, that’s impossible. But third, which is more important, is that in 2013, we signed on the treaty of the banning of chemical weapons, and we gave up our arsenal of chemical weapons since 2013, and we don’t have it anymore. But actually, the terrorists are the ones who used those kinds of armaments, the first time in 2013, and in the spring of 2013 we asked the United Nations to send a delegation for investigations, and the Americans blocked our attempt, because they knew that time that if the delegation came to Syria, it will find the concrete evidence that the terrorists have used chlorine gas against our soldiers. So, I will completely deny what’s in this statement, which reflects the narrative, the Western narrative, regarding Syria, and this is part of demonizing the Syrian government and the Syrian Army.

Question 8: There are millions of refugees and IDPs, including small children, hundreds of thousands of deaths. How do you think of responsibility as President?

President Assad:  Of course, when you talk about refugees, it’s a tragedy, when you talk especially about children, young children, youths, they are innocent people, they don’t have anything to do with this war, regardless of the affiliation. Actually, when you talk about children, they don’t have any political affiliation; they are just innocent people, but they are the ones who pay the price before any other one in the society. So, you’re talking about a tragedy we’ve been living with on daily basis. That’s why that feeling that I’m talking about, that we live with every day, is the incentive for us as officials to do our utmost to get rid of the terrorists who created this problem, and to bring peace and stability back to Syria. That’s the question that the Syrians ask to the President. Of course, as a Syrian, I’m sympathetic with every Syrian who suffered because of the war, but their question now is not what you feel; their question is what are you going to do? When are we going to get rid of those terrorists? But the most important aspect that many in the West and the world don’t mention is that part of the refugees problem is not only related to the terrorists themselves; it’s related to the embargo that’s been implemented on the Syrian people by the West and their allies. This embargo didn’t work against the government; it worked against every Syrian citizen, it affected the life of every Syrian citizen. That’s why many refugees left their country, not only because of the threat of the terrorists, but actually because the basic needs of their life, of their livelihoods, are not available for them to continue their normal life, whether food, whether education, healthcare, anything, it’s not available anymore, so they have to leave Syria to live somewhere else to live the minimum of the life that anyone would seek.

Question 9: Then, in course of the peacemaking process, would you consider your resignation as an option, when you think it’s necessary for reconciliation?

President Assad:  The resignation of the President or the continuation of that President in his position is a national issue, it’s related to every Syrian, because in Syria the President would be elected directly by the Syrian people, so this is not the right of the government or the right of the opposition; it’s the right of every Syrian, so the only decision-maker in that regard is the ballot box. Whoever wants the President to leave, they can go to the ballot box and say “no, we don’t want him.” This is the democracy everywhere in the world. So, no, it’s not something we discuss either with the opposition or with any other country. This is a Syrian issue, and this is part of the constitution, it’s related to the constitution. When we have election, or could be early election – it’s not on the table now – but this is the only way to say whether I have to leave or not. Again, I’m not the reason of the problem. As President, I have to help my country during the crisis, not to flee, not to escape, not to say “I have to leave and let the people fend for themselves.” No, this is not the solution. In the crisis, the President should be at the helm, should take care of the crisis, then after the crisis is finished, he can say maybe he wants to stay or wants to leave, and this is where the Syrian people would tell him “stay” or “no, you have to leave, we don’t want you anymore.”

Question 10: What role would you expect Japan to play in peacemaking and rebuilding Syria; reconstruction and rebuilding Syria, Japan’s role?

President Assad:  Let me be frank with as a Japanese guest in Syria: since our independence, since the launching of the relation between Syria and Japan decades ago, Japan played a very important and vital role in the development of different countries including Syria; supporting the infrastructure, etc. And Japan was always unbiased regarding the different issues concerning the Middle East. It always respected the international law till the beginning of this crisis it was the first time for Japan to breach this trend when they say that the Syrian President should go. The question: is it based on the values and morals of the Japanese people? Definitely not. Everybody knows how morally-motivated the Japanese citizens are, everybody knows it. Is it based on the international law? No, we are sovereign country, we are an independent country, no one in the world has the right to say who should stay and who should go. Unfortunately, that was in line with the American and Western policy. Again, Japan joined the embargo on Syria, Japan used to help the Syrian people. Is the embargo on the Syrian people related to anything regarding the interests of the Japanese people or their values or their laws, or their constitution or anything? I don’t think so. So, how can Japan play that role while they don’t have embassy so they don’t see what’s going on here? Actually, politically, they are blind like so many Western countries that they don’t have any relation with our government or with our country, so they cannot play any role because they don’t know what’s going on. Their information is coming from Western countries, which is absurd for us. Reconstruction of Syria, you cannot talk about reconstruction while you are making an embargo; you cannot give me the food with one hand and take it from me with the other hand. So, it’s about the politics of the Japan; they have to go back to the international law, we are sovereign country, they always respected Syria, and we expect them to go back to that line that distinguished Japan from most of the countries around the world. This is where Japan can, of course, definitely, play an important and vital role regarding the peace and saving blood, and the reconstruction of Syria to help those people. Most of the refugees, they don’t need somebody to tell them “you’re welcome” to Germany or to France or to any other country; they want to go back to their country, they don’t want you to help them there, they want you to help them here. That’s how we see the role of Japan in the future, and we have hope that Japan will go back to the Japan that we used to know during the previous decades.

Journalist: As you know, Japan has experience and role in nation building seventy years ago, Japan may advice to your country’s rebuilding and reconstruction.

President Assad:  Definitely, of course. We hope so.

Question 11: As you know Japanese journalist Jumpei Yasuda, he’s very capable journalist, he’s my friend, has been captured in Syria since June 2015. Do you have any information of his whereabouts and situation?

President Assad:  Till this moment no, we don’t have any information about him. We feel sorry about this and we are, as Syrians, the ones who can understand the feeling of his family, because we have so many missings in Syria; many Syrians have been missed during this war, and we understand the feeling of his family, and we feel sorry for that. But if there is any information, I would have given it to you.

Journalist: He is kept hostage by al-Nusra Front.

President Assad:  I think the one who can help in bringing the information are the Turks, because they are the supervisors of al-Nusra; they must have every information al-Nusra have, with their intelligence and their government.

Journalist: And has Japanese government contacted your government?

President Assad: Unfortunately, no. There is not a single contact between the Syrian government and the Japanese government regarding any subject, including this Japanese journalist, who is a Japanese citizen at the end.

Question 12: You defined the Japanese role through their… Japan is belonging, you think, belonging to the coalition member of the United State, you think?

President Assad: In Syria?

Journalist: Yeah.

President Assad: But the question: what did that coalition achieved, actually, nothing. ISIS was expanding since the beginning of the airstrikes, which were cosmetic airstrikes, I’m being very frank with you, till the Russians intervened against ISIS, the end of September 2015, where ISIS started to shrink. So, that coalition achieved nothing; they only killed Syrian soldiers who have been fighting ISIS in that area, they destroy the infrastructure of the Syrians that has been built during the last seventy years since the independence, in every sector of that infrastructure, whether the oil fields, schools, bridges, refineries, everything has been destroyed by that coalition. This is the only achievement of that coalition, unfortunately.

Question 13: Your plan to rebuild this country, how long does it take? Your timetable?

President Assad: We have started before the end of the crisis, we put the plans and we started with suburbs around Damascus and now we are planning in Aleppo and other cities to reconstruct new suburbs that’s been destroyed, but in a modern way. So, we haven’t waited, and we are not going to wait till the end of the crisis; we can start right away, as the Syrian people are determined to rebuild their country. We built Syria, Syria was not built by any foreigners; we built it with our engineers, with our labors, with our own resources, with the help of some friends – financial help, not technical help. So, we have the ability to rebuild Syria. It takes time because it needs a lot of money. The Syrians, every Syrian is going to build his own house according to his resources even if it is limited, you have expatriates, you have the refugees who left Syria, some of them are in good condition, they want to come back, and with the support of our friends Russia, China, and Iran. Many other countries started discussing the reconstruction of Syria, and they’re going to help with their financial resources. So, you have so many resources to rebuild Syria. It’s not about time; it will take time. Any reconstruction will take time, but the most important thing is that you have the ability to rebuild your country. We are not worried about that. What we are worried about is how can we rebuild the minds of the people that have been under the control of ISIS and al-Nusra for many years; that their minds have been polluted because of the instilled ideology in their minds, this, as I said, as I called it, hateful or Wahhabi Ideology. They saw the death and the killing, and some of the children killed with their hands innocent people. How can we rebuild those minds, or rehabilitate those minds? That’s our big concern after the crisis.

Journalist: Thank you, thank you so much.

President Assad: Thank you.

Video interview  

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Syrian President Assad: “President Trump said that his Priority is to Fight ISIS”. Interview with Japan TBS TV

Here’s How the Trump Presidency Will Play Out

January 21st, 2017 by Pepe Escobar

The Trump era starts now – with geopolitics and geoeconomics set for a series of imminent, unpredictable cliffhangers.

have argued that Trump’s foreign policy guru Henry Kissinger’s strategy to deal with the formidable Eurasia integration trio – Russia, China and Iran — is a remixed Divide and Rule; seduce Russia away from its strategic partnership with China, while keep harassing the weakest link, Iran.

In fact that’s how it’s already playing out – as in the outbursts of selected members of Trump’s cabinet during their US Senate hearings. Factions of US Think Tankland, referring to Nixon’s China policy, which was designed by Kissinger, are also excited with the possibilities of containment regarding at least one of those powers “potentially arrayed against America”.Kissinger and Dr. Zbig “Grand Chessboard” Brzezinski are the two foremost, self-described Western dalangs – puppet masters – in the geopolitical arena. In opposition to Kissinger, Obama’s foreign policy mentor Brzezinski, true to his Russophobia, proposes a Divide and Rule centered on seducing China.

Yet an influential New York business source, very close to the real, discreet Masters of the Universe, who correctly predicted Trump’s victory weeks before the fact, after examining my argument offered not only a scathing appraisal of those cherished dalangs; he volunteered to detail how the new normal was laid out by the Masters directly to Trump. Let’s call him “X”.

The non-stop China watch

“X” starts by doing something US deep state-connected regulars, who revere their idols, never dare to, at least in public: “It is important not to attribute too much importance to either Kissinger or Brzezinski as they are merely fronts for those who make the decisions and it is their job to cloak the decisions with a patina of intellectuality. Their input means relatively nothing. I use their names on occasion as I cannot use the names of those who actually make the decisions.”That’s the cue for “X” to detail the new normal: “Trump was elected with the support of the Masters to tilt towards Russia. The Masters have their tools in the media and Congress maintaining a vilification campaign against Russia, and have their puppet Brzezinski also come out against Russia, stating ‘America’s global influence depends on cooperation with China’. The purpose is to threaten Russia to cooperate and place these chips on the negotiating table for Trump. In a traditional good cop-bad cop approach, Donald is portrayed as the good cop wanting good relations with Russia, and Congress, media, Brzezinski are the bad cops. This is to aid Trump in the negotiations with Russia as Putin sees the ‘precarious’ position of his friend and should be willing to make major concessions as the line goes.”

And that brings us to how Taiwan – and Japan – got into the mix: “Donald shows the Russian tilt by talking to the Taiwanese, demonstrating that the shift is serious. But it was decided to throw Japan into the mix as a predator against US industry, with an attack on Toyota, thoroughly deserved. That moderated the position as the Masters became afraid that the perception of our building up Japan against China would be too much of a provocation.”

So expect China – as “not too much importance” Kissinger prescribed — to be under non-stop scrutiny: “The Masters have decided to reindustrialize the United States and want to take jobs back from China. This is advisable from the Chinese viewpoint; for why should they sell their work to the US for a dollar that has no intrinsic value and get really nothing back for the work. China should have a car in every Chinese worker’s garage and they will become a larger producer of cars than the EU, US and Japan combined, and their own nation will keep their wealth in their own country.”

And why China over Russia? “Russia in this sense being a natural resource country with a gigantic military industrial complex (the latter being the only reason she is secretly respected) is exempt from any tough trade talk as they hardly export anything but natural resources and military equipment. The Masters want jobs back from Mexico and Asia including Japan, Taiwan, etc., and you see this in Trump’s attack on Japan. The main underlying reason is that the US has lost control of the seas and cannot secure its military components during a major war. This is all that matters now and this is the giant story behind the scenes.”

In only a few words “X” details the reversal of an economic cycle: “The Masters made money out of transfer of industry to Asia (Bain Capital specialized in this), and Wall Street made money from the lower interest rates on the recycled dollars from the trade deficits. But now, the issue is strategic; and they will make money on the return of industries scaling down their investments in Asia and returning them to the United States as we rebuild production here.””X” remains quite fond of Henry Ford’s business strategy; and that is the cue for him to address the crucial theme: national defense. According to “X”, “Ford doubled the wages he paid and made more money than any other manufacturer. The reason was that a living wage where the mother can have many children on her husband’s wage was psychologically good for productivity in his car plants, and that his workers could then afford his cars. He thus recognized that in a society there must be a just distribution of wealth that his admirer Steve Jobs could not.

Henry’s mass productivity was the wonder of the world and that was what won World War Two for the United States. Amazon does not contribute anything to national defense, being merely an internet marketing service based on computer programs, nor Google which merely organizes data better. None of this builds a better missile or submarine except in a marginal way.”

It’s the Pentagon, stupid

So yes; this all has to do with reorganizing the US military. “X” made a point to refer to a CNAS report I quoted in my initial column: “It is very important for what is visible between the lines. And that is we are in deep trouble being technologically behind Russia by generations in weapons, which is a follow-up on the Brzezinski quote that we are no longer a global power.”

This is a thorough, wide-ranging analysis of how Russia has managed to organize the best armed forces in the world. And that does not even take into account the S-500 missile defense system, which is now being rolled out and arguably seals the entirety of Russian airspace. And the next generation — S-600? – will be even more powerful.”X” does venture into deep state taboo territory, as in how Russia, over the past decade, has managed to leap far ahead of the US, “eclipsing it as the strongest military power”. But the game may be far from over – wishful thinking or otherwise: “We hope Secretary of Defense James Mattis will understand this and that the Deputy Secretary of Defense has advanced technological skills, organizational ability and the foresight to understand that the weapons of World War Three are offensive and defensive missiles, and submarines, and not air power, tanks and aircraft carriers.”

A realist, “X” admits that the warmongering neocon/neoliberalcon status quo – represented by most US deep state factions – will never abandon the default posture of unremitting hostility towards Russia. But he prefers to focus on change: “Let Tillerson reorganize the State Department along Exxon efficiencies. He may be worth something in that. He and Mattis may be gutless but if you tell the truth to the Senate you may not be confirmed. So what they say means nothing. But notice this about Libya. The CIA had a goal of driving China out of Africa and so does AFRICOM. That was one of the secrets to our Libyan intervention.”

Not that it worked; NATO/AFRICOM turned Libya into a wasteland run by militias, and still China was not driven away from the rest of Africa.

“X” also admits: “Syria and Iran are red lines for Russia. So is the eastern Ukraine from the Dnieper.” He is fully aware Moscow will not allow any regime change gambit on Tehran. And he’s also aware that “China’s investments in Iranian oil and gas imply that China also will not permit Washington’s overthrow of the Iranian government.”

The going really gets tough when it comes to NATO; “X” is convinced Russia “will invade Romania and Poland if those missiles are not taken out of Romania and the missile commitment to Poland rescinded. The issue is not the worthless defensive missiles of the United States but the substitutability of offensive nuclear missiles in these silos. Russia will not tolerate this risk. These are not subject to negotiation.”

In contrast to the “perpetual threat” perpetual propaganda by the US War Party, Moscow focuses on actual facts on the ground since the 1990s; the break up of historic Slavic ally Serbia; Warsaw Pact nations and even former USSR republics annexed by NATO, not to mention attempts to also include Georgia and Ukraine; US deployment of color revolutions; the “Assad must go” fiasco, as in regime change forced on Syria even including the weaponizing of Salafi-jihadis; economic sanctions, an oil price war and raids on the ruble; and non-stop NATO harassment.”X”, fully aware of the facts, adds, “Russia has always wanted peace. But they are not going to play a game with the Masters of the Universe that has Trump as the good guy and the Congress, CIA, etc. as the bad guy as a negotiating ploy. That is how they see it. They do not regard this circus as real.”

The circus may be just an illusion. Or wayang – Balinese puppet theatre — as I suggested. “X” advances a crisp interpretation of the shadow play ahead from Moscow’s point of view, allowing “several months to see if Putin can work out a detente with Trump that essentially creates an autonomous eastern Ukraine, a peace treaty in Syria with Assad in place, and a withdrawal of NATO forces back to their line of defense under Ronald Reagan.”

Who will prevail; the Masters, or the deep state? Brace for impact.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Here’s How the Trump Presidency Will Play Out

Óscar Romero was known as the voice of the voiceless. During a time of great repression and violence in El Salvador, from 1977 to 1980, he was the Catholic archbishop of the nation’s capital and a leading figure in Central America. Romero gained admiration throughout the world because he had the courage to speak out in favor of the millions of Salvadorans without money or power who suffered terribly at the hands of the autocratic military. In specific and strident terms, he denounced Salvadoran soldiers for torturing and killing innocent civilians, and he criticized the economic elites – known as the oligarchs – for underwriting the violence. For that, Romero was murdered on March 24, 1980, while saying mass in a chapel on the grounds of a hospital for cancer patients.

The shooting of Archbishop Romero made headlines around the globe and helped spark a twelve-year civil war in El Salvador that left over 75,000 people dead. Although a single gunman fired the fatal bullet, the plot to assassinate Romero sprang from a death squad network of military leaders, wealthy businesspeople and former soldiers. The U.S. government had played an important role in the development of these paramilitary forces in El Salvador, and several Salvadorans implicated in the death squads lived in or traveled to the United States. Some developed relationships with influential figures in Washington.

Starting in 2002, as a young attorney with the Center for Justice & Accountability (CJA), I had the honor of investigating Romero’s murder and participating in a lawsuit against one of the killers, Álvaro Saravia. CJA became involved in the case because Saravia was living freely in California, and a key part of the organization’s mission is to take legal action against human rights violators found in the United States. During the case, my colleagues and I, working with Salvadoran partners, met with members of the group that murdered Romero, spoke to witnesses about the funding of the death squads, and eventually won a $10 million verdict against Saravia. My new book, Assassination of a Saint, tells the story of our investigation and lawsuit and explains the complex historical context that led a group of men in a heavily Catholic country to murder the most prominent figure in the Catholic Church.

This will be an important year for Romero’s legacy. After decades of inaction, the Vatican has now declared Romero a martyr, and Pope Francis appears set to canonize Romero as a saint in 2017. The Salvadoran Supreme Court has also invalidated a long-standing amnesty law, opening the possibility that conspirators still living in El Salvador could one day face accountability there. While the authorities have yet to pursue a prosecution, and the country continues to suffer widespread violence and corruption, the historic developments in San Salvador and Rome provide a measure of hope for the future and reinforce Romero’s enduring message of peace and justice.

Matt Eisenbrandt is a human-rights attorney who has devoted his career to finding legal means to prosecute war crimes. In the early 2000s, he served as the Center for Justice and Accountability’s Legal Director and a member of the trial team against one of Óscar Romero’s killers. He is an expert in the field of U.S. human-rights litigation and now works for the Canadian Centre for International Justice.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Assassination of a Saint: The US Trial for the Killing of El Salvador’s Oscar Romero

Rome Court Concludes 3-Year Trial on Multinational Repression in Latin America

National Security Archive Provided Declassified Evidence to Tribunal, Hails Historic Ruling

A tribunal in Rome, Italy, today sentenced two former heads of state and two ex-chiefs of security forces from Bolivia and Peru, and a former Uruguayan foreign minister to life imprisonment for their  involvement in the coordinated, cross-border system of repression known as “Operation Condor.”  The National Security Archive, which provided testimony and dozens of declassified documents as evidence to the tribunal, hailed the ruling.  Today’s posting on the Archive’s web site includes several exhibits from the trial.

One declassified Department of State document that the Archive provided to prosecutors stated that Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay

“have established Operation Condor to find and kill terrorists … in their own countries and in Europe.” “… [T]hey are joining forces to eradicate ‘subversion’, a word which increasingly translates into non-violent dissent from the left and center left.” Their definition of subversion, according to the document, was so broad as to include “nearly anyone who opposes government policy.”

The document notes that former Foreign Minister Blanco of Uruguay was one of those behind this vision.

Former Uruguayan Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Blanco (Photo: Flores.org.uy)

In another document introduced in the trial, Peru’s former defense and prime Minister Richter Prada claims that three Argentine fugitives were “legally expelled and delivered to a Bolivian immigration official in accordance with long-standing practice.” The document goes on to say that the  fugitives are probably “permanent disappearances.”

The Rome trial considered the disappearance of 42 dual citizens – 33 Italian-Uruguayans, 5 Italian-Argentinians and 4 Italian-Chileans. The tribunal sentenced to life in prison former military dictator Francisco Morales Bermudez and the prime minister at the time, Pedro Richter Prada from Peru; former dictator Luis Garcia Meza and minister of interior Luis Arce Gomez from Bolivia; and former Uruguayan Foreign Minister Juan Carlos Blanco (1973-76). Two Chilean military, Hernán Jerónimo Ramírez and Rafael Ahumada Valderrama, were also sentenced to life. Recently deceased former head of the Uruguayan National Security Council, Gregorio Alvarez, was also one of the initially accused, along with the head of the Chilean secret police (DINA), Manuel Contreras, and DINA operative Sergio Arellano Stark (both deceased).

Surprisingly, the tribunal  acquitted infamous Uruguayan intelligence operatives in Argentina from 1976 Nino Gavazzo, Jose Arab, and Jorge Silveira; along with Jorge Troccoli, a Uruguayan marine intelligence officer operating in Argentina in 1977.  Ten other Uruguayan military were acquitted. Interviewed in Rome, former prosecutor and current director of the Uruguayan National Institution of Human Rights Mirtha Guianze deplored the tribunal acquittals. Relatives of the Uruguayan victims have indicated they will appeal.

The trial had its origin in a complaint filed in 1999 by six relatives of victims: Cristina Mihura, wife of Bernardo Arnone; Marta Casal del Rey, wife of Gerardo Gatti; María Luz Ibarburu, mother of Juan Pablo Recagno; María Bellizzi, mother of Andrés Bellizzi; Aurora Meloni, wife of Daniel Banfi, and Claudia Allegrini, wife of Lorenzo Viñas.

In 2001, Cristina Mihura and prosecutor Giancarlo Capaldo visited the National Security Archive seeking assistance in locating and compiling documentary evidence. Capaldo requested the indictment of the defendants in 2006. The trial started in 2013 and the hearings and debate in February 2015.

According to Carlos Osorio, the Archive’s Southern Cone analyst, “the sentences are the result of the unquenchable thirst for justice of dozens of relatives and victims.” Osorio testified before the court on May 19-20, 2016, and supplied the court with 100 declassified records.


Listen to Archive analyst Carlos Osorio (pictured above at the Argentine embassy in Washington on March 23, 2015) testify at the Rome trial, where he provided dozens of declassified documents as evidence.

Osorio Testimony 5/19/2016

Osorio Testimony 5/20/2016

READ THE DOCUMENTS

Summary of Document 1

On the role of Henry Kissinger:
Document 01
Department of State, Memorandum of Conversation between Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and Argentine Foreign Minister Adm. Cesar Guzzetti, Secret, June 10, 1976
Source: Freedom of Information Act request filed by Carlos Osorio
During a June 1976 OAS meeting in Santiago, Chile, (which corresponded with the second Condor meeting, also held in Santiago at the same time), Henry Kissinger met privately with Admiral Cesar Guzzetti, foreign minister of Argentina’s military regime. This declassified “memcon” reveals that Kissinger not only encouraged the ongoing internal repression in Argentina, but also endorsed the “joint efforts” with other Southern Cone regimes, which Guzzetti described, to address “the terrorist problem.” In what appears to be the very first time Kissinger is told of the Condor collaboration, Guzzetti informs him that Argentina wants “to integrate with our neighbors … All of them: Chile, Paraguay, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil,” to fight subversion. In response, Kissinger advises him to step up diplomatic efforts to explain the repression and offset international condemnation:
“You will have to make an international effort to have your problems understood. Otherwise, you, too, will come under increasing attack. If there are things that have to be done, you should do them quickly. But you must get back quickly to normal procedures.” When Guzzetti suggests that “The terrorists work hard to appear as victims in the light of world opinion even though they are the real aggressors,” Kissinger agrees. “We want you to succeed,” he concludes. “We do not want to harass you. I will do what I can … “

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Operation Condor: Latin-American Heads of State Condemned by Rome Tribunal, Declassified Docs Reveal Role of Henry Kissinger

War and Peace? Trump’s Relations with Russia?

January 21st, 2017 by Stephen Lendman

Longstanding adversarial relations, hugely exacerbated by Obama’s neocon administration, won’t be easy to change…

Trump genuinely appears to want better bilateral relations. Huge challenges confront him, including possible impeachment if he diverges from longstanding US foreign policy.

What he intends remains to be seen, likely focusing on Russia after his first 100 days, devoted mainly to domestic issues, according to what he explained earlier.

An previous article discussed his 8-point first 100 days plan. It includes:

1. Appointing judges who’ll “uphold the Constitution” – likely code language for supporting conservative, anti-progressive policies.

2. Restricting immigration to help Americans get “good-paying jobs.”

3. Holding countries “cheat(ing) on trade” accountable – how not explained, if by imposing stiff tariffs, they’ll likely be countered by similar ones on US products, the way trade wars begin.

4. “Cancel(ing) rules and regulations that send jobs overseas.” Companies need incentives to keep jobs at home. As private enterprises, they’re free to operate anywhere.

5. Lifting restrictions on energy production – nothing in his plan  shifts from greenhouse-producing fossil fuels and dangerous nuclear power to renewable green sources.

6. “Repeal(ing) and replac(ing) jobs-killing Obamacare.” What’s vitally needed Trump opposes – universal healthcare, everyone in, no one left out, assuring all Americans have the most important human right along with food, shelter, clothing, and governance serving everyone equitably.

7. “Passing massive tax reform to create millions of new jobs and lower taxes for everyone.” Economic growth creates jobs, not tax cuts, largely benefitting high-income earners, most ordinary people getting little or nothing.

8. “Impos(ing) tough new ethics rules…to the office of Secretary of State.”

Trump said nothing about ending US imperial wars or repairing relations with Russia. Stressing “America first” ignores its responsibility to respect the sovereign rights of all nations.

It’s customary for an incoming president to focus mainly on domestic issues straightaway, especially with so much damage to repair, notably under Bush/Cheney and Obama.

With America at war in multiple theaters, it’s crucial to address what’s going on and take responsible steps to change things – hard as it’ll be to do, maybe impossible.

Normalizing relations with Russia and China is vital to avoid possible nuclear war – more important than anything else on Trump’s plate, in the interest of world peace and stability. Lacking them risks catastrophe vital to avoid.

On January 20, Sergey Lavrov said “Donald Trump has stated repeatedly that his priority in the international arena will be the fight against ISIS as the main terrorist threat to the whole of mankind.”

“We completely share this approach and hope that under the new conditions, international cooperation and coordination of efforts by all the main players on this antiterrorist front will be far more effective.”

Lavrov hopes Washington under Trump will participate responsibly in helping to resolve Syria’s conflict – unlike how Obama obstructed it, waging imperial war, seeking regime change.

On Saturday, Putin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said a Putin/Trump meeting may happen in months, not weeks, Russia’s leader to be ready whenever it occurs, in Moscow, Washington or in neutral territory.

The sooner both leaders meet, the better the chance for improved bilateral relations and world peace – no easy objectives to achieve with US dark forces strongly against them.

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

His new 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

Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com

Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

 

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on War and Peace? Trump’s Relations with Russia?

During his Secretary of State confirmation hearing, recently retired ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson came under questioningby Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL) about his stance on Saudi Arabia’s awful human rights record, a country which contains the biggest oil reserves on the planet and is a long-time ally of the U.S.

While Tillerson offered mild criticism of Saudi Arabia’s treatment of women, LGBQT people, and others, several Senators found his response far from full-throated and said as much. A DeSmog investigation shows that Exxon has long been involved in Saudi Arabia’s oil and gas industry. Not only did the company, through its predecessor Standard Oil, help launch the industry there and co-owned the country’s first major export pipeline, but to this day it maintains deep business ties with Saudi Arabia and the industry in a variety of sectors, both there and in the U.S.

The U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations will vote on whether to confirm Tillerson on January 23, and Rubio’s vote one way or the other could make or break President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Tillerson for Secretary of State. It appears human rights will play a central role in Rubio’s decision, which he has not yet made. However, Committee Chairman Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) has threatened to bring Tillerson’s nomination to a full floor vote regardless of whether he passes in committee.

Corker took $6,000 in campaign contributions from Exxon during his 2006 electoral victory effort and another $10,000 for his 2012 re-election effort.

Exxon’s Saudi America

Exxon and Saudi Arabia have state-side projects too. Currently, Saudi state-owned company Saudi Arabia Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) is working alongside Exxon through the company Gulf Coast Growth Ventures to permit and build a natural gas refinery facility along the Gulf of Mexico to manufacture plastics.

“Sites under consideration are in St. James and Ascension Parishes, Louisiana and San Patricio and Victoria Counties, Texas,” details the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures website. “We are very early in the process and have extensive studies and due diligence to perform before making a site selection decision among the four sites under consideration.”

Though not clarified on the company website, presumably that gas would be obtained via hydraulic fracturing (“fracking”), given the horizontal drilling technique’s rampant use in Texas’ Eagle Ford, Barnett, and Permian Basin shale formations, as well as in Louisiana’s Haynesville Shale basin. The facility’s website only maintains that “feedstock for the facility will be acquired from domestic sources,” but industry publication Platts reported that much of that could be sourced from the Eagle Ford.

Meanwhile, a grassroots movement has arisen in opposition to the plant’s proposed site in Portland, Texas, calling itself Portland Citizens Unite. While Exxon has made appearances at city council meetings to advocate for the facility, it’s a hard sell. Portland’s city council passed a resolution on January 3 in opposition to the plant’s proposed locale.

Portland, Texas Exxon Saudi Arabia Plant

Image Credit: City of Portland, Texas

Exxon and SABIC have also created a front group supportive of the project named We Are United for Growth, which showed up in green t-shirts (to represent giving the project a “green light”) at a recent Portland City Council meeting. SABIC says that it expects a final decision on whether to go ahead with the project by sometime during the second quarter of 2017.

Exxon in Saudi Arabia

Back in Saudi Arabia, Exxon also has a heavy footprint. In a 2016 company brochure, Exxon boasts of its close ties to the Saudi petrostate via three crucial petrochemical refining facilities.

“Today, ExxonMobil is one of the largest foreign investors in the Kingdom and also one of the largest private sector purchasers of Saudi Aramco crude oil,” reads the brochure. “Through our joint venture (JV) interests, we have participated in the petroleum refining and petrochemicals manufacturing industries in the Kingdom for over 35 years.”

Take the Saudi Yanbu Petrochemical Company (YANPET), a 50-50 joint venture between Exxon and SABIC, open in Saudi Arabia since the 1980s. This facility, similar to the Gulf Coast Growth Ventures one, creates the chemical compound ethylene, which is then used to manufacture plastics. YANPET is viewed as a worldwide model in the industry.

“Yanpet is a fully integrated plant, making it one of the largest and lowest-cost producers in the world,” writes Exxon. “It is recognized as a petrochemical industry global pacesetter.”

Saudi Aramco Mobil Refinery (SAMREF) is another of the major Exxon co-owned refineries in Saudi Arabia, this time with Saudi Aramco. Saudi Aramco owns and operates the Ghawar Field, the largest onshore oil field in the world, as well as the Safaniya Field, the world’s largest offshore oil field.

Opening in 1984, SAMREF situates itself as “one of the most sophisticated refineries in the Middle East, supplying products to a number of markets around the world,” according to Exxon. “SAMREF processes approximately 400,000 barrels per day of Arabian crude, and approximately half of its output is consumed domestically.”

And then there’s the Al-Jubail Petrochemical Company (KEMYA), a 50-50 SABIC-Exxon joint venture, which also manufactures plastics. On the supply side, Exxon owns a 49 percent stake in the Arabian Petroleum Supply Company (APSCO).

“APSCO operates its aviation fueling services in almost 21 national and international airports. APSCO is a long term supplier of aviation fuels to the national carrier, Saudi Arabian Airlines at several airports in the kingdom,” details its website. “Also, APSCOprovides bunkering and marine lubricants in several national and international ports on a 24 hours basis, utilizing a fleet of bunkering ships.

Exxon and Saudi Aramco are among the largest emitters of carbon in the world, according to a groundbreaking 2014 study by Richard Heede, completed for the Climate Accountability Institute.

Image Credit: CarbonMajors.org

“Often Been Reluctant”

The kindred bond between the U.S. and Saudi Arabia centering around fossil fuels is well-documented, becoming a central tenet of U.S. foreign policy after the famous handshake between President Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Saudi Arabia founder Abdulaziz Ibn Saud in 1945.

In fact, as a parting gift from the White House, the Obama administration offered $115 billion in weapons to Saudi Arabia in September.

“We’ve often been reluctant to put as much pressure on states that we are dependent upon for oil, than in situations with states where we’re not dependent on oil,” said U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) during Tillerson’s January 12 confirmation hearing.

Would Rex Tillerson, given the corporate ties that bind him to Saudi Arabia and his long-standing support for the country, reverse course on this status quo as U.S. Secretary of State? That’s doubtful, to say the least.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Under Tillerson, Exxon Maintained Ties with Saudi Arabia, Despite Dismal Human Rights Record

The launching of coordinated air strikes by Russian and Turkish warplanes against Islamic State (ISIS) targets in northern Syria Wednesday has further exposed the crisis gripping Washington’s intervention in the war-ravaged Middle Eastern country, as well as the deepening contradictions plaguing the NATO alliance on the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as US president.

The bombing campaign struck targets around the Syrian town of al-Bab, the scene of bloody fighting between Turkish troops and ISIS militants over the past several weeks.

From a political standpoint, the joint action by Russia and Turkey, a member of the NATO alliance for the past 65 years, is unprecedented. It stands in stark contradiction to the anti-Moscow campaign being waged by Washington and its principal NATO allies, which has seen the cutting off of military-to-military ties, the imposition of sanctions, and the increasingly provocative deployment of thousands of US and other NATO troops on Russia’s western borders. Just last week, the US sent 3,000 soldiers into Poland, backed by tanks and artillery, while hundreds more US Marines have been dispatched to Norway.

Turkey’s collaboration with Russia represents a further challenge to the US-led alliance under conditions in which Trump has severely rattled its European members with recent statements describing NATO as “obsolete” and charging its members with not “taking care of terror” and not “paying what they’re supposed to pay.”

The joint air attack was carried out under the terms of a memorandum reached between the Russian and Turkish militaries the previous week, according to the Russian Defense Ministry.

The document, signed on January 12, was designed to prevent “incidents” between Turkish and Russian warplanes, as well as to prepare “joint operations … in Syria to destroy international terrorist groups,” Lt. Gen. Sergei Rudoskoy said in a statement.

Russian-Turkish relations reached their nadir in November 2015 when Turkish fighter jets ambushed and shot down a Russian warplane carrying out airstrikes against Islamist fighters near the border between Turkey and Syria. The incident brought Turkey, and with it NATO, to the brink of war with nuclear-armed Russia. At that point, Turkey was serving as the main conduit for foreign fighters, weapons and other resources being poured into Syria to wage the US-orchestrated war for regime change, while Russia was intervening to prop up its principal Middle East ally, the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

In June of last year, Ankara sought to mend it relations with Moscow, which had retaliated for the shoot-down with economic sanctions. Relations grew closer in the wake of the abortive July 2016 military coup, which the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan blamed on the US and its allies.

The turning point in bilateral relations between Turkey and Russia came at the end of last year, with the Russian-backed Syrian army’s routing of the Western-backed, Al Qaeda-linked militias in their last urban stronghold of eastern Aleppo. Turkey joined with Russia in brokering a withdrawal of the last “rebels” from the area and a nationwide ceasefire, which continues to prevail in much of the country.

Washington was pointedly excluded from the negotiations surrounding both Aleppo and the ceasefire. Only at the last moment has Moscow invited the incoming Trump administration—over the objection of Syria’s other major ally, Iran—to participate in talks aimed at reaching a political settlement over the six-year-old war that are to convene in Astana, the capital of Kazakhstan, next week.

The joint Russian-Turkish airstrikes around al-Bab came in the wake of bitter protests by the Turkish government over the refusal of the US military to provide similar air support for Ankara’s troops in the area. The Pentagon’s reluctance stemmed from the conflicting aims pursued by Turkey, which sent its troops into Syria last August in what the Erdogan government dubbed “Operation Euphrates Shield.”

Ostensibly directed against ISIS, Ankara’s primary target was really the Syrian Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD) and its military wing, the People’s Protection Unit (YPG). The Turkish government views these groups as affiliates of the outlawed Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), against which it has waged a protracted counterinsurgency campaign within Turkey itself. The offensive against ISIS-controlled al-Bab is aimed principally at preventing it from falling to the YPG and at blocking the linking up of eastern and western Kurdish enclaves along Turkey’s border.

For its part, Washington has utilized the YPG as its principal proxy ground force in the US attack on ISIS, sending in US special forces troops to arm, train and direct these Kurdish fighters.

The US refusal to back Turkish forces around al-Bab with airstrikes led to angry denunciations of Washington by the Turkish president, who charged that the US was supporting “terrorists” instead of its NATO ally. Ankara also began delaying approval for US flights out of the strategic Incirlik air base in southern Turkey and threatened to deny Washington and its allies access to the base altogether.

It was likely these threats, combined with the Turkish-Russian agreement to conduct joint strikes, that led the Pentagon to reverse its previous refusal to support Turkish forces and launch limited bombing runs around al-Bab as well this week.

This crowded and geostrategically tense battlefield is likely to grow even more dangerous following Trump’s ascension to the White House.

Trump has reportedly called for the Pentagon to come up with proposals to deal a decisive defeat to ISIS in Syria and Iraq within 90 days. Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said on Wednesday that he would “present options to accelerate the campaign” against ISIS to retired general James Mattis, Trump’s incoming defense secretary.

Citing unnamed Pentagon officials, CNN reports that “The Defense Department is prepared to provide the new administration with military options to accelerate the war against ISIS in Syria that could send additional US troops into direct combat.”

“One option would put hundreds, if not thousands, of additional US troops into a combat role as part of the fight to take Raqqa,” the Islamic State’s Syrian “capital,” according to the television news network. “… in the coming months, the Pentagon could put several US brigade-sized combat teams on the ground, each team perhaps as many as 4,000 troops.”

Plans are also reportedly being drawn up to escalate military provocations against Iran, which Mattis, in testimony before the Senate, described as the “biggest destabilizing force in the Middle East,” adding that the Trump administration must “checkmate Iran’s goal for regional hegemony.”

There is every indication, Trump’s rhetoric about improving relations with Moscow notwithstanding, that US imperialism is preparing for another eruption of militarism in the Middle East that will pose an ever greater threat of spilling over into a new world war.

  • Posted in English
  • Comments Off on Joint Russian, Turkish Bombing Campaign in Syria Deepens NATO Crisis