Global Research

A classic example of the private sector “countering propaganda.”

As the Syrian Easter celebration began to draw to a close, residents of Aleppo were met with rocket attacks that were apparently aimed at killing civilians. The attacks, which took place in government-held territory, were the result of Nusra/ISIS terrorists funded by the West to overthrow the secular government of Bashar al-Assad.

Syrian news reporters were on the ground shortly after the attacks so as to catch footage of victims being excavated from the rubble and others being treated for their wounds at the hospital.

Sources inside Syria have described the missiles that hit the Aleppo building as being much more advanced than those previously used by the terrorists, describing the result of their impact causing the building to “split in half.” This has led many to believe that the terrorists operating in Aleppo have been provided with weaponry that is much more sophisticated and powerful than that which they have been provided in the past.

Indeed, when one views the footage posted on Syrian media of the destroyed building, the description suggesting that the building was “split in half” is quite accurate. From the footage, what appears to be an apartment building has been cut in half from top to bottom with both sides still standing.

Many residents interviewed by Syrian media claimed that the death squad terrorists were targeting them for supporting the government or, at the very least, not supporting the jihadists.

The area in which the missile struck had been under terrorist bombardment leading up to the incident and resulted in the deaths of a number of people, estimated from 17 to upwards of 40 people.

While the intentional targeting of civilians on behalf of the Western-backed terrorists was virtually unreported in the Western media, another incident has received somewhat more press.

On Sunday, a school was destroyed in Aleppo, allegedly killing 5 children and four adults,according to reports by Reuters. The Saad Al-Ansari school was located in Al-Mashad neighborhood, a terrorist-controlled area.

Of course, the Western press has immediately jumped to the conclusion that the bombing was conducted by the Assad government. However, it should be pointed out that the sole source for the report suggesting even that the school was bombed is the discredited pro-death squad organizationcalled the Syrian Observatory For Human Rights (SOHR), which is essentially one man scouring the Internet and living in the UK. The SOHR Director and Founder, Rami Abdelrahman has launched propaganda attacks alongside NATO governments and against the Syrian government since the beginning of the crisis and is admittedly bankrolled by an unnamed European country. For that reason alone, it is enough to wonder whether or not the claims regarding the bombing of the school are entirely accurate.

In addition, it must be pointed out that schools in Syria have been closed for some time as a result of the Easter holiday and that Sunday would have seen no children in attendance to begin with. So even if the Assad government had bombed the building, the intention of slaughtering children as the Western press has attempted to report it was clearly not present.

Corporate media would have Americans believe that the SAA deliberately targeted children for whatever reason, despite the fact that such an act would be extremely counterproductive to their cause both in terms of domestic and international public relations.

Although the SOHR circulated a video which, it claims, is proof of the attack (the video allegedly shows the aftermath of the bombing with a man holding the severed leg of a child and rescue workers carrying away a body covered in a sheet), it should be remembered that atrocities committed in Syria have long been blamed on Assad only to later be revealed that the war crimes had been committed by the death squad terrorists. From chemical weapons attacks to the infamous Houla massacre, there has been a concerted effort to portray Assad not only as the enemy but as a ruthless butcher of civilians. However, 5 years on, there has yet to be a shred of credible evidence to suggest that the SAA or the Assad government has intentionally targeted civilians.

With all of this in mind, the propaganda regarding the alleged school bombing by the SAA is most likely yet another attempt to gin up support for NATO action against the Syrian government in much the same way it was used when the Western press attempted to exploit an unintentional (at worst) bombing of a school building in May, 2014.

For this reason, we must remember the fabricated stories repeated ad nauseum regarding Assad’s alleged atrocities only to later find that it was the Western-backed death squads who were responsible.

In the end, we must observe these events from a logical standpoint and always take whatever comes from NATO media outlets with a large grain of salt. More importantly, we must always remember that it is the United States, Israel, NATO, and the GCC who are ultimately responsiblefor the tragedy of the Syrian crisis. It is the leadership of these countries and the deep state pockets within their governmental, corporate, and banking structure that must be held responsible.

Brandon Turbeville is an author out of Florence, South Carolina. He has a Bachelor’s Degree from Francis Marion University and is the author of six books, Codex Alimentarius — The End of Health Freedom, 7 Real Conspiracies, Five Sense Solutions and Dispatches From a Dissident, volume 1and volume 2, and The Road to Damascus: The Anglo-American Assault on Syria. Turbeville has published over 500 articles dealing on a wide variety of subjects including health, economics, government corruption, and civil liberties. Brandon Turbeville’s podcast Truth on The Tracks can be found every Monday night 9 pm EST at UCYTV.  He is available for radio and TV interviews. Please contact activistpost (at) gmail.com. 

Israel’s high court on Thursday upheld a 2011 law imposing stiff sanctions on those advocating boycotts of Israel or its colonial settlements in the occupied West Bank and Golan Heights.

The so-called Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycottallows entities to sue and win compensation from individuals or organizations that call for economic, cultural or academic boycott. It also allows the finance ministry to financially penalize any organization that receives state funding that participates in such calls.

The court threw out only one minor provision of the law, which would have allowed anyone to sue for boycott-related damages without showing proof they were harmed.

Sawsan Zaher, an attorney for Adalah – the Legal Center for Arab Minority Rights in Israel, said the law “harms Palestinians more than others because they are on the frontlines of struggling against the occupation and the violation of the human rights of their people under occupation in the West Bank and Gaza.”

In a press release from Adalah, Zaher added that the law would also hit Palestinians in occupied East Jerusalem hard, as it would prevent them from using the “main civil protest tool of boycott to end the occupation.”

Racist and anti-democratic

Adalah is one of eight civil society organizations that had petitioned against the law, along with the Association for Civil Rights in Israel, the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel, HaMoked – Center for the Defence of the Individual and Yesh Din.

Three petitioners are organizations that have actively promoted economic boycott as a means of pressure to end the occupation: the Coalition of Women for Peace, the Higher Follow-up Committee for Arab Citizens in Israel and the Jerusalem Legal Aid and Human Rights Center.

“The anti-boycott bill is one of a host of racist and anti-democratic legislation aimed at silencing opposition and curtailing the rights of the Palestinian minority,” the Coalition of Women for Peace said in a statement condemning the court’s decision.

It affirmed that “boycott is a worldwide recognized and legitimate nonviolent tool in struggles for social and political change.” By allowing it to be outlawed, the court had “failed to protect the right of citizens to voice criticism of government policies.”

“We will not be deterred from exposing and bringing to public discussion the economic interests driving the occupation,” the Coalition of Women for Peace said. “We will continue resisting the occupation using all legitimate, nonviolent means.”

The Coalition of Women for Peace initiated Who Profits, a project that researches and publishes information about corporations and other interests that profit from occupation.

In their challenge, the petitioners pointed out that the law was discriminatory, as it did not outlaw boycotts for purposes other than supporting Palestinian rights.

Israelis have successfully used consumer boycotts for a host of causes, for example in order to fight for lower cottage cheese prices.

Worse to come

The Coalition of Women for Peace warned that the decision foreshadows worse to come.

“With the absence of legal checks on political persecution in Israel, [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu’s shocking comments on election day conveying racism and intolerance of dissent will without a doubt be written into law in the coming Knesset [parliament],” the group said.

The high court had effectively given “a green light to anti-democratic legislation such as the Nationality bill that seeks to anchor Israel’s Jewishness in legislation,” to a law “instituting a death penalty for Palestinians accused of terrorism” and to a ban on leftist organizations receiving donations.

Such bills are “already a negotiating chip” in the ongoing process of forming a coalition government since Israel’s election last month.

The Coalition of Women for Peace urged the “international community” to condemn the attack on “freedom of expression,” affirm that banning boycotts is “anti-democratic” and condemn Israel’s “impunity as a so-called democracy despite its apparent disrespect of fundamental civil and human rights.”

We bring to the attention of our readers a documentary film by John Beck-Hofmann, which recounts the chronology of events of the Kiev Maidan which led to a Coup d’etat and the demise of the democratically elected government of president Yanukovitch.

Maidan Massacre is an investigative documentary into the shootings which occurred on February 20th, 2014, when nearly 50 people were gunned down on the streets of Kiev’s Independence square. The massacre was the result of a massive three month long protest against the former Government of Viktor Yanukovich and his decision to reject a trade deal with the EU. Although no thorough investigation had been conducted, the blame was immediately placed on the officers who served under Yanukovich. This program investigates the scene of the crime, interviewing those who were there when the shootings occurred, and seeks to answer the questions as to who really was shooting that day on Kiev’s Independence square – a place known to the people of Ukraine, as Maidan. – Written by John Beck Hofmann

John Beck-Hoffman acknowledges that his film was censored, without going into details. It was initially 90 minutes, important sections pertaining to US sponsorship of the Coup d’Etat were removed. In the words of John Beck Hoffman, in response to comments on his youtube channel;

Comment: On the basis of examining the issues of the Maidan snipers a decent documentary. However, more background to the events that led these “protests” would have been welcomed e.g. Oleg Tsarev’s claims of US NGOs funding regime change in Ukraine. The events in the attempted Macedonian coup shows that the US still up to its tricks.

Beck-Hoffman: “all that was in my original cut of the film which was closer to 90 mins. I went into great detail of USAID, NED, Nuland/Pyatt, corporate interests and the history of how this has happened many times before – I unfortunately had to cut it out for reasons I can’t go into, but I will eventually release the full “directors cut” of the program.”

Beck-Hoffman: [in response to another comment] A Russian language version was released first, as well on youtube. I had also originally made a longer version of the film which went into detail as to “who would benefit” from such an atrocity. It unveiled a lot of what was going on behind the scenes, but that segment ended up being cut from the final film. I would like to release that someday but I have no idea if and when that would be possible. If I do, I will put it on my youtube channel. But please, pass along this film to whomever you think would enjoy it. It needs to get more exposure as so many people have no idea what really happened over there. thanks you again. JBH

 

Copyright John Beck Hoffman, 2015

Credit: Shutterstock

The newest line of criticism for the banking industry is coming from within, as a group of rank-and-file banking employees prepare to demand that their employer stop ordering them to use predatory sales tactics and start treating them as a valued piece of the workforce.

A group of tellers, loan officers, and customer service representatives from the country’s largest commercial banks will rally Monday outside office towers in Minneapolis to call attention to their own low pay and to consumer-harming sales policies they say are imposed on them by management. As part of the demonstrations, workers will ask to meet with executives at Wells Fargo to deliver a petition calling for the bank to do away with high-pressure sales quotas for its customer service staff.

In a new report from the Center for Popular Democracy (CPD), one teller “says she has to ‘practically chase customers out of the door hawking unwanted credit and debit card accounts’” or face reproach from her manager, despite corporate policy that ostensibly prohibits disingenuous or high-pressure tales tactics.

“What they want, what they need, isn’t important to us. Selling them a product is,” a call-center worker at another bank said, summarizing the approach her managers take toward customers.

The CPD report details how the largest banks exacerbate inequality on the macro level and prey upon trusting customers on the micro-level. It argues that the largest American consumer banks are contributing to economic inequality and mining huge profits while freezing tens of millions of un-banked Americans out of basic financial services.

The kinds of basic banking products that are essential to working people trying to save for their retirement or their children “are what industry insiders consider ‘low-value’ or ‘low-margin’ services,” CPD notes, and “are not currently a priority for the big banks.” Instead, banks have put tellers and call center employees under ever more pressure to sell people credit cards and additional bank accounts regardless of whether those products suit the customer’s real needs. At one bank, customer service staff must “make 40 percent of the sales of the top seller to avoid being written up.”

For providing this warped version of “customer service” and surviving the high-pressure work environment the banks create for them, frontline workers are rewarded with falling pay. Pay for tellers fell by more than 5 percent from 2007 to 2013 after adjusting for inflation. Bank workers who conduct interviews for people requesting loans have seen their wages drop by 3.2 percent, and customer service reps have gotten a 2.5 percent cut in that same window.

Out of every 10 bank tellers in the country, three are enrolled in food stamps or another public assistance program. Considering that most such programs have far fewer people enrolled than are eligible for them, it’s likely that the ratio of tellers who qualify for public aid is even higher. Taxpayers spend nearly $900 million a year providing benefits to bring bank tellers and their families up to a subsistence-level income, which means everyone in the country is helping to subsidize bank profits.

Those profits are massive, as the CPD report notes. For every dollar in revenue that the 10 largest consumer banks in America bring in, they manage to keep 20 cents as pure profit after paying workers, overhead, and taxes. That large profit margin leaves plenty of room to pay workers enough to avoid poverty.

A Policeman Directs Traffic at the Scene of 22-Year Old Leo Thornton’s Death at the Capitol Building. Cherry Blossoms Can be Seen in the Background.

At approximately 1:07 p.m. on Saturday afternoon, April 11, during the annual Cherry Blossom Festival celebrating springtime in the Nation’s Capitol, a 22-year old man took his own life with a gun on the Capitol grounds with a protest sign taped to his hand. According to the Washington Post, the sign read: “Tax the one percent.”

Yesterday, the Metropolitan Police Department released the young man’s name. He was Leo P. Thornton of Lincolnwood, Illinois. Based on what is currently known, the young man had traveled to Washington, D.C. for the express purpose of making a political statement with his sign and then ending his young life.

The Chicago Tribune reported that “Thornton’s parents filed a missing persons report on the morning of April 11 after he never came home from work on April 10, Lincolnwood Deputy Police Chief John Walsh said.”

Those are the tragic facts of the incident itself. But there is a broader tragedy: the vacuous handling of this story by corporate media. The Washington Post headlined the story with this: “Rhythms of Washington Return after Illinois Man’s Suicide Outside Capitol.” The message he delivered to his Congress – tax the one percent – has yet to be explored by any major news outlet in America in connection with this tragedy.

Was the message of Leo P. Thornton of Lincolnwood, Illinois a critical piece of information for this Congress to hear at this moment in American history. You’re damn right it was. Outside of Wall Street’s wealth transfer system, provisions in the U.S. tax code are the second biggest wealth transfer system to the one percent. Together, these two systems have created the greatest income and wealth inequality since the economic collapse in the Great Depression. They threaten a repeat of the 2008 financial collapse because the majority of Americans do not have the wages or savings to support the broader economy.

President Obama clearly understands what is going on. Whether he can get Congress to act is quite another matter. In his January 20, 2015 State of the Union speech, Obama stated…

Continue reading

It’s no secret by now that the US is dead set on containing China, yet it’s shying away from engaging in a direct confrontation with it. Instead, the US is managing a dual policy of creating chaos along China’s western and southwest reaches, while coordinating a containment alliance along its southeastern and northeastern periphery. Central Asia, northeast India, and Myanmar represent the chaos components, while the ‘unsinkable aircraft carriers’ of Japan and the Philippines are the coordinated ones. 

In this manner, the US is literally surrounding the country with hostile situations and states (with the obvious exception being the Russian frontier), hoping that this can disorient China’s decision makers and consequently pave the way for the external destabilization to infiltrate inwards. Amidst all this plotting, China isn’t sitting on its hands and behaving passively, since it has three specific strategies in mind to break the Chinese Containment Coalition (CCC) and counter the US’ Pivot to Asia.

Cultivating Chaos

The western and southwestern strategy of the CCC is to create a destabilized ‘rimland’ capable of infecting China’s vulnerable peripheral provinces with contagious chaos. This section examines how American grand strategy in Central and West Southeast Asia is designed to do just that, while a previous publication by the author already explored the prospects of a chain reaction of Color Revolutions emanating from Hong Kong.

Turkmenistan:
The Central Asian ‘hermit state’ is identified as the country most vulnerable to a transnational Taliban offensive sometime in the future. Should this come to pass and the country is not properly prepared to defend itself, then the disastrous consequences would immediately spread to Russia, Iran, and China, as was explained in a previous article by the author. Pertaining to the latter, this involves the massive destabilization of China’s regional gas imports from its largest current supplier, which would of course have negative reverberations in Xinjiang, the ultimate target of the US’ Central Asian chaos policies as they apply to the People’s Republic. The more endangered and insecure China’s continental energy imports are, the more reliant the country becomes on receiving them via maritime channels, which given the US’ naval superiority, places them directly under Washington’s control in the event of a crisis.

Kyrgyzstan:
The chaotic threat originating in Kyrgyzstan is more tangible than the one in Turkmenistan, as themountainous republic directly abuts Xinjiang. When looking at the US’ destructive Central Asian strategy, it becomes evident that it has an interest in ushering in the collapse of the Kyrgyz government via a new Color Revolution in order to, among other things, create an Uighur terrorist haven that can enflame the externally directed ethno-religious insurgency against Beijing.From the perspective of American foreign policy, then, a crisis in Kyrgyzstan is a geopolitical lever that can be ‘pulled’ to activate more instability in Xinjiang, with the aim of potentially luring the People’s Liberation Army into a quagmire. In the general scheme of things, both Central Asian republics, Turkmenistan and Kyrgyzstan, are essentially anti-Chinese weapons waiting to be (de)constructed by the US for use against the strategic province of Xinjiang, with Uzbekistan also playing a similar role if it implodes (or is prodded to do so by the US).

Northeast India:
In this corner of India, which could culturally be considered the northwestern fringe of Southeast Asia, the myriad ethnic tensions and bubbling insurgencies there could make the leap from being a domestic to an international crisis. The author previously assessed that one of the repercussions of last year’s Bodo-inspired violence was to destabilize the proposed Bangladesh-China-India-Myanmar (BCIM) trade corridor, which would negatively affect Beijing’s plans for a ‘Bay of Bengal Silk Road’. Internationalizing the situation, however, could see ethnic warfare emboldening militant non-state actors in Myanmar, with the end goal that they finally destabilize Yunnan Province, the most culturally diverse area in China that has even been liked to “a perfect microcosm” of it. Although there is no evidence that has yet been procured to suggest that the US played any role in instigating the latest violence in Assam, it doesn’t mean that it can’t do so in the future, especially now that the die of ethnic tension has already been cast. This Damocles’ Sword is continually hanging over the head of India’s decision makers, since they understand that it can be applied against them in the event that they resist Washington’s pressure to commit more closely to the Chinese Containment Coalition (CCC).

Myanmar:
The greatest conventional threat to China along its southern edge (notwithstanding a hostile India) lies in the overspill of ethnic warfare from Myanmar into Yunnan. This is actually already happening, since the recent violence in Kokang (Shan State) has forced thousands from their homes and into China as refugees, where they are reportedly being seen as ‘burdensome’ to the authorities. Quite obviously, China comprehends the vulnerabilities of Yunnan to Xinjiang-like external destabilization, albeit manifested in a different manner, hence its sensitivity to what may be the reignition of Myanmar’s civil war. After all, the unexpected outbreak of violence has yet againdelayed the country’s long-awaited peace talks from being concluded, which were reportedly set to be finalized prior to this.

Now, however, other ethnic groups have become emboldened by the clashes, and are sendingtheir own fighters and mercenaries to Kokang, which has also been put under martial law. It now looks like the fragile nationwide peace process is on the verge of being completely shattered, and the fighting may spread to other ethnic regions if their respective militias decide to take advantage of any perceived government setbacks in Kokang to launch their own offensives. All of this would lead to the deterioration of Yunnan’s security and the influx of thousands of more refugees, some of whom may even be militant-affiliated and intent on starting their own uprisings inside China. It is this factor that scares Beijing the most, namely, that Yunnan’s jungles could one day become home to Xinjiang-like fighters intent on throwing another corner of the country into chaos.

Chaotic Patterns:
Making sense out of this grand chaos is the fact that it does follow some semblance of order in terms of US strategy. The countries in focus are along China’s western and southwestern edge, which is already ripe for ethnic provocations. Additionally, two of the states abutting the targeted provinces, Kyrgyzstan for Xinjiang and Myanmar for Yunnan, are inherently unstable for their own reasons, thus making them ‘ticking time bombs’ that could be prodded by the US to explode on China’s doorstep. As regards Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and northeast India, their destabilizations are tripwires for the two main ‘bombs’, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar, although the disruption of any of the three aforementioned areas does undermine China in its own right. In short, this vector of American grand strategy is aimed at the destruction of key peripheral states surrounding China in order to chip away at the strength of the central government along its own peripheral areas, two of which (Xinjiang and Yunnan) are susceptible to outside-directed destabilization aimed at ethnic agitation.

Coordinating Containment

On the other side of China, the US is crafting a Chinese Containment Coalition (CCC) to confront Beijing and provoke it into a Reverse Brzezinski intervention in the South China Sea (if it isn’t dragged into one in Myanmar first). Japan and the Philippines are the centerpieces of this strategy, and South Korea and Vietnam are envisioned as playing crucial roles as well. Let’s take a look at Washington’s plans for each highlighted country, as well as how they all fit together into the bigger picture:

The ‘Unsinkable Aircraft Carriers’:

Japan
The remilitarization of the country under Prime Minister Shinzo Abe has rattled both China and South Korea, which still vividly remember the scars of World War II. Beijing is especially dismayed at Japan’s ‘reinterpretation’ of its pacifist constitution, whereby it was decided that its ‘self-defense forces’ could assist embattled allies abroad, with analysts popularly pointing out that this likely alludes to its mutual-defense ally, the US. Be that as it may, it isn’t restricted to solely cooperating with the US, and could also support regional militaries as well, which is where the Philippines comes in.

The Philippines
Like Japan, the US also retains a mutual defense commitment to the Philippines, which was intensified by an additional 10-year agreement signed last summer. It elevated its relations with Japan to a strategic partnership in 2011, which made Tokyo second only to Washington in having this privilege with Manila, and it just clinched one with Vietnam, too. This is exceptionally important because it means that the Philippines is turning into the nexus connecting the three primary partners of the CCC, and that any outbreak of hostilities between it and China would likely draw in its other three partners to some extent (which will be addressed soon).

Back-Up Support:

Vietnam:
This Southeast Asian state has historically been engaged in a bitter rivalry with China, expressed most recently through the 2014 anti-Chinese riots and the earlier 1979 Sino-Vietnamese War. While it’s not forecasted that Hanoi will enter into a formal defense relationship with Washington akin to that of Tokyo or Manila, ties between the two have steadily warmed throughout the years, with the US easing a ban on weapons sales to Vietnam late last year in order to announce a week ago that it’ll be providing it with 6 patrol ships. Military cooperation and strategic coordination are set to only increase in the coming years, as the US brings Vietnam on board the CCC as a back-up member, although it’s not clear whether this will spill even more into the open, move somewhat into the shadows, or stay at its current level.

Seeing as how the country shares an actual land border with China, and Beijing’s military prowess is stronger on land than it is at sea, it’s doubtful at this time that Hanoi would enter into a direct confrontation with it (unless it was assured in its ability to repeat the fortunes of the 1979 war). What is more probable, however, is that it’ll assume the role of a dual ‘Lead From Behind’ partner with the Philippines in containing China’s naval activity in the South China Sea, and could indirectly come to its aid in the event of a formal conflict. Working indirectly through the Philippines via its new strategic partnership with Vietnam, Washington and Hanoi could obscure their increasingly close military ties and thus avoid domestic outcry concerning their de-facto military alliance. Not only that, but Vietnam can also retain a degree of plausible deniability in its relationship to the CCC, although this may no longer be believable if it goes forward with deeper cooperation with the US Navy, principally in allowing more port calls and possible joint naval exercises.

South Korea
Seoul is the weak link in the CCC, but even so, it’s necessary to address the US’ planned role for it, no matter how successful it may be in fully actualizing it. The idea is for South Korea and Japan to form the basis of the Northeast Asian section of the CCC, but given the major issues between them (primarily their views on World War II and the Liancourt Rocks dispute), it’s going to be difficult for their governments and citizens to agree to such a thing. Taking matters even further, South Korea is being purposely ambiguous over whether it will host a US missile defense infrastructure on its territory, showing that it’s pragmatic enough in its policies to take China’s interests into consideration. This may be influenced by the fact that the two have already signed aFree Trade Agreement that represents one of the highlights of China’s regional diplomacy in recent years.

Despite this, Seoul, Tokyo, and the Washington have linked up to share intelligence on North Korea, creating a network which could easily be directed against China sometime in the future if the ‘need’ arises. Signifying that Seoul won’t fully abandon the US anytime soon, it recentlyprolonged the US’ control over its armed forces during wartime until the mid-2020s. When the US’ reinforcement of power and China’s influence inroads are compared back-to-back, South Korea can most clearly be seen as an object of strategic competition for both Great Powers, even though over 28,000 US troops are currently based in the country. Therefore, it’s uncertain whether the country can fully commit to one side or another, meaning that the prospects of its full incorporation into the CCC are severely limited, although they would stand to be extraordinarily impactful if they succeed.

Connecting The Pieces:

Each piece of the CCC is part of a larger picture, and certain strategic strands of thought connect everything together into a semi-integrated whole. Outright conflict between China on one hand and Japan or Vietnam on the other would carry with it high costs for both sides, including economic (which may be seen as most important by Japan/Vietnam), thus serving as a counterweight to bellicosity and irresistible military provocations. The same ‘speed bumps’ aren’t as visible when it comes to the Philippines, however, meaning that the US’ second ‘unsinkable aircraft carrier’ might be used as ‘bait’ to tempt China into a Reverse Bzezinski in the South China Sea. While a cursory examination may lead one to immediately discount the Philippines as having any chance of military success against China, a closer examination (per the details revealed earlier) indicates that the island chain may be one big trap owing to the strategic and military relationships it has with third parties.

In the event of hostilities between Beijing and Manila, Washington would surely offer some form of aid and support to its ally. Its actions in Ukraine can be seen as a trial run for what it can and cannot get away with (and within which time frames) in assisting a weak proxy against a Great Power, and it is expected that such strategic and logistical lessons will certainly be applied to the Philippines during any conflict it may enter into with China. Just as Ukraine has served as a rallying cry to reinvent NATO as an alliance against Russia, the Philippines may likely serve as a rallying cry to formalize the CCC into an analogous organization against China. The Philippines other strategic partners, Japan and Vietnam, would also likely rally to Manila’s defense in the same manner that Poland and Lithuania are doing for Ukraine (albeit on a much larger and more significant scale). For Tokyo and Hanoi, they can have the opportunity to project more force in the South China Sea and test various military equipment that they could rush to the Philippines (ships in the case of Vietnam and drones for Japan). Complicating matters even more would be if India and Australia, two out-of-regional states like the US, also throw their hat in the ring on Manila’s side and aid the archipelago in the same manner as Japan and Vietnam, using the manufactured conflict as an excuse to entrench their influence in the area.

What is important here is not whether the Philippines wins (which is extremely unlikely), but the fact that it becomes the ‘Southeast Asian Ukraine’, misleadingly painted by the mainstream media as the victim of a non-Western Great Power (when in reality the roles are reversed) and partially sacrificed in order to serve as a rallying call for the solidification of the CCC. Not only would the CCC be formalized under such a probable scenario, but all of the Philippines official and non-official partners could flood the South China Sea with their support, possibly even setting up a de-facto permanent presence (even if it’s nominally referred to as ‘rotational’). Also, by coaxing China into a conflict with the Philippines (via unacceptable provocations), the CCC can also monitor how the People’s Liberation Army-Navy operates in wartime, providing observable methods and tactics that can be analyzed in crafting appropriate military countermeasures for ‘the real fight’ sometime in the future.

Cracking The CCC Wall

All is far from lost, however, since China has three options that it can simultaneously employ to break through the containment wall and extricate itself from the US’ planned strategic asphyxiation. Here’s what Beijing is planning:

The South Korean Swap:
Like was described earlier, South Korea is far from a stalwart American ally, seeing as how China has made such enormous inroads there in the past decade that Seoul has no choice but to behave in a pragmatic way towards it. This means that it becomes increasingly unlikely that it will fully commit to the CCC, which would thus remove it from the containment chain being strung around China. Beijing’s objective, then, is to maintain South Korean ‘neutrality’ in the ‘Cold War’ that the US is cooking against China, with the dream scenario being that Seoul expedite the return of control over its wartime forces and perhaps even enact limits (or staged removals) on the US military presence there. While such a development may seem like political fantasy at this point, it doesn’t mean that it isn’t the end goal that China is pursuing. Ultimately, if South Korea swaps the US for China as its preferred partner (which may steadily happen through a combination of growing anti-American sentiment, anti-Japanese resentment, and pro-North Korean attitudes). It goes without saying that such a monumental shift in geopolitics would carry with it far-ranging ripples, most immediately felt in the North-South Korean talks but possibly extending throughout the rest of the Asia-Pacific.

Sailing The Maritime Silk Road:
China’s most grand move in perhaps all of its history is to connect Africa-Eurasia via overland and maritime Chinese-initiated trade routes. Addressing the latter within the context of this piece, it has the possibility of transforming geopolitically misguided and potentially hostile states in Southeast Asia into pragmatic partners along the same lines as the South Korean model. Other than that major strategic benefit, the Maritime Silk Road would also obstruct the US’ Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade grouping that is meant as an anti-Chinese economic bloc. This Washington-controlled entity could potentially tie the associated economies even closer together to create the ‘economic grounds’ for an ‘East-Southeast Asian NATO’, the CCC, which is why it’s so important for China to preempt these measures through the Maritime Silk Road.

On a larger level, China’s moves would represent a closer step towards the fulfillment of its Free Trade Area of the Asia-Pacific plan, which is Beijing’s counter to the TPP. It’s already laid the groundwork for this through its Free Trade Agreements with South Korea and Australia, two archetypical American allies, showing that with the ‘hard work’ out of the way, it may be easier to round up more politically pragmatic and less US-influenced entities into the framework in the near future. Taking matters further, although the Maritime Silk Road isn’t restricted solely to the Asia-Pacific, it can use the region to experiment with various diplomatic and economic approaches that can be fine-tuned and applied further ‘downstream’ (perhaps between China and East Africa) in turning the project into a truly trans-continental endeavor that might one day link all of China’s free trade regions together with one another into a macro-free trade zone.

Strengthening The SCO:
The third method that China can employ in breaking through the CCC is to strengthen the SCO in order to stabilize Central Asia. Not only could this prevent or quickly extinguish the chaotic threats outlined in the first section, but if successful, it could provide a convenient overland ‘detour’ around the CCC (if it’s not neutralized or prevented from coming into existence by that time) that could strengthen the continental vector of the Silk Road project and relatively safeguard China from the US and its allies’ maritime blackmail. Although it wouldn’t completely remove such threats (which must always be factored into China’s strategic calculations), it could provide a useful and convenient outlet for engaging with the rest of Eurasia and securing valuable energy imports from the Caspian Basin. Expanding the SCO would also be a method of strengthening it, since it would expand its responsibilities to other countries that China engages with, as well as providing a non-Western forum for settling disputes that may arise between its members (for example, between China and India, or perhaps between both of them over Nepal or Bhutan).

Concluding Thoughts

The US is engaged in two Cold Wars in the present day, with the one against Russia stealing most of the limelight, while the one against China is still simmering. Just as it’s doing to Moscow, the US is fostering an artificial neighborhood of hostility against Beijing and subsequently linking the aggrieved and manipulated states together into a type of containment coalition. While the US’ policy is still playing out against China, it’s certainly learning a thing or two from its campaign against Russia, namely, that a crisis needs to be concocted in order to roll out the Asian vector of the New Cold War. The chaos that Washington is breeding in Central Asia and mainland Southeast Asia is more suitable for weaponization than it is politicization, hence why the US needs to manufacture a crisis in the South China Sea involving the prospective members of the China Containment Coalition. Beijing will have to adroitly maneuver between the chaos and coordination in order to withstand the grand destabilization that the US is plotting all along its periphery, but if it can succeed in its strategic counter measures, then multipolarity will blossom in the Asia-Pacific and fortify itself throughout Eurasia.

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

NY Times, Apr 15, 2015 (emphasis added): [Regulators] approved an emergency closure of commercial sardine fishing off Oregon, Washington and California… Earlier this week, the council shut down the next sardine season… [R]evised estimates of sardine populations… found the fish were declining in numbers faster than earlier believed… [Stocks are] much lower than estimated last year… The reasons are not well-understood.

Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting, April 13, 2015: Ben Enticknap, Oceana senior scientist (1:08:00 in) — “We’ve seen a significant change in recruitment [Recruitment: The number of new young fish that enter a population]. There’s been practically no recruitment in recent years, and this was not expected.”

Undercurrent News, Apr 14, 2015: [A]ccording to the report on the emergency action from the PFMC… “the total stock biomass of Pacific sardine is declining as a result of poor recruitment“… [A California Wetfish Producers Association official said] “little recruitment was observed in 2011-2014.”

Oregonian, Apr 13, 2015: Pacific coast sardines are facing a population collapse so severe[fishing] will be shut down… [The] downward spiral in spite of favorable water conditions has ocean-watchers worried there’s more to this collapse than cyclical population trends. “There are a lot of weird things happening out there, and we’re not quite sure why they aren’t responding the way they should,” said Kevin Hill, a NOAA Fisheries biologist… Fishery managers are adding it to a list of baffling circumstances off the West Coast… NOAA surveys indicate very few juvenile fish made it through their first year. “The population isn’t replacing itself,” Hill said.

SFist, Apr 14, 2015: [T]he population appears decimated… As the Council writes, “temperatures in the Southern California Bight have risen in the past two years, but we haven’t seen an increase in young sardines”… Sardines typically spawn in warmer waters, with cold water decreasing their numbers.

SF Chronicle, Apr 14, 2015: Sardine population collapses… [There’s] evidence stocks are going through the same kind of collapse [seen in the 1950s]… The sardine population along the West Coast has collapsed… Causes of crisis — A lack of spawning… was blamed for the decline… Severedownturn… things recently took a turn for the worse… because of a lack of spawning due to poor ocean conditions in 2014… The collapse this year is the latest in a series of alarming die-offs, sicknesses and population declines in the ocean ecosystem along the West Coast. Anchovies… have also declined [due to] a lack of zooplankton… Record numbers of starving sea lions… Brown pelicans, too, have suffered from mass reproductive failures and are turning up sick and dead… Strange diseases have also been proliferating in the sea…

Monterey Herald, Apr 13, 2015: For the first time in 30 years [sardine fishing] will be banned.

KPCC, Apr 1, 2015: The first time that sardine fishing has been banned since federal management of the fishery began… Many are worried a… catastrophic crash is happening.

Full recording of the PFMC meeting here

NY Times, Apr 15, 2015 (emphasis added): [Regulators] approved an emergency closure of commercial sardine fishing off Oregon, Washington and California… Earlier this week, the council shut down the next sardine season… [R]evised estimates of sardine populations… found the fish were declining in numbers faster than earlier believed… [Stocks are] much lower than estimated last year… The reasons are not well-understood.

Pacific Fishery Management Council meeting, April 13, 2015: Ben Enticknap, Oceana senior scientist (1:08:00 in) — “We’ve seen a significant change in recruitment [Recruitment: The number of new young fish that enter a population]. There’s been practically no recruitment in recent years, and this was not expected.”

Undercurrent News, Apr 14, 2015: [A]ccording to the report on the emergency action from the PFMC… “the total stock biomass of Pacific sardine is declining as a result of poor recruitment“… [A California Wetfish Producers Association official said] “little recruitment was observed in 2011-2014.”

Oregonian, Apr 13, 2015: Pacific coast sardines are facing a population collapse so severe[fishing] will be shut down… [The] downward spiral in spite of favorable water conditions has ocean-watchers worried there’s more to this collapse than cyclical population trends. “There are a lot of weird things happening out there, and we’re not quite sure why they aren’t responding the way they should,” said Kevin Hill, a NOAA Fisheries biologist… Fishery managers are adding it to a list of baffling circumstances off the West Coast… NOAA surveys indicate very few juvenile fish made it through their first year. “The population isn’t replacing itself,” Hill said.

SFist, Apr 14, 2015: [T]he population appears decimated… As the Council writes, “temperatures in the Southern California Bight have risen in the past two years, but we haven’t seen an increase in young sardines”… Sardines typically spawn in warmer waters, with cold water decreasing their numbers.

SF Chronicle, Apr 14, 2015: Sardine population collapses… [There’s] evidence stocks are going through the same kind of collapse [seen in the 1950s]… The sardine population along the West Coast has collapsed… Causes of crisis — A lack of spawning… was blamed for the decline… Severedownturn… things recently took a turn for the worse… because of a lack of spawning due to poor ocean conditions in 2014… The collapse this year is the latest in a series of alarming die-offs, sicknesses and population declines in the ocean ecosystem along the West Coast. Anchovies… have also declined [due to] a lack of zooplankton… Record numbers of starving sea lions… Brown pelicans, too, have suffered from mass reproductive failures and are turning up sick and dead… Strange diseases have also been proliferating in the sea…

Monterey Herald, Apr 13, 2015: For the first time in 30 years [sardine fishing] will be banned.

KPCC, Apr 1, 2015: The first time that sardine fishing has been banned since federal management of the fishery began… Many are worried a… catastrophic crash is happening.

Full recording of the PFMC meeting here

Polio is something I have more than a passing acquaintance with. Two days before my fifth birthday a medical doctor in Minneapolis diagnosed me with polio. I only learned decades later that it was not polio, poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis as it was also called. It was shortly after World War II. Then a few years later we were presented Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, and the world believed that because of that vaccine and the Sabin variant, polio had been stamped out. The reality was that polio was not and is not a “virus,” nor did the vaccines of Salk or Sabin eradicate.

The symptoms that were given the name “polio” had dramatically declined several years before the first vaccine and Salk claimed the credit for his vaccine which was released in 1955. The symptoms that got the name polio came from a team at the Rockefeller University in 1910. Those symptoms were listed as fever, severe headache, stiff neck and back, deep muscle pain. Pretty vague.

Many, many things can cause fever and such symptoms in a small child, for example being raped by someone they thought loved them or experiencing other trauma. It has been suggested that there was a major wave of in-family child rapes as soldiers returned from the traumas of their own war experiences in World War II. It was convenient for some to label the upsurge in such symptoms as polio and create a national media scare that was to most Americans in the early 1950’s more terrifying than Joe Stalin and communism. The drug industry got a huge boost and today, even newborns are jabbed multiple times in the first weeks of their fragile lives with concoctions that have been documented not to prevent viral infection but to make weak, sick and in some tragic cases autistic or even dead children.

The Rockefeller University in New York had begun literally playing around with children with the symptoms later formalized as polio as far back as 1910. Simon Flexner, first director of the predecessor to the Rockefeller University, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, had produced the symptoms later named polio. He did that in a rhesus monkey which then transmitted the disease from one animal to another. Flexner was a close friend and advisor of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., son of the founder of the Standard Oil trust.

Albert Sabin, creator of the Sabin polio vaccine had come out of the Rockefeller University. Human experiments with untested versions of the polio vaccines were done on already crippled children in care homes, on children in homes for the mentally insane and on that Rockefeller family plantation for human experiments, Puerto Rico.

Since that time the Rockefellers, some of the world’s most ardent financial backers of eugenics, have been at the center of the developments around what was named polio and its “vaccine.”

Eugenics was a fraudulent social theory that a “better society” could be created by eliminating “undesirable” human blood lines and promoting the desirable types like those of Rockefellers or DuPonts or their likes. To the present day eugenics is the guiding ideology of the very rich, loveless American oligarchs including Bill Gates and David Rockefeller. To this day the major financial backers of the criminal activities of the UN WHO (World Health Organization) and their fraudulent swine flu pandemic scares are the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

GAVI 

Several years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and a group of pharmaceutical companies, united all in something called GAVI and set out to bring massive polio vaccination first to India. GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance was founded by the Gates Foundation in 2000 as a “public-private partnership” to unite in assaulting poorer developing countries with the Big Pharma vaccine industry they would otherwise bespared.

In India Gates, Rockefellers and WHO with their Big Pharma partners convinced the Indian government to spend some $8 billion of their scarce funds, along with a tiny amount of “seed” money from GAVI partners, to vaccinate Indian children.

The result?

An article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012 concluded,

“In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”

Instead, Gates and Company proclaimed India “polio” free.

They ignored the fact their “polio” vaccines were killing and paralyzing 48,000 Indian children because the WHO definition of polio allowed them the casuistry. NPAFP stands for Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis. The medical-industrial complex are masters at coming up with names.

By calling it non-polio, they defined polio as eradicated in India. But their vaccines are killing and paralyzing tens of thousands of children. So by the WHO semantics the GAVI vaccines did not cause a single case of “polio.” It did cause 48,000 cases of something far deadlier and more damaging, Acute Flaccid Paralysis, a condition the WHO admits is clinically indistinguishable from polio and which occurred in direct proportion to the doses of polio vaccine received.

A similar phenomenon took place at the same time in neighboring Pakistan. In 2011 the Paktstan Tribune reported,

“A government inquiry has found that polio vaccines for infants funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation are causing deaths and disabilities in regional countries including Pakistan. Geneva-based officials of GAVI, Jeffrey Rowland and Dan Thomas, were contacted by e-mail but they did not respond. “

GAVI spent a mere 7.8% of the total cost of the mass vaccination in Pakistan, of Rs26 billion. The Tribune continued, “Pakistan will be spending Rs24.2 billion from its own resources on the purchase of new and under-used vaccines at much higher cost as compared to their equivalent vaccines.” The Gates-Rockefeller-WHO polio vaccination program in Pakistan killed an estimated 10,000 and crippled tens of thousands more.

Now the focus has moved to another US warzone, Syria.

Polio in Syria?

For two decades Syria has been polio-free. Now, beginning 2013 in the wake of their criminal efforts in Pakistan and India, the WHO has declared the presence of polio outbreaks in Syria and accused President Assad of refusing vaccine teams – the previous ones in Pakistan, laced with CIA agents.

The “polio” spreading in war-ravaged Syria, where the CIA and Pentagon and their assets such as ISIS and CIA-funded opposition have destroyed homes and driven millions into refugee status, is vaccine-caused, just as in India and just as in Pakistan. The polio spreading through Syria is “vaccine-derived polio,” specifically, the same strain of “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” as in India and Pakistan that coincided with the mass vaccinations with Sabin oral vaccines by GAVI. The vaccine originated from the oral polio vaccine developed by former Rockefeller University researched, Sabin, which contains an attenuated vaccine-virus or active polio virus along with unknown adjuvants or boosters the drug companies prefer not to reveal.

Kindah al-Shammat, Syrian Minister of Social Affairs, said at the time that, “The virus originates in Pakistan and has been brought to Syria by the jihadists who come from Pakistan.”

Vaccines which Trigger Abortion?

If this sounds improbable take a close look at a recent expose by a concerned group of Kenyan doctors about a vaccine developed by WHO in conjunction with the Rockefeller and Gates foundations. The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association discovered an antigen that causes miscarriages in a tetanus vaccine that is being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Since 1972 the Rockefeller Foundation has worked in secrecy with the WHO and various pharmaceutical companies to fund a WHO program in “reproductive health.” There they developed an innovative tetanus vaccine.

In the early 1990’s, according to a report from the Global Vaccine Institute, the WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program. When they tested numerous vials of the vaccine they, like in Kenya today, found they contained the same Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or HCG. They found that to be very curious in a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds. Tetanus is also rather rare, so why a mass vaccination campaign and that for only women of child-bearing age?

HCG is a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated the formation of antibodies against HCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion.

The pattern is clear.  The tools of choice include wars everywhere from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. It includes campaigns of massive select vaccinations in war-torn countries. It includes setting the CIA and Mossad to the job of creating fake Islamic “jihadist” terrorists to kill and main and create the cover for a Washington “war on terror.” Their only problem of late is that these strategies are failing. That’s bad news for the paranoid oligarchs, good news for sane remnants of the human race, human beings.

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”.

Polio is something I have more than a passing acquaintance with. Two days before my fifth birthday a medical doctor in Minneapolis diagnosed me with polio. I only learned decades later that it was not polio, poliomyelitis or infantile paralysis as it was also called. It was shortly after World War II. Then a few years later we were presented Jonas Salk and the polio vaccine, and the world believed that because of that vaccine and the Sabin variant, polio had been stamped out. The reality was that polio was not and is not a “virus,” nor did the vaccines of Salk or Sabin eradicate.

The symptoms that were given the name “polio” had dramatically declined several years before the first vaccine and Salk claimed the credit for his vaccine which was released in 1955. The symptoms that got the name polio came from a team at the Rockefeller University in 1910. Those symptoms were listed as fever, severe headache, stiff neck and back, deep muscle pain. Pretty vague.

Many, many things can cause fever and such symptoms in a small child, for example being raped by someone they thought loved them or experiencing other trauma. It has been suggested that there was a major wave of in-family child rapes as soldiers returned from the traumas of their own war experiences in World War II. It was convenient for some to label the upsurge in such symptoms as polio and create a national media scare that was to most Americans in the early 1950’s more terrifying than Joe Stalin and communism. The drug industry got a huge boost and today, even newborns are jabbed multiple times in the first weeks of their fragile lives with concoctions that have been documented not to prevent viral infection but to make weak, sick and in some tragic cases autistic or even dead children.

The Rockefeller University in New York had begun literally playing around with children with the symptoms later formalized as polio as far back as 1910. Simon Flexner, first director of the predecessor to the Rockefeller University, the Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, had produced the symptoms later named polio. He did that in a rhesus monkey which then transmitted the disease from one animal to another. Flexner was a close friend and advisor of John D. Rockefeller, Jr., son of the founder of the Standard Oil trust.

Albert Sabin, creator of the Sabin polio vaccine had come out of the Rockefeller University. Human experiments with untested versions of the polio vaccines were done on already crippled children in care homes, on children in homes for the mentally insane and on that Rockefeller family plantation for human experiments, Puerto Rico.

Since that time the Rockefellers, some of the world’s most ardent financial backers of eugenics, have been at the center of the developments around what was named polio and its “vaccine.”

Eugenics was a fraudulent social theory that a “better society” could be created by eliminating “undesirable” human blood lines and promoting the desirable types like those of Rockefellers or DuPonts or their likes. To the present day eugenics is the guiding ideology of the very rich, loveless American oligarchs including Bill Gates and David Rockefeller. To this day the major financial backers of the criminal activities of the UN WHO (World Health Organization) and their fraudulent swine flu pandemic scares are the Rockefeller Foundation and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

GAVI 

Several years ago, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the Rockefeller Foundation, along with the World Bank, UNICEF, the WHO and a group of pharmaceutical companies, united all in something called GAVI and set out to bring massive polio vaccination first to India. GAVI: The Vaccine Alliance was founded by the Gates Foundation in 2000 as a “public-private partnership” to unite in assaulting poorer developing countries with the Big Pharma vaccine industry they would otherwise bespared.

In India Gates, Rockefellers and WHO with their Big Pharma partners convinced the Indian government to spend some $8 billion of their scarce funds, along with a tiny amount of “seed” money from GAVI partners, to vaccinate Indian children.

The result?

An article in the Indian Journal of Medical Ethics in 2012 concluded,

“In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated.”

Instead, Gates and Company proclaimed India “polio” free.

They ignored the fact their “polio” vaccines were killing and paralyzing 48,000 Indian children because the WHO definition of polio allowed them the casuistry. NPAFP stands for Non-Polio Acute Flaccid Paralysis. The medical-industrial complex are masters at coming up with names.

By calling it non-polio, they defined polio as eradicated in India. But their vaccines are killing and paralyzing tens of thousands of children. So by the WHO semantics the GAVI vaccines did not cause a single case of “polio.” It did cause 48,000 cases of something far deadlier and more damaging, Acute Flaccid Paralysis, a condition the WHO admits is clinically indistinguishable from polio and which occurred in direct proportion to the doses of polio vaccine received.

A similar phenomenon took place at the same time in neighboring Pakistan. In 2011 the Paktstan Tribune reported,

“A government inquiry has found that polio vaccines for infants funded by the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunisation are causing deaths and disabilities in regional countries including Pakistan. Geneva-based officials of GAVI, Jeffrey Rowland and Dan Thomas, were contacted by e-mail but they did not respond. “

GAVI spent a mere 7.8% of the total cost of the mass vaccination in Pakistan, of Rs26 billion. The Tribune continued, “Pakistan will be spending Rs24.2 billion from its own resources on the purchase of new and under-used vaccines at much higher cost as compared to their equivalent vaccines.” The Gates-Rockefeller-WHO polio vaccination program in Pakistan killed an estimated 10,000 and crippled tens of thousands more.

Now the focus has moved to another US warzone, Syria.

Polio in Syria?

For two decades Syria has been polio-free. Now, beginning 2013 in the wake of their criminal efforts in Pakistan and India, the WHO has declared the presence of polio outbreaks in Syria and accused President Assad of refusing vaccine teams – the previous ones in Pakistan, laced with CIA agents.

The “polio” spreading in war-ravaged Syria, where the CIA and Pentagon and their assets such as ISIS and CIA-funded opposition have destroyed homes and driven millions into refugee status, is vaccine-caused, just as in India and just as in Pakistan. The polio spreading through Syria is “vaccine-derived polio,” specifically, the same strain of “non-polio acute flaccid paralysis” as in India and Pakistan that coincided with the mass vaccinations with Sabin oral vaccines by GAVI. The vaccine originated from the oral polio vaccine developed by former Rockefeller University researched, Sabin, which contains an attenuated vaccine-virus or active polio virus along with unknown adjuvants or boosters the drug companies prefer not to reveal.

Kindah al-Shammat, Syrian Minister of Social Affairs, said at the time that, “The virus originates in Pakistan and has been brought to Syria by the jihadists who come from Pakistan.”

Vaccines which Trigger Abortion?

If this sounds improbable take a close look at a recent expose by a concerned group of Kenyan doctors about a vaccine developed by WHO in conjunction with the Rockefeller and Gates foundations. The Kenya Catholic Doctors Association discovered an antigen that causes miscarriages in a tetanus vaccine that is being administered to 2.3 million girls and women by the World Health Organization and UNICEF. Since 1972 the Rockefeller Foundation has worked in secrecy with the WHO and various pharmaceutical companies to fund a WHO program in “reproductive health.” There they developed an innovative tetanus vaccine.

In the early 1990’s, according to a report from the Global Vaccine Institute, the WHO oversaw massive vaccination campaigns against tetanus in Nicaragua, Mexico and the Philippines. Comite Pro Vida de Mexico, a Roman Catholic lay organization, became suspicious of the motives behind the WHO program. When they tested numerous vials of the vaccine they, like in Kenya today, found they contained the same Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin, or HCG. They found that to be very curious in a vaccine designed to protect people against lock-jaw arising from infection with rusty nail wounds. Tetanus is also rather rare, so why a mass vaccination campaign and that for only women of child-bearing age?

HCG is a natural hormone needed to maintain a pregnancy. However, when combined with a tetanus toxoid carrier, it stimulated the formation of antibodies against HCG, rendering a woman incapable of maintaining a pregnancy, a form of concealed abortion.

The pattern is clear.  The tools of choice include wars everywhere from Afghanistan to Pakistan to Libya to Syria to Ukraine. It includes campaigns of massive select vaccinations in war-torn countries. It includes setting the CIA and Mossad to the job of creating fake Islamic “jihadist” terrorists to kill and main and create the cover for a Washington “war on terror.” Their only problem of late is that these strategies are failing. That’s bad news for the paranoid oligarchs, good news for sane remnants of the human race, human beings.

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”.

April 17,  1961, The Bay of Pigs Invasion. How the CIA attempted to withhold the release of classified documents. The following article was first published in February 2012.   

CIA Claims Release of its History of the Bay of Pigs Debacle Would “Confuse the Public.”

by Nate Jones

February 05, 2012

Late last year, the Central Intelligence Agency explained to Judge Kessler of the US District Court in Washington DC that releasing the final volume of its three-decade-old history of the 1961 Bay of Pigs debacle would “confuse the public,” and should be withheld because it is a “predecisional” document.    Wow.  And I thought that I had heard them all.

On the 50th anniversary of the Bay of Pigs invasion, the National Security Archive filed a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit for the release of a five-volume CIA history of the Bay of Pigs affair.  In response to the lawsuit, the CIA negotiated to release three volumes of the history — the JFK Assassination Records Review Board had already released Volume III– with limited redaction, currently available on the National Security Archive’s website.  At the time, the Director of the National Security Archive’s Cuba Documentation project, Peter Kornbluh, quipped that getting historic documents released from the CIA was “the bureaucratic equivalent of passing a kidney stone.”   He was right.  The Agency refused to release the final volume of this history, and the National Security Archive is not giving up on the fight.

Keet it secret!

Volume five of the history, written by CIA historian Jack Pfeiffer –who sued the CIA himself to release the history in 1987, and lost– is described by the CIA as an “Internal Investigation document” that “is an uncritical defense of the CIA officers who planned and executed the Bay of Pigs operation… It offers a polemic of recriminations against CIA officers who later criticized the operation and against those U.S. officials who its author, Dr. Pfeiffer, contends were responsible for the failure of that operation.”

While Dr. Pfeiffer’s conclusions may or may not be true, FOIA case law appears to be pretty clear that Americans –who funded the operation and Dr. Pfeiffer’s histories– have the right to read this document and decide for themselves its merits.  Despite the claims of the CIA’s chief historian David Robarge, the document should not remain in the CIA vaults because its conclusions “could cause scholars, journalists, and others interested in the subject at hand to reach an erroneous or distorted view of the Agency’s role.”  Historians, after all, are well trained in treating documents –especially CIA hagiographies sources– skeptically.

To prevent the public from reading this volume, the CIA has argued that because it is a draft, it is a predecisional document and can be denied under exemption b(5) of the FOIA.  Except –as Davis Sobel, counsel to the National Security Archive points out in our motions– the case law states otherwise.

President Obama instructed every agency (yes, even the CIA) to “usher in a new era of open government” and apply a  “presumption of disclosure… to all decisions involving FOIA.”   In response to this instruction, the Department of Justice Office of Information Policy –responsible for enforcing FOIA throughout the government– issued its own guidance to agencies (yes, even the CIA), explaining:

“A requested record might be a draft, or a memorandum containing a recommendation.  Such records might  be properly withheld under Exemption 5, but that should not be the end of the review.  Rather, the content of that particular draft and that particular memorandum should be reviewed and a determination made as to whether the agency reasonably foresees that disclosing that particular document, given its age, content, and character, would harm an interest protected by Exemption 5.  In making these determinations, agencies should keep in mind that mere “speculative or abstract fears” are not a sufficient basis for withholding.  Instead, the agency must reasonably foresee that disclosure would cause harm…

For all records, the age of the document and the sensitivity of its content are universal factors that need to be evaluated in making a decision whether to make a discretionary release.” *

As the D.C. circuit recognized, “the Supreme Court has pointed out that the ‘expectation of the confidentiality of executive communications [] has always been limited and subject to erosion over time…”” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice (D.C. Cir. 2004.)

Even presidential records are barred from being withheld under “predecisional pretenses” after a period of time.  The Presidential Records Act expressly states that exemption b(5) cannot be invoked to withhold records once the president has been out of office twelve years.  If the presidential communication and work process is not threatened by this provision, there is no reason that the CIA’s history staff should be.

And there is a good chance that the history is not even a predecisonal document.  The burden rests on the CIA to point to the specific decision that the history is “decides” to make it a predecisional document.  And so far they have not.  Their case rests on the speculative and abstract fear of  “discrediting[ing] the work of the CIA History Staff in the eyes of the public or, worse, in the eyes of the Agency officers who rely upon CIA histories.”

Even if parts of the document truly are predecisional, only they can be withheld, the facts leading up to that decision –and histories are (hopefully) based primarily on facts– must be released.

To wit, draft histories have frequently been released under FOIA.  In 2010, the Department of Justice released portions of  pages of a candid history of Nazi-hunting (and Nazi-protecting) clearly marked DRAFT.   (The unredacted version of the report was subsequently leaked– no prosecution by the Obama administration for that one… yet.)  Moreover, the CIA previously disclosed Volume IV of this history in draft form (with a disclaimer)!  This final volume to the CIA’s history remains one of the few –perhaps the only– government produced product chronicling the doomed invasion which remains classified; the public should be allowed to see its contents.

“Trust us. You don’t need to read it for yourselves.”

The National Security Archive’s case is a strong one.  I’m confident that Judge Kessler will require a de novo review of the document leading to its eventual release.

On the other hand, the CIA’s “confuse the public” defense appears is as weak as it is insulting.

—————————

*It’s certainly not clear why DOJ attorneys would agree to argue this case for the CIA, especially after Eric Holder sent a government-wide memo which promised to defend denials of FOIA requests only when disclosures would truly harm agency interests.   What is more clear is the reason why many agencies have failed to implement the Obama FOIA reforms –the Department of Justice has done a poor job implementing them within its own divisions, and the DOJ Office of Information Policy has done a poorer job forcing other agencies to comply with the law.

As the Archive’s counsel David Sobel put it, “This case is yet the latest example of the Obama administration failing to deliver on its promise of ‘unprecedented’ transparency.  It’s hard to understand how the release of this document, after all these years, could in any way harm legitimate government interests.””

Not only Nepal but the entire Himalayan region is under threat. Genetically Engineered seeds are weapons of mass culling. The Nepalese Government’s foolishness in inviting USAID and Monsanto for ‘agricultural development’ through genetically engineered maize will destroy the quality of its livestock and humans. The contamination of its fragile ecosystem will be in perpetuity and irreversible.

Monsanto has close strategic ties with the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD, which should actually be renamed as Department of War] and the USAID is actually a division of the US-DoD.

USAID’s current administrator Dr Rajiv Shah was top honcho of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and served the US administration as chief scientist in the Department of Agriculture [US-DoA]. US-DoA was a prime mover in the development of the “Terminator Seed” and patent holder. Terminator was later transferred to Monsanto.

USAID’s Economic Growth Advisor Rave Aulakh was lying when she said “We have been trying to help the Nepalese farmer to increase his total production of the food crops,” making him “a little bit more competitive by bringing his costs down,”[1]. They are all straight-faced liars.

Independent research by agricultural scientists after nearly two decades of experience with GE crops in the USA now clearly shows that these seeds neither increase yield, nor lower the cost of production, nor enhance nutrition. In fact there is incontrovertible evidence that GE crops disrupt soil nutrient balance and prevent uptake of certain critical nutrients by the roots. Moreover, GE crops contaminate non-crops from cross-pollination.

The sole purpose of genetic engineering of seeds is control over seed supply and global food availability. This weaponization of food system is being implemented by a few American and European multinational firms.

Bill Gates and Depopulation 

Gates now talks power politics:

“The world faces a clear choice. If we invest relatively modest amounts, many more poor farmers will be able to feed their families. If we don’t, one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation.” [2]

What he says before and after those lines is even better and what he doesn’t know is actually the best of Bill Gates’ philanthropy. He may have founded Microsoft but Bill would not be hired as a janitor or toilet cleaner by the world’s top agriculture scientists. So this scoundrel can rant what he believes in and the media scoundrel can go on printing what this scoundrel thinks.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto in 2010 and Bill Gates has openly spoken in favor of vigorously promoting (i) genetically engineered crops and (ii) vaccination, the two silent weapons of mass culling. Gates’ main occupation these days is to take over global food and seed supply through a monopoly of few genetically engineered food and seeds firms. [3]

The US Government’s Global Food Security baloney is a sinister plot because it is administered by the USAID. Note that the US regulatory authorities have never regulated industries in the interest of the people. Monopolies have been protected and private cartels continue to kill people in the US and across the world. USAID actually serves US foreign policy interest which has little to do with humanitarianism. [4] Just two examples here: (a) during early years of Vietnam war CIA used the USAID for its covert operations and it has been the front for covert operations all along in every country targeted by the US administration, and (b) USAID played a role in the attempted coup in Venezuela in which Hugo Chavez was deposed for about 48 hours [April 10, 2002] and George Tenet, then head of CIA was directly involved. According to insiders, the two major failures of CIA since WWII were China’s occupation of Tibet and to a lesser extent the failed 2002 Venezuelan coup.

USAID has three Congress approved accounts: Development Assistance, PL 480, and Economic Support Fund. Development Assistance and PL480 together account for about 80% of the budgetary allocation. For instance,

“In FY2008, about 40% of USAID’s agricultural development programs were funded by the DA account. For FY2009, about $375 million of the $1.8 billion DA appropriation was earmarked for agricultural development….. PL480 Food for Peace Program, which provides food aid for both emergency relief and development purposes.…” [5]

Beware of slick words and note that Melissa Ho, an agriculture expert, was an aide to Hillary Clinton of the “we came, we saw, he died, infamy”, and earlier worked in the agriculture division of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with Rajiv Shah as head of that division. The ‘Congress approved financial appropriation’ is for the consumption of stupid academics and the media; in reality this institution has access to unlimited funds.

This agency works in subtle ways. One of its most important work is to identify and nurture future leaders in the third world countries, particularly scientists (especially those working in agriculture and information technology) bureaucrats, judges and political leaders, invite them to ‘prestigious international seminars,’ essentially lavish holidays, to create a sort of ‘group think’ that furthers America’s foreign policy interests. This is the operational side of covert operations; the real strategists never show their faces and the real agenda has to be pieced together from thousands of evidences. But the key point is that this agency and their controllers are perfectly capable of disregarding even American Presidential orders. [6]

The Pentagon’s National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: ‘Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.’ Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world’s only superpower. William Engdahl has astutely pieced together the weaponization of seeds and control over global food production as the central strategic weapon of world’s only super power. [7] These silent weapons are used by USAID and the powerful American tax-free foundations. Investigations starkly reveal that many of India’s leading anti-GM NGOs are also either victim or willing partners in this nefarious agenda; some are definitely willing partners.

Monsanto

Monsanto was responsible for mass marketing of carcinogen PCB, Agent Orange defoliant that was sprayed all over Vietnam, and glyphosate that must be used in combination with their patented genetically engineered seeds. Dr. Don Huber, in a discussion with Dr Mercola, pointed out that the glyphosate kills beneficial soil organisms vital for uptake of critical minerals. That results in less healthy, less nutritious food and makes plants vulnerable to diseases and pest attacks.[8] This criminal corporation now controls global seeds supply of food, feed and fibre crops; it is systematically taking over natural seed firms. Nearly 95% of genetic engineering research is paid for and controlled by Monsanto and other multinational seed corporations who manipulate scientific research to hide the dangers of genetically altered plants and animals.

Every independent scientist who found out the dangers of genetically engineered foods “has been under well structured and extraordinarily coordinated attack; some even express surprise that they are alive” says Jeffrey Smith. [9] Over fifty microbiologists have died under mysterious circumstances.

According to an investigative report by the Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.” [10] When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they also sign a technology agreement for not saving seeds. Let us also give credit to those hundreds of upright scientists of US-DoA who knew of the dangers and warned. Their documented concerns are in the public domain but USAID, the US Government and Monsanto have immense resources to silence their critics. [11] Nepal matters to them for other than humanitarian reasons.

People don’t realize that genetically engineered seed is essentially of military value: it neither increases yield, nor enhances nutrition, nor lowers the cost of production for the farmers. The idea of gene control and its reconstitution has clear military use and it has helped the US planners to set a different kind of military strategy and specific command and control goals. [12]

Monsanto hired a consulting firm to work out the strategy for global food control and they were told that unless they control the regulatory process in the governments they can’t succeed. Monsanto knew that they could control every aspect of decision making including the regulatory system because they had the US Government backing. For example, they virtually took over India’s seed regulatory system just as they did in the USA and almost grabbed the European Community’s regulatory authority. The moment Iraq was forcibly occupied the military governor ordered that only Monsanto’s seeds will be planted by Iraqi farmers.

Monsanto is not an ordinary company selling seeds. It has been tasked to take total control over global food production through control of seeds. It has been tasked to contaminate all natural foods’ system that will also destroy local health traditions of South Asia as well.

Nepal’s scientists and Government officials regularly go to the USA at US government expenses but those ‘holidays’ will destroy their health and that of their progenies too. Like their Indian counterparts, they have been bribed into submission and silence.

The main role of USAID is to penetrate the socio-economic fabric of a nation, eat into the innards of national unity like termites, and compromise political sovereignty. When that fails the final military onslaught by US armed forces starts. Nepal is too valuable a nation to Asia to allow USAID and MONSANTO to get in.

Notes:

[1] http://rt.com/news/monsanto-nepal-crops-maize-seeds-095/ 

[2] Annual letter from Bill Gates; http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/home-en.aspx 

[3] http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html#ixzz1sf3GvP7t 

[4] Arun Shrivastava; ‘For Us Tolls the Bell- Poverty and Food Insecurity in the Developing World; Centre for Research on Globalization; 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13527 

[5] Charles Hanrahan and Melissa Ho; US Global Food Security Initiative; Congressional Research Service; 2009; Page 10-11.

This slick document can be accessed here: www.crs.gov 

[6] This aspect was comprehensively dealt with by President Kennedy’s top security aide, Mr. Leroy F. Prouty in his classic “The Secret Team, in 1972. I have reasons to believe that the post 9/11 events of criminal global resource loot have been facilitated by the Secret Team within the CIA. See here: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september032011/911-necessity-ar.php 

[7] William Engdahl; ‘Seeds of Destruction’; 2007; page 143

[8] The YouTube video records an exceptional discussion on the technical aspects of GE seeds and plants and the way they destroy the living soil and plants’ nutrients. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4swW9OFmf8

[9] Some of the leading scientists who warned of the dangers of Genetically engineered seeds and foods are Dr. KP Prabhakaran Nair, Dr Arpad Pusztai, Dr Ignacio Chapella, Dr irina Ermakova, Dr Seralini [who exposed the Bt Brinjal fraud], Dr PM Bhargava, Dr Don Huber, so many upright scientists. Watch this video: http://www.scientistsunderattack.com/ 

[10] Kimbrell and Mendelson; ‘Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers’; 2005; PDF file, freely downloadable

[11] Key FDA documents revealing GMO hazards has been compiled by ALLIANCE FOR BIO-INTEGRITY under two main headings: (a) Hazards of genetically engineered foods and (b) Flaws with how the agency made its policy. These documents can be accessed here: http://www.biointegrity.org/ 

[12] Guo Ji-wei and Xue-sen Yang; ‘Ultramicro, Nonlethal, and Reversible: Looking Ahead to Military Biotechnology’; Military Review; July-August 2005;

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/october_2005/10_05_4.html 

Guo Ji-wei is Director, Department of Medical Affairs, Southwest Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China. Yang Xue-sen is a biotechnology lecturer and writer.

[13] http://www.presstv.ir/detail/233402.html

Not only Nepal but the entire Himalayan region is under threat. Genetically Engineered seeds are weapons of mass culling. The Nepalese Government’s foolishness in inviting USAID and Monsanto for ‘agricultural development’ through genetically engineered maize will destroy the quality of its livestock and humans. The contamination of its fragile ecosystem will be in perpetuity and irreversible.

Monsanto has close strategic ties with the U.S. Department of Defense [DoD, which should actually be renamed as Department of War] and the USAID is actually a division of the US-DoD.

USAID’s current administrator Dr Rajiv Shah was top honcho of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and served the US administration as chief scientist in the Department of Agriculture [US-DoA]. US-DoA was a prime mover in the development of the “Terminator Seed” and patent holder. Terminator was later transferred to Monsanto.

USAID’s Economic Growth Advisor Rave Aulakh was lying when she said “We have been trying to help the Nepalese farmer to increase his total production of the food crops,” making him “a little bit more competitive by bringing his costs down,”[1]. They are all straight-faced liars.

Independent research by agricultural scientists after nearly two decades of experience with GE crops in the USA now clearly shows that these seeds neither increase yield, nor lower the cost of production, nor enhance nutrition. In fact there is incontrovertible evidence that GE crops disrupt soil nutrient balance and prevent uptake of certain critical nutrients by the roots. Moreover, GE crops contaminate non-crops from cross-pollination.

The sole purpose of genetic engineering of seeds is control over seed supply and global food availability. This weaponization of food system is being implemented by a few American and European multinational firms.

Bill Gates and Depopulation 

Gates now talks power politics:

“The world faces a clear choice. If we invest relatively modest amounts, many more poor farmers will be able to feed their families. If we don’t, one in seven people will continue living needlessly on the edge of starvation.” [2]

What he says before and after those lines is even better and what he doesn’t know is actually the best of Bill Gates’ philanthropy. He may have founded Microsoft but Bill would not be hired as a janitor or toilet cleaner by the world’s top agriculture scientists. So this scoundrel can rant what he believes in and the media scoundrel can go on printing what this scoundrel thinks.

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation purchased 500,000 shares of Monsanto in 2010 and Bill Gates has openly spoken in favor of vigorously promoting (i) genetically engineered crops and (ii) vaccination, the two silent weapons of mass culling. Gates’ main occupation these days is to take over global food and seed supply through a monopoly of few genetically engineered food and seeds firms. [3]

The US Government’s Global Food Security baloney is a sinister plot because it is administered by the USAID. Note that the US regulatory authorities have never regulated industries in the interest of the people. Monopolies have been protected and private cartels continue to kill people in the US and across the world. USAID actually serves US foreign policy interest which has little to do with humanitarianism. [4] Just two examples here: (a) during early years of Vietnam war CIA used the USAID for its covert operations and it has been the front for covert operations all along in every country targeted by the US administration, and (b) USAID played a role in the attempted coup in Venezuela in which Hugo Chavez was deposed for about 48 hours [April 10, 2002] and George Tenet, then head of CIA was directly involved. According to insiders, the two major failures of CIA since WWII were China’s occupation of Tibet and to a lesser extent the failed 2002 Venezuelan coup.

USAID has three Congress approved accounts: Development Assistance, PL 480, and Economic Support Fund. Development Assistance and PL480 together account for about 80% of the budgetary allocation. For instance,

“In FY2008, about 40% of USAID’s agricultural development programs were funded by the DA account. For FY2009, about $375 million of the $1.8 billion DA appropriation was earmarked for agricultural development….. PL480 Food for Peace Program, which provides food aid for both emergency relief and development purposes.…” [5]

Beware of slick words and note that Melissa Ho, an agriculture expert, was an aide to Hillary Clinton of the “we came, we saw, he died, infamy”, and earlier worked in the agriculture division of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation with Rajiv Shah as head of that division. The ‘Congress approved financial appropriation’ is for the consumption of stupid academics and the media; in reality this institution has access to unlimited funds.

This agency works in subtle ways. One of its most important work is to identify and nurture future leaders in the third world countries, particularly scientists (especially those working in agriculture and information technology) bureaucrats, judges and political leaders, invite them to ‘prestigious international seminars,’ essentially lavish holidays, to create a sort of ‘group think’ that furthers America’s foreign policy interests. This is the operational side of covert operations; the real strategists never show their faces and the real agenda has to be pieced together from thousands of evidences. But the key point is that this agency and their controllers are perfectly capable of disregarding even American Presidential orders. [6]

The Pentagon’s National Defense University, on the eve of the 2003 Iraq War, issued a paper declaring: ‘Agribiz is to the United States what oil is to the Middle East.’ Agribusiness had become a strategic weapon in the arsenal of the world’s only superpower. William Engdahl has astutely pieced together the weaponization of seeds and control over global food production as the central strategic weapon of world’s only super power. [7] These silent weapons are used by USAID and the powerful American tax-free foundations. Investigations starkly reveal that many of India’s leading anti-GM NGOs are also either victim or willing partners in this nefarious agenda; some are definitely willing partners.

Monsanto

Monsanto was responsible for mass marketing of carcinogen PCB, Agent Orange defoliant that was sprayed all over Vietnam, and glyphosate that must be used in combination with their patented genetically engineered seeds. Dr. Don Huber, in a discussion with Dr Mercola, pointed out that the glyphosate kills beneficial soil organisms vital for uptake of critical minerals. That results in less healthy, less nutritious food and makes plants vulnerable to diseases and pest attacks.[8] This criminal corporation now controls global seeds supply of food, feed and fibre crops; it is systematically taking over natural seed firms. Nearly 95% of genetic engineering research is paid for and controlled by Monsanto and other multinational seed corporations who manipulate scientific research to hide the dangers of genetically altered plants and animals.

Every independent scientist who found out the dangers of genetically engineered foods “has been under well structured and extraordinarily coordinated attack; some even express surprise that they are alive” says Jeffrey Smith. [9] Over fifty microbiologists have died under mysterious circumstances.

According to an investigative report by the Center for Food Safety, “Monsanto has an annual budget of $10 million and a staff of 75 devoted solely to investigating and prosecuting farmers.” [10] When farmers purchase Monsanto seeds, they also sign a technology agreement for not saving seeds. Let us also give credit to those hundreds of upright scientists of US-DoA who knew of the dangers and warned. Their documented concerns are in the public domain but USAID, the US Government and Monsanto have immense resources to silence their critics. [11] Nepal matters to them for other than humanitarian reasons.

People don’t realize that genetically engineered seed is essentially of military value: it neither increases yield, nor enhances nutrition, nor lowers the cost of production for the farmers. The idea of gene control and its reconstitution has clear military use and it has helped the US planners to set a different kind of military strategy and specific command and control goals. [12]

Monsanto hired a consulting firm to work out the strategy for global food control and they were told that unless they control the regulatory process in the governments they can’t succeed. Monsanto knew that they could control every aspect of decision making including the regulatory system because they had the US Government backing. For example, they virtually took over India’s seed regulatory system just as they did in the USA and almost grabbed the European Community’s regulatory authority. The moment Iraq was forcibly occupied the military governor ordered that only Monsanto’s seeds will be planted by Iraqi farmers.

Monsanto is not an ordinary company selling seeds. It has been tasked to take total control over global food production through control of seeds. It has been tasked to contaminate all natural foods’ system that will also destroy local health traditions of South Asia as well.

Nepal’s scientists and Government officials regularly go to the USA at US government expenses but those ‘holidays’ will destroy their health and that of their progenies too. Like their Indian counterparts, they have been bribed into submission and silence.

The main role of USAID is to penetrate the socio-economic fabric of a nation, eat into the innards of national unity like termites, and compromise political sovereignty. When that fails the final military onslaught by US armed forces starts. Nepal is too valuable a nation to Asia to allow USAID and MONSANTO to get in.

Notes:

[1] http://rt.com/news/monsanto-nepal-crops-maize-seeds-095/ 

[2] Annual letter from Bill Gates; http://www.gatesfoundation.org/annual-letter/2012/Pages/home-en.aspx 

[3] http://www.naturalnews.com/035105_Bill_Gates_Monsanto_eugenics.html#ixzz1sf3GvP7t 

[4] Arun Shrivastava; ‘For Us Tolls the Bell- Poverty and Food Insecurity in the Developing World; Centre for Research on Globalization; 2009. http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=13527 

[5] Charles Hanrahan and Melissa Ho; US Global Food Security Initiative; Congressional Research Service; 2009; Page 10-11.

This slick document can be accessed here: www.crs.gov 

[6] This aspect was comprehensively dealt with by President Kennedy’s top security aide, Mr. Leroy F. Prouty in his classic “The Secret Team, in 1972. I have reasons to believe that the post 9/11 events of criminal global resource loot have been facilitated by the Secret Team within the CIA. See here: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september032011/911-necessity-ar.php 

[7] William Engdahl; ‘Seeds of Destruction’; 2007; page 143

[8] The YouTube video records an exceptional discussion on the technical aspects of GE seeds and plants and the way they destroy the living soil and plants’ nutrients. See here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X4swW9OFmf8

[9] Some of the leading scientists who warned of the dangers of Genetically engineered seeds and foods are Dr. KP Prabhakaran Nair, Dr Arpad Pusztai, Dr Ignacio Chapella, Dr irina Ermakova, Dr Seralini [who exposed the Bt Brinjal fraud], Dr PM Bhargava, Dr Don Huber, so many upright scientists. Watch this video: http://www.scientistsunderattack.com/ 

[10] Kimbrell and Mendelson; ‘Monsanto vs. U.S. Farmers’; 2005; PDF file, freely downloadable

[11] Key FDA documents revealing GMO hazards has been compiled by ALLIANCE FOR BIO-INTEGRITY under two main headings: (a) Hazards of genetically engineered foods and (b) Flaws with how the agency made its policy. These documents can be accessed here: http://www.biointegrity.org/ 

[12] Guo Ji-wei and Xue-sen Yang; ‘Ultramicro, Nonlethal, and Reversible: Looking Ahead to Military Biotechnology’; Military Review; July-August 2005;

http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/volumes/volume3/october_2005/10_05_4.html 

Guo Ji-wei is Director, Department of Medical Affairs, Southwest Hospital, Chongqing, People’s Republic of China. Yang Xue-sen is a biotechnology lecturer and writer.

[13] http://www.presstv.ir/detail/233402.html

After more than 30 years I recently spent a week in the Philippines, giving a few arranged talks at universities, meeting with NGOs, and old friends who shared their understanding of this fascinating fast growing country of approximately 105 million people living on an archipelago that consists of more than 7,107 islands.

Additionally, of course, Manila is a mega-city that exhibits traffic at its worst, colorful jeepneys by the hundreds that are a distinctive national mode of urban transportation, a kind of customized bus service in smaller vehicles colorfully adorned, and now almost as many malls as churches epitomizing the economic and social intrusion of neoliberalism in the guise of globalization. Probably because of the large number of affluent expats living in the Makati neighborhood of Manila, the malls in the vicinity of my hotel offered visitors a wide range of world cuisines in numerous restaurants, cafes, bistros, and of course, a large Starbucks, staying open and crowded late into the night. As well, there were housed in these malls the same upper end array of global stores (e.g. Gucci, Coach, Cartier, Burberry, Zara, and so on)

My visit coincided with two preoccupations in the country: the celebration of the 29^th anniversary of the overthrow of the Marcos dictatorship by the People Power Revolution in 1986 and the current obsessive national debate about how to understand and react to the bungled counterterrorist operation in the Mindanao community of Mamapasano located in Manguindanao province that took place in late January of this year. Each of these occurrences offered a politically attuned visitor a finely honed optic by which to grasp the central tensions currently gripping the country.

There is little doubt that the people power movement of the mid-1980s remains a source of national pride for many Filipinos, although its overall results are not nearly as emancipatory as were the original hopes and aspirations. Procedural democracy seems to have become firmly established, and the fact that the president of the country is the son of Benigno and Corey Aquino. Benigno Aquino who had been assassinated as he stepped on the tarmac in 1983 is an important symbolic expression of a reformed political order. Marcos denied the crime, and there have been two inconclusive trials of military officers alleged to be responsible for planning and carrying out the assassination, but the event has not been authoritatively explained to date. Yet despite the momentous changes brought about by this populist rising, the political economy of the country remains as enmeshed as earlier in a web of entanglements with predatory globalization, making income and wealth disparities ever larger while massive degrading poverty persists. The oligarchic structures of land tenure have been tweaked by mild reformism without being loosening their chokehold on the nation’s vital arteries.

The Philippines have long been beset by insurgent challenges, which also seem likely to continue indefinitely. After decades of struggle the New Peoples Army founded in 1969 and operating on Maoist principles of ‘peoples war’ remains in control of a large number of remote communities in several of the important islands, clashes with government forces are reported in the media from time to time, and negotiations with the government with the goal of ending the conflict have been undertaken from time to time. This persevering movement appears to remain under the ideological leadership of Jose Maria Sison, who has been living as an exile in Utrecht for decades.

Given far more recent attention for both internal and international reasons are the several violent movements seeking autonomy and other goals in the largely Muslim island of Mindanao. There had been lengthy negotiations with the Moro Liberation Movement that agreed finally on a resolution of this conflict through the autonomy arrangement embedded in the Bangsamoro Basic Law that seemed on the verge of enactment until the Mamapasano incident of January 25^th put off adoption at least until June, and possibly forever. Opponents are now raising Islamophobic fears that Mindanao would become a platform for political extremism if the agreement reached with such difficulty goes into effect.

What for me was particularly strange was this deeply ingrained national experience of successfully challenging intolerable aspects of the established order without being able to follow through in some way that achieves the goals being sought. In one way it is a rather impressive sign of reconciliation to realize that the son of Ferdinand Marcos, Bong-Bong, is an influential senator, and is even contemplating a run for the presidency in 2016 despite never repudiating the policies and practices of his father, which are movingly on display in a small museum dedicated to the crimes committed by the Marcos regime during the period of martial law (1972-1981). Additionally, Emee, the oldest Marcos daughter is the governor of the Llocos Norte province, their home province, and even Imelda Marcos has been forgiven her excesses, shoes and otherwise, and serves as a popular member of the House of Representatives since being elected in 2010 by a plurality of over 80%. This is a remarkable type of rehabilitation of a family dictatorship believed responsible for siphoning off public monies in the billions and suppressing its opponents by reliance on torture, brutality, and assassination. The Marcos clan has never recanted or expressed remorse, but explains that whatever wrongs occurred during that time as either ‘mistakes’ of subordinates or the unproven allegations of opposition forces.

When I asked how was it possible that the Marcos past has been so cleanly erased from the contemporary blackboard of Filipino awareness, I received various answers: “They have lots of money” “They never lost popularity in their home province where lots of development took place while Marcos governed ” “The past no longer matters; it is the present that counts” “the oligarchy still rules the country and includes all leading families regardless of their political affiliations.”

There are attractive aspects of this experience of ‘reconciliation without truth,’ that is, without some formal process of reckoning and accountability, at least the palliative of a truth and reconciliation commission. Such a spirit of resigned moderation is in some respects the opposite of the sort of polarization that afflicts so many countries at present. It is not only that the Marcos’s have been allowed to participate prominently in the political system without being compromised by their past, but also those on the far left who in the Marcos period were ‘underground’ and enemies of the state are now to be found in the Congress or even in the cabinet of the president. Perhaps, the Philippines is quietly experimenting in the practice of ‘pluralist democracy,’ while ignoring the more radical features of ‘substantive and restorative democracy.’

A similar pattern of ‘conscious forgetfulness’ is evident in relation to the colonial past for both its Spanish and American versions. There is no bitterness despite the cruelties and harshness of the Spanish colonial legacy. Catholicism is as firmly rooted in the country as it was when it was a willing partner of the Spanish rulers in the oppressive past, and continues to flourish in a manner that has not occurred in any other post-colonial Asian country. When Pope Francis visited the country in January it was the largest celebratory event in the country’s history. This status of Catholicism is also remarkable considering the Church’s persistent opposition to birth control for poor families that are continuing to have large families that they unable to support; over 30% of Filipino children are reported to be stunted due to the effect of malnutrition and hunger.

Despite the bloody counterinsurgency war fought by the United States in the aftermath of the Spanish-American War of 1898, which crushed the Philippines expectations of national independence that had been promised by Americans as part of their own anti-colonial identity. Most absurdly, the American president at the time William McKinley, actually justified administering the Philippines as part of its responsibility to Christianize this most Christian of countries. The decision to break the American promise of independence made to anti-Spanish nationalist leaders in the Philippines were articulated in the brazen spirit of Manifest Destiny, putting a moral ad religious face on America’s first flirtation with undisguised colonialism. McKinley’s words are memorably revealing: “..there was nothing left for us to do but to take them all, and to educate the Filipinos, and uplift and civilize and Christianize them, and by God’s grace do the very best we could by them..”

My initial contact with the Philippines was as a supporter of the ‘Anti-Bases Coalition,’ which in the 1980s was seeking the removal of the two huge American military bases at Subic Bay and Clark Air Force Base. This has been a struggle with strong nationalist overtones, and engaging leading political figures in the country. The bases were eventually closed, but consistent with the tendency to exhibit the truth of the French adage ‘plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose ‘ [the more things change, the more they remain the same] the strategic relationship with the United States was sustained, even deepened, and certainly continued. There were American Special Forces units operating rather freely in the country as part of the global war on terror, and there were intimidations that the role of the United States in the Mamapasano incident was responsible for the bloodshed that generated a political crisis in the country.

Of course, there are explanations for this seeming contradiction between getting rid of American military bases and maintaining military cooperation. The government in Manila was benefitted by the assistance of the United States in dealing effectively with its domestic insurgent challenges from the left. Beyond this, the Philippines turned out to be one of the anti-Islamic battlefields in the post-9/11 ‘war on terror,’ and the United States exerted pressures on the government in Manila to give its consent to counter-terrorist operations within its borders. In the background, but not very far removed from political consciousness, were the flaring island disputes with China and the overall security concerns associated with the regional rise of China. In this geopolitical setting, the United States was seen as a necessary friend to offset the more immediate and direct existential threats posed by China. In important respects, these patterns can be understood as the post-Cold War securitization of Asian relations in the shadow of the transformative impacts of the 9/11 attacks.

The Mamapasano incident is emblematic of these realities. Under apparent pressure from the United States to capture or kill a much wanted terrorist known as Marwan, the Philippino elite special forces units were persuaded to carry out the operation. In the process 42 of these highly trained troops were killed, along with Marwan, and there were many repercussions. The United States role was at first disguised, but investigations revealed involvement, including a drone watching and maybe guiding the operation, along with the allegation that the Filipino soldiers were ‘sacrificed’ to spare American lives in a situation where heavy armed resistance should have been anticipated. Some blamed the president, and there were demonstrations during my days in the country demanding his resignation, despite his popularity remaining quite high. It is not clear what will be the outcome, whether there will be a downgrading of cooperation with the United States and some accountability imposed on those who are alleged to have bungled the operation. Yet if the past is any guide, the crisis will pass, and continuity of U.S./Filipino relations will prevail in the security domain.

The Mamapasano incident is a clear instance of the new global security paradigm: the centrality of non-state actors, the role of covert operations by foreign special forces, the transnational dimensions of political conflict, the erosion of territorial sovereignty, the primacy of information and surveillance, and the hierarchical relationship between the United States and most governments in the global south. To make this last point evident, it is inconceivable that Filipino special forces would participate in an operation to capture persons residing in the United States suspected of affiliation with insurgent movements in the Philippines.

There is a complex redesign of world order underway, with one set of developments reshaping the political economy of globalization by way of the BRICs [but see acute skeptical analysis in William I Robinson, “The transnational state and the BRICS: a global capitalist perspective,” Third World Quarterly, 36(NO.1): 1-21 (2015)] and the Chinese initiative with respect to investment banking, [Asian Infrastructure Initiative Bank]; another set of developments concerned with securitization, ranging from the global surveillance apparatus disclosed by Edward Snowden to the incredible American global presence featuring over 700 foreign military bases and special forces units active in over 150 countries; and still another, is preoccupied with the rise of religion and civilizational identity as a political force, and what this means for stability and governance.

We still lack a language to assess this emergent world order, and possess no regulatory or normative framework within which to distinguish what is legitimate, prudent, and permissible from what is illegitimate, imprudent, and impermissible. Neither international law nor the UN has been able to adapt to the contemporary global agenda, and show few signs of an ability to do so. While this fluidity and normative uncertainty persists global warming worsens, the risks of nuclear war increase, and leading states shape their policies without accountability. It is not a time for complacency. Such a state of affairs is dangerous, and likely unsustainable. And yet what can be done remains elusive.

Richard Falk is a member of the TRANSCEND Network, an international relations scholar, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University, author, co-author or editor of 40 books, and a speaker and activist on world affairs. In 2008, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointed Falk to a six-year term as a United Nations Special Rapporteur on “the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967.” Since 2002 he has lived in Santa Barbara, California, and taught at the local campus of the University of California in Global and International Studies, and since 2005 chaired the Board of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation. His most recent book is Achieving Human Rights (2009).

Before being voted out of office last year, India’s Congress-led United Progressive Alliance administration sanctioned open-field trials of GM food crops in India and Monsanto’s share prices rocketed. This decision prompted Rajesh Krishnan of the Coalition for a GM Free India to state that the government was against the interest of citizens, farmers and the welfare of the nation. He went on to state that the government had decided to work hand in glove with the multinational GM seed industry that stood to gain immensely from the open field trails. Since then, the Modi-led administration has continued the policy to drive GMOs into India.

Writing in The Hindu last year, Aruna Rodrigues noted that the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report (FR) is the fourth official report exposing the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk (see here). The four reports are: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it; the Sopory Committee Report (August 2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012) and the TEC Final Report (June-July 2013).

The TEC recommended an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops until the government devised a proper regulatory and safety mechanism. No such mechanism exists, but open field trials are being given the go ahead, regardless of a history of blatant violations of biosafety norms, hasty approvals, a lack of monitoring abilities, general apathy towards the hazards of contamination and a lack of institutional oversight mechanisms (see this).

Despite this, the BJP-ruled Maharashtra government recently granted ‘no-objection certificates’ for GM open-field trials of rice, chickpeas maize, brinjal and cotton. Some regard this as a game changer in the push to get GM crops into India. (Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh have given NOCs for field trials of some biotech crops, while states like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have banned such research activities.)

Aruna Rodrigues argues there is increasing evidence that: GMOs pose health and environment risks; GM yields are significantly lower than yields from non-GM crops; and pesticide use, instead of coming down, has gone up exponentially. Rodrigues moreover argued that in India, notwithstanding the hype of the industry, the regulators and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Bt cotton yield is leveling off to levels barely higher than they were before the introduction of Bt.

In her piece in The Hindu, she stated:

“The IAASTD was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. It was twice peer reviewed. The report states we must look to small-holder, traditional farming (not GMOs) to deliver food security in third world countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable. Governments must invest in these systems. This is the clear evidence.”

The MoA strongly opposed the TEC Committee’s report. This, according to Rodrigues, was to be expected given the conflict of interests:

“The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) promotes public-private-partnerships with the biotechnology industry. It does this with the active backing of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The MoA has handed Monsanto and the industry access to our agri-research public institutions placing them in a position to seriously influence agri-policy in India. You cannot have a conflict of interest larger or more alarming than this one. Today, Monsanto decides which Bt cotton hybrids are planted and where. Monsanto owns over 90 per cent of planted cotton seed, all of it Bt cotton.”

All the other staggering scams that have rocked the nation have the possibility of recovery and reversal, but, as Rodrigues argues, the GM scam will be of a scale hitherto unknown:

“We have had the National Academies of Science give a clean chit of biosafety to GM crops – doing that by using paragraphs lifted wholesale from the industry’s own literature! Likewise, ministers who know nothing about the risks of GMOs have similarly sung the virtues of Bt Brinjal and its safety to an erstwhile Minister of Health. They have used, literally, “cut & paste” evidence from the biotech lobby’s “puff” material. Are these officials then, “un-caged corporate parrots?”

Arun Shrivastava notes that as early as 2003, when the first ever Bt cotton crop was harvested in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, Gene Campaign evaluated the performance of Bt Cotton. These studies proved that GE seeds don’t increase yield. He goes on to note that the impleadment to ban GMOs was backed by 6.5 million farmers through their respective associations. It was admitted by the Supreme Court in April 2007 and contains a long list of hard scientific evidence.

Shrivastava states that the Standing Committee on Agriculture in Parliament unanimously and unequivocally concluded that GE seeds and foods are dangerous to human, animal and environmental health and directed the Government of Manmohan Singh to ban GMOs. The 400-page report was submitted to Parliament in October 2012.

Officials in India are working closely with global biotech companies to force GMOs into fields and onto the public, despite evidence pertaining to the deleterious impacts of GMOs on various levels (for example, see this, this and this). These companies are in fact playing a key role in determining the overall development agenda for India (see this, this and this).

Despite the evidence pertaining to the risks and efficacy of GMOs, organisations and activists opposing such crops are being singled out for putting a break on development and growth and for being in the pocket of foreign interests.

An Intelligence Bureau (IB) report, ‘Impact of NGOs on Development’, was leaked in June of last year and had a special section on GMOs. It was clearly supportive of the introduction of GM crops into India. The IB said foreign NGOs and their Indian arms were serving as tools to advance Western foreign policy interests in various areas, of which GMOs comprise one aspect.

Aruna Rodrigues, Vandana Shiva and Kavitha Kuruganti, who were all mentioned in the report, in their joint statement noted the report’s hypocrisy by saying that the IB was conspiring with global corporate interests to haemorrhage India’s agricultural economy. The report even quoted Dr Ronald Herring of Cornell University, who is a known promoter of genetically-modified organisms and Monsanto’s monopoly.

Speaking to The Statesman newspaper in India, Aruna Rodrigues said:

“Here is a real foreign hand that informs the IB report. Cornell University, where Dr Herring works, was one of the main forces, along with USAID and Monsanto, behind the making of Bt brinjal in India.”

The joint statement of all three activists went asserted that:

“… the biggest foreign hand by ‘STEALTH’ and official ‘COVER-UP’ will be in GMOs/GM crops if introduced into Indian agriculture. All that stands between a corporate takeover of our seeds and agriculture is the committed and exemplary work by the not-for-profit sector… In conspiring with deeply conflicted institutions of regulation, governance and agriculture… to introduce GM crops into India, the IB will in fact aid the hand-over of the ownership of our seeds and foods to multi-national corporations. This will represent the largest take-over of any nation’s agriculture and future development by foreign-hands… (and)… will plunge India into the biggest breach of internal security; of a biosecurity threat and food security crisis from which we will never recover…. GM crops have already demonstrated no yield gain, no ability to engineer for traits of drought, saline resistance etc and have some serious bio-safety issues which no regulator wishes to examine.”

The statement said that India’s Bt cotton is an outstanding example of the above scenario:

“This ‘VALUE CAPTURE’ for Monsanto which was contrived and approved by our own government mortgaging the public interest has ensured that in a short 10 years, 95% of cotton seeds in the form of Bt cotton are owned by Monsanto… It is Monsanto now that decides where cotton should be planted and when by our farmers… The Royalties accruing to Monsanto that have been expatriated are approximately Rs 4800 Crores in 12 years, (excluding other profit mark-ups)… The IB is thus conspiring with global corporate interests to hemorrhage India’s agricultural economy… We call for an investigation on the foreign influence in writing the GMO section in the IB report.”

The statement concluded:

“If India’s intelligence agencies become instruments of global corporations working against the public interest and national interest of India, our national security is under threat. This IB report is deeply anti-national and subversive of constitutional rights of citizens in our country. It does India no credit.”

Apart from attacking those campaigning against GMOs, the report accused Greenpeace and other groups of receiving foreign funds to damage economic progress by campaigning against power projects and mining.

The IB is India’s domestic spy service and garners intelligence from within India and also executes counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism tasks. Its report attempted to portray certain NGOs like Greenpeace and critics of GMOs as working against the ‘national interest’ and being in the pay of foreigners.

Discrediting certain sections of civil society as being ‘unpatriotic’, by working to undermine some bogus notion of the ‘national interest’, always sits well with ruling elites that are all too ready to play the nationalist card to garner support. Yet, in this case the report itself sides with powerful foreign corporations and, as far as GMOs are concerned, their agenda to secure control over Indian agriculture.

Those who are exercising their legal right to challenge and protest corporate-driven policies that are all too often based on staggering levels of corruption and rampant cronyism – and are non-transparent and secretive – are being discredited and smeared. However, this should come as no surprise. Various nation states such as the US and UK have used their intelligence agencies to monitor, subvert and undermine grass-root activists and civil organizations that have (by acting legitimately and within the law) attempted to hold power to account (seethis and this). Governments the world over have a tendency to dislike genuine democracy and transparency.

Greenpeace India’s actions were singled out for particular criticism in the IB report. It responded by saying:

“We believe that this report is designed to muzzle and silence civil society who raise their voices against injustices to people and the environment by asking uncomfortable questions about the current model of growth.”

Since the report, Greenpeace India has experienced a good deal of pressure. After the report described Greenpeace’s activities as “a threat to national economic security,” the government has gone on to restrict the organisation’s international funding. On 9 April 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs ordered Greenpeace India’s bank accounts to be frozen and its ability to receive funding from abroad to be suspended. According to Amnesty International India, this violates constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association.

The Ministry of Home Affairs said the acceptance of foreign funds by Greenpeace India had “prejudicially affected” public interest and the economic interest of the country.

Ananth Guruswamy, Executive Director at Amnesty International India:

“It is clear that Greenpeace is being targeted because its strong views and campaigns question the government’s development policies. The extreme measures taken by the government to disable an organisation for promoting the voices of some of the country’s most powerless people will damage and shame India. Intolerance to dissent will only weaken our society.”

Claims that Greenpeace India is acting against public interest have been dismissed by the judiciary twice. In January, the Delhi High Court directed the government to release frozen funds, observing:

“Non-Governmental Organizations often take positions, which are contrary to the policies formulated by the Government of the day. That by itself…cannot be used to portray petitioner’s action as being detrimental to national interest.”

On 11 January 2015, the government prevented a Greenpeace campaigner from travelling to the UK to speak about human rights abuses related to a coal mine in Mahan, Madhya Pradesh. In March, the Delhi High court ruled that the travel restrictions violated fundamental rights, and observed that “contrarian views held by a section of people…cannot be used to describe such section or class of people as anti-national.” The court also noted there was nothing to suggest that Greenpeace India’s activities “have the potentiality of degrading the economic interest of the country.”

Ananth Guruswarmy:

“The Ministry of Environment and Forests has agreed that the Mahan coal block is located in a protected forest, where no mining should take place. Instead of dubbing Greenpeace anti-national, the government should focus on the vital issues that it raises. Amnesty International India is particularly concerned about the rights of Adivasis affected by state policies, and urges the government to strengthen protections for these communities.”

Attempts to dampen dissent in India are nothing new. State repression and physical violence. as well as the structural violence resulting from particular economic policies, affect many regions and impact tens of millions of the country’s poorest and most powerless citizens.

As the current administration seeks to speed up the opening of India’s economy to private interests and to more fully embrace the tenets of neo-liberal economic doctrine, more difficult times may lie ahead for dissenting voices.

April 1975 marks the official end of the Vietnam War. Yet today, Vietnam is an impoverished countries. The Hanoi government is a US proxy regime. Vietnam has become a new cheap labor frontier of the global economy. Neoliberalism prevails.

In a bitter irony, Vietnam which was a victim of US war crimes has become a staunch military ally of the US under Obama’s “Pivot to Asia” which threatens China. 

This article was written twenty years ago, initially published on April 30th 1995 in the context of the 20th anniversary of the Liberation of Saigon. A more in-depth analysis focusing on Hanoi’s neoliberal reforms was subsequently published as a chapter in my book, The Globalization of Poverty, first edition 1997, second edition, 2003.

Michel Chossudovsky, April 17, 2015

On April 30, 1975, the Vietnam War ended with the capture of Saigon by Communist forces and the surrender of General Duong Vanh Minh and his cabinet in the Presidential palace. As troops of the People’s Army of Vietnam marched into Saigon, U.S. personnel and the last American marines were hastily evacuated from the roof of the U.S. embassy. Twenty years later a fundamental question still remains unanswered: Who won the Vietnam War?

Vietnam never received war reparations payments from the U.S. for the massive loss of life and destruction, yet an agreement reached in Paris in 1993 required Hanoi to recognize the debts of the defunct Saigon regime of General Thieu. This agreement is in many regards tantamount to obliging Vietnam to compensate Washington for the costs of war.

Moreover, the adoption of sweeping macro-economic reforms under the supervision of the Bretton Woods institutions was also a condition for the lifting of the U.S. embargo. These free market reforms now constitute the Communist Party’s official doctrine. With the normalization of diplomatic relations with Washington in 1994, reference to America’s brutal role in the war is increasingly considered untimely and improper. Not surprisingly, Hanoi had decided to tone down the commemoration of the Saigon surrender so as not to offend its former wartime enemy. The Communist Party leadership has recently underscored the “historic role” of the United States in “liberating” Vietnam from Vichy regime and Japanese occupation during World War II.

On September 2, 1945 at the Declaration of Independence of Ba Dinh Square in Hanoi proclaiming the founding of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam, American agents of the Office of Strategic Services (OSS, the predecessor of today’s CIA) were present at the side of Ho Chi Minh. While Washington had provided the Viet Minh resistance with weapons and token financial support, this strategy had largely been designed to weaken Japan in the final stages of World War II without committing large numbers of U.S. ground troops.

In contrast to the subdued and restrained atmosphere of the commemoration marking the end of the Vietnam War, the 50th anniversary of independence is to be amply celebrated in a series of official ceremonies and activities commencing in September and extending to the Chinese NewYear.

Vietnam Pays War Reparations

Prior to the “normalization” of relations with Washington, Hanoi was compelled to foot the bill of the bad debts incurred by the U.S.-backed Saigon regime. At the donor conference held in Paris in November 1993, a total of nearly $2 billion of loans and aid money was generously pledged in support of Vietnam’s free market reforms.

Yet immediately after the conference, a secret meeting was held under the auspices of the Paris Club. Present at this meeting were representatives of Western governments. On the Vietnamese side, Dr. Nguyen Xian Oanh, economic advisor to the prime minister, played a key role in the negotiations. Dr. Oanh, a former IMF official, had been Minister of Finance and later Acting Prime Minister in the military government of General Duong Van Minh, which the U.S. installed 1963 after the assassination of President Ngo Dinh Diem and his brother(f.2). Dr. Oanh, while formally mediating on behalf of the Communist government, was nonetheless responsive to the demands of Western creditors.

The deal signed with the IMF (which was made public) was largely symbolic. The amount was not substantial: Hanoi was obliged to pay the IMF $140 million (owned by the defunct Saigon regime) as a condition for the resumption of new loans. Japan and France, Vietnam’s former colonial masters of the Vichy period, formed a so-called “Friends of Vietnam” committee to lend to Hanoi” the money needed to reimburse the IMF.

The substantive arrangement on the rescheduling of bilateral debts (with the Saigon regime), however, was never revealed. Yet it was ultimately this secret agreement (reached under the auspices of the Paris Club) which was instrumental in Washington’s decision to lift the embargo and normalize diplomatic relations. This arrangement was also decisive in the release of the loans pledged at the 1993 donor conference, thereby bringing Vietnam under the trusteeship of Japanese and Western creditors. Thus twenty years after the war, Vietnam had surrendered its economic sovereignty.

By fully recognizing the legitimacy of these debts, Hanoi had agreed to repay loans that had supported the U.S. war effort. Moreover, the government of Mr. Vo Van Kiet had also accepted to comply fully with the usual conditions (devaluation, trade liberalization, privatization, etc.) of an IMF-sponsored structural adjustment program.

These economic reforms, launched in the mid-1980s with the Bretton Woods institutions, had initiated, in the war’s brutal aftermath, a new phase of economic and social devastation: Inflation had resulted from the repeated devaluations that began in 1973 under the Saigon regime the year after the withdrawal of American combat troops(f.3). Today Vietnam is once again inundated with U.S. dollar notes, which have largely replaced the Vietnamese dong. With soaring prices, real earnings have dropped to abysmally low levels.

In turn, the reforms have massively reduced productive capacity. More than 5,000 out of 12,300 state-owned enterprises were closed or steered into bankruptcy. The credit cooperatives were eliminated, all medium and long term credit to industry and agriculture was frozen. Only short-term credit was available at an interest rate of 35 percent per annum (1994). Moreover, the IMF agreement prohibited the state from providing budget support either to the state-owned economy or to an incipient private sector.

The reforms’ hidden agenda consisted in destabilizing Vietnam’s industrial base. Heavy industry, oil and gas, natural resources and mining, cement and steel production are to be reorganized and taken over by foreign capital. The most valuable state assets will be transferred to reinforce and preserve its industrial base, or to develop a capitalist economy owned and controlled by Nationals.

In the process of economic restructuring, more than a million workers and over 20,000 public employees (of whom the majority were health workers and teachers) have been laid off(f.5). In turn, local famines have erupted, affecting at least a quarter of the country’s population(f.6). These famines are not limited to the food deficit areas. In the Mekong delta, Vietnam’s rice basket, 25% of the adult population consumes less than 1800 calories per day(f.7). In the cities, the devaluation of the dong together with the elimination of subsidies and price controls has led to soaring prices of rice and other food staples.

The reforms have led to drastic cuts in social programs. With the imposition of school fees, three quarters of a million children dropped out from the school system in a matter of a few years (1987-90)(f.8). Health clinics and hospitals collapsed, the resurgence of a number of infectious diseases including malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea is acknowledged by the Ministry of Health and the donors. A World Health Organization study confirmed that the number of malaria deaths increased three-fold in the first four years of the reforms alongside the collapse of health care and soaring prices of antimalarial drugs(f.9). The government (under the guidance of the international donor community) has also discontinued budget support to the provision of medical equipment and maintenance leading to the virtual paralysis of the entire public health system. Real salaries of medical personnel and working conditions have declined dramatically: the monthly wage of medical doctors in a district hospital is as low as $15 a month(f.10).

Although the U.S. was defeated on the battlefield, two decades later Vietnam appears to have surrendered its economic sovereignty to its former Wartime enemy.

No orange or steel pellet bombs, no napalm, no toxic chemicals: a new phase of economic and social destruction has unfolded. The achievements of past struggles and the aspirations of an entire nation are undone and erased almost with a stroke of the pen.

Debt conditionality and structural adjustment under the trusteeship of international creditors constitute in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, an equally effective and formally nonviolent instrument of recolonization and impoverishment affecting the livelihood of millions of people.

Michel Chossudovsky is professor of economics at the University of Ottawa and Director of the Center for Research on Globalization

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2007 had supposedly asked ex-Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd “how do you get tough on your banker?” This was over concerns about China’s growing power and hold on US finances and according to Wikileaks Rudd told Clinton to keep force as a last resort. Do the Chinese trust the Americans? As superpowers, both are wary of each other. The business of America has always been business, not friendship or the interest of others in mind except their very own. That is understandable. About the American hubris- I once read somewhere that hubris was the downfall of a Greek hero in some classical tragedy.

We are entering a new era- the era of a currency war that will test the might of the US economy and the dollar against the might of the Chinese economy and the yuan. The rope in the tug of war will be crude oil. The US economy based hegemony is being challenged by China and therefore it is naturally given that the US will try to maintain its global geopolitical and financial position. Between the giants, the global financial system could end up being completely redefined through a devastating war in the Middle East.

Some years ago I’d read a book “Petrodollar Warfare” by William Clark. The book was published in 2005 when the euro was a rising currency and China’s yuan was a distant dream. Clark had written that the rationale for intervening (in Iraq) was not just for control of oilfields, but also for the control of the means by which oil is traded in global markets. Saddam was deposed by the US and its Arab allies (who held US$ as their reserve currencies) because he refused to sell oil in US$ alone. The same fate was meted to Libya’s Gaddafi. Now Iran is in the American crosshairs not because it is purportedly developing a nuclear bomb which the CIA itself has denied but because it has been selling oil in several currencies from its Kish Island bourse. China is buying oil in international markets from countries that are willing to accept the yuan. Based on the US Energy Information (EIA), China in 2013 became the number two oil importer at 6.2 million bbls/day (MMBOPD), just slightly behind that of the US at 6.6 MMBOPD. Again, as per the EIA, China will become the largest importer of oil in 2014-15. Not only that but China’s oil production from overseas equity shares through acquisitions increased from a meagre 150,000 BOPD in 2005 to 2.7 MMBOPD in 2013.

China has been importing 52% of its crude oil from the Middle East (including 10% from Iran and 20% from Saudi Arabia) while on the flip side the US has reduced its imports from Saudi Arabia to 16% while the imports from Canada have been steadily increasing over the years. In 2010 US oil production was 9.7 MMBOPD and consumption was 19.2 MMBOPD. That balance changed in 2014 as oil production increased to 13.4 MMBOPD due to shale oil while consumption has actually decreased to 18.7 MMBOPD due to alternate energy and fuel efficiency. Net imports, therefore, further decreased in 2014 by 1.3 MMBOPD (source: EIA)

For over 40 years the US$ has been enjoying an unprecedented and guaranteed position as the world’s global currency reserve. In 1971, President Richard Nixon ordered the cancellation of the direct convertibility of the United States dollar to gold due to heavy inflation caused by the Vietnam war, trade deficit and the rising price of oil which made the dollar worth less than the price of gold used to back it from the Bretton Woods that all other currencies (including the British pound) to be indirectly linked to the gold standard wherein the Central Banks would trade gold among themselves at an agreed peg of US$35/ troy oz. Immediately after this, Nixon negotiated with Saudi Arabia that all oil prices would, in future, be denominated in US$s thus delinking from the metallic yellow gold standard to the fluid black gold standard in return for arms sales and protection. All thirteen OPEC countries including Iran adopted the sale of oil in US dollar. This allowed the US to export much of its inflation.

In January 2015, the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) issued a paper titled Global dollar credit: links to US monetary policy and leverage outlining “that since the global financial crisis (of 2008), banks and bond investors have increased the outstanding US dollar credit to non-bank borrowers outside the United States from $6 trillion to $9 trillion (and up from $2 trillion in 2001). This increase due to quantitative easing (QE) by US Federal Reserve Bank has implications for understanding global liquidity and monetary policy transmission”. The report explores the horrifying and addictive scale of global debt in US dollars. In layman language the debt is a direct result of the US printing of dollars since 2008.

According to SWIFT (Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication) China’s yuan became one of the world’s top five payment currencies in November 2014, overtaking the Canadian dollar and the Australian dollar. Global yuan payments increased by 20.3 percent in value in December 2014. CIPS (China International Payments System) will also put the yuan on a more even footing with other major global currencies like the U.S. dollar, yen, pound sterling and euro. It is possible that in a few short years the yuan will share the same position with the dollar as the petrocurrency with the price of oil being quoted in both yuan and dollar. This will cause a massive migration of dollars to head back into the US from foreign countries and foreign investors resulting in hyperinflation.

Having explained the impact the yuan in a few years and global debt addiction due to the US QE policies, we turn our attention to the new CIPS to be launched by end of 2015 as an alternative to SWIFT which links more than 9000 financial institutions in over 200 countries for facilitating global currency transactions.As per a Reuters report of 9 March 2015“the launch of the CIPS will remove one of the biggest hurdles to internationalizing the yuan and should greatly increase global usage of the Chinese currency by cutting transaction costs and processing times”. Reuters mentioned that “CIPS will become the superhighway for the yuan”.

Under above scenarios, the 40 years of political and economic marriage of convenience between Saudi Arabia and the US would likely change. Iran could well emerge as the regional Middle East superpower and a close Chinese and Russian ally under the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) – a new OPEC with nuclear bombs as suggested in brevity by Professor David Wall in Matthew Brummer’s Journal of International Affairs The Shanghai Cooperation Organization and Iran: A Power-Full Union. Could that well lead to World War 3 or history may refer to it as “the petrocurrency war”?

Gulam Asgar Mitha is a retired Techinal Safety Engineer. He has worked with several N. American and International oil and gas companies. He has worked in Libya, Qatar, Pakistan, France, Yemen and UAE. Currently Gulam lives in Calgary, Canada and enjoys reading and keeping in tune with current global political issues. Exclusive for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

Harvard professor Joseph Nye, a former senior Pentagon functionary, is one of the longest serving and most influential advisers to US empire building officials.  Nye has recently re-affirmed the primacy of the US as a world power in his latest book, Is the American Century Over?  And his article, ‘The American Century will survive the Rise of China’ (Financial Times, 3/26/15, p. 7).  These publications are in line with his earlier book, Bound to Lead, and his longstanding view that the US is not a declining world power, that it retains ‘supremacy’ even in the face of China’s rise to global power.

Nye’s views of US world supremacy have served to encourage Washington to wage multiple wars ; his view of US economic power has allowed policy-makers to ignore fundamental weaknesses in the US economy and to overestimate US power, based on what he dubs, ‘soft’ and ‘military’ power.

In tackling Professor Nye’s work, we are not dealing with a ‘detached academic in the ivory tower’ – we are taking on a high level political influential, a hardline military hawk, whose views are reflected in the forging of strategic decisions and whose arguments serve to justify major government policies.

First, we will proceed through a critical analysis of his theoretical assumptions, historical arguments and conceptual framework.  In the second part of this essay, we will consider the political consequences, which have flowed from his analysis and prescriptions.  In the conclusion, we shall propose an alternative, more realistic, analysis of US global power, one more attuned to the real international position of the US in the world today.

Nye’s Analysis is Ossified in His Distorted Time Warp

Nye’s segmentation of power into three spheres – economic, military (hard), and diplomatic/cultural (soft), overlooks the inter-relation between them.   What he dubs as ‘soft power’ usually relies on ‘hard power’, either before, during or after the application of ‘soft power’.  Moreover, the capacity to influence by ‘soft power’ depends on economic promise or military coercion to enforce ‘persuasion’.  Where economic resources or military threats are not present, soft power is ineffective.

Nye’s argument that military power is co-equal with economic power is a very dubious proposition.  Over the medium run, economic power buys, expands and increases military power.  In other words, economic resources are convertible into military as well as ‘soft power’.  It can influence politicians, parties and regimes via trade, investments and credit in many ways which military power cannot.  Over time, economic power translates into military power.   Nye’s claims of persistent US military superiority in the face of its admitted economic decline is ephemeral or time bound.

Nye’s argument about the continued ascendancy of US global power ‘for the next few decades’ is a dubious, static view – ignoring a long-term, large-scale, historical trajectory.  Lifelong shibboleths never die!  By all empirical indicators – economic, political and even militarily, the US is a declining power. Moreover, what is important is not where the US is at any given moment but the where it is moving.  Its declining shares of Latin American, African and Asian markets clearly points to a downward trajectory.

Power is a relationship.  By definition it means a country’s capacity to make other countries or political entities do what they otherwise would not do.  To consider the US as the dominant world power, we cannot, as Nye proposes, look at its ‘reputation’ as a world power or cite its ‘military capacity’ or willingness to project military force. We need to look at military and political outcomes in multiple key issue areas in which US policymakers have sought to establish regional or local dominance.

Nye’s discussion fails to look at the negative cumulative effects of US policy failures in multiple regions over time to determine whether the US retains its global supremacy or is a declining power.

To simply preach that ‘the American century is not over’, because some critics in the past mistakenly thought that the USSR in the 1970s or Japan in the 1980’s would displace the US as the global power, is to overlook the foundational weakness and repeated failures of US policymakers to impose or persuade other nations to accept US supremacy over the past decade and a half.

If, as Nye grudgingly concedes, China has replaced the US as the leading economic power in Asia, he does not understand the dynamic components of Chinese economic power, especially its long term, large-scale accumulation of foreign reserves and rapidly growing technical knowhow. Even worse, Nye ignores how the military dimension of world power has actively undermined US economic supremacy.

It is precisely Nye’s belief, along with other Pentagon advisers, that US military supremacy make it a ‘world power’, which has led to catastrophic, prolonged and costly wars. These wars have degraded and undermined US pretensions of ‘world leadership’ or more accurately – imperial supremacy.

While the US has spent trillions of dollars of public money on prolonged and losing wars in Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia, as well as ongoing military interventions in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and Yemen, China and other emerging powers have engaged in large long-term economic expansion, increasing market shares, acquiring productive enterprises and expanding their sources of capital accumulation in dynamic regions.

US repeated projections of military power have not created new sources of wealth.  The US capacity and willingness to engage in multiple disastrous wars has led to a greater loss of military influence.

Consequences of High Military Capacity and Declining Economic Performance

The consequence of utilizing its great storehouse of military capacity so disastrously has degraded and weakened the US military as well as its imperial economic reach.  Repeated US military defeats, its inability to secure its goals or impose its dominance in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan has severely weakened the domestic political foundations of global military power, to the point where the US public is adverse to sending large scale US ground troops into combat.

Nye’s inventory of military resources, stockpile of up-to-date bombers, nuclear weapons, fighter planes, military bases, special forces operations, and its vast spy (“intelligence”) apparatus, in other words the US’s supreme military ‘capacity’, has not resulted in the establishment of a prosperous, stable and submissive empire (the goal that Nye euphemistically dubs ‘world supremacy’). US military engagements, both high and low intensity wars, have resulted in costly defeats and retreats as adversaries advance into the vacuum.  Superior material capacity has not translated into US dominance because nationalist, anti-imperialist consciousness and movements based on mass armed resistance, have demonstrated superiority in countering foreign (US) invasions, occupations and satellite building.

Nye ignores a decisive ‘military resource’, which the US does not have and its adversaries have in abundance – nationalist consciousness.  Here, Nye’s notion of US supremacy in ‘soft power’ has been terribly wrong-headed.  According to Nye, the US superiority in the use and control of mass media, films, news and cultural organizations and educational institutions continues and has allowed the US to retain its global supremacy.

No doubt the US global propaganda apparatus and networks are formidable but they have not been successful, not least, as a bulwark of US global supremacy.  Once again Nye’s inventory of soft power assets relies exclusively on quantitative, contemporary, material structures and ignores the enormous counter-influence of historical legacies, nationalist, cultural, religious, ethnic, class, race and gender consciousness, which rejects US dominance in all of its forms.  US ‘soft power’ has not conquered or gained the allegiance of the people in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria or Yemen.  Nor has it convinced the billions of Chinese, Latin American or Islamic peoples to embrace American ‘leadership’.

No doubt ‘soft power’ has worked to a limited extent, especially among sectors of the educated classes and the local political elite, converting them into imperial collaborators.  No doubt elements of the educated elite have been co-opted by US funded ‘non-governmental organizations’ that engage in grass roots counter-insurgency as the counterpart to the drone attacks from above.  But, once again, Nye relies on quantitative, rather than qualitative, measures of influence.  Despite an army of NGOs and the budgeting of billions of dollars, US imperial conquests, coups, occupations, rigged elections, and puppet regimes are highly unpopular.  As a result, US troops need to diminish their presence, and its overseas and visiting diplomats require a squadron of security officials and operate out of armed fortresses.

Professor Nye’s treatment of what he calls ‘soft power’ is reduced to an inventory of propaganda resources, developed and/or cultivated by the imperial state (the US) to induce submission to and acceptance of the global supremacy of the US.  However vast the spending and however broad the scope of ‘soft power, Nye fails to recognize the ineffectiveness of the US ‘soft power apparatus’ in the face of systemic crimes against humanity, which have profoundly alienated and decisively turned world opinion and specific national publics against the US.  Specifically, Washington’s practice of torture (Abu Ghraib), kidnapping (rendition), and prolonged jailing without trial (Guantanamo); its global spy network monitoring hundreds of millions of citizens in the US and among allies and its use of drones killing more non-combatant (innocent) citizens than armed adversaries, have severely weakened, if not undermined, the appeal of US ‘soft powers’.  Nye is oblivious to the ways in which US projections of military power have led to the precipitous long-term decline of ‘soft power’, and the way in which that decline has resulted in the greater reliance on military power … in a vicious circle.

Nye ignores the changing composition of the strategic decision makers who decide where and when military power will be exercised.  He blandly assumes that policy is directed by and for enhancing US ‘global supremacy’.  But as Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, (The Israel Lobby) and Petras, (The Power of Israel in the United States), have demonstrated, powerful, organized lobbies, like AIPAC, and Israel First officials in the Executive branch have taken military decisions to focus on the Middle East at the behest of Israel in order to enhance its power. These decisions have had an enormous cost in terms of loss of human and financial resources and have contributed to the decline of US global supremacy.  Nye fails to recognize how the ascendancy of his militarist colleagues in the Pentagon and the Zionists in the Congress and Executive have drastically changed the way in which hard power (military) is exercised

And how it has weakened the composition and use of soft power and provoked greater imbalances between economic and military power.

Nye’s argument is further weakened by his incapacity to ‘problematize’ the changing content of military power, its shift from a tool of economic expansion, directed by US empire-builders, to an end in itself exploiting economic resources to enhance Israeli hegemony in the Middle East. This weakness is exacerbated by his failure to recognize the changing nature of economic power – the shift from manufacturing to finance capital and the negative consequences, which result for the projection of US economic power and dominance.

Finally, Nye totally ignores the moral dimension of the US drive for world dominance.  At worst, he blithely assumes that destructive US wars are, by their nature, virtuous.  Nye’s political commitment to the ‘American Century’ and total belief in its benignancy blind him to the killing and displacement of millions of Iraqis, Syrians, Afghans, Somalis, Libyans and now Ukrainians – among others.  Nye’s assumption of the beneficial effects of the US-NATO-EU expansion into the former Warsaw Pact countries, and especially Russia, ignores the vast impoverishment of 70% of the Ukrainian population, the outward flight of 20 million skilled professionals and workers, and the subsequent militarization of Eastern Europe and East Germany via its incorporation in NATO.  According to Nye’s moral calculus, any policy that enhances US global power is virtuous, no matter how it impacts the recipient population.  These are not only Nye’s views, they provide the ideological underpinning of the official ‘soft power’ propaganda accompanying past, present and near future wars of mass destruction.

Nye is not your typical garden variety Ivy League-ideologue-for-US-and-Israeli-dominance (and there are many in US academia).   Nye has been an important theoretical architect and strategic planner responsible for US global wars and the accompanying crimes against humanity.  His global fantasies of US ascendancy have led to the parlous state of the US domestic economy, multiple unwinnable wars overseas and the eclipse of any strategic thinking about reversing the economic decline of the US in the world economy.  Applying a cost-benefit analysis to Prof. Nye’s policies, if he were employed as a CEO in the private sector, he would have long ago been fired and dispatched to a prestigious business school to teach ‘ethics’.  Since he is already tenured at Harvard and employed by the Pentagon he can continue to churn out his irresponsible ‘manifestos’ of US global leadership and not be held to account for the disasters.

In Joseph Nye, we have our own American version of Colonel Blimp surveying his colonial projects:  He has exchanged his pith helmet, short britches and walking stick, for a combat helmet and boots, and has limited his ‘reviews’ of the Empire to secure zones, surrounded by an entourage of combat ready Leathernecks or mercenaries, circling helicopter warships and super-vetted local military toadies.

Historical Fallacies

Even at its zenith of ‘global power’ during the 1940’s, 50’s and 60’s, US military performance was the least effective component of world power.  Two major wars, Korea and Indo-China, speak against Nye’s formula.  The US military failed to defeat the North Korean and Chinese armies; Washington had to settle for a ‘compromise’.  And the US was militarily defeated and forced to withdraw from Indo-China.  Success in securing influence came afterwards, via economic investments and trade, accompanied by political and cultural influences.

Today, Nye’s reliance on the superior military resources of the US to project the continuance of the ‘American Century’ rests on very shakey historical foundations.

Nye’s Military Metaphysics as Crackpot Realism

The US has declined as a world power because of its ‘military pivot’ – following Nye’s military metaphysics and ‘soft power’ psychobabble.  In every practical situation, where the US attempted to secure its dominance by relying on its superior ‘military capacity’ against its competitors’ reliance on economic and political resources, Washington has lost.

China has set in motion the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) – with an initial offering of $50 billion dollars.  The US is staunchly opposed to the AIIB because it clearly represents an alternative to the US-dominated International Monetary Fund (IMF).  Despite Washington’s pressure to reject membership, its ‘allies’, led by the UK and followed by all major powers (except Japan for now), have applied for membership.  Even Israel has joined!

Washington sought to convince leading ‘emerging economies’ to accept US-centered economic integration; but instead, Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa (the BRICS) founded the BRICS’ bank.

The US engineered the overthrow of the elected government in the Ukraine, and set up a puppet regime to incorporate it as a NATO client and military platform on Russia’s border.  Instead, the Ukraine turned into an economic basket case, run by kleptocratic oligarchs, defended by openly neo-Nazi brigades and incapable of defeating federal autonomist rebels in the industrialized east.

The US and the EU imposed economic sanctions on Russia and federal autonomist rebels of the Donbass in Eastern Ukraine. This has become another example of projecting political power to enlarge the scope of military operations at the cost of devastating losses in trade and investment, between Moscow and the European Union, not to speak of the Ukraine – whose economy was dependent on trade with Russia.

The decline of US world power is, in part, a result of the dynamism and economic growth of emerging powers such as China and the relative decline of US market shares and inferior rates of growth.

Nye, in one of his more egregiously foolish efforts to puff up US economic superiority and to downgrade China’s economic rise, argues that China’s growth rate is ‘likely to slow in the future’.  Dear Joe… don’t you know that a Chinese ‘slow down’ from double digit growth to 7 percent is still triple the rate of growth of the US today and for the foreseeable future?

Moreover China’s balanced economy, between production and finance, is less crisis-prone than the lopsided growth of the corrupt US financial sector.  Nye’s economic calculus ignores the qualitative, as well as quantitative, dimensions of economic power.

Conclusion

The intellectual value of Joseph Nye’s writings would not merit serious consideration except for the fact that they have a deep and abiding influence on US foreign policy.  Nye is an ardent advocate of empire building and his arguments and prescriptions carry weight in the White House and Pentagon.  His normative bias and his love of empire building blinds him to objective realties. The fact that he is a failed policy advisor, who refuses to acknowledge defeats, decline and destruction resulting from his world view, has not lessened the dangerous nature of his current views.

Nye’s attempt to justify his vision of continuing US world supremacy has led him to blame his critics.  In his latest book, he rants that predictions of US decline are ‘dangerous’ because they could encourage countries such as China to pursue more aggressive policies.  In other words, Nye having failed, through logic and facts, to sustain his assertions against his better-informed critics, questions their loyalty – evoking a McCarthyite specter of intellectuals critical of US global power…stabbing the country in the back.

Nye tries to deflect attention from the fragile material foundations of US power to disembodied ‘perceptions’.  According to Nye, it’s all perceptions’ (or illusions!): if the world leaders and public believe that ‘the American century is set to continue for many decades’, that faith will, in itself, help to sustain America’s superiority!  Nye’s fit of irrationality, his reliance on Harry Houdini style of political analysis (‘Now you see US global power, now you don’t!) is unlikely to convince any serious analyst beyond the halls of the Pentagon and Harvard University’s John F Kennedy School.

What matters is that the US, while it is a declining world power, is still militarily powerful, dangerous and destructive, even as its empire building is weakening and its forces are in retreat.  As Mahatma Gandhi once stated about the declining British Empire, ‘It’s the aging tiger that becomes the man eater’.

As an alternative, we can follow two lines of inquiry:  One is to question the entire imperial enterprise and to focus on our return to republican values and domestic social and democratic reconstruction.  That is a necessary, but prolonged struggle, under present circumstances.  In the meantime, we can pursue policies that emphasize the importance of shifting from destructive military expansionism toward constructive economic engagements, flexible cooperation with emerging competitors, and diplomatic agreements with adversaries.  Contrary to Nye’s assertions, militarism and economic expansion are not compatible.  Wars destroy markets and occupations provoke resistance, which frighten investors.  ‘Soft power’ and NGO’s that rely on manipulation, lies and demonization of critics gain few adherents and multiple adversaries.

The US should increase its ties and co-operation with BRICS and China’s AIIB.  It should reach out to sign trade deals with Iran, Syria and Lebanon.  It should cut off aid to Israel, because of it bellicose posture toward the Arab East and its brutal colonization of Palestine.  Washington should end its support of violent coups and engage with Venezuela.  It should lift sanctions against Russia and East Ukraine and propose joint economic ventures.  By ending colonial wars, we can increase economic growth and open markets.  We should pursue economic accommodation not military occupation.  The former leads to prosperity, the latter to destruction.

“I found the Woolworths campaign to be vulgar, but to be honest I didn’t find it more distasteful and vulgar than a lot of other things which are going on in terms of commercialisation of Anzac and the use of the Anzac brand.”  These are the chosen words of former policy advisor to Australia’s Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Carolyn Holbrook on ABC’s 7.30 program.[1]  Anzac, the name associated with Australian soldiers who found themselves on Turkish beaches in April 1915 as part of Winston Churchill’s disastrous Dardanelles campaign, has become “Brandzac” over the years, a cavernous money pit of opportunity.

That pit is a means to capitalise on solemn occasions which insist on crass adventure and relaxation.  For the supermarket giant Woolworths, the slogan “Fresh in our Memories” was found wanting, marketing sprightly food produce alongside memories of Australia’s dead.  Purchase your regular round of fruit and veg, and keep the fallen at the forefront of your mind.  You, dear customer, will remember them.

Woolworths is hardly more questionable in its tactics than companies who market war for profit, seeing humankind’s perennial love of massacre as a business opportunity.  Brewing companies urge their customers to raise a toast to the soldiers.  Shirts, handbags and hats can be bought with an assortment of logos.  Purchasing poppies for the cause is encouraged.  In Anzac’s Long Shadow: The Cost of Our National Obsession (2014), James Brown noted that, “a century after the war to end all wars, Anzac is being bottled, stamped and sold.”

It was ever thus.  Blood translates into money with ease, and the “digger myth” was always a lucrative standard to aim for.  Some months after the first Australians and New Zealanders fought at Gallipoli, food stuffs and other items found their way onto the market. This prompted the regulators to get busy, prohibiting the use of “Anzac” for “the purposes of any trade, business, calling, or profession”.[2]

The entire basis of Anzac is both a sentimental and commercial industry, whether it is initiated through maudlin state-directed enterprise, or the private sector.  The cultists of austerity, however, would wish to see it controlled by the long hands of government.  They would prohibit such images as that of a well-endowed Anzac poster girl holding a weapon and kneeling in khaki latex.  “I just thought that was basically Anzac porn, a new low in the commercialisation of Anzac,” fumed Holbrook.

All wars see instances of pornographic fancy, fashioning images to soften the home front while savaging the enemy.  Tits, bums and ravished nuns have seen their place.  The brandzac critics inadvertently tend towards a distinct brand themselves. Since states maintain sacred prerogatives of killing and sending citizens to be killed, it should hold a monopoly on sanguinary commemoration.  They will be the judges.

In line with such views, Woolworths was ultimately told to abandon a campaign deemed “inappropriate”. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Michael Ronaldson, asserted that the company “did not have permission” to milk the Anzac milch cow.  They might have done the good thing and asked.

Showing how the language police are in full swing, Senator Ronaldson reminded the company that, under the Protection of the Word Anzac Act, he “got to authorise the use of the word Anzac”, something that was not allowed for purely commercial benefit.[3]  This absurd pantomime has continued for decades – commercial benefit is dandy as long as it has ministerial blessing.

A range of penalties exist for misusing the name.  For an individual, it comes to a hefty $10,200.  For corporations, it’s five times that amount.  And there is a peculiar yet brutal 12 months imprisonment in the bargain.  While Anzac involves much disingenuous dribble on the issue of protecting some form of freedom, one earned by invading and killing the darker members of the human race, it is striking that liberty should be removed on the chance that the name was “misused”.

Other features of the regulatory mania over the word “Anzac” can be found in the guidelines of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.  “Anzac biscuits” with the approved recipe receive the nod of approval.  The same goes for the “Anzac Slice”.  However, making reference “to these products as ‘Anzac Cookies’ is generally not approved, due to the non-Australian overtones.”[4]

The Spartan defenders of the Anzac creed insist, instead, on a near incapacitating, high priest veneration.  What this involves is not clear, but presumably standing before the eternal flame in misty-eyed adoration about feats of heroism in the slaughterhouse might count.  We should all be Anzac subjects rather than cognisant citizens suspicious of warmongering.

The birth of the Anzac tradition did involve slaughter and defeat.  But it was a defeat received in the context of invasion, an attack on Ottoman Turkey that was fought back at huge cost to human life.  Few accounts ever bother about the obvious: that Australian soldiers performed what they have been doing decades before and since: invade a sovereign state in the name of some higher moral value, and clothe it in the fluffy reassurance of imperial virtue.

The Anzac legend, like all legends, is there to be vulgarised.  In its true, original sense, the common meaning of it is that held by the common people.  It is, as Brown has observed, a “military Halloween” equipped with absurd masks and retellings, pilgrimages and military tourism.  Anzackery is merely the outcome of yet another zombie myth of Australian military history.[5]

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/critics-disgusted-by-vulgar-commercialisation-of-anzac-day/6395756
[2] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2098132
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/rsl-responds-to-woolworths-fresh-in-our-memories-campaign/6393498
[4] http://www.dva.gov.au/commemorations-memorials-and-war-graves/protecting-word-anzac
[5] http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Myths-Australian-Military-History/dp/1742230792

“I found the Woolworths campaign to be vulgar, but to be honest I didn’t find it more distasteful and vulgar than a lot of other things which are going on in terms of commercialisation of Anzac and the use of the Anzac brand.”  These are the chosen words of former policy advisor to Australia’s Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet Carolyn Holbrook on ABC’s 7.30 program.[1]  Anzac, the name associated with Australian soldiers who found themselves on Turkish beaches in April 1915 as part of Winston Churchill’s disastrous Dardanelles campaign, has become “Brandzac” over the years, a cavernous money pit of opportunity.

That pit is a means to capitalise on solemn occasions which insist on crass adventure and relaxation.  For the supermarket giant Woolworths, the slogan “Fresh in our Memories” was found wanting, marketing sprightly food produce alongside memories of Australia’s dead.  Purchase your regular round of fruit and veg, and keep the fallen at the forefront of your mind.  You, dear customer, will remember them.

Woolworths is hardly more questionable in its tactics than companies who market war for profit, seeing humankind’s perennial love of massacre as a business opportunity.  Brewing companies urge their customers to raise a toast to the soldiers.  Shirts, handbags and hats can be bought with an assortment of logos.  Purchasing poppies for the cause is encouraged.  In Anzac’s Long Shadow: The Cost of Our National Obsession (2014), James Brown noted that, “a century after the war to end all wars, Anzac is being bottled, stamped and sold.”

It was ever thus.  Blood translates into money with ease, and the “digger myth” was always a lucrative standard to aim for.  Some months after the first Australians and New Zealanders fought at Gallipoli, food stuffs and other items found their way onto the market. This prompted the regulators to get busy, prohibiting the use of “Anzac” for “the purposes of any trade, business, calling, or profession”.[2]

The entire basis of Anzac is both a sentimental and commercial industry, whether it is initiated through maudlin state-directed enterprise, or the private sector.  The cultists of austerity, however, would wish to see it controlled by the long hands of government.  They would prohibit such images as that of a well-endowed Anzac poster girl holding a weapon and kneeling in khaki latex.  “I just thought that was basically Anzac porn, a new low in the commercialisation of Anzac,” fumed Holbrook.

All wars see instances of pornographic fancy, fashioning images to soften the home front while savaging the enemy.  Tits, bums and ravished nuns have seen their place.  The brandzac critics inadvertently tend towards a distinct brand themselves. Since states maintain sacred prerogatives of killing and sending citizens to be killed, it should hold a monopoly on sanguinary commemoration.  They will be the judges.

In line with such views, Woolworths was ultimately told to abandon a campaign deemed “inappropriate”. The Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, Senator Michael Ronaldson, asserted that the company “did not have permission” to milk the Anzac milch cow.  They might have done the good thing and asked.

Showing how the language police are in full swing, Senator Ronaldson reminded the company that, under the Protection of the Word Anzac Act, he “got to authorise the use of the word Anzac”, something that was not allowed for purely commercial benefit.[3]  This absurd pantomime has continued for decades – commercial benefit is dandy as long as it has ministerial blessing.

A range of penalties exist for misusing the name.  For an individual, it comes to a hefty $10,200.  For corporations, it’s five times that amount.  And there is a peculiar yet brutal 12 months imprisonment in the bargain.  While Anzac involves much disingenuous dribble on the issue of protecting some form of freedom, one earned by invading and killing the darker members of the human race, it is striking that liberty should be removed on the chance that the name was “misused”.

Other features of the regulatory mania over the word “Anzac” can be found in the guidelines of the Department of Veterans’ Affairs.  “Anzac biscuits” with the approved recipe receive the nod of approval.  The same goes for the “Anzac Slice”.  However, making reference “to these products as ‘Anzac Cookies’ is generally not approved, due to the non-Australian overtones.”[4]

The Spartan defenders of the Anzac creed insist, instead, on a near incapacitating, high priest veneration.  What this involves is not clear, but presumably standing before the eternal flame in misty-eyed adoration about feats of heroism in the slaughterhouse might count.  We should all be Anzac subjects rather than cognisant citizens suspicious of warmongering.

The birth of the Anzac tradition did involve slaughter and defeat.  But it was a defeat received in the context of invasion, an attack on Ottoman Turkey that was fought back at huge cost to human life.  Few accounts ever bother about the obvious: that Australian soldiers performed what they have been doing decades before and since: invade a sovereign state in the name of some higher moral value, and clothe it in the fluffy reassurance of imperial virtue.

The Anzac legend, like all legends, is there to be vulgarised.  In its true, original sense, the common meaning of it is that held by the common people.  It is, as Brown has observed, a “military Halloween” equipped with absurd masks and retellings, pilgrimages and military tourism.  Anzackery is merely the outcome of yet another zombie myth of Australian military history.[5]

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/critics-disgusted-by-vulgar-commercialisation-of-anzac-day/6395756
[2] http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/2098132
[3] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-15/rsl-responds-to-woolworths-fresh-in-our-memories-campaign/6393498
[4] http://www.dva.gov.au/commemorations-memorials-and-war-graves/protecting-word-anzac
[5] http://www.amazon.com/Zombie-Myths-Australian-Military-History/dp/1742230792

As America’s foremost ally on the geopolitics chessboard bridging Europe, the Middle East and Asia, both Turkey and President Obama are coming under increasing pressure as the 24^th of April, 2015 approaches marking the official 100^th anniversary of the Armenian genocide. Twenty-two nations that include most all of South America, much of Europe, Russia, Canada and all but six US states have already officially recognized the Armenian genocide. Greece, Cyprus and Switzerland have even made it a crime in their countries to deny the Armenian genocide.

Last Sunday Pope Francis called the slaughter of Armenians by the Ottoman Empire “the first genocide of the 20^th century,” urging the entire international community of nations to follow suit in officially recognizing it as such. Possessing a sense of admiration toward the Armenian people, the pope acknowledged Armenia as the very first nation state to declare Christianity as its state religion way back in 301 AD. The Armenians trace their roots back to Noah’s great great grandson Haik, declaring him their ancient Armenian patriarch. Legendary stories abound even to this day of Noah’s ark still lodged amidst the icy slopes of Mount Ararat located just inside the Turkish border with Armenia. Archeological expeditions have been outlawed in recent decades by Islamic Turkey, unwilling to risk enabling Armenians’ to reclaim their ancient Christian past with any substantial scientific verification.

Italian journalist and author Franca Giansoldati was recently interviewed about her new book entitled The March without Return: The Armenian Genocide. Stressing why it’s so overdue and important to recognize the last century’s first genocide, she states:

… Those million and a half persons did not die of cold. Sometimes the statistics become cold, but let’s try to put before our eyes a million and a half faces of children, of raped women, of mothers who overwhelmed threw their children into the rivers because they couldn’t see them die of hunger anymore. Let’s try to imagine this infinite cruelty… perhaps a trembling comes to one’s conscience.

In spite of the recent trend of more nations recognizing the Armenian genocide, still holding out in official denial remain just two Muslim nations, the guilty genocidal perpetrator Turkey that borders Armenia to the west and its cohort Armenian hater Azerbaijan that borders to the east. As the nation that last fought and lost a costly war against Armenia just over two decades ago, to this day Azerbaijan engages in near daily violent skirmishes with the Armenian military over the disputed lost territory Nagorno-Karabakh. After the 1994 ceasefire, hundreds have been killed on both sides in raids and shootouts, which have substantially increased since last summer.

In the West’s constant war drumming rush towards World War III against nations of the East Russia and China, having aligned with its powerful regional neighbor Russia, Armenia lies squarely in the US Empire’s crosshairs. The Empire’s longtime imperialistic agenda has been to weaken Russia’s regional prowess and influence over its bordering neighbors Armenia, Belarus and Kazakhstan and eroding their Eurasian Economic Union. A recent visit to Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia in February by neocon regime changer herself Victoria Nuland (instrumental in 2014’s Ukraine coup) drew speculation she was merely marking off territory as her next victim(s).

Pope Francis is not the first Vatican leader to speak out as back in 2000 the then popular Pope John Paul II co-wrote with the Armenian Church patriarch that “the Armenian genocide, which began the century, was a prologue to horrors that would follow.” Even back when it began in 1915, then Pope Benedict XV wrote two letters to the Turkish figurehead of the Ottoman throne Sultan Mohammed V to stop the violence but to no avail. But the genocidal-minded Young Turks party had gained control over the Ottoman Empire government, bent on executing their ambitious plan to exterminate all Armenians.

After the current pope’s condemnation of Turkey for its continued denial last Sunday, the Turkish government retaliated immediately by recalling its ambassador to the Vatican and issuing a stern statement calling the pope’s claims inflammatory, unfounded and spreading hatred. In response to the pope’s allegations, Turkish Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu tweeted, “The pope’s statement, which is far from historic and legal truths, is unacceptable. Religious positions are not places where unfounded claims are made and hatred is stirred.”

Despite virtually a unanimous worldwide consensus of historians in agreement that during the First World War and beyond the Turks massacred up to a million and a half Armenians in the century’s first genocide, the Turkish government still insists that no genocide occurred, maintaining that the death toll is an inflated false count and that not just Armenians suffered and perished but also Turks, Assyrians and Greeks lost their lives during what Turkey refers to as mere civil war unrest within the larger world war.  The Turks maintain that up to half million Turks also died, equaling the number of admitted Armenian casualties during the “civil strife” that brought the Ottoman Empire to its bloody end.

With the Armenian President Serzh Sargsyan and prominent Armenian church leaders attending the St. Peter’s Basilica Mass on the first Sunday after Easter, Pope Francis chose the occasion to honor the innocent men, women and children who were “senselessly” murdered by the Ottoman Turks, believing it was his moral duty to call out Turkey for its continual denial. Francis asserted, “Concealing or denying evil is like allowing a wound to keep bleeding without bandaging it.” The pope cited similar massacres still ongoing today with the beheadings of Christians in Iraq and Syria (including Armenians living in and near Aleppo, Syria) by the US-Israel-Turkey’s secret ally and fake enemy the Islamic State. In the strongest words yet by a pope, the leader of one billion Catholics around the world is urging the entire international community to openly accept the killing of up to 75% of all Armenians at the time as a genocide.

Hearing Pope Francis’ heartfelt convictions on their behalf last Sunday, many Armenians attending the mass were moved to tears. The head of the Armenian Apostolic Church Aram I who was present at basilica expressed gratitude for Francis’ clear condemnation and called the Armenian genocide a crime against humanity that warrants reparation. Though Armenian President Sargsyan acknowledged the reparation issue, he said “for our people, the primary issue is universal recognition of the Armenian genocide, including recognition by Turkey.” Sargsyan rejected past feeble offers from Ankara calling for joint research looking into the historic matter, stating emphatically that scholars and commissions alike have collected overwhelming, irrefutable proof that the Turks committed genocide against Armenians.

Defined by the United Nations Convention in 1948 as “deliberate killing and other acts intended to destroy a national, ethnic, racial or religious group,” aside from Turkey there are still other nations that have balked at actually classifying the Armenian deaths a genocide. For instance, to this day the United States nor Obama have called the spade a spade, dancing around the issue by placing geopolitics of Turkey’s significant global location more important than honesty and moral principle. Obama’s succumbed to Turkey’s relentless pressure lobbying other nations with millions in bribes to prevent official recognition of the Armenian deaths as genocide.

Every April in years past Armenian Americans have advocated for Obama to step up to the plate and finally do what’s right. Among the mounting pile of broken promises Obama has never kept while he campaigned for president was his vow to use the word “genocide” to acknowledge the annual April day of recognition. But with two key US military bases located inside strategic NATO member Turkey’s borders, global Empire dominance necessitates that virtually every US president submit to Turkish pressures to remain silent.

As a senator and presidential candidate back in 2008, Obama righteously admonished then Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice for recalling US Ambassador to Armenia for daring to use the g-word:

The Armenian genocide is not an allegation, a personal opinion, or a point of view, but rather a widely documented fact supported by an overwhelming body of historical evidence. The facts are undeniable. An official policy that calls on diplomats to distort the historical facts is an untenable policy.

Yet since becoming president every year geopolitics and Empire hegemony win out over personal honor and integrity that conveniently never fail to take a shameful backseat. But this year the president’s under the most heat ever with the genocidal centenary next week. Even the Los Angeles Times is optimistic, “It is also a period of the Obama presidency, its twilight, in which the president has shown a greater boldness on core issues of principle as he begins to consider his legacy.”

Don’t hold your breath waiting for the same president who once also promised that he would be the most open and transparent president in US history to ever embrace and uphold ethics over politics. Funny how both the current Secretary of State and Vice President when they were senators likewise were all boldly principled in calling it Armenian genocide. But like their spineless boss, every April 24th, they too lost their previously held “strong moral compass.” As they say, power has a way of corrupting a once moral compass from all sense of righteous direction.

Meanwhile, a fellow Democrat in DC representing Glendale, California – the one US city with the highest concentration of Armenians at near half the population of 200,000 – Congressman Adam Schiff is sponsoring a US congressional resolution finally recognizing last century’s mass killings officially a genocide. He stated that he hopes the pope’s strong sentiments “inspire our president and Congress to demonstrate a like commitment to speaking the truth about the Armenian genocide and to renounce Turkey’s campaign of concealment and denial.”

On Wednesday the European Union parliament weighed in on the issue, releasing a proclamation also pushing for Turkey to recognize the Armenian genocide for what it really is as a giant redemptive step toward “a genuine reconciliation” between Turkey and Armenia. But holdouts to the end, even prior to the EU’s vote on the resolution, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said the EU’s decision in Brussels would not change his country’s official position of denial.

The EU resolution calls for both nations to ratify:

The protocols on the establishment of diplomatic relations, opening the border as well as improve their relations, with particular reference to cross-border cooperation and economic integration.

Sounds like more wishful thinking for Turkey and Obama to actually do the right thing. As further encouragement, the EU acknowledged last year’s April 23rd offer of condolences and recognition of atrocities by Turkish President as a much needed initial step in the right direction.

A couple months ago a Turkish member of parliament, Kurdish politician Ahmet Turk publicly apologized to Armenians, admitting that “our grandfathers have blood on their hands,” and calling for his government to do the same.

Two famous half Armenian American women from the entertainment industry have publicly supported the Armenian cause. Thirteen months ago Cher joined the Save Kessab campaign to generate international support for the northern Syrian town populated by Armenian Christians. Both Cher and Kim Kardashian have sought to bring awareness to the plight of Christians in war torn Iraq and Syria who have become victims persecuted and murdered by US backed brutal Islamic State extremists. Cher also assisted Armenians after the 1988 earthquake that ravaged the Soviet outer state just prior to its 1991 independence. After attending the Armenian Genocide Memorial in Yerevan, as an activist last Sunday Kim met with Armenia’s Prime Minister Hovik Abrahamyan to discuss this year’s 100^th Remembrance Day.

One may naively wonder what the big deal is about, attaching such significance to tragic events that happened a whole century ago and the importance of Turkey and world leaders today acknowledging the atrocities with the word “genocide” to describe them. The answer lies in the world apparently already forgetting the Armenian genocide barely a decade and a half after it ended when Adolf Hitler uttered to Reich Marshall Hermann Goering on the eve of the Polish invasion and start of World War II, “Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

Three out of four of all Armenians were wiped off the face of the earth in a matter of a few years, starting on April 24^th, 1915 with the roundup in Constantinople of all the Armenian intellectuals, professionals, editors and religious leaders who were summarily executed. Many Armenian victims were savagely slaughtered by Ottoman Turks or died of starvation during their forced deportation en route to the Syrian desert. Only a half million Armenians survived, forced to flee into Russia, the United States, other Middle Eastern countries and every continent in a vast Armenian diaspora estimated currently to be a little more than 10 million, 7 million more than live in Armenia itself.

Some 60,000 Armenians remain in Turkey today, mostly in the Istanbul metropolis. However, during the genocide thousands of mostly Armenian children were assimilated and Islamized into the Kurdish culture within southeastern Turkey. As Moslems they interbred with Kurds and fearing further persecution, the tens of thousands still living in Kurdish Turkey today have been unable to openly embrace their Armenian roots.

Every Armenian on the planet regardless of location has family lineage linked to the Armenian genocide. The emotional significance attached to formally recognizing the genocide a century ago has everything to do with honoring our parents, grandparents and great grandparents who were directly impacted and suffered lifelong trauma from the egregious atrocities. There is especially a sense of urgency on this 100^th anniversary to acknowledge as a genocide those long ago sad events before the very last of the genocide survivors die off. Very few are still alive today.

My father died a year and a half ago as a centenarian who lived on this earth for one century, one month, one week and one day as an Armenian genocide survivor. As the youngest member of his family, he was the only American born Hagopian living in Springfield, Massachusetts in 1913. His parents and four older brothers and sisters all arrived from eastern Armenia just four years prior to the genocide back in their homeland. My father’s earliest recollections were hearing about the horrible fate befalling his family relatives back in the old country.

The importance of honestly calling the genocide what it is and was pays tribute to our ancestors, and remembering that their lives still matter to us keeps alive our scared bond and connection to them as our Armenian descendants. This is what it means to be Armenian in 2015. Let us never forget. But most of all, let us eradicate the scourge of genocide that unfortunately still grips the planet even today in places like eastern Ukraine, Gaza, Iraq, Somalia, the Central African Republic, Nigeria and Myanmar. And as long as we’re at it, true evolutionary progress of the human species can come only after all wars are abolished and both humans and nations have finally learned to resolve conflict through peaceful means.

Joachim Hagopian is a West Point graduate and former US Army officer. He has written a manuscript based on his unique military experience entitled “Don’t Let The Bastards Getcha Down.” It examines and focuses on US international relations, leadership and national security issues. After the military, Joachim earned a master’s degree in Clinical Psychology and worked as a licensed therapist in the mental health field for more than a quarter century. He now concentrates on his writing and has a blog site at http://empireexposed. blogspot. com/. He is also a regular contributor to Global Research and a syndicated columnist at Veterans Today.

“Los motivos para la creación de un Ejército de la UE pueden girar en torno a Rusia, pero en realidad la idea apunta directamente contra EE.UU. al ser una manera de reducir su influencia ahora que los miembros comunitarios y Alemania están en desacuerdo con EE.UU. y la OTAN respecto a Ucrania”, sostiene el experto Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya.

The five Nordic countries, NATO members Norway, Denmark and Iceland, and non-NATO members Sweden and Finland, announced a new defence cooperation agreement last week aimed explicitly at confronting Russia.

The deal will see expanded military exercises in the region, intensified collaboration on the production of military equipment, and a more extensive sharing of intelligence between the countries.

Russia responded angrily to the Nordic defence deal. The foreign ministry’s website declared Sunday

“Nordic defence co-operation … has begun to be directed against Russia in a way that could undermine the positive engagement accumulated over the past decade.”

The agreement was announced in a joint statement published in the Norwegian daily Aftenposten by the defence ministers of Norway, Sweden, Finland and Denmark, and Iceland’s foreign minister. The statement opened by repeating the propaganda of the US and its imperialist allies that Russian aggression triggered the Ukraine crisis, declaring,

“The Russian aggression against the Ukraine and the illegal annexation of Crimea are violations of international law and other international agreements. Russia’s conduct represents the gravest challenge to European security. As a consequence, the security situation in the Nordic countries’ adjacent areas has become significantly worsened during the past year.”

The claim that the move is a response to Russian aggression is thoroughly dishonest. The reality is that, with the full backing of US imperialism, the Nordic countries are committing themselves to transforming the region into yet another area of potential conflict with Moscow.

The text of the agreement makes this clear when it asserts that a key aim of the stepped up military cooperation would be defending the sovereignty of the three Baltic republics. This echoes the declaration of US President Barack Obama, who stated during a trip to Estonia last year that NATO had an eternal commitment to defend the Baltic republics.

The ministers wrote,

“Russia is undertaking huge economic investments in its military capability. The nation’s leaders has [sic] shown that they are prepared to make practical and effective use of military means in order to reach their political goals, even when this involves violating principles of international law… The Russian military are acting in a challenging way along our borders, and there have been several infringes on the borders of the Baltic nations.”

It did not help the ministers’ case that Sweden has now been forced to admit that the alleged incursion into Swedish waters by a Russian submarine last autumn was in fact nothing more than a workboat.

Russian press reports Saturday cited Swedish Rear Admiral Anders Grenstad telling the Swedish TT news agency that there was no submarine and that the Swedish Navy changed the wording from “probable submarine” to “non-submarine” when referring to the massive search mission lasting one week and involving over 200 troops, helicopters, stealth ships and minesweepers to search the Baltic Sea.

The latest defence agreement is just one part of broader moves to integrate Sweden and Finland more closely into the US-led NATO military alliance. Norway, Denmark and Iceland were all founding members of the alliance when it was created in 1949. Helsinki and Stockholm have officially maintained their distance and remain non-members.

Finland shares a 1,000-kilometre border with Russia and has extensive trading relations. Moreover, there is wide public hostility to joining NATO in both countries. With an eye to parliamentary elections taking place next weekend, Carl Haglund, Finland’s foreign minister, told public broadcaster YLE, “In my opinion this Nordic security cooperation is one thing and NATO membership is a totally different matter.”

In practice, however, the Swedish and Finnish militaries are increasingly integrated into NATO operations. Both countries are members of the NATO Partnership for Peace initiative, which also includes Ukraine. They regularly participate in NATO operations, including a major exercise in the Baltic in late 2013, “Steadfast Jazz,” that involved thousands of military personnel, ships and aircraft mobilising across Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania.

All of the military exercises to be conducted under the deal are to conform to NATO standards, which many see as the preparation for full membership. The first, Arctic Challenge, is to take place at the end of May in Norway and Sweden. A large contingent of US F16 fighters based in the UK is expected to be involved.

The defence agreement coincided with a major NATO naval operation off the coast of Scotland, scheduled to run over two weeks. Britain’s Royal Navy led a fleet of 55 warships, 70 aircraft and 13,000 sailors in operations including submarine tracking and amphibious landings. Warships from the US and Canada are involved. While these particular exercises occur twice annually, this will be the largest operation to date.

The latest move has been prepared in discussions involving the leading European imperialist powers. A meeting last November in Oslo, Norway, saw representatives from twelve countries come together, among them British Defence Secretary Michael Fallon and Germany’s ambassador to Norway Dr. Axel Berg. Also attended by the defence ministers of the three Baltic republics, the talks agreed to expand the access of Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish fighter planes to all Nordic airspace for weekly joint training missions.

Referring to the NATO summit last September, where it was agreed to establish a rapid response force together with a massive military build-up in Eastern Europe, Norwegian Defence Minister Ine Eriksen Søreide stated that “resolve and firmness” would be required in the region.

States “emerging from conflict” would be helped to participate in international military exercises in conjunction with NATO, as well as in reforming their defence sectors with NATO or EU assistance.

As the largest Nordic nation, Sweden is playing a critical role in the new military plans. Having long ago abandoned its formal neutrality with its participation in the Afghanistan conflict, followed by its sending of Saab Gripen fighter jets to take part in the Libyan war in 2011, it has emerged ever more openly as a military ally of US imperialism.

Sweden is currently leading the Nordic defence cooperation operations, and is also the leader of the Nordic Battle Group, a European Union unit.

Since coming to power last September, the Social Democrat-Green Party coalition in Stockholm has stepped up the aggressive anti-Russian policy of its right-wing predecessor.

As well as initiating last autumn’s “submarine search”, the government also continues to seize on alleged incursions of Russian aircraft into Swedish airspace to justify a military build-up.

The previous government announced massive spending increases for the defence budget over the coming decade, and the Social Democrats and Greens have vowed to continue this policy.

The day before the Nordic defence agreement was unveiled, Stockholm confirmed plans to send up to 120 military personnel to northern Iraq as part of the US-led war against ISIS. Although the troops are officially in the country to provide training to Kurdish forces and offer “advise and assist” support, such claims have been used by other countries whose military forces have ended up in frontline combat activity. The Swedish contingent will be under the command of the US military.

Four hundred migrants fleeing Libya have reportedly drowned after their boat capsized in the Mediterranean last weekend. A spokesman for the International Organisation for Migration in Italy told Agence France-Presse that survivors reported there were up to 550 people on board when the ship sank. Around a dozen bodies have been recovered so far.

If initial estimates of the scope of the tragedy prove correct, this would be the largest loss of life at least since around 360 migrants drowned in October 2013 after their boat sank near the island of Lampedusa.

There is good reason to believe that the number of deaths in the Mediterranean Sea will continue to rise. According to official tallies, more than 8,500 people were rescued trying to cross the Mediterranean between April 10 and 13 alone, including at least 450 children. Many of the refugees were fleeing war zones in Libya, Syria and Africa.

Judith Sunderland, the acting deputy director for Europe and Central Asia at Human Rights Watch, declared, “If the reports are confirmed, this past weekend would be among the deadliest few days in the world’s most dangerous stretch of water for migrants and asylum seekers.”

According to the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) up to 500 migrants and asylum seekers died in the Mediterranean this year before the current disaster. This figure represents a 30-fold increase over recorded deaths during the same period in 2014. An estimated 3,200 people died in all of 2014. So far this year, the number could be approaching 1,000 with the death toll expected to rise dramatically as warmer conditions encourage more migrants to take to the seas in coming months.

Many of those rescued over the weekend remained in Italian vessels while others were transferred to already overcrowded refugee centers on the Italian coast and on nearby islands where they confront intolerable living conditions.

The latest flood of refugees from the Middle East is the direct result of the criminal wars conducted by the US, the European Union and its member states. Leading European states have fully supported and participated in the US-led military operations for regime change in Iraq, Libya and Syria. The unrelenting military offensive by western imperialist powers over the last two decades has plunged the Middle East and large swathes of Africa into chaos and conflict. By 2014, an estimated two million of the six million inhabitants of Libya fled the country following US-French-British bombing campaigns in 2011.

The subsequent western-led campaign to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad plunged the country into civil war and forced an estimated four million to leave the country. Many fled to neighboring Turkey but others made the treacherous journey to Europe, including some of the victims of last weekend’s tragedy.

Now the US and Saudi Arabia, with the backing of the European nations, are extending the battlefront to Yemen. This imperialist warmongering has led to the highest levels of refugees fleeing their homelands since the Second World War.

As desperate migrants increasingly seek refuge in Europe, the EU is transforming the Mediterranean into a no-go zone with the increasing number of deaths at sea serving as a de facto deterrent to others.

Following the outcry after the Lampedusa tragedy in 2013, Italy launched a search and rescue naval operation called Mare Nostrum (“Our Sea”). In practice, sea rescue was always of secondary importance to the operation. The deployment of the navy was primarily intended to block migrants from reaching Italy by detecting refugee boats off the coast of Libya and Tunisia and escorting them back to North Africa.

Nevertheless, an estimated 150,000 refugees were rescued under the program. Mare Nostrum was scrapped last November and replaced by the much smaller and less well-equipped Triton surveillance mission, run by the EU’s external border agency, Frontex, whose primary mandate is border control, not search and rescue. This was a conscious decision by EU authorities to end any effective rescue operations and allow the number of deaths at sea to soar.

At the same time European political parties of all shades are stepping up their anti-immigrant policies aimed at blocking migrants from entering the continent while deporting those already here. On April 14, the leader of Italy’s ultra-nationalist Northern League called on all local authorities to resist “by any means” requests to accommodate asylum seekers. He declared that his party was ready to take actions to prevent arrivals.

In Germany refugee centers have been the target for a wave of fire bombings in recent weeks, while far right organizations such as Pegida have conducted vicious xenophobic campaigns denouncing immigrants as social spongers and equating Islamists with terrorists. In both Italy and Germany, organizations such as the Northern League and Pegida receive tacit support government parties, which argue that it is necessary to “seriously” consider the arguments raised by the racists. While broad layers of the German population have taken to the streets to defend the rights of immigrants both the governing Christian Democratic Union (CDU) and Social Democratic Party (SPD) have entered into talks with supporters of Pegida.

Local German officials have also raised the idea of housing refugees in concentration camps. A recent report in Der Spiegel on the appalling conditions of refugee centers in Germany began with the declaration on one inmate who said, “In Syria you die quick, here you die slowly”.

On Tuesday, the European Commission responded to the weekend’s boat tragedy with plans for a so-called “comprehensive migration agenda”. At the centre of the plan is the setting up of offshore camps in North African countries to incarcerate and intimidate immigrants and asylum seekers before they can leave their countries. The measures are described bluntly in one report as a step towards “outsourcing border control and containment mechanisms to prevent departures.”

Referring to the plan Judith Sunderland of Human Rights Watch commented, “It’s hard not to see these proposals as cynical bids to limit the numbers of migrants and asylum seekers making it to EU shores.”

Image: Painting by Anthony Freda: www.AnthonyFreda.com.

Jeb Bush: Neocon Warmongering Crook

The International Business Times reports that Jeb Bush Funneled $1.7 BILLION of pension cash to W’s donors – some who are now Jeb donors.

The former Secretary of Health and Human Services says that Jeb lobbied on behalf of an infamous Medicare swindler.

Bush is also a hardcore neocon, and member of the influential warmonger group Project for a New American Century. He’s for mass surveillance by the NSA. He supported the Iraq War, and has tappedkey architects of his brother’s failed Iraq War as his advisors.

Mother Jones notes:

Financial support flowed to Jeb through Miami’s right-wing Cuban community. Republican party politics and a series of business scandals — including Medicaid fraud and shady S&L deals — were inextricably intertwined. A former federal prosecutor toldMJ that, when he looked into Jeb’s lucrative business dealings with a now-fugitive Cuban, he considered two possibilities — Jeb was either crooked or stupid.

Mother Jones also notes that Jeb supported the Contras, and may have been involved in the Lincoln S&L scandal.

Alternet reports:

Five months after he left the governor’s mansion in 2007, he joined Lehman Brothers as a “consultant.” No doubt he was well-compensated, as reporters may learn if and when he releases his tax returns someday. The following year, Lehman infamously went bust — and left the state of Florida holding about $1 billion worth of bad mortgage investments. (A Bush spokeswoman said, “His role as a consultant to Lehman Brothers was in no way related to any Florida investments.”)

***

He performed a similar service, with more success, on behalf of the Cuban militant Orlando Bosch, for whom he sought a presidential pardon from his father. The boastful murderer of dozens of innocent people — and a prosecution target of the U.S. Justice Department — Bosch deserved a pardon about as much as the worst jihadi in Gitmo. But his sponsors were the same Cuban-Americans in Miami who had fostered Jeb’s real estate business there, so he ignored the Republican attorney general’s denunciation of Bosch as an “unreformed terrorist.”

And Jeb “helped” his brother become president. Noted social historian and author Michael Parentiexplains:

Under orders from Governor Jeb Bush (Bush Jr.’s brother), state troopers near polling sites delayed people for hours while searching their cars. Some precincts required two photo IDs which many citizens do not have. The requirement under Florida law was only one photo ID. Passed just before the election, this law itself posed a special difficulty for low-income or elderly voters who did not have drivers licenses or other photo IDs. Uncounted ballot boxes went missing or were found in unexplained places or were never collected from certain African-American precincts.

Hillary Clinton: Neolib Warmongering Crook

Hillary Clinton is corrupt, as well.  The IBTimes notes:

Despite lambasting Colombia for its human-rights record in 2008, her foreign-policy stance on the country became noticably more favorable in 2011 after a large contribution to the Clinton Foundation by the Pacific Rubiales Energy Corp., an oil and gas company active in Colombia and based in Toronto.

Recently, the Clinton Foundation accepted a donation from a Moroccan government-owned company, despite the Clinton-run State Department’s 2011 criticism of that government, Politico reported.

Where all that money winds up is also a subject of criticism. For one thing, there have been allegations of waste. Ira Magaziner, who runs multiple efforts at the foundation, spent thousands of dollars to send a team around the world for months to build up a climate-change proposal, but it fell flat, as the New York Times reported.

Indeed:

No family has tapped so much money from companies, wealthy individuals and foreign countries as the Clintons.

Clinton also illegally used private email – despite warnings from Congress – in order to escape discovery of her communications as Secretary of State.

And she spearheaded the arming of Al Qaeda to overthrow Libya’s leader … and made false claims about what was happening in Libya.

Clinton also admits that she was responsible for the lack of security which got U.S. ambassador Chris Stevens killed.

So both Jeb Bush and Hillary Clinton are corrupt. Indeed, all you need to know about how corrupt they are is that Wall Street would be happy with either Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush … but is desperate to stop other candidates.

The mainstream Republican and Democratic parties both oppose core American desires.  Only candidates who are “safe” in the eyes of the oligarchs are promoted or allowed to run, and discussion is limited to “safe” topics.

Appointing the children, spouses or siblings of the old sell-outs insures that we’ll get the same ‘ole same ‘ole. Hillary and Jeb are just corrupt successors to corrupt aristocratic dynasties. See this and this.

The Founding Fathers tried to warn us …

On Apr. 13, 2015, the influential Uruguayan writer and journalist Eduardo Galeano, 74, died of lung cancer in Montevideo. He wrote over 30 books, including the seminal “Open Veins of Latin America” (1971) and the“Memory of Fire” trilogy, composed of “Genesis” (1982), “Faces and Masks” (1984), and “Century of the Wind” (1986).

Haiti was a regular theme in Galeano’s work, and he wrote an exceptional speech, “Haiti, Occupied Country,” which he delivered at Uruguay’s National Library in Montevideo on Sep. 27, 2011.

This week, we present a few excerpts of Galeano’s writings on Haiti.

From “The Open Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillage of a Continent.”

Three years after the discovery, Columbus personally directed the military campaign against the natives of Haiti, which he called Española.

A handful of cavalry, 200 foot soldiers, and a few specially trained dogs decimated the Indians. More than 500, shipped to Spain, were sold as slaves in Seville and died miserably. Some theologians protested and the enslavement of Indians was formally banned at the beginning of the 16^th century.

Actually it was not banned but blessed: before each military action the captains of the conquest were required to read to the Indians, without an interpreter but before a notary public, a long and rhetorical Requerimiento exhorting them to adopt the holy Catholic faith: “If you do not, or if you maliciously delay in so doing, I certify that with God’s help I will advance powerfully against you and make war on you wherever and however I am able, and will subject you to the yoke and obedience of the Church and of their majesties and take your women and children to be slaves, and as such I will sell and dispose of them as their majesties may order, and I will take your possessions and do you all the harm and damage that I can.”

In the second half of the [18^th] century the world’s best sugar was being raised on the spongy coastal plains of Haiti, a French colony then known as Saint Domingue. Northern and western Haiti became a human antheap: sugar needed hands and more hands. In 1786 the colony brought in 27,000 slaves; in the following year, 40,000. Revolution broke out in the fall of 1791 and in one month, September, 200 sugar plantations went up in flames; fires and battles were continuous as the rebel slaves pushed France’s armies to the sea. Ships sailed containing ever more Frenchmen and ever less sugar. The war spilt rivers of blood, wrecked the plantations, and paralyzed the country, and by the end of the century production had fallen to almost nothing. By

November 1803, almost all of the once flourishing colony was in ashes and ruins. The Haitian revolution had coincided – and not only in time – with the French Revolution, and Haiti bore its share of the international coalition’s blockade against France: England controlled the seas. Later, as its independence became inevitable, Haiti also had to suffer blockade by France.

The U.S. Congress, yielding to French pressure, banned trade with Haiti in 1806. In 1825 France recognized its former colony’s independence, but only in exchange for a huge cash indemnity. General Leclerc had written to his brother-in-law Napoleon in 1802, soon after taking prisoner the slave armies’ leader Toussaint L’Ouverture, “Here is my opinion about this country: all the blacks in the mountains, men and women, must be suppressed, keeping only the children under twelve; half the blacks in the plains must be exterminated, and not a single mulatto with epaulets must be left in the colony.”

The tropics took their revenge on Leclerc: “Gripped by the black vomit,” and despite the magical incantations of [Napoleon’s sister] Pauline Bonaparte, he died without carrying out his plan…. But the cash indemnity was a millstone around the necks of those independent Haitians who survived the bloodbaths of the successive military expeditions against them. The country was born in ruins and never recovered: today it is the poorest in Latin America.

In the first years of our [20^th] century the philosopher William James passed the little-known judgment that the country had finally vomited the Declaration of Independence. To cite but one example: the United States occupied Haiti for twenty years and, in that black country that had been the scene of the first victorious slave revolt, introduced racial segregation and forced labor, killed 1,500 workers in one of its repressive operations (according to a U.S. Senate investigation in 1922), and when the local government refused to turn the Banque Nationale into a branch of New York’s National City Bank, suspended the salaries of the president and his ministers so that they might think again. Alternating the “big stick” with “dollar diplomacy,” similar actions were carried out in the other Caribbean islands and in all of Central America, the geopolitical space of the imperial mare nostrum.

From “Memory of Fire: Genesis”

1459: La Isabela

Caonabó

Detached, aloof, the prisoner sits at the entrance of Christopher Columbus’s house. He has iron shackles on his ankles, and handcuffs trap his wrists.

Caonabó was the one who burned to ashes the Navidad fort that the admiral had built when he discovered this island of Haiti. He burned the fort and killed its occupants. And not only them: In these two long years he has castigated with arrows any Spaniards he came across in Cibao, his mountain territory, for their hunting of gold and people.

Alonso de Ojeda, veteran of the wars against the Moors, paid him a visit on the pretext of peace. He invited him to mount his horse, and put on him these handcuffs of burnished metal that tie his hands, saying that they were jewels worn by the monarchs of Castile in their balls and festivities.

Now Chief Caonabó spends the days sitting beside the door, his eyes fixed on the tongue of light that invades the earth floor at dawn and slowly retreats in the evening. He doesn’t move an eyelash when Columbus comes around. On the other hand, when Ojeda appears, he manages to stand up and salute with a bow the only man who has defeated him.

1496: La Concepcion

Sacrilege

Bartholomew Columbus, Christopher’s brother and lieutenant, attends an incineration of human flesh.

Six men play the leads in the grand opening of Haiti’s incinerator. The smoke makes everyone cough. The six are burning as a punishment and as a lesson: They have buried the images of Christ and the Virgin that Fray Ramon Pane left with them for protection and consolation. Fray Ramon taught them to pray on their knees, to say the Ave Maria and Paternoster and to invoke the name of Jesus in the face of temptation, injury, and death.

No one has asked them why they buried the images. They were hoping that the new gods would fertilize their fields of corn, cassava, boniato, and beans.

The fire adds warmth to the humid, sticky heat that foreshadows heavy rain.

From “Memory of Fire: Faces and Masks”

1758: The Plains of Northern Haiti

Makandal

Before a large assembly of runaway slaves, François Makandal pulls a yellow handkerchief out of a glass of water.

“First it was the Indians.”

Then a white handkerchief.

“Now, whites are the masters.”

He shakes a black handkerchief before the maroons’ eyes. The hour of those who came from Africa has arrived, he announces. He shakes the handkerchief with his only hand, because he has left the other between the iron teeth of the sugar mill.

On the plains of Northern Haiti, one-handed Makandal is the master of fire and poison. At his order cane fields burn, and by his spells the lords of sugar collapse in the middle of supper, drooling spit and blood.

He knows how to turn himself into an iguana, an ant, or a fly, equipped with gills, antennae, or wings; but they catch him anyway, and condemn him; and now they are burning him alive. Through the flames the multitude see his body twist and shake. All of a sudden, a shriek splits the ground, a fierce cry of pain and exultation, and Makandal breaks free of the stake and of death: howling, flaming, he pierces the smoke and is lost in the air.

For the slaves, it is no cause for wonder. They knew he would remain in Haiti, the color of all shadows, the prowler of the night.

1772: Léogane

Zabeth

Ever since she learned to walk she was in flight. They tied a heavy chain to her ankles, and chained, she grew up; but a thousand times she jumped over the fence and a thousand times the dogs caught her in the mountains of Haiti.

They stamped the fleur-de-lis on her cheek with a hot iron. They put an iron collar and iron shackles on her and shut her up in the sugar mill, where she stuck her fingers into the grinder and later bit off the bandages. So that she might die of iron they tied her up again, and now she expires, chanting curses.

Zabeth, this woman of iron, belongs to Madame Galbeaud du Fort, who lives in Nantes.

1791: Bois Caïman

The Conspirators of Haiti

The old slave woman, intimate of the gods, buries her machete in the throat of a black wild boar. The earth of Haiti drinks the blood. Under the protection of the gods of war and of fire, 200 blacks sing and dance the oath of freedom. In the prohibited Voodoo ceremony aglow with lightning bolts, 200 slaves decide to turn this land of punishment into a fatherland.

Haiti is based on the Creole language. Like the drum, Creole is the common speech of those torn out of Africa into various Antillean islands. It blossomed inside the plantations, when the condemned needed to recognize one another and resist. It came from African languages, with African melody, and fed on the sayings of Normans and Bretons. It picked up words from Caribbean Indians and from English pirates and also from the Spanish colonists of eastern Haiti. Thanks to Creole, when Haitians talk they feel that they touch each other.

Creole gathers words and Voodoo gathers gods. Those gods are not masters but lovers, very fond of dancing, who convert each body they penetrate into music and light, pure light of undulating and sacred movement.

1794: Paris

“The Remedy for Man is Man,”

say the black sages, and the gods always knew it. The slaves of Haiti are no longer slaves.

For five years the French Revolution turned a deaf ear. Marat and Robespierre protested in vain. Slavery continued in the colonies. Despite the Declaration of the Rights of Man, the men who were the property of other men on the far plantations of the Antilles were born neither free nor equal. After all, the sale of blacks from Guinea was the chief business of the revolutionary merchants of Nantes, Bordeaux, and Marseilles; and French refineries lived on Antillean sugar.

Harassed by the black insurrection headed by Toussaint L’Ouverture, the Paris government finally decrees the liquidation of slavery.

1794: Mountains of Haiti

Toussaint Louverture

He came on the scene two years ago. In Paris they called him the Black Spartacus.

He was a coachman on a plantation. An old black man taught him to read and write, to cure sick horses, and to talk to men; but he learned on his own how to look not only with his eyes, and he knows how to see flight in every bird that sleeps.

1802: The Caribbean Sea

Napoleon Restores Slavery

Squadrons of wild ducks escort the French army. The fish take flight. Through a turquoise sea, bristling with coral, the ships head for the blue mountains of Haiti. Soon the land of victorious slaves will appear on the horizon. General Leclerc stands tall at the head of the fleet. Like a ship’s figurehead, his shadow is first to part the waves. Astern, other islands disappear, castles of rock, splendors of deepest green, sentinels of the new world found three centuries ago by people who were not looking for it.

“Which has been the most prosperous regime for the colonies?”

“The previous one.”

“Well, then, put it back,” Napoleon decided.

No man, born red, black, or white can be his neighbor’s property, Toussaint L’Ouverture had said. Now the French fleet returns slavery to the Caribbean. More than 50 ships, more than 20,000 soldiers, come from France to bring back the past with guns.

In the cabin of the flagship, a female slave fans Pauline Bonaparte and another gently scratches her head.

1803: Fort Dauphin

The Island Burned Again

Toussaint L’Ouverture, chief of the free blacks, died a prisoner in a castle in France. When the jailer opened the padlock at dawn and slid back the bolt, he found Toussaint frozen in his chair.

But life in Haiti moved on, and without Toussaint the black army has beaten Napoleon Bonaparte. Twenty thousand French soldiers have been slaughtered or died of fevers. Vomiting black blood, dead blood, General Leclerc has collapsed. The land he sought to enslave proves his shroud.

Haiti has lost half its population. Shots are still heard, and hammers nailing down coffins, and funeral drums, in the vast ash-heap carpeted with corpses that the vultures spurn. This island, burned two centuries ago by an exterminating angel, has been newly eaten by the fire of men at war.

Over the smoking earth those who were slaves proclaim independence. France will not forgive the humiliation.

On the coast, palms, bent over against the winds, form ranks of spears.

1816: Port-au-Prince

Pétion

Haiti lies in ruins, blockaded by the French and isolated by everyone else. No country has recognized the independence of the slaves who defeated Napoléon.

The island is divided in two.

In the north, Henri Christophe has proclaimed himself emperor. In the castle of Sans-Souci, the new black nobility dance the minuet – the Duke of Marmalade, the Count of Limonade – while black lackeys in snowy wigs bow and scrape, and blacks hussards parade their plumed bonnets through gardens copied from Versailles.

To the south, Alexandre Pétion presides over the republic. Distributing lands among the former slaves, Pétion aims to create a nation of peasants, very poor but free and armed, on the ashes of plantations destroyed by the war.

On Haiti’s southern coast Simón Bolívar lands, in search of refuge and aid. He comes from Jamaica, where he has sold everything down to his watch. No one believes in his cause. His brilliant military campaigns have been no more than a mirage. Francisco Miranda is dying in chains in the Cadiz arsenal, and the Spaniards have reconquered Venezuela and Colombia, which prefer the past or still do not believe in the future promised by the patriots.

Pétion receives Bolívar as soon as he arrives, on New Year’s Day. He gives him seven ships, 250 men, muskets, powder, provisions, and money. He makes only one condition. Pétion, born a slave, son of a black woman and a Frenchman, demands of Bolívar the freedom of slaves in the lands he is going to liberate.

Bolívar shakes his hands. The war will change its course. Perhaps America will too.

From “Memory of Fire: Century of the Wind”

1937: Dajabón

Procedure Against the Black Menace

The condemned are Haitian blacks who work in the Dominican Republic. This military exorcism, planned to the last detail by General Trujillo, lasts a day and a half. In the sugar region, the soldiers shut up Haitian day-laborers in corrals–herds of men, women, and children–and finish them off then and there with machetes; or bind their hands and feet and drive them at bayonet point into the sea.

Trujillo, who powders his face several times a day, wants the Dominican Republic white.

1937: Washington

Newsreel

Two weeks later, the government of Haiti conveys to the government of the Dominican Republic its concern about the recent events at the border. The government of the Dominican Republic promises an exhaustive investigation.

In the name of continental security, the government of the United States proposes to President Trujillo that he pay an indemnity to avoid possible friction in the zone. After prolonged negotiation Trujillo recognizes the death of 18,000 Haitians on Dominican territory. According to him, the figure of 25,000 victims, put forward by some sources, reflects the intention to manipulate the events dishonestly. Trujillo agrees to pay the government of Haiti, by way of indemnity, $522,000, or $29 for every officially recognized death.

The White House congratulates itself on an agreement reached within the framework of established inter-American treaties and procedures. Secretary of State Cordell Hull declares in Washington that President Trujillo is one of the greatest men in Central America and in most of South America.

The indemnity duly paid in cash, the presidents of the Dominican Republic and Haiti embrace each other at the border.

1943: Milot

Ruins of Sans-Souci

Alejandro Carpentier discovers the kingdom of Henri Christophe. The Cuban writer roams these majestic ruins, this memorial to the delirium of a slave cook who became monarch of Haiti and killed himself with the gold bullet that always hung around his neck. Ceremonial hymns and magic drums of invocation rise up to meet Carpentier as he visits the palace that King Christophe copied from Versailles, and walks around his invulnerable fortress, an immense bulk whose stones, cemented by the blood of bulls sacrificed to the gods, have resisted lightning and earthquakes.

In Haiti, Carpentier learns that there is no magic more prodigious and delightful than the voyage that leads through experience, through the body, to the depths of America. In Europe, magicians have become bureaucrats, and wonder, exhausted, has dwindled to a conjuring trick. But in America, surrealism is as natural as rain or madness.

1969: Port-au-Prince

A Law Condemns to Death Anyone Who Says or Writes Red Words in Haiti

Article One: Communist activities are declared to be crimes against the security of the state, in whatsoever form: any profession of Communist faith, verbal or written, public or private, any propagation of Communist or anarchist doctrines through lectures, speeches, conversations, readings, public or private meetings, by way of pamphlets, posters, newspapers, magazines, books, and pictures; any oral or written correspondence with local or foreign associations, or with persons dedicated to the diffusion of Communist or anarchist ideas; and furthermore, the act of receiving, collecting, or giving funds directly or indirectly destined for the propagation of said ideas.

Article Two: The authors and accomplices of these crimes shall be sentenced to death. Their movable and immovable property shall be confiscated and sold for the benefit of the state.

Dr. François Duvalier

President-for-Life

of the Republic of Haiti

From “Haiti, Despised by All,” an article for the Inter Press Service in September 1996

Haiti is the poorest country in the Western hemisphere. It has more foot-washers than shoe-shiners: little boys who, for a penny, will wash the feet of customers lacking shoes to shine. Haitians, on the average, live a bit more than thirty years. Nine out of every ten can’t read or write. For internal consumption the barren mountain sides are cultivated. For export, the fertile valleys: the best lands are given to coffee, sugar, cacao, and other products needed by the U.S. market. No one plays baseball in Haiti, but Haiti is the world’s chief producer of baseballs. There is no shortage of workshops where children assemble cassettes and electronic parts for a dollar a day. These are naturally for export; and naturally the profits are also exported, after the administrators of the terror have duly got theirs. The slightest breath of protest in Haiti means prison or death. Incredible as it sounds, Haitian workers’ wages lost 25 percent of their wretched real value between 1971 and 1975. Significantly, in that period a new flow of U.S. capital into the country began.

Haiti is the country that is treated the worst by the world’s powerful. Bankers humiliate it. Merchants ignore it. And politicians slam their doors in its face.

Democracy arrived only recently in Haiti. During its short life, this frail, hungry creature received nothing but abuse. It was murdered in its infancy in 1991 in a coup led by General Raoul Cédras.

Three years later, democracy returned. After having installed and deposed countless military dictators, the U.S. backed President Jean Bertrand Aristide – the first leader elected by popular vote in Haiti’s history – and a man foolish enough to want a country with less injustice.

In order to erase every trace of American participation in the bloody Cédras dictatorship, U.S. soldiers removed 160,000 pages of records from the secret archives. Aristide returned to Haiti with his hands tied. He was permitted to take office as president, but not power. His successor, René Préval, who became president in February, received nearly 90 percent of the vote.

Any minor bureaucrat at the World Bank or the International Monetary Fund has more power than Préval does. Every time he asks for a credit line to feed the hungry, educate the illiterate, or provide land to the peasants, he gets no response. Or he may be told to go back and learn his lessons. And because the Haitian government cannot seem to grasp that it must dismantle its few remaining public services, the last shred of a safety net for the most defenseless people on Earth, its masters give up on it.

The U.S. invaded Haiti in 1915 and ran the country until 1934. It withdrew when it had accomplished its two objectives: seeing that Haiti had paid its debts to U.S. banks and that the constitution was amended to allow for the sale of plantations to foreigners. Robert Lansing, then secretary of state, justified the long and harsh military occupation by saying that blacks were incapable of self-government, that they had “an inherent tendency toward savagery and a physical inability to live a civilized life.”

Haiti had been the jewel in the crown, France’s richest colony: one big sugar plantation, harvested by slave labor. The French philosopher Montesquieu explained it bluntly: “Sugar would be too expensive if it were not produced by slaves. These slaves are blacks …. it is not possible that God, who is a very wise being, would have put a soul . .., in such an utterly black body.” Instead, God had put a whip in the overseer’s hand.

In l803, the black citizens of Haiti gave Napoleon Bonaparte’s troops a tremendous beating, and Europe has never for given them for this humiliation inflicted upon the white race. Haiti was the first free country in South America or the Caribbean. The free people raised their flag over a country in ruins. The land of Haiti had been devastated by the sugar monoculture and then laid waste by the war against France. One third of the population had fallen in combat. Then Europe began its blockade. The newborn nation was condemned to solitude. No one would buy from it, no one would sell to it, nor would any nation recognize it.

Not even Simon Bolivar had the courage to establish diplomatic relations with the black nation. Bolivar was able to reopen his campaign for the liberation of the Americas, after being defeated by Spain, thanks to help from Haiti. The Haitian government supplied him with seven ships, arms, and soldiers, setting only one condition: that he free the slaves – something that had not occurred to him. Bolivar kept his promise, but after his victory, he turned his back on the nation that had saved him. When he convened a meeting in Panama of the American nations, he invited England, but not Haiti.

The U.S. did not recognize Haiti until 60 years later. By then, Haiti was already in the bloody hands of the military dictators, who devoted the meager resources of this starving nation toward relieving its debt to France. Europe demanded that Haiti pay France a huge indemnity to atone for its crime against French dignity.

The history of the abuse of Haiti, which in our lifetime has become a tragedy, is also the story of Western civilization’s racism.

The world of private defence contractors, the modern version of the fabled Condottiere without the flags and the city-state veneration, received a blow with the handing down of stiff sentences on four former Blackwater operatives.  Last year, the four in question, part of Blackwater’s Support Team Raven 23, were convicted in the Washington, D.C. federal court for killing 17 Iraqis in Baghdad’s Nisour square in 2007.

The sentences of Paul A. Slough, Dustin L. Heard, Nicholas A. Slatten, and Evans S. Liberty, damn a certain form of warfare, but they do not reverse it.  The convictions have, instead, been taken as justification about a certain type of warfare, one waged in the US courtroom in the name of pleasing others and soothing consciences.  “This verdict,” argued US attorney Ronald C. Machen Jr., “is a resounding affirmation of the commitment of the American people to the rule of law, even in times of war.”[1]  In other words, killing must be executed with principle, and such a massacre was not meant for the good books.

The fractured, frittered state is a hungry behemoth.  The Private Military Company (PMC) is its rather aggressive, and mostly vicious offspring.  As Sean McFate posed in The New Republic last year, the US is faced with a set of strategic choices: “1) avoid all wars in the future; 2) institute a national draft; 3) use contractors.  I doubt a presidential or congressional campaign would survive options 1 and 2.”[2]

Wars are now being waged by corporations, and through corporations.  Since the late 1980s, governments have been looking at moving various functions to the market, be they in the realm of actual combat, or those associated with logistics.

The code of engagement is less that of public international law than privateering in the oldest sense of the term, a plunderer’s charter in the name of pay and fortune.  “The picture that has emerged,” as Rain Liivoja suggests in the Leiden Journal of International Law (Dec 2012), “is one of complete chaos and lawlessness: DynCorp employees trafficking and molesting girls in Bosnia, CACI staff members abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib, and trigger-happy Blackwater and Aegis gunmen shooting at civilian vehicles in the streets of Baghdad.”

In 2010, the US used 175,000 troops and 207,000 contractors in conflict zones.[3]  This invariably means that contractors, while also doing more killing, are being killed.  Fortune has a habit of stealing as well and granting.

Blackwater became the star studded monster in this endeavour, having risen to fame after the 1999 Columbine school massacre when it taught police how to “handle” such situations.  Where there is death, there is Blackwater swooping in with advice and material.  The company proceeded to sell lethal services in the way one sells car products and travel accessories. It sold merchandise with logos and brand recognition.  It provided boots on the ground for the US State Department, the Pentagon and the CIA.  It became the most accommodating of killers.

The rationale of its founder, Erik Prince, says it all: the heavy-handed business sense that insists on over-delivering to your clients, being the standard bearer, not so much of a new form of war as an old system that rejects the primacy of citizen soldiers.  Then, Prince sold his demon child.  The field became crowded, with “too many firms competing for a shrinking pie.”[4]

The existence of such contractors assists in prolonging, rather than halting, conflict. Security vacuums transform into magnets for PMCs.  The nexus between terror and instability is maintained, while building and reconstruction side of matters is left to wither.  This has been seen in the case of Afghanistan and Iraq.  But the global PMC market is marked by two trends, as noted by McFate.  There is the globalisation model, the globe-trotting contractor personified by the antics of Blackwater.  Then come the indigenous types – local warlords keen to staff their contracted entity with locals, keeping matters appropriately tribal.

The extent with which the nature of such companies has been normalised can be gathered by critics of the Blackwater verdicts.  On the website of the Sean Hannity show, sibling of one of the convicts, Jessica Slatten, notes the former employees as “decorated veterans” who, instead of wearing “dress blues adorned with medals earned for honourable military service” will face “jumpsuits and shackles”.[5]

Then there was the evidence.  Iraqi witnesses were singled out for inconsistencies.  There was a conspicuous absence of precise ballistics linking the deaths directly to the gunmen.  Here, the artificiality of law and war is revealed: the attempt by the legal eagle to claw its way into the working mind of the blood-rushed shooter.  The obvious point is that Blackwater operatives should never have been there to begin with, the legacy of an illegal war that laid waste to a state and its institutions.

Did their status as combatants matter?  No, according to Slatten.  They “fought for freedom, only to sacrifice theirs because of defensive actions taken on foreign soil, in a war zone, under imminent threats to their safety.”  How that computes with killing Iraqi civilians is not made out, but such apologies tend to find victims in those who pull triggers, rather than those who receive the bullets.

The fact that an entity like Blackwater can change its name first to Xe and then Academi says much about the shape changing nature of the industry, one of advertising, fiddling adjustments, and ultimately, instability.  Punish its delinquent associates, by all means, but accept the existence of their employees and what they provide.  These are, as P. W. Singer has suggested, the “corporate warriors”.[6]  When there is crisis and scarcity of resources, external help will be sought, less from “a state or even an international organization but rather the global marketplace.”  Even the United Nations is considering moving more of its operations to such service providers.  What a crude form of legitimisation that would make.

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

Notes:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/23/us/blackwater-verdict.html?_r=0
[2] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119975/blackwater-convictions-dont-mean-end-mercenary-war
[3] http://www.newrepublic.com/article/119975/blackwater-convictions-dont-mean-end-mercenary-war
[4] http://www.economist.com/news/business/21590370-industry-reinvents-itself-after-demise-its-most-controversial-firm-beyond-blackwater
[5] http://www.hannity.com/articles/news-476261/oped-massacre-of-justice-blackwaters-raven-13491783/
[6] http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140100946630

Bloggers, conspiracy theorists and people who challenge establishment narratives on the Internet were all likened to ISIS terrorists during a chilling Congressional hearing which took place yesterday.

The hearing, hosted by the House Foreign Relations Committee, was titled “Confronting Russia’s Weaponization of Information,” and accused Russian state broadcaster RT of weaponizing “conspiracy theories” to spread propaganda.

One of the speakers giving testimony was former RT host Liz Wahl, who made a public spectacle of quitting Russian state media last year in an incident stage-managed by neo-con James Kirchick, himself a former employee of Radio Free Europe – a state media outlet.

Remarking that the Internet provided a platform for “fringe voices and extremists,” Wahl characterized people who challenge establishment narratives as a “cult”.

“They mobilize and they feel they’re part of some enlightened fight against the establishment….they find a platform to voice their deranged views,” said Wahl.

Referring to comments made in January by US Broadcasting Board of Governors (BBG) chief Andrew Lack, who characterized RT as a threat on the same level as ISIS and Boko Haram, Wahl said the comparison was justified.

“By using the Internet to mobilize people that feel displaced, that feel like they’ve been on the outskirts of society, and give them a place where they can find a sense of belonging, and maybe make a difference in their own way, and it’s a problem,” she said.

Former RT host Liz Wahl

Wahl went on to bemoan the fact that conspiracy theorists were “shaping the discussion online, on message boards, on Twitter, on social media,” before asserting that the web had become a beacon of “disinformation, false theories, people that are just trying to make a name for themselves, bloggers or whatever, that have absolutely no accountability for the truth, that are able to rile up a mass amount of people online.”

Committee Chairman Ed Royce then proceeded to accuse people on YouTube of using “raw violence” to advance conspiracy theories.

Peter Pomerantsev, of the London-based Legatum Institute, followed up by claiming that conspiracy theories were no longer “fringe” and were now driving the success of Jean-Marie Le Pen in France, before lamenting the fact that conspiracy theories were challenging the “global order” and threatening to undermine global institutions.

All three individuals that gave testimony are staunch critics of Russia, leading Rep. Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) to wish “we had at least one other person to balance out this in a way that perhaps could’ve compared our system to the Russian system, to find out where that truth is, just how bad that is.”

Beyond the inflammatory rhetoric, the real story revolves around the fact that Washington was caught off guard by the rapid growth of RT, with Hillary Clinton and others having acknowledged the fact that the U.S. is “losing the information war,” which is why they are now desperately trying to denigrate the Russian broadcaster.

Without a doubt, RT puts out pro-Russian propaganda, but it also broadcasts truths about geopolitics and U.S. foreign policy that Americans will never see on mainstream corporate networks, precisely because those networks are also engaged in propaganda.

There’s no mystery behind why RT has become so big – telling the truth is popular – but because Washington finds it impossible to compete on that basis, it has been forced to resort to ad hominem attacks and ludicrous comparisons to ISIS in a desperate bid to level the playing field.

As linguist Noam Chomsky said, “The idea that there should be a network reaching people, which does not repeat the US propaganda system, is intolerable” to the US establishment.

Paul Joseph Watson is the editor at large of Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com.

Facebook @ https://www.facebook.com/paul.j.watson.71
FOLLOW Paul Joseph Watson @ https://twitter.com/PrisonPlanet

Did you know that Washington keeps 450 nuclear ICBMs on “hair-trigger alert”?  Washington thinks that this makes us “safe.”  The reasoning, if it can be called reason, is that by being able to launch in a few minutes, no one will try to attack the US with nuclear weapons.  US missiles are able to get on their way before the enemy’s missiles can reach the US to destroy ours.

If this makes you feel safe, you need to read Eric Schlosser’s book, Command and Control.

The trouble with hair-triggers is that they make mistaken, accidental, and unauthorized launch more likely. Schlosser provides a history of almost launches that would have brought armageddon to the world.

In Catalyst, a publication of the Union of Concerned Scientists, Elliott Negin tells the story of Soviet Lt. Col. Stanislav Petrov.  Just after midnight in 1983 the Soviet Union’s early warning satellite system set off the alarm that 5 US ICBMs were headed for the Soviet Union.

Col. Petrov was supposed to inform the Soviet leader, who would have 8 to 10 minutes to decide whether to launch in retaliation. Who knows what he would have decided. Instead Col. Petrov used his judgment.  There was no reason for the US to be attacking the Soviet Union.  Moreover, Petrov reasoned that an American attack would involve hundreds of ICBMs, possibly thousands.  He checked whether Soviet ground-based radar had detected incoming ICBMs, and it had not.  Petrov decided it was a false alarm, and sat on it.

It turned out that the early warning system had mistaken a pattern of sunlight reflection on clouds as missiles. This was a close call, but Negin reports that “a failed computer chip, and an improperly installed circuit card are some of the culprits” that could initiate nuclear war. In other words, the sources of false alarms are numerous.

Fast forward to today.  Imagine an American officer monitoring the US early warning system.  This officer has been listening to 15 years of war propaganda accompanied by US invasions and bombings of 8 countries.  Terrorist warnings and security alerts abound, as do calls from American and Israeli politicians for nuking Iran.  The media has convinced him that Russia has invaded Ukraine and is on the verge of invading the Baltics and Poland. American troops and tanks have been rushed to the Russian border. There is talk of arming Ukraine.  Putin is dangerous and is threatening nuclear war, running his strategic bombers close to our borders and holding nuclear drills.  The American officer has just heard a Fox News general again call for “killing Russians.”  The Republicans have convinced him that Obama is selling out America to Iran, with Senator Tom Cotton warning of nuclear war as a consequence. We will all be killed because there is a Muslim in the White House.

Why isn’t anyone standing up for America, the patriotic American officer wonders, just as the alarm goes off:  Incoming ICBMs. Are they Russian or Iranian?  Was Israel right after all?  A hidden Iranian nuclear weapons program?  Or has Putin decided that the US is in the way of his reconstruction of the Soviet Empire, which the American media affirms is Putin’s goal?  There is no room for judgment in the American officer’s mind.  It has been set on hair-trigger by the incessant propaganda that Americans call news.  He passes on the warning.

Obama’s Russophobic neocon National Security Advisor is screaming:  “You can’t let Putin get away with this!”  “It might be a false alarm,” replies the nervous and agitated president.  “You liberal pussy!  Don’t you know that Putin is dangerous!?  Push the button!”

And there goes the world.

Considering the extreme Russophobia being created among Americans by the Ministry of Propaganda, the demonization of Vladimir Putin–the “new Hitler,” Vlad the Impaler– the propagandistic creation of “the Russian threat,” the crazed neocon desire for US world hegemony, the hatred of Russia and China as rising rivals capable of exercising independent power, the loss of American Uni-power status and unconstrained unilateral action.  In the midst of these emotions and minds swayed not by facts but by propaganda, hubris, and ideology, there is a great chance that Washington’s response to a false alarm will bring the end of life on earth.

How much confidence do you have in Washington?  How many times has Washington–especially the crazed neocons–been wrong?

Remember the 3-week “cakewalk” Iraq war that would cost $70 billion and be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues?  Now the cost is $3,000 billion and rising, and after 12 years the radical Islamic State controls half of the country.  To pay for the wars the Republicans want to “privatize,” that is, take away, Social Security and Medicare.

Remember “Mission Accomplished” in Afghanistan? Twelve years later the Taliban again control the country and Washington, after murdering women, children, funerals, weddings, village elders, and kids’ soccer games,  has been driven out by a few thousand lightly armed Taliban.

The frustrations of these defeats have mounted in Washington and in the military.  The myth is that we lost because we didn’t use our full force.  We were intimidated by world opinion or by those damn student protesters, or blocked from victory by some gutless president, a liberal pussy who wouldn’t use all of our power.  For the right-wing, rage is a way of life.

The neocons believe fervently that History has chosen America to rule the world, and here we are defeated by Vietnamese guerrillas, by Afghan tribesmen, by Islamist fundamentalists, and now Putin has sent his missiles to finish the job.

Whoever the White House fool is, he will push the button.

The situation is deteriorating, not improving.  The Russians, hoping for some sign of intelligence in Europe, contradict Washington’s anti-Russian lies.  Washington calls truthful contradiction of its own propaganda to be Russian propaganda.  Washington has ordered the Broadcasting Board of Governors, a US government agency, headed by Andrew Lack, a former chairman of NBC news, to counteract an alleged, but non-existent, “Kremlin Troll Army” that is outshouting the Western prostitutes and “perpetuating a pro-Russian dialogue” on the Internet.  In case you don’t remember, Lack is the idiot who declared RT to be a “terrorist organization.”  In other words, in Lack’s opinion, one that he can enforce, a truth-teller is a terrorist.

Lack epitomizes well Washington’s view of truthful reporting: If it doesn’t serve Washington’s propaganda, it is not true. It is terrorism.

Lack hopes to control RT with intimidation:  In effect, he has told RT to shut up and say what we want or we will close you down as a terrorist organization.  We might even arrest your American employees as aiders and abettors of terrorism.

To counteract a Revanchist Russia and its Internet Troll Army, the Obama regime is handing $15,400,000 to the insane Lack to use to discredit every truthful statement that emerges from the English language versions of Russian media.  This amount, of course, will rise dramatically. Soon it will be in the billions of dollars, while Americans are evicted from their homes and sent to prison for their debts.

In his budget request, Lack, who seems to lack every aspect of humanity, including intelligence, integrity, and morality, justified his request, which will be granted, for the hard-earned money of Americans, whose standard of living is falling, with the wild assertion that Russia “threatens Russia’s neighbors and, by extension, the United States and its Western allies.”

Lack promises to do even more: “The US international media is now set forth to refute Russian propaganda and influence the minds of Russians and Russian-speakers in the former Soviet Union,  Europe and around the world.”  Lack is going to propagandize against Russia inside Russia.

Of course, the CIA organizations–the National Endowment for Democracy and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty–will be enriched by this anti-Russian propaganda campaign and will support it wholeheartedly.

Therefore, the Union of Concerned Scientists’ call for cooperation with Russia to take ICBMs off hair-trigger status is unlikely to occur. How can nuclear tensions be reduced when Washington is building tensions as fast as it possibly can?  Washington’s Ministry of Propaganda has reconstructed Putin as Osama bin Laden, as Saddam Hussein, demonized figures, bogymen who evoke fear from the brainwashed American sheeple.  Russia is transformed into al Qaeda lusting for another attack on the World Trade Center and for the Red Army (many Americans think Russia is still communist) to roll across Europe.

Gorbachev was a trick.  He deceived the old movie actor.  The deceived Americans are sitting ducks, and here come the ICBMs.  The crazed views of the American politicians, military, and people are unable to comprehend truth or to recognize reality.

The propagandistic American “media” and the crazed neoconservatives have set humanity on the path to destruction.

The Union of Concerned Scientists, of which I am a member, need to come to their senses. It is impossible to work out a reduction in nuclear threat as long as one side is going all out to demonize the other.  The demonization of Russia and its leader by the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, Fox News, and the rest of the American Propaganda Ministry, by almost the entirety of the House and Senate, and by the White House makes reducing the threat of nuclear war impossible.

The American people and the entire world need to understand that the threat to life on earth resides in Washington and that until Washington is fundamentally and totally changed, this threat will remain as the worse threat to life on earth.  Global Warming can disappear instantly in Nuclear Winter.

Did you know that the number of publicly traded companies declaring bankruptcy has reached a five year high?  And did you know that Chinese exports are absolutely collapsing and that Chinese economic growth in 2014 was the weakest in over 20 years?  Even though things may seem to be okay on the surface for the global economy at the moment, that does not mean that big trouble is not percolating just under the surface.  On Wednesday, investors cheered as stocks soared to new highs, but almost all of the economic news coming in from around the planet has been bad.  The credit rating on Greek debt has been slashed again, global economic trade is really slowing down, and many of the exact same financial patterns that we saw just before the crash of 2008 are repeating once again.  All of this reminds me of the months leading up to the implosion of Lehman Brothers.  Most people were feeling really good about things, but huge trouble was brewing just underneath the surface.  Finally, one day we learned that Lehman Brothers had “suddenly” collapsed, and then all hell broke loose.

If the economy is actually “getting better” like we are being told by the establishment media, then why are so many big companies declaring bankruptcy?  According to CNBC, the number of publicly traded companies declaring bankruptcy has hit a five year high…

The number of bankruptcies among publicly traded U.S. companies has climbed to the highest first-quarter level for five years, according to a Reuters analysis of data from research firm bankruptcompanynews.com.

Plunging prices of crude oil and other commodities is one of the major reasons for the increased filings, and bankruptcy experts said a more aggressive stance by lenders may also be hurting some companies.

It is interesting to note that the price of oil is being named as one of the primary reasons why this is happening.

In an article entitled “Anyone That Believes That Collapsing Oil Prices Are Good For The Economy Is Crazy“, I warned about this.  If the price of oil does not bounce back in a huge way, we are going to see a lot more companies go bankrupt, a lot more people are going to lose their jobs, and a lot more corporate debt is going to go bad.

And of course this oil crash has not just hurt the United States.  All over the world, economic activity is being curtailed because of what has happened to the price of oil…

But it isn’t just oil.  We appear to be moving into a time when things are slowing down all over the place.

In a recent article, Zero Hedge summarized some of the bad economic news that has come in just this week…

Mortgage Apps tumble, Empire Fed slumps, and now Industrial Production plunges… Against expectations of a 0.3% drop MoM, US Factory Output was twice as bad at -0.6% – the worst since August 2012 (and lamost worst since June 2009). This is the 4th miss in a row.

If we are indeed heading into another economic downturn, that is really bad news, because at the moment we are in far worse shape than we were just prior to the last recession.

To help illustrate this, I want to share with you a couple of charts.

This first chart comes from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, and it shows that after you adjust for inflation, median income for the middle class is the lowest that it has been in decades…

This next chart shows that median net worth for the middle class is also the lowest that it has been in decades after you adjust for inflation…

The middle class is being systematically destroyed.  For much more on this, please see this recent article that I published.  And now we are on the verge of another major economic slowdown.  That is not what the middle class needs at all.

We are also getting some very disturbing economic news out of China.

In 2014, economic growth in China was the weakest in more than 20 years, and Chinese export numbers are absolutely collapsing…

China’s monthly trade data shows exports fell in March from a year ago by 14.6% in yuan terms, compared to expectations for a rise of more than 8%.

Imports meanwhile fell 12.3% in yuan terms compared to forecasts for a fall of more than 11%.

This is a clear sign that global economic activity is slowing down in a big way.

In addition, Chinese home prices are now falling at a faster pace then U.S. home prices fell during the subprime mortgage meltdown…

It appeared as though things went from bad to worse nearly overnight; China’s National Bureau of Statistics said that contrary to hopes that there would be a modest rebound, the average new home price in China fell at the fastest pace on record in February, from the previous year.

Reuters reported that average new home prices in China’s 70 major cities fell 5.7 percent, year to year, in February – marking the sixth consecutive drop after January’s decline of 5.1 percent.

Things continue to get worse in Europe as well.

This week we learned that the credit rating for Greek government debt has been slashed once again…

Standard & Poor’s has just cut Greece’s credit rating to “CCC+” from “B-” with a negative outlook.

S&P said it expected Greece’s debt to be “unsustainable.” It cited the potential for dissolving liquidity in the government, banks and economy.

And according to the Financial Times, we could actually be on the verge of witnessing a Greek debt default…

Greece is preparing to take the dramatic step of declaring a debt default unless it can reach a deal with its international creditors by the end of April, according to people briefed on the radical leftist government’s thinking.

The government, which is rapidly running out of funds to pay public sector salaries and state pensions, has decided to withhold €2.5bn of payments due to the International Monetary Fund in May and June if no agreement is struck, they said.

So I hope that those that are euphoric about the performance of their stock portfolios are taking their profits while they still can.

Huge trouble is percolating just under the surface of the global economy, and it won’t be too long before the financial markets start feeling the pain.

Could an extract of pineapple fruit be both safer and more effective than a blockbuster chemotherapy agent?

Every once in a while a study pops up on the National Library of Medicine’s bibliographic citation database known as MEDLINE that not only confirms the therapeutic relevance of natural substances in cancer treatment, but blows the conventional approach out of the water. Published in 2007 in the journal Planta Medica, researchers found that an enzyme extracted from pineapple stems known as bromelain was superior to the chemo-agent 5-fluorauracil in treating cancer in the animal model. The researchers stated:

“This antitumoral effect [bromelain] was superior to that of 5-FU [5-fluorouracil], whose survival index was approximately 263 %, relative to the untreated control.”

What is so remarkable about this research is that 5-FU has been used as a cancer treatment for nearly 40 years, and has been relatively unsuccessful due to its less than perfect selectivity at killing cancer, often killing and/or irreversibly damaging healthy cells and tissue, as well.

As a highly toxic, fluoride-bound form of the nucleic acid uracil, a normal component of RNA, the drug is supposed to work by tricking more rapidly dividing cells — which include both cancer and healthy intestinal, hair follicle, and immune cells — into taking it up, thereby inhibiting (read: poisoning) RNA replication enzymes and RNA synthesis.

The material safety data sheet (MSDS) for 5-FU states:

The dose at which 50% of the animals given the drug die is 115mg/kg, or the equivalent of 7.8 grams for a 150 lb adult human.

Keep in mind that a 7.5 gram dose of 5-FU, which is the weight of 3 pennies, would kill 50% of the humans given it.  Bromelain’s MSDS, on the other hand, states the LD50 to be 10,000 mg/kg, or the equivalent 1.5 lbs of bromelain for a 150lb adult, which means it is 3 orders of magnitude safer!

How then, can something as innocuous as the enzyme from the stem/core of a pineapple be superior to a drug that millions of cancers patients over the past 40 years have placed their hopes of recovery on, as well as exchanging billions of dollars for?

There is a well-known effect associated with a wide range of natural compounds called “selective cytotoxicity,” whereby they are able to induce programmed cell death (the graceful self-disassembly known as apoptosis) within the cancer cells, while leaving healthy cells and tissue unharmed. No FDA-approved chemotherapy drug on the market today has this indispensable property (because chemicals don’t have behave like natural compounds), which is why cancer treatment is still in the dark ages, often destroying the quality of life, and accelerating the death of those who undergo it, often unwittingly. When a person dies following conventional cancer treatment it is all too easy to “blame the victim” and simply write that patient’s cancer off as “chemo-resistant,” or “exceptionally aggressive,” when in fact the non-selective nature of the chemotoxic agent is what ultimately lead to their death.

Keep in mind that bromelain, like all natural substances, will never receive FDA drug approval. Capital, at the present time, does not flow into the development of non-patentable (i.e. non-profitable) cancer therapies, even if they work, are safe and extremely affordable. This is simply the nature of the beast. Until we compel our government to utilize our tax dollars to invest in this type of research, there will be no level playing field in cancer treatment, or any treatment offered through the conventional medical establishment, for that matter. Or, some of us may decide to take our health into our own hands, and use the research, already freely available on possible natural cancer treatment, to inform our treatment decisions without the guidance of the modern day equivalent of the “priest” of the body, the conventional oncologist, who increasingly fills the description of an “applied pharmacologist/toxicologist” – nothing more, nothing less.

To view additional research on the potential therapeutic properties of bromelain in over 30 health conditions, visit the open source, natural medical resource page on bromelain.

That probably should have been the headline of a Politico article (sorry, behind paywall) on a letter signed by 13 former Democratic governors urging Congress to approve fast-track trade authority to facilitate the passage of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and the Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP). The most newsworthy aspect of the letter is that the governors apparently do not understand the basic economics of trade.

In the letter the governors tell members of Congress:

We’ve seen firsthand the benefits of trade to our communities. Increased exports have been a major component of economic development across all 50 states, adding $760 billion to our economy between 2009 and 2014 — one-third of our total growth. And this growth has supported 1.8 million new jobs and raised wages (up to 18 percent on average) for real people that we’ve met — the manufacturing worker in Kentucky, the computer technician in Massachusetts, the dairy farmer in Wisconsin — whose jobs are related to exports.

This paragraph implies that the governors don’t realize that it is net exports, not exports, that add to growth and employment. To see this distinction: If the manufacturing worker in Kentucky they saw firsthand was producing a part for a car that used to be assembled in Ohio, but is now assembled in Mexico, she would have one of the jobs the governors are attributing to exports. Of course, the assembly worker in Ohio has now lost her job, but apparently the Democratic governors don’t know about him. This lost job would be picked up if we looked at net exports, since we would subtract the full value of the car when it was imported back from Mexico.

If the governors had done their arithmetic right, instead of boasting about the $760 billion increase in exports, they would have been complaining about the $140 billion decline in net exports, since imports rose by $890 billion between 2009 and 2014. This means that trade was a drag on growth in the recovery, costing the country jobs and putting downward pressure on wages.

It is extraordinary when people who have held important public positions (one of the signers is former Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius) show themselves to be completely ignorant on such a fundamental policy issue. Politico should have called its readers’ attention to these former governors misunderstanding of the way in which trade affects the economy, jobs and wages.

Blackwater–under a new name–still works for the US government. If corporations are people, they should have been given the death penalty.

— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) April 14, 2015

One thing for sure can be said about Obama. He’s consistent. He says one thing. He does another – virtually always.

On the other, he surrendered to congressional anti-Iranian hardliners without a whimper of protest.

Lausanne is dead. Chances for concluding fair and equitable final terms with Iran by June 30 are virtually nil.

Business as usual triumphed. US neocons, Israel, its Lobby and other Iran-haters won.

Obama agreed to sign the Iran Nuclear Agreement Act of 2015 (INAA) when passed by both houses – likely by a veto-proof margin.

On Tuesday, it cleared the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously. Republicans and most Democrats are in lockstep.

It gives Congress final say on any nuclear deal reached with Iran. It effectively undermines whatever may be consummated.

It assures months of talks were wasted. Perhaps Obama never wanted a deal in the first place.

Maybe he just pretended to want one – while privately plotting betrayal.

He’s as hardline as neocons infesting his administration. Their notion of a deal with Iran is unconditional surrender.

US-led opposition to Iran’s known peaceful nuclear program has always been red herring cover for regime change – replacing sovereign Iranian independence with stooge government Washington controls.

Unnamed White House officials lied saying they got last minute congressional concessions. They got nothing meaningful.

Ben Cardin is Democrat Senate Foreign Relations Committee ranking member. “Only Congress can change or permanently modify the sanctions regime,” he said.

In other words, no sanctions relief will be forthcoming without unconditional Iranian surrender to Washington, Israel and its Lobby.

Everything agreed on is null and void unless Congress says otherwise. INAA legislation requires the White House send Congress the final text of any deal reached as soon as concluded – along with classified material.

It gives Congress 30 days to decide up or down whether to lift sanctions – 60 days without a final deal by July 9. It has final say – contrary to framework terms.

Final INAA provisions aren’t concluded. Congressional hardliners want tougher measures added.

It remains to be seen how much worse INAA may get. It’s already a deal-killer.

Israel hailed it. Intelligence Minister Yuval Steinitz said Obama “fold(ed)” in the face of congressional pressure.

He called it “an achievement for Israeli policy. We are certainly blessed this morning.”

“It means more pressure and another hurdle in the way of a bad agreement, so the administration and negotiators will work harder to fill the gaps to reshape the deal into a better, more reasonable one that can win Congress approval.”

AIPAC issued a press release praising unanimous Senate Foreign Relations Committee INAA adoption.

Saying it

“believes that it is imperative for Congress to assert its historic foreign policy role.”

“Congress should review any agreement to ensure it meets US objectives and object if it fails to do so.”

“Serious concerns have been raised over the framework understanding.”

“A final deal, with its immense national security implications, must be subjected to the constitutional system of checks and balances…”

“AIPAC urges the full Senate to adopt this legislation and the House to take action on congressional review legislation.”

Fact: Congress only has advise and consent authority over treaties. It has no legal foreign policy say other than what’s constitutionally authorized.

Fact: It has no legitimate say over Iran nuclear framework or final terms unless granted by the White House.

Fact: The whole world knows Iran’s nuclear program is peaceful.

Fact: It has no military component. US and Israeli intelligence say so.

Fact: Iran threatens no other country – not now, earlier or going forward. No security issues whatever exist related to its legitimate nuclear program or foreign policy.

Iran insists all sanctions be lifted immediately once final terms are consummated. Otherwise, it won’t accept them.

On April 15, Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Majid Takht Ravanchi called on P5+1 nations (mainly Washington) to stop making unreasonable demands on Iran – if they’re serious about consummating a final fair and equitable agreement.

Doing so requires they “show more cooperation and a better understanding of the realities,” he said.

Supreme Leader Ali Ayatollah Seyed Ali Khamenei said any deal reached must lift all sanctions immediately – “on the same day of any agreement.”

President Hassan Rohani stressed the same thing – indicating Iran will never relinquish its right to develop and use peaceful nuclear power.

Foreign officials and IAEA monitors

“shouldn’t be allowed at all to penetrate into the country’s security and defensive boundaries under the pretext of supervision, and the country’s military officials are not permitted at all to allow the foreigners to cross these boundaries or stop the country’s defensive development under the pretext of supervision and inspection,”

said Khamenei.

He added he’s neither in favor or against Lausanne terms “since nothing has happened yet, and no binding issue has occurred between the two sides.”

Longstanding US anti-Iranian sentiment persists. Obama conspired with Congress, Israel and its Lobby to maintain business as usual.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

Originally published on Woman’s Vibe

Tetanus vaccines given to millions of young women in Kenya have been confirmed by laboratories to contain a sterilization chemical that causes miscarriages, reports the Kenya Catholic Doctors Association, a pro-vaccine organization.

A whopping 2.3 million young girls and women are in the process of being given the vaccine, pushed by UNICEF and the World Health Organization.

“We sent six samples from around Kenya to laboratories in South Africa. They tested positive for the HCG antigen,” Dr. Muhame Ngare of the Mercy Medical Centre in Nairobi told LifeSiteNews. “They were all laced with HCG.”

Chemical causes a woman’s body to destroy its own fetus with vaccine-induced antibodies

HCG is a chemical developed by the World Health Organization for sterilization purposes. When injected into the body of a young woman, it causes a pregnancy to be destroyed by the body’s own antibody response to the HCG, resulting in a spontaneous abortion. Its effectiveness lasts for years, causing abortions in women up to three years after the injections.

Dr. Ngare explained “…this WHO campaign is not about eradicating neonatal tetanus but a well-coordinated forceful population control mass sterilization exercise using a proven fertility regulating vaccine.”

More importantly, the Kenyan Catholic Church is a pro-vaccine organization. “What reason do the Catholic doctors have for lying?” asked Dr. Ngare as reported in the LifeSiteNews article linked above. “The Catholic Church has been here in Kenya providing health care and vaccinating for 100 years for longer than Kenya has existed as a country.”

In other words, the very group exposing the sterilization agenda of the tetanus vaccines is in fact a pro-vaccination group. Yet even they have now come to realize the horrifying truth: vaccines are the perfect vector for governments to deviously insert covert chemical or viral agents which are never revealed to the public.

What really raised red flags about this so-called tetanus vaccine was the highly unusual inoculation schedule. This vaccine demanded five shots over two years — a schedule that isn’t used for tetanus.

“The only time tetanus vaccine has been given in five doses is when it is used as a carrier in fertility regulating vaccines laced with the pregnancy hormone, Human Chorionic Gonadotropin (HCG) developed by WHO in 1992.” explained Dr. Ngare.

Furthermore, the vaccine was only being given to women of child-bearing years, not men or women beyond the age of fertility.

As Dr. Ngare explains, the same vaccine sterilization campaign was used in 1993 in Mexico and both Nicaragua and the Philippines in 1994. WHO attempted to bring it to Kenya in the 1990’s, Ngare says, but the effort was stopped by the Catholic Church.

According to Brian Clowes of Human Life International, the United Nations is not refuting the laboratory testing and confirmation of HCG in the vaccines. Instead, it claims some vaccines were “contaminated” in the manufacturing process — an absurd claim that no reasonable person would believe because HCG should never even be anywhere near a vaccine manufacturing operation unless someone put it there deliberately.

LifeSiteNews reports that it:

has obtained a UN report on an August 1992 meeting at its world headquarters in Geneva of 10 scientists from “Australia, Europe, India and the U.S.A” and 10 “women’s health advocates” from around the world, to discuss the use of “fertility regulating vaccines.” It describes the “anti-Human Chorionic Gonadotropin vaccine” as the most advanced.

Read the full report from LifeSiteNews at: www.lifesitenews.com

United Nations, WHO and UNICEF all engaged in vaccination genocide

You will not see this news reported by any mainstream media outlet in the United States. All truth about vaccines is censored, even if the truth is that the United Nations is deliberately engaged in a campaign of vaccine genocide against people of Africa.

What is happening in Kenya is a crime against humanity, and it is a crime committed with deliberate racial discrimination. Normally, the liberal media in the United States would be all over a story involving racial discrimination and genocide — or even a single police shooting of a black teenager — but because this genocide is being committed with vaccines, the entire mainstream media excuses it. Apparently, medical crimes against black people are perfectly acceptable to the liberal media as long as vaccines are used as the weapon.

1) Nobody really knows what’s in them.
2) They can be easily spiked with hidden chemicals.
3) They can be administered under the cover of “public health.”
4) All governments and establishment media will deliberately collaborate with the genocide in order to protect vaccines from being recognized as medical weapons against women.

Thus, vaccines can be routinely used to inject populations with birth control chemicals or even stealth cancer viruses. In fact, this is exactly what happened to as many as 98 million Americans during the mass polio vaccinations of the 1960’s and 70’s. The CDC even documented the “accidental” injection of millions of Americans with the cancer-causing SV40 simian virus, but the agency scrubbed all that history from its website in 2013.

In Kenya today, government authorities also claim the sterilization chemical was an “accidental” contamination. That’s the excuse that can always be used as a cover story in weaponized vaccination schemes, where governments deliberately taint vaccines with known chemicals that end life, promote cancer or cause spontaneous abortions.

Vaccines as weapons = Medical crimes against humanity

The deliberate adding of HCG to vaccines without full disclosure to the population is a heinous violation of human rights and human dignity. Here are just a few of the crimes now being committed against humanity under the guise of vaccinations:

CRIME #1) No informed consent. None of these women in Kenya were told the truth that they were being injected with a sterilization chemical designed to cause infertility.

CRIME #2) Race-based genocide. The targeting of Kenyan women with this vaccine is a deliberate selection based on their race. By any reasonable standard, this would be called a racially-motivated hate crime resulting in genocide.

CRIME #3) The deliberate killing of a human being. The spontaneous abortions caused by these HCG-spiked vaccines results in the ending of a human life inside the mother’s body. These killings take place without the consent or permission of the mother, nor any opportunity for defense of the life of the unborn child.

CRIME #4) Violation of Geneva Convention limitations on medical experimentation. All these Kenyan women injected with this vaccine are being used as human guinea pigs in a covert, criminal medical experiment. None of these women voluntarily signed up for this medical experiment, nor were they even informed. This is a medical crime against human beings.

CRIME #5) Crimes against women. Only women were selected for this targeted sterilization vaccine effort, proving that this is not only a race-based crime but also a gender-based crime against women.

If you add all this up, you’ve got weaponized vaccines being intentionally spiked with a known sterilization chemical developed by the WHO, then deployed in a racially-motivated genocidal manner that targets women to be used in an illegal medical experiment administered via vaccine inoculations.

When administered via vaccines, genocide and murder are apparently not news

Yet, despite all this, the mainstream media is perfectly okay with this activity. The World Health Organizations endorses it. The United Nations organizes it. Governments help fund it. Vaccine-pushing scientists excuse it. Media outlets cover it up and censor the story, hoping you don’t read Natural News or Life Site News or WorldTruth.Tv to learn the truth.

When pharmacies in your neighborhood push flu shots and other vaccines, they don’t tell you they are part of a branch of medicine steeped in genocide, racially-motivated hate crimes and a medical war on women. They don’t tell you that flu shots still contain toxic mercury at concentrations 100 times the mercury found in ocean fish. They don’t tell you anything about what’s in those vaccines for the same reason that women in Kenya are never told what’s in them, either.

Vaccines are the perfect weapons against women and children

The truth is that vaccines are easily deployed as weapons against humanity under the false cover story that they are saving humanity. What better way to pursue deliberate chemically-induced population control than to convince people they are being injected “for their own good?”

This is precisely why Bill Gates famously said:

The world today has 6.8 billion people… that’s headed up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent.

Why would Bill Gates be talking about vaccines REDUCING human population if vaccines didn’t secretly contain sterilization agents? Remember, Gates is the same person who has funded all sorts of sterilization technologies including one that blasts men’s scrotums with high-intensity sound waves to make them infertile.

Top tools for human depopulation

Gates is part of a covert medical cabal that believes aggressive human depopulation is urgently necessary to save the planet. This group, which includes many scientists and virologists, believe that the most effective tools for human depopulation are:

1) Vaccines which are covertly spiked with sterilization chemicals.
2) Genetically engineered viruses with a high mortality rate, possibly engineered to target specific races and genetic profiles.

For example, Dr. Charles Arntzen, head of The Biodesign Institute for Infectious Diseases and Vaccinology recently joked about using an engineered virus to cull the human population, saying “That’s the answer! Go out and use genetic engineering to create a better virus. (laughter) Twenty-five percent of the population is supposed to go in Contagion.”

As I wrote on October 22, 2014, many virologists believe humans are nothing more than a “parasite” to be consumed by viruses which are the planet’s “immune response” to human overpopulation. Here’s a passage from the book “The Hot Zone” by Richard Preston, summarizing the way these scientists think:

…the earth is mounting an immune response against the human species. It is beginning to react to the human parasite, the flooding infection of people, the dead spots of concrete all over the planet, the cancerous rot-outs in Europe, Japan and the United States, thick with replicating primates [i.e. humans], the colonies enlarging and spreading and threatening to shock the biosphere with mass extinctions.

Perhaps the biosphere does not “like” the idea of five billion humans. Or it could also be said that the extreme amplification of the human race, which has occurred only in the past hundred years or so, has suddenly produced a very large quantity of meat, which is sitting everywhere in the biosphere and may not be able to defend itself against a life form that might want to consume it…

The earth’s immune system, so to speak, has recognized the presence of the human species and is starting to kick in. The earth is attempting to rid itself of an infection by the human parasite.

What’s extraordinary in all this — both with vaccines and viruses engineered as weapons — is how the most influential people in the scientific community have come to view humanity as an enemy to be destroyed via tools of medicine and science. Frighteningly, modern medical science has the tools to carry out its genocidal assaults on humankind through “accidental” releases of deadly viruses or “accidental” contamination of vaccines with sterilization chemicals.

The evidence of deliberate sterilization chemicals in United Nations vaccines raises the obvious question: Was the recent Ebola outbreak in West Africa also intentional? And what else might scientists, vaccine pushers, world health authorities and governments have in mind for human depopulation in the years ahead?

Is there already something in the food supply that causes sterilization? The answer is a definite YES, and just like the pandemic viruses, it too is genetically engineered.

The five vectors for destroying humanity

These are the vectors for the science-based genocidal assault on humanity:

1) Vaccines
2) Viruses
3) Food
4) Water
5) Chemtrails (i.e. atmospheric deployment of chemicals)

All five of these vectors present “opportunities” for genocidal scientists to achieve their goal of human sterilization and depopulation. That is precisely why anyone who wishes to survive the great human culling now under way must take extraordinary steps to isolate themselves from institutionally-produced food, water and medicine. The only safe food, water and medicine is that which was produced independently and far outside the control of Big Food, Big Ag and Big Pharma.

Don’t drink the city water without filtering it first, and read my laboratory testing results for all popular water filters at www.WaterFilterLabs.com

Don’t eat factory-produced food. Don’t allow yourself to be injected with weaponized vaccines. Don’t take Big Pharma’s deadly medicines. Be smart by being skeptical about the claimed “safety” of all those things created by institutions and authorities that quite literally want to kill off a significant percentage of the existing world population.

If you’re smart and resourceful, you might just survive this great human culling. On the other hand, those who anxiously line up to be injected with the seasonal flu shots are all admitting they are too stupid and gullible to last long in a world where “science” has declared a covert war on human life.

Notes:

Sources for this article include:

[1] www.lifesitenews.com

[2] www.naturalnews.com

[3] www.naturalnews.com

[4] www.naturalnews.com

[5] www.naturalnews.com

www.naturalnews.com

© Woman’s Vibe April 2015

Much speculation abounds regarding China’s gold holdings.  They officially claim 1,054 tons as of April 2009.  We suspected they might “re” announce their holdings again last year at this time as it was five years after their last announcement and China has a habit of “five year plans”.  Alisdair Mcleod believes they have 20,000 tons or more which very well may be the case, I can easily make a case their holdings are far in excess of 10,000 tons just from the data since 2009.  In the words of our newest presidential candidate, “at this point, what difference does it make?”.  We’ll get to this shortly.

Before getting into the answer to this question, it might be better look at China’s “bubbles” first.   Money supply:

Click to enlarge

As you can see, China’s money supply has gone from 30 trillion yuan to over 120 trillion yuan in 8 years.  The growth rate compounds out to about 18% annually.  The following chart shows their money supply growth slowing drastically, China will need to reflate soon!

Click to enlarge

Now let’s look at China’s Shanghai stock market, another bubble.

Click to enlarge

Their market has virtually doubled in over 90 days, is this “normal”?  Could this be a function of the market anticipating a reflation in money supply …or maybe a devaluation of the yuan versus a marked up gold price?  I’m not sure but putting their money supply together with market action tells me one of several things.  Money supply must begin to grow more rapidly soon, the yuan will need to be devalued or their market values are unjustified, something must give.  Add to this the fact China’s economy (maybe with slightly cooked numbers) is growing slower than any time in the last six years  and it becomes even more clear, China must do something soon.  It is my guess and has been for quite a while, China will pull a page from FDR’s playbook and revalue gold versus the yuan …and the yuan versus other currencies from top to bottom.

So, why exactly does it matter how much gold China has accumulated and what are the ramifications depending what the number is?  First, if the number comes in “large” (it will), it means China “likes gold” and believes it to be a worthy monetary reserve asset.  A large number would give gold China’s “stamp of approval” so to speak.

Next, we have the “mathematics” to the equation.  If the number comes in anywhere near 10,000 tons, the natural question then becomes “where oh where did it all come from”?  This is a VERY important question because as I’ve said many times before, gold can only come from current supply and also from above ground supplies in vaults.  We know the total annual global supply (ex China and Russia) is about 2,200 tons of which China has chewed up a very large percentage over the last six years.  Total global production has been 11,000 tons over the last six years, we know India and Russia have been importers, not to mention all the other geographical demand and jewelry.  A number even close to 10,000 tons will raise the question of “how?”, how could China have accumulated this much gold if the world is not producing enough to make the math work?  In other words, if China bought virtually all of the global supply, what was used to satisfy the rest of the world’s demand?

The answer is easy and so will be the reaction.  The gold MUST have come from Western vaults, namely N.Y. and London.  It would also explain the refineries working 24/7 to melt 400 ounce bars and create kilo bars …they were in fact heading to China!  The big questions will be “which vaults?” and then of course “who’s gold was it?”.  This really matters because a number of 10,000 tons or more would most likely mean the U.S. has dishoarded its gold …and/or sold gold which belonged to someone else.  It will bring up the rule of law if the gold is someone else’s, it will bring up Constitutional law if the gold came from Ft. Know, West Point or another depository.  Please remember that five years ago or so, gold on the market was turning up which had very similar, if not identical “fingerprints” to our own “coin melt” from the 1930’s.  To me, this was as big a telltale sign as gold turning up in 1989 with the “Czar’s stamp” on it.

As mentioned and illustrated above, China has not been immune to the bubblemania gripping the world.  They are living their own bubble and have exploded their own money supply yet now have the need to goose it again.  If this reverses and becomes an outright contraction, China will be faced with the same dilemma the U.S. was in 1932-1933, they will need to re price gold higher in an effort to devalue their currency and reflate their own system.  It is for this reason I believe they will “set” a price and bid for any and all gold similar to what FDR did when gold was revalued to $35.

A holding’s announcement and higher bid will do much for China.  It will cement their position of financial strength and also lock many buyers out …not to mention turn some holders into sellers.  Thus increasing China’s holdings even more.  The higher gold price will act as a “filler” for many of the losses China will surely take from paper financial holdings.  A higher gold price will be their internal financial penicillin assuring the financial wounds heal rather than spread and infect the entire body.  Quite oversimplified but please understand this has been the remedy many times before throughout history, either willingly or dragged by the ears!

Much speculation abounds regarding China’s gold holdings.  They officially claim 1,054 tons as of April 2009.  We suspected they might “re” announce their holdings again last year at this time as it was five years after their last announcement and China has a habit of “five year plans”.  Alisdair Mcleod believes they have 20,000 tons or more which very well may be the case, I can easily make a case their holdings are far in excess of 10,000 tons just from the data since 2009.  In the words of our newest presidential candidate, “at this point, what difference does it make?”.  We’ll get to this shortly.

Before getting into the answer to this question, it might be better look at China’s “bubbles” first.   Money supply:

Click to enlarge

As you can see, China’s money supply has gone from 30 trillion yuan to over 120 trillion yuan in 8 years.  The growth rate compounds out to about 18% annually.  The following chart shows their money supply growth slowing drastically, China will need to reflate soon!

Click to enlarge

Now let’s look at China’s Shanghai stock market, another bubble.

Click to enlarge

Their market has virtually doubled in over 90 days, is this “normal”?  Could this be a function of the market anticipating a reflation in money supply …or maybe a devaluation of the yuan versus a marked up gold price?  I’m not sure but putting their money supply together with market action tells me one of several things.  Money supply must begin to grow more rapidly soon, the yuan will need to be devalued or their market values are unjustified, something must give.  Add to this the fact China’s economy (maybe with slightly cooked numbers) is growing slower than any time in the last six years  and it becomes even more clear, China must do something soon.  It is my guess and has been for quite a while, China will pull a page from FDR’s playbook and revalue gold versus the yuan …and the yuan versus other currencies from top to bottom.

So, why exactly does it matter how much gold China has accumulated and what are the ramifications depending what the number is?  First, if the number comes in “large” (it will), it means China “likes gold” and believes it to be a worthy monetary reserve asset.  A large number would give gold China’s “stamp of approval” so to speak.

Next, we have the “mathematics” to the equation.  If the number comes in anywhere near 10,000 tons, the natural question then becomes “where oh where did it all come from”?  This is a VERY important question because as I’ve said many times before, gold can only come from current supply and also from above ground supplies in vaults.  We know the total annual global supply (ex China and Russia) is about 2,200 tons of which China has chewed up a very large percentage over the last six years.  Total global production has been 11,000 tons over the last six years, we know India and Russia have been importers, not to mention all the other geographical demand and jewelry.  A number even close to 10,000 tons will raise the question of “how?”, how could China have accumulated this much gold if the world is not producing enough to make the math work?  In other words, if China bought virtually all of the global supply, what was used to satisfy the rest of the world’s demand?

The answer is easy and so will be the reaction.  The gold MUST have come from Western vaults, namely N.Y. and London.  It would also explain the refineries working 24/7 to melt 400 ounce bars and create kilo bars …they were in fact heading to China!  The big questions will be “which vaults?” and then of course “who’s gold was it?”.  This really matters because a number of 10,000 tons or more would most likely mean the U.S. has dishoarded its gold …and/or sold gold which belonged to someone else.  It will bring up the rule of law if the gold is someone else’s, it will bring up Constitutional law if the gold came from Ft. Know, West Point or another depository.  Please remember that five years ago or so, gold on the market was turning up which had very similar, if not identical “fingerprints” to our own “coin melt” from the 1930’s.  To me, this was as big a telltale sign as gold turning up in 1989 with the “Czar’s stamp” on it.

As mentioned and illustrated above, China has not been immune to the bubblemania gripping the world.  They are living their own bubble and have exploded their own money supply yet now have the need to goose it again.  If this reverses and becomes an outright contraction, China will be faced with the same dilemma the U.S. was in 1932-1933, they will need to re price gold higher in an effort to devalue their currency and reflate their own system.  It is for this reason I believe they will “set” a price and bid for any and all gold similar to what FDR did when gold was revalued to $35.

A holding’s announcement and higher bid will do much for China.  It will cement their position of financial strength and also lock many buyers out …not to mention turn some holders into sellers.  Thus increasing China’s holdings even more.  The higher gold price will act as a “filler” for many of the losses China will surely take from paper financial holdings.  A higher gold price will be their internal financial penicillin assuring the financial wounds heal rather than spread and infect the entire body.  Quite oversimplified but please understand this has been the remedy many times before throughout history, either willingly or dragged by the ears!

Bolivia’s President Evo Morales has blamed U.S. President Barack Obama for the failure of the recent OAS (Organization of American States) Summit of the Americas to issue a final declaration, and he says that a major sticking point for Mr. Obama was Obama’s opposition to a provision in the proposed declaration that would have said that health care is “a human right.” Mr. Obama insisted that it’s instead a privilege, access to which must be based primarily upon an individual’s ability-to-pay, as is the case in the United States. 

Said Mr. Morales: “One point (in the drafted declaration) was important: health as a human right, and the U.S. government did not accept that health should be considered a human right … President Obama did not accept” that concept.

The 8-point draft had resulted from four months of negotiations between the participating countries prior to the Summit in Panama, which was held on April 10-11. There was such strong sentiment for declaring health care to be a right, so that this provision was included in the draft despite Obama’s opposition to it.

A report from the Latin American television network Telesur (majority-owned by the Venezuelan government, which Obama unsuccessfully tried to overthrow via an aborted February 2015 coup, announced at the start of the conference, that, “The Seventh Summit of the Americas begins Friday in Panama without a final declaration because the US Government has expressed its disagreement with some of the clauses, which blocked agreement.” Furthermore, this was personally done by U.S. President Obama: “This information was confirmed by Foreign Minister of Argentina, Hector Timerman, who described the event as ‘a debate among presidents.’” That’s how personal, and top-level, the ideological disagreement here was.

On April 15th, German Economic News reported that Morales said in his speech at the conference:

“The United States has regarded Latin America and the Caribbean as their backyard, and the peoples of this region as their slaves. That is the reason for the extreme poverty in the region. I ask the United States: what we have done, to justify treating us as U.S.’s slaves? I tell you, President Obama, Latin America has changed forever. We are no longer submissive. It is no longer possible to carry out in our countries coups. We are determined to shape our own futures. We are no longer in the shadow of US imperialism. For we say what we think. And we do what we say. We urge you to respect our democracy and our sovereignty. Latin America has been kidnapped by the United States. We do not want this to continue. We do not want any longer decrees by the US President, in which we are declared as a threat to your country. [He was condemning Obama’s having declared Venezuela to be a threat to U.S. national security.] We do not want to be spied upon. We want to live in peace. We urge the United States to end the destruction of entire civilizations.”

Here’s the background to that: Latin America was originally colonized by European aristocracies, whose agents in the Americas treated the locals like dirt. According to the classic 1992 historical account, by David E. Stannard, American Holocaust: The Conquest of the New World, nearly eight million native Americans or ‘Indians’ were killed by the European invaders (employees of Europe’s aristocrats) within the first 21 years after Christopher Columbus’s landing in the Americas. And that was just the start. In 1898, the American aristocracy grabbed Cuba from the Spanish aristocracy; and, ever since, all countries to the south of the U.S. have been the U.S.’s “backyard.”

President Morales said that Cuba does not need “help” from the U.S.: “What you need to do is repair all the damages you have caused in that country!”

Regarding the disagreements with Morales and other populist leaders in Latin America, the criticisms of Mr. Obama would be no different if any of the Republican or Democratic candidates replace Obama (except, perhaps, for U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders). For example, Hillary Clinton was the Democratic Party bulwark of the coup that overthrew the democratic populist President of Honduras in 2009, Manuel Zelaya and replaced him with a far-right junta run by that country’s fewer-than-twelve “oligarchs” or, actually, aristocratic families. And, she told The New York Times in a 27 March 2008 interview, when asked about a single-payer health insurance system — which necessarily entails the concept of health care as being a right instead of merely a privilege — “I have thought about this, as you might guess, for 15 years and I never seriously considered a single payer system.” A follow-up question asked her about whether she might find a single-payer system acceptable, and she said, “I think that, you know, there’s too many bells and whistles that Americans want that would not be available in kind of a bare-bones Medicare-like system.”

That’s totally a rejection of the concept of health care being at all a basic human right. She wants greed to rule, even in the provisioning of healthcare. Then, in recent times, she has given $200,000 private ‘speeches’ to healthcare-industry groups (such as this) where she has received repeated standing ovations as a champion of for-profit health care, and those industries have been large financial backers of her political career. Her private email is being hidden from the public, but her communications with health care CEOs (outside even those closed-to-the-press $200,000-a-pop private ‘speeches’ with them) are among the chief concerns among Democrats who want to know what she is hiding.

In her 2008 campaign, her top donor-group were the Wall Street megabanks and their law firms. However, they will also be the top donors to many Republican candidates. Ms. Clinton’s broader 2008 donor-sources listed in the first two categories “Lawyers” and Retired,” but with no indication of the source of those people’s money. Her #3 was “Securities & Investment,” then, below that, in order: “Real Estate,” “Women’s issues,” “Education,” “Business Services”; and, then, in eighth place, “Health Professionals.”

So, the concept of health care being a right, is not going to become a part of American politics, even if that concept is basic to lowering the cost and increasing the accessibility to health services, and simultaneously to increasing the quality of that healthcare — all of which is the case: benefits to everyone but the aristocracy, who own those healthcare services.

In healthcare, the evidence is clear that where capitalism (the profit-motive) predominates, waste and inferior health-care results — and costs a lot more to consumers. On things that should be a right instead of a privilege, capitalism produces waste, not efficiency. But if a country is extremely corrupt, capitalism will dominate even in those parts of the economy. So, Obama’s, and virtually all other U.S. politicians’, support of profit-making health care is understandable. However, for U.S. President Obama to insist that all other countries in the Americas be at least as corrupt as the U.S. is, won’t be appreciated abroad. In any field — health care or any other — where other countries are less corrupt than America, the idea of their taking dictation from America won’t be appreciated. In the present case, Obama has blocked an OAS declaration of a basic human right which even the aristocracies in other American nations believe to be a basic human right. The U.S. is now its own “banana republic,” and won’t likely win converts to this status. In the new Latin America, even much of the aristocracy has had more than enough of Milton Friedmanite thinking.

The best that can be said of Obama is that other successful U.S. politicians are no better than he is — in other words: that the U.S. is pervasively corrupt. This is not something that any American politician will admit (i.e.: that “You can’t get where I am unless you’re corrupt”). Nor will the aristocratically controlled U.S. ‘news’ media permit it to be published. The same aristocracy that controls the U.S. Government, controls the U.S. ‘press.’ Thus, ‘freedom of the press’ has degenerated to merely freedom of the aristocracy to control the government — and to control what the public sees, and does not see, of that government. Consequently, Americans buy ‘the free market’ in everything.

The profit in the press depends mainly on the influence it can peddle. For example, when Donald Graham sold theWashington Post to Jeff Bezos, holder of a $600 million ten-year contract to sell cloud computing services to the CIA, the influence in Washington that Bezos was purchasing was, even alone, enough to make the investment a sure winner for him, even if it didn’t let him also now receive the advertisements from Raytheon etc., to sell congressmen on weapons-systems — and to sell the benefits of expanding the CIA itself. So: just as corporations answer to the aristocracy, so does the government, now. And so does ‘our free press.’ It’s not “ours”; and it’s not “free.”

And this is the reason why you probably didn’t know, until now, that (and why) Obama blocked a final declaration at the OAS Summit, and got treated with contempt at that conference, which took place on April 10th and 11th.

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity, and of Feudalism, Fascism, Libertarianism and Economics.

Günter Grass, acclaimed author, social commentator and 1999 Nobel Prize Winner for Literature – writing about Israel and its nuclear weapons:

‘What must be said

Why have I kept silent, held back so long,

on something openly practised in

war games, at the end of which those of us

who survive will at best be footnotes?

It’s the alleged right to a first strike

that could destroy an Iranian people

subjugated by a loudmouth

and gathered in organized rallies,

because an atom bomb may be being

developed within his arc of power.

Yet why do I hesitate to name

that other land in which

for years – although kept secret –

a growing nuclear power has existed

beyond supervision or verification,

subject to no inspection of any kind?

This general silence on the facts,

before which my own silence has bowed,

seems to me a troubling, enforced m,

leading to a likely punishment

the moment it’s broken:

the verdict “anti-Semitism” falls easily.

But now that my own country,

brought in time after time

for questioning about its own crimes,

profound and beyond compare,

has delivered yet another submarine to Israel,

(in what is purely a business transaction,

though glibly declared an act of reparation)

whose speciality consists in its ability

to direct nuclear warheads toward

an area in which not a single atom bomb

has yet been proved to exist, its feared

existence proof enough, I’ll say what must be said.

But why have I kept silent till now?

Because I thought my own origins,

tarnished by a stain that can never be removed,

meant I could not expect Israel, a land

to which I am, and always will be, attached,

to accept this open declaration of the truth.

Why only now, grown old,

and with what ink remains, do I say:

Israel’s atomic power endangers

an already fragile world peace?

Because what must be said

may be too late tomorrow;

and because – burdened enough as Germans –

we may be providing material for a crime

that is foreseeable, so that our complicity

will not be expunged by any

of the usual excuses.

And granted: I’ve broken my silence

because I’m sick of the West’s hypocrisy;

and I hope too that many may be freed

from their silence, may demand

that those responsible for the open danger

we face renounce the use of force,

may insist that the governments of

both Iran and Israel allow an international authority

free and open inspection of

the nuclear potential and capability of both.

No other course offers help

to Israelis and Palestinians alike,

to all those living side by side in enmity

in this region occupied by illusions,

and ultimately, to all of us.’

Günter Grass. Died April 13th 2015, aged 87

www.theguardian.com/books/2012/apr/05/gunter-grass-what-must-be-said

Saudi warplanes target US intelligence-designated sites. Civilian men, women and children are considered fair game. They suffer most in all wars.

Deliberately targeting them is longstanding US policy – a shocking war crime by any standard.

Tuesday was the latest example. Reports indicate Saudi warplanes struck a populated Ma’rib area. A local source said dozens of defenseless schoolchildren were massacred in cold blood.

The exact number of dead and wounded isn’t known. The source indicated massive Saudi terror-bombing killed dozens.

Yemeni army spokesman Col. Sharif Luqman said:

“Saudi attacks have left over 2,265 housing units totally demolished.”

“The US is with the Saudis, but God is with the Yemenis.” He promised a crushing response, adding:

“The Yemeni people will fight to the last drop of their blood to safeguard the sovereign independence of their country.”

Saudis are the main backers of regional terrorism, he said. They killed 214 women, including five pregnant ones, he added.

He estimates over 2,500 people killed so far, including hundreds of civilian men, women and children.

High crimes against peace are being committed daily – naked aggression without mercy by any standard.

Hezbollah Deputy Secretary Sheikh Naim Qassem warned of dire consequences, saying:

“Saudi Arabia has embroiled itself and will incur very serious losses that have started to show, and will increasingly reflect on its status, its internal situation and its role in the region,”

“What(‘s) happen(ing) in Yemen is a crime that cannot be ignored…Saudi Arabia is committing genocide in Yemen. We cannot be silent…”

He blamed Washington for involvement in what’s ongoing. Other Western countries support terror-bombing despite international calls to halt the conflict.

On Tuesday, US-pressured Security Council members ignored Russia’s call for embargoing weapons to all Yemeni combatants.

Moscow abstained (in lieu of vetoing) a resolution imposing an arms embargo on Houthis alone, as well as blacklisting Houthi leader Abdel-Malek al-Houthi and former Yemeni leader Ali Abdullah Saleh’s son.

Russian UN envoy Vitaly Churkin said

“(t)he (resolution) co-sponsors refused to include the requirements insisted upon by Russia addressed to all sides to the conflict to swiftly halt fire and to begin peace talks.”

“We insisted that the arms embargo needs to be comprehensive. It’s well known that Yemen is awash in weapons.”

“The adopted resolution should not be used for further escalation of the armed conflict.”

Washington intends it precisely for this purpose. On the one hand, blockading Houthi fighters.

On the other, supplying US weapons and munitions to Saudis and other anti-Houthi forces – facilitating their mass murder and destruction with impunity.

Obama’s new war is systematically raping Yemen – another genocidal high crime on his rap sheet.

On Tuesday, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad al-Hussein called conditions in Yemen “appallingly bad.”

Numbers of civilians killed and wounded are rapidly rising, he said.

“Most of the country is now suffering from the effects of armed conflict, with the situation particularly devastating in Sanaa, Aden, Dhale, (and) Sada…”

“The humanitarian situation is appallingly bad, compounded by wanton violence, lawlessness and serious human rights violations.”

Civilian neighborhoods, hospitals, schools, food storage facilities, public buildings, and other nonmilitary targets are being destroyed or badly damaged.

Zeid estimates at least 364 civilian deaths – including scores of children, another nearly 700 injured.

Official estimates way undercount. True figures are likely double Ziad’s estimates or higher.

Scores more deaths and injuries occur daily. Many bodies lie unrecovered under rubble. Others pile up in streets.

Obama-led neocons infesting Washington bear full responsibility for what’s ongoing.

Saudi-led forces are convenient US proxies. It bears repeating what other articles stressed.

Washington wants control over its former client state regained – strategically located along waterways transporting around four million barrels of oil daily.

Russia and Iran urge all sides to halt Yemen’s conflict – to resolve things diplomatically.

Washington demands escalated war. On Tuesday, Fars News said:

“Informed (Egyptian) military sources disclosed that at least 35,000 forces will make up the Saudi-led Arab ground force against Yemen.”

Air, ground and naval forces will be involved. No indication was given when escalated operations will begin.

Expect greater mass slaughter and destruction to follow. Expect appalling humanitarian conditions to worsen exponentially. Expect millions of Yemenis to suffer more horrifically than already.

Obama’s rape of Yemen continues in real time – slow-motion genocide revving up to flank speed.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at [email protected]. His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.” http://www.claritypress.com/LendmanIII.html Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network. It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs.

The information war can be quickly lost if one cannot get their assets onto the “battlefield.” For the US, UK or Europe, the constant din of their propaganda spread across the planet via their impressive and immense media networks has recently run into a few snags.

In nations like Russia, China or Iran, ruling governments and local industry have begun creating their own Internets, their own alternatives to US-controlled social media platforms and search engines, and in some cases, even their own hardware to run it all on. They have also taken a cue from the US and decided to put in “kill switches” and censorship measures to prevent information from abroad being piped into their nation and disseminated among their populations.

Or more accurate than saying “to prevent information from abroad,” one could say, “propaganda from abroad.”

For instance, the US State Department’s Voice of America network openly attempts to insert narratives favorable to US interests in targeted countries. So important does the US State Department see this mission, it has even attempted to construct independent communication networks by building their own towers and relay stations.

The US State Department has also spent millions of dollars on developing an “Internet in a suitcase,” or a means to create an Internet among activists even when the government of a nation targeted by the US for regime change shuts down the real Internet. Far from science fiction, the New York Times would even cover it in their article, “U.S. Underwrites Internet Detour Around Censors.”

But the problem the US State Department and the special interests that underwrite it, is that such solutions are easily overcome by other governments, and even non-state actors operating in the defense of their nation against US-backed sedition.

In order to crowdsource such a project, and have it spread prolifically across the planet, it must be made to appear altruistic, unattached to the political subversion it is actually created for, and put into the hands of unwitting, well-intentioned hackers for the purpose of building it, refining it and perpetually updating it to adapt and overcome whatever challenges it faces.

Enter the “Outernet” 

At first glance, the Outernet looks like an amazing social project by genuine people interested in empowering people with the vast amounts of free information available on the Internet. It is a satellite based broadcast, meaning it can reach anyone on Earth with a receiver. And while it talks about a “library in your pocket” and how having that information could change society, it also talks about the inability for sovereign governments to censor it. But who would want to censor a library?

At second glance, one will notice Syed Karim, the “founder” of Outernet. Karim was previously “director of innovation” at the Media Development Investment Fund (MDIF) which, surprise, funds the Outernet. And in turn, MDIF is run by former employees of Open Society, with Open Society funding MDIF.

In other words, at second glance, we see Open Society behind the Outernet through a series of carefully concealed fronts and an incestuous, tangled web of conflicts of interest. The initial nobility of the concept only further spirals into the abyss of government and corporate sponsored mass public persuasion and manipulation when one reads the archives of what has actually been broadcast already using Outernet.

Some of my favorites include “war surgery,” perfect for America’s terrorist mercenary army now operating in Yemen, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Libya. There is also FEMA, WHO’s Ebola site and the Albert Einstein Institution: Advancing Freedom Through Nonviolent Action. The Albert Einstein Institution, it should be remembered, played a central role in building up the US State Department’s various networks behind so-called “color revolutions” that have since hit Ukraine, the Middle East and even as far as Southeast and East Asia.

Content is broadcast based on “votes.” But as everyone should know, voting itself is subject to mass manipulation either of the voters’ own perception, or of the very mechanics of the vote itself. It is also very clear that content that is either well sponsored, or is put out by well organized groups, gets placed toward the top of the list including links to the Jehovah Witnesses.

Thus the “great equalizer” Karim claimed Outernet is, is in fact yet another channel of Western government and corporate propaganda, giving those who already monopolize vast territory amid the information war, yet another weapon to use against unsuspecting minds. The only real feature that makes Outernet different from cable television or the Internet, is the fact that it is broadcast from a satellite, and thus difficult to block in a targeted country, and receivable by whomever the US State Department takes pilfered tax dollars and buys receiver sets for.

Currently, however, there is also a lot of very useful information that is being broadcast, voted up by legitimate users of the system, using the system as it should in theory be used. The problem is, whenever special interests want, they can override “the vote,” and spread propaganda and sedition anywhere on Earth.

It should be noted that projects by Google and Facebook, both partners of the NSA and its information war against humanity, have similar plans to Outernet. They propose roving drones or airships that transmit the Internet all over the world like Outernet’s satellite arrangement. Again, it would be assets controlled by the US government and corporations, and potentially beyond the reach of sovereign nations targeted by broadcasts and the sedition they are there to support.

It is clear that at least one foot has been placed in space, regarding the ongoing and ever-evolving information war. Other nations are likely to follow suit, placing their own broadcasters above the West and beaming down information the West would otherwise like controlled or silenced altogether. For the hackers and enthusiasts clamoring over the idea of Outernet, they can’t be blamed. But they would be wise to look deeper into who is behind it, and think about alternatives they could create to truly realize this concept as it should be, and deny these interests yet another noble cause to hide behind, and ultimately ruin with their deceit.

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

Since Hillary Clinton announced without any surprise that she was running for president, it is worth taking a look at her record. As U.S. Secretary of State during the conflict between Russia and Georgia, Clinton claimed that the U.S. was committed to “Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity,” and that the “United States does not recognize spheres of influence.”  

In the meantime she was pushing for the military integration of countries from the former Soviet Union with NATO.  Rick Rozoff commented at the time: “Despite Clinton’s claim to the contrary, the United States most decidedly recognizes spheres of influence. In its own hemisphere – the entirety of it – in the South Caucasus and everywhere else on the planet.” 

Also in the double standard category, Washington is applying sanctions on Iran for its non existent nuclear weapons, even though the Pentagon has “officially” recognized that Israel is a nuclear power. More on these topics and other important issues below.

Washington Pushes the Reset Button with Moscow: Obama Administration Renews U.S. Claims On Former Soviet Space, Rick Rozoff, April 15, 2015

Pentagon Recognizes “Officially” that Israel is a Nuclear Power. Declassified Document, Prof Michel Chossudovsky, April 15, 2015

Recolonization of Africa: US Military Missions Reach Record Levels After Pentagon Inks Deal to Remain in Africa for Decades, Nick Turse, April 15, 2015

For three days, wearing a kaleidoscope of camouflage patterns, they huddled together on a military base in Florida. They came from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and U.S. Army Special Operations Command, from France and Norway, from Denmark, Germany, and…

Geopolitical Ramifications of US-Saudi Armed Interventionism in Yemen, Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu, April 15, 2015

The Houthi rebellion in Yemen that was already in existence more than five years ago had recently turned into a full-blown conflict that escalated into an international crisis in the first week of April of 2015 when Houthi rebels in…

Saudi Arabia’s Other War. At War Against Its Own People, Eric Draitser, April 15, 2015

The Saudi war on Yemen has understandably come to dominate the headlines since it began in late March 2015. The international scope of the conflict – nominally including the participation of nearly a dozen Gulf countries – coupled with the…

Advection: The Forgotten Weather Factor. Failures of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Dr. Tim Ball, April 15, 2015

The early Greeks had a better, more basic understanding of weather and climate than the people involved in the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Indeed, the word climate derives from the Greek word klima, meaning inclination, referring to the…

“Anti-Islam” versus “Islamophobia”. “Conspiracy” Behind the Word, Triggering Fear and Danger in the Unconscious Mind, Farah Ghasemi, April 15, 2015

I am writing to explain about a conspiracy behind applying the word of Islamophobia instead of using Anti-Islam for any emplacements and stands against Muslims in the world. The impact of concepts of a word in the mind of individual…

Changing the Way Money Works: The Steady State Economy and Sharing Law, Michael Welch and Kéllia Ramares, April 14, 2015

”It also just reduces barriers to a wide variety of things that we think create more sustainable local economies, like solar energy projects, community-supported agriculture (CSA) programs, worker-owned cooperatives. And so, if this law is passed in California, it means…

Originally published in July 2010

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton completed a four-day, five-nation tour of Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus by holding a press conference with Georgia’s volatile president Mikheil Saakashvili and delivering what in effect was a harsh ultimatum to Russia.

A stern and even provocative admonishment which clearly defines the narrow parameters within which the current U.S. administration has “pushed the reset button” with Moscow.

As Clinton’s own comments best illustrate, Russia is a partner of the United States when it assists in levying onerous sanctions against Iran, provides support for the nine-year American and NATO war in Afghanistan (and neighboring Pakistan), and timidly accedes to the Pentagon taking over military bases and stationing interceptor missile batteries along Russia’s Western flank from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea.

But should Russia object, however perfunctorily, however reticently, to Washington shearing the sheep too closely by recruiting former Soviet states and neighboring nations into its political, economic, energy and military blocs, then Clinton and the administration she is the foreign policy point person for will not hesitate to rebuff and even gratuitously insult its Russian “partner.”

Speaking in the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and reiterating the demand that Russian troops evacuate Abkhazia and South Ossetia, ceding both to the less than tender designs of American client Saakashvili, the U.S.’s top diplomat stated, “That is the rebuke (to Russia) that no one can dispute.” [1]

With Saakashvili, who graduated from New York’s Columbia University (Zbigniew Brzezinski’s haunts) on a State Department fellowship in the 1990s, to her side, on July 5 Clinton all but ordered Russia to remove its troops from Abkhazia and South Ossetia: “I came to Georgia with a clear message from President Obama and myself. The United States is steadfast in its commitment to Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The United States does not recognize spheres of influence. President Obama and I have also communicated this message directly to our Russian counterparts, most recently during our meetings in Washington on June 24th….As I told the [Georgian] president, President Obama and I and other American officials raise our concerns about the invasion and occupation with Russian counterparts on a consistent basis. And it is very important for us that we do so, because we are very frank in asserting our concerns and our ongoing support for Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.” [2]

Saakashvili seized on her words, crowing that Obama and Clinton were the first major American officials to use the word invasion in lieu of earlier terms that almost sound diplomatic in tone. The Georgian leader said: “President Obama was the first one to call a spade a spade, basically, to say it was an invasion. Because before, as you remember, the term ‘disproportionate use of force’ was used….President Obama was the first one to use the term.” [3]

That the U.S. invaded and still militarily occupies Afghanistan and Iraq was not mentioned by either official. That Georgia has supplied 2,900 troops for both wars wasn’t mentioned either.

At an earlier town hall meeting in Tbilisi Clinton stated her government was “appalled, and totally rejected” the Russian argument that it was protecting the lives of its citizens in the two South Caucasus republics. “We, the United States, was appalled, and totally rejected the invasion and occupation of Georgian territory. I was in the Senate at the time, and, along with my colleagues and the prior Administration, made that view very clear. We continue to speak out, as I have on this trip, against the continuing occupation.” [4]

She reached into her quiver for the familiar verbal projectiles appropriate to the occasion: Acting as guarantor for Georgia’s claims on Abkhazia and South Ossetia, which have never been part of post-Soviet Georgia, and branding Russia’s defense of the two republics as invasion and occupation. Clinton, an attorney like Saakashvili, completed her indictment of Russia with the repeated asseveration that it is not entitled to a sphere of influence on its borders and in territory that had been its own for centuries.

Despite Clinton’s claim to the contrary, the United States most decidedly recognizes spheres of influence. In its own hemisphere – the entirety of it – in the South Caucasus and everywhere else on the planet. Its own sphere of influence and those of its allies and client states. It is the policy presented in the Aesopian apologue from which the expression the lion’s share is derived: What’s mine is mine, what’s yours is ours and what’s ours is mine.

The Ultimate Sphere: The Earth

Two years after being catapulted from the Illinois state legislature (where few outside his Chicago district had heard of him) into the U.S. Senate, Barack Obama spoke at the Chicago Council on Global Affairs (until the year before the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations) and less than two years before becoming president elucidated his notion of spheres of influence (and political Manichaeism and messianism):

“I dismiss the cynics who say that this new century cannot be another when, in the words of President Franklin Roosevelt, we lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good. I still believe that America is the last, best hope of Earth.”

“We must maintain the strongest, best-equipped military in the world in order to defeat and deter conventional threats….I strongly support the expansion of our ground forces by adding 65,000 soldiers to the Army and 27,000 Marines….No President should ever hesitate to use force – unilaterally if necessary – to protect ourselves and our vital interests when we are attacked or imminently threatened.”

“The American moment has not passed. The American moment is here. And like generations before us, we will seize that moment, and begin the world anew.” [5]

One can only imagine the response of the White House, the State Department and the American mass media should a member of the upper house of parliament – on his way to being head of state, moreover – of Russia or any other nation make comparable claims.

As for what Clinton as senator from New York State and now as secretary of state branded Russia’s invasion of South Ossetia, the following is from a pro-government Georgian new source at the moment the real invasion, that ordered by Washington’s client regime in Tbilisi, commenced:

“A senior official from the Georgian Ministry of Defense said Georgia has ‘decided to restore constitutional order in the entire region’ of South Ossetia.” [6]

The “restoring of constitutional order” was attempted with heavy artillery barrages, armored assaults and onslaughts by jet fighters and American Huey helicopters. It followed seven days of Georgian bombardment of South Ossetia, which began the very day after a sixteen-day military exercise, Immediate Response 2008, was completed in the country. The exercise was conducted under NATO’s Partnership for Peace program and led by 1,000 U.S. Marines. Many of the American troops stayed behind with their equipment during the five-day Georgian-Russian war.

Three weeks earlier Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was in Georgia and vowed to “get Russian forces to withdraw from the country ASAP,” [7] a reference to a small handful of peacekeepers that had been in South Ossetia and Abkhazia since the early 1990s. If Mikheil Saakashvili is ever tried for war crimes, as he richly deserves to be, his defense could be that he wasn’t acting alone and in fact was only following orders, the Nuremberg precedent notwithstanding.

What Appalls Hillary Clinton And What Does Not

Much of the South Ossetian capital of Tskhinvali lay in smouldering ruins and many of its residents dead in the opening hours of the war launched to coincide with the opening ceremony of the Olympics in Beijing.

After Russia responded to the deadly blitzkrieg against South Ossetia, the majority of whose residents hold Russian passports, the Pentagon airlifted U.S. Marine-trained Georgian troops deployed to Iraq at the time back home for the fighting with Russia. “The U.S. military began flying 2,000 Georgian troops home from Iraq on Sunday [August 10], military officials said, after the Georgians recalled the soldiers following the outbreak of fighting with Russia in the breakaway province of South Ossetia.” [8]

Then Senator Hillary Clinton was not “appalled” by and found no reason to “totally reject” the above developments two years ago. In fact by publicly and fervently supporting them she was complicit in what could easily have escalated into a direct U.S.-Russia confrontation, a conflict between the world’s two major nuclear powers.

After the war ended and both to reward the Saakashvili regime for providing Washington a proxy war with Russia and to compensate it for not having received a NATO Membership Action Plan earlier in 2008 at the bloc’s summit in Romania, in January of 2009 Clinton’s predecessor Condoleezza Rice signed a specially crafted United States-Georgia Charter on Strategic Partnership. In December of 2008 NATO provided Georgia an unprecedented Annual National Program for the same reasons.

In the same month the pro-U.S. government of Viktor Yushchenko in Ukraine received a comparable pact, the United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership, and NATO also granted it an Annual National Program, the second as a substitute for the Alliance’s Membership Action Plan. South Ossetia and Russia had accused the Yushchenko administration of covertly providing weaponry and troops to Georgia for the war in August.

Hillary Clinton began her recently concluded tour in Ukraine on June 2 where she addressed the Strategic Partnership Commission, which was established last year as a formal mechanism to implement the United States-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.

In the interim Yushchenko was eliminated (in fact humiliated) in the first round of this year’s presidential election, only receiving 5 per cent of the vote in January.

The rejection of Yushchenko and his staunchly pro-Washington policies was also an apparent blow to U.S. designs for the country. But that didn’t deter Clinton, in her visit to Kiev, from in many ways speaking as though the change in leadership had not occurred. (Yushchenko’s spouse, Kathy, a former State Department and Reagan White House official, is from Chicago, whose suburb of Park Ridge gave the world Hillary Clinton.)

Clinton met, as is a formal requirement under the circumstances, with current president Viktor Yanukovich, but also with his opponent in this February’s runoff election, the pro-American Yulia Timoshenko.

Addressing the Strategic Partnership Commission, Clinton continued pushing the military integration of Ukraine under both bilateral and NATO arrangements, for the world as though Yushchenko had not lost the first and Timoshenko the second round of the presidential election. Her comments included:

“Ukraine has participated in nearly every NATO operation as a member of the Partnership for Peace, and we hope to deepen our security cooperation later this month with the U.S.-Ukraine SEA BREEZE exercise. Increasing our ongoing bilateral defense cooperation, particularly in Ukraine’s defense reform and military transformation is another area where we see great promise.

“And regarding NATO, let me just say very clearly, Ukraine is a sovereign and independent country that has the right to choose your own alliances. And NATO’s door remains open….” [9]

Community Of Democracies And Missiles

She departed Kiev/Kyiv for Krakow and on July 3 met with her Polish counterpart, Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski. Like Ukraine’s Viktor Yushchenko, Sikorski’s wife is an American, former member of the Washington Post editorial board and adjunct fellow at the American Enterprise Institute Anne Applebaum. Sikorski is a former British citizen, adviser to Rupert Murdoch, resident fellow of the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C. and Polish defense minister.

Recall that Secretary Clinton abhors and abjures “spheres of influence.”

While in Poland she and Sikorski signed an updated agreement on the stationing of U.S. interceptor missiles in the country. The two formalized a pact superseding one “signed two years ago between Sikorski and the then secretary of state Condoleezza Rice. According to new missile defence plans, mobile launchers incorporating SM-3 interceptors will be placed in Europe. Poland will probably station the system between 2015 and 2018.” [10] The day before Polish Defense Ministry spokesman Janusz Sejmej revealed that “Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said the Americans promised to bring the SM-3s here after 2015 but definitely before 2018.” [11]

The SM-3 (Standard Missile-3) is an interceptor missile with a substantially longer range than the Patriot Advanced Capability-3 missiles the U.S. moved into Poland this May, 35 kilometers from the border with Russia’s Kaliningrad district.

Another Polish Defense Ministry spokesman, Robert Rochowicz, was quoted late last month announcing that “The first contingent of American troops and Patriot missiles stationed in northern Poland have returned to base in Germany, with the second round scheduled to be in the country in late June or early July.”

The first deployment consisted of six Patriot missiles, forty military vehicles and one hundred American troops. Perhaps regarding the very day Clinton was in the country, the Defense Ministry spokesman added, “Further training of Polish troops stationed at the base in northern Poland will resume in the coming days when a second battery of missiles arrives.” [12]

Training foreign nationals in the United States to return to their homelands and assume posts as defense ministers, foreign ministers and presidents is not establishing a sphere of influence in the countries so affected, it’s certain Clinton would assert. Neither is basing American troops and missiles half a world away from the U.S. but only a few kilometers from Russian territory.

In Clinton’s words, “We’re…NATO allies, and the United States is deeply committed to Poland’s security and sovereignty. Today, by signing an amendment to the ballistic missile defense agreement, we are reinforcing this commitment. The amendment will allow us to move forward with Polish participation in hosting elements of the phased adaptive approach to missile defense in Europe. It will help protect the Polish people and all of Europe, our allies, and others from evolving threats like that posed by Iran.” [13] How placing intermediate-range American interceptor missiles near the Baltic Sea protects Poland from “Iranian threats” is a question it would be entertaining to hear Clinton explain.

She characterized the “phased adaptive approach” to deploying ever more sophisticated and longer-range U.S. missiles in Eastern Europe in much the fashion President Obama did last September 17; that is, as a “stronger, swifter, and smarter” alternative to the earlier George W. Bush version. “[T]his approach will be available on the time table set forth to defend portions of Europe years earlier than the original plan could have met. And this approach provides opportunities for allied participation. So instead of it being a unilateral U.S. commitment, it is now a commitment of the alliance. And it is very important for us that we get that kind of ownership and buy-in – which we are – from NATO. [14]

The division of labor in the foreign policy of the “world’s sole military superpower” [15] primarily leaves the troops and missiles, the training of Polish special forces and pilots, and the recruiting of 3,000 Polish troops to the killing fields of Afghanistan to Pentagon chief Robert Gates, though Clinton has had a hand in the first and the third matters.

Her formal role is as the purveyor of “soft power,” what in another culture might be called diplomacy but which in American practice is no less intrusive and coercive than the “hard power” complement.

From Madeleine Albright To Hillary Clinton, From Iron Curtain To Steel Vise

During her Polish visit Clinton was in Krakow for the tenth anniversary of the founding of the the Community of Democracies, “a joint venture between one of Radek’s [Radoslaw Sikorski’s] predecessors and one of mine: Minister Geremek and Madeleine Albright.” Though neither was present, one for fairly obvious reasons, she added: “Thank you, Madeleine, and thanks to the memory of Minister Geremek.”

Her comments were delivered under the rubric of “Civil Society: Supporting Democracy in the 21st Century,” and included blasts at the targets of the day:

“North Korea, a country that cannot even feed its own people, has banned all civil society. In Cuba and Belarus, as Radek said, civil society operates under extreme pressure. The Government of Iran has turned its back on a rich tradition of civil society, perpetrating human rights abuses against many activists and ordinary citizens who just wanted the right to be heard.

“The idea of pluralism is integral to our understanding of what it means to be a democracy….[The] iron curtain has fallen. But we must be wary of the steel vise in which many governments around the world are slowly crushing civil society and the human spirit.” [16]

China, Russia, Egypt, Zimbabwe, Congo, Ethiopia and Burma/Myanmar were also singled out for chastisement under the Steel Vise rubric. (So far has the U.S. progressed from the Iron Curtain motif/trope).

Three facts must be registered on this score.

During her secretary of state confirmation hearing in the Senate in January of 2005, Clinton’s immediate predecessor Condoleezza Rice updated the U.S. international enemies list with what she called “outposts of tyranny.” They were (and evidently still are) Belarus, Burma/Myanmar, Cuba, Iran, North Korea and Zimbabwe. At the time the BBC asserted that Rice’s “comments were reminiscent of Mr Bush’s ‘axis of evil’ speech in 2002, in which he identified Iraq, Iran and North Korea as threats to US security.” [17]

As seen above, Clinton in Krakow castigated all six of the “tyrannical outposts.”

Second, during a question and answer period two days later in Georgia in which Clinton had the opportunity to prove her mettle on matters of human rights, freedom of expression and so forth, she demonstrated the difference between how a faithful client state is treated as opposed to any nation, whatever its political system may be, that pursues a foreign policy not entirely subordinated to U.S. diktat.

On July 5 Georgian head of state Mikheil Saakashvili spared no pains proving which category he was in, telling Clinton: “Mrs Secretary of State, you can see shelves of works by Thomas Jefferson and books by authors of the US constitution in my study. I read them frequently.” [18]

It is not likely that Saakashvili, who received his law degree in the U.S., would make that claim under oath, though the truth has always been an elastic concept, a nebulous notion to the Columbia Law School graduate.

When Jailing Children, Rigging Elections And Repressing News Media Are Acceptable

During a meeting with Georgian women, a human rights lawyer asked Clinton:

“I want to tell you that there are more than 61 political prisoners in the country. And I want to ask you, when you had a meeting with President Saakashvili, ask him why does it happen that he has so many political prisoners in Georgia today, why the judiciary is not independent in Georgia, why the Georgian people are deprived of a free choice during the last elections in the country, why media is not free in Georgia, why don’t we have free electoral environment?”

She added, “after I became [an opponent of] Saakashvili, then it happened so that many of my family members are in prison. My brother is in prison, just because I am an opponent and (inaudible) Saakashvili. My child has also been a victim when he is at school (inaudible). There was a (inaudible) to imprison him (inaudible). And these (inaudible) opposition, and because I fight for supremacy of law, rule of law, and freedom and democracy.”

The “community of democracies” heroine from Foggy Bottom responded:

“Thank you very much. And as I said, we raised all of these concerns in meetings with officials. I will raise these and other concerns when I meet with the president. This is what I do. And I don’t always know everything that is going on in any society. But our ambassadors around the world keep us informed.

“And I want to be clear that the United States supports the Georgian people. We support Georgian democracy. And we are going to do everything we can to further those values. And many of the issues you mentioned are ones that we will raise. But the people of Georgia are raising them. So, indeed, that’s the best forum of all.” [19]

No need to be too tough on an ally who jails political opponents and harasses family members, even children, of an attorney who attempts to defend them.

After all, as Clinton added shortly after the above-quoted masterpiece of “diplomatic” equivocation and evasion, “Well, the United States supports Georgia’s aspirations for NATO leadership and for NATO membership, and we appreciate your and your government’s efforts to meet the requirements of NATO membership. And we are grateful, too, for what Georgia is doing in providing troops for Afghanistan, which is an opportunity for the Georgian military to work with the United States and other NATO member militaries to develop some of the assets that are needed to be able to apply successfully for NATO membership.” [20]

Chicago: Model For World Democracy And Political Pluralism

Third, Clinton represents an administration whose head, Barack Obama, his Senior Advisor David Axelrod, White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, and senior adviser and assistant Valerie Jarrett are products of the Chicago political system, the last big city political machine in the country.

Chicago has a population of almost three million, more than that of scores of nations including several NATO members. Every chief executive, the mayor in Chicago, has been a member of the same political party for the past 80 years. The City Council has 50 alderman and although the post is formally non-partisan – candidates don’t run in party primaries and aren’t required to identify their party affiliation – currently 49 of the 50 are active members of the Democratic Party. During the past several decades that number has often been 50.

For the past 55 years its mayor has been a leader for life and has been named Richard Daley. Richard J. Daley from 1955 until his death in 1976 and his son Richard M. Daley, a de facto hereditary autocrat, from 1989 to the present with only a slightly more than twelve-year hiatus.

Clinton may want to tread more cautiously in future when condemning other nations for their lack of – to use her own word – pluralism, when she serves a political cabal emanating from a one-party, dynastic, corruption-saturated system. Her criticisms of North Korea, in particular, raise parallels she might prefer be ignored.

(Chicagoan Rod Blagojevich, former governor of Illinois, is currently on trial for attempting to sell – auction off to the highest bidder – Obama’s former senate seat. He was handcuffed by federal agents at his Chicago home on December 9, 2008 and subsequently impeached and removed by the state legislature. When he first became governor in 2003, his congressional seat was ceded to Rahm Emanuel, who had never held elected office before. Emanuel, now White House Chief of Staff, has been subpoenaed by Blagojevich’s attorneys as he had held phone conversations with Blagojevich during the period the latter is accused of peddling the senate seat of an incoming American head of state. Valerie Jarrett, Tony Rezko and Ari Emanuel are other names that have surfaced as cast members in the murky drama.)

Baku: Chicago On The Caspian Sea, Launching Pad For Future Wars

After leaving Poland following a lecture on “what it means to be a democracy,” Clinton arrived in Azerbaijan, whose President Ilham Aliyev inherited his post from his late father Heydar, a tradition the native of the Greater Chicago area can well appreciate.

She met with her counterpart, Foreign Minister Elmar Mammadyarov, and the two lost no time in exchanging praises.

Clinton: “[T]he bonds between the United States and Azerbaijan are deep, important, and durable….Our soldiers have stood shoulder-to-shoulder in Kosovo, Iraq, and Afghanistan.”

Mammadyarov: “We believe that United States is…a global power, is interested in bringing and spreading stability and prosperity all around, in all corners of the world. And besides that, if you took a look inside of the – our bilateral ties, how it’s developed through the years of our – after restoration of independence for Azerbaijan, it’s an open secret that United States provide us a great support, particularly in so very important and vital project like building up of the oil pipeline (inaudible). It’s – we know clearly that U.S. Administration – both, by the way, Republicans and Democrats – was very strongly behind the project. And, at the end of the story, this is starting to be a success story for the region. I think we are probably one of the few that can say that, with assistance of the construction and after the inauguration of the pipeline, the real money and the real prosperity comes particularly to Azerbaijan, at the same time it is also supporting Georgia.” [21]

The U.S. ambassador may have had a few words with the foreign minister after such an effusive and detailed exposition. Some matters are best left among friends.

Clinton didn’t add Azerbaijan to the Iron Vise category. And for good reason, issues pertaining to human rights, civil society, transparency and political pluralism notwithstanding.

Her visit followed by less than three weeks that of Defense Secretary Robert Gates, whose trip in turn was the first by a Pentagon chief in more than five years. [22] Clinton is the first secretary of state to visit Azerbaijan since James Baker did in 1992, shortly after Azerbaijan became an independent nation.

As Associated Press reported beforehand, “Clinton’s stop in Azerbaijan will accelerate efforts by the Obama administration to strengthen relations. Defense Secretary Robert Gates in June became the highest-ranking administration official to visit Azerbaijan; he delivered a letter from President Barack Obama thanking President Ilham Aliyev for allowing the U.S. to move troops and supplies through his airspace en route to Afghanistan.

“Azerbaijan also is part of an overland supply chain that is a critical alternative to the primary land route to Afghanistan through Pakistan. About one-quarter of all war goods comes through the oil-rich Caspian Sea nation.” [23]

Since the tightening of sanctions against Iran by the United Nations Security Council, the U.S. and the European Union, stories have circulated on Internet news sites about Azerbaijan being used by Washington for military strikes against Iran.

An Azeri news source recently quoted Alexei Vlasov, General Director of the Social and Political Process Studies Information and Analytical Center at Moscow State University, as stating: “The upcoming Clinton visit to Baku is a way to get Azerbaijan to answer one question – how would it behave, if a strike on Iran would happen?” [24]

Another Russian political analyst, Andrei Areshev of the Strategic Culture Foundation, offered these insights last month:

“Matthew Bryza, whose provocative activities in August 2008 [during the Georgian-Russian war] are public knowledge, was appointed as ambassador to Baku; U.S. Defense Minister Robert Gates visited [Azerbaijan]; the upcoming visit of Hillary Clinton to the South Caucasus was announced….One can suppose a more global purpose – Iran. The Islamic Republic is being surrounded by a circle of American military bases….The opinion that ‘the U.S. will be trying to involve Azerbaijan in its policy aimed at the isolation and weakening of Iran’ has serious grounds. A new war in Karabakh will force Russia out of the South Caucasian region in case of any outcome, and it may become a logical continuation of the anti-Iranian policy of the U.S., as well as a preparatory stage for a large-scale armed conflict in the Middle East.” [25]

The allusion to Karabakh is in reference to a potential armed conflict between Azerbaijan, which claims it as its own, and Armenia, which would defend the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic in the event of an Azerbaijani attack.

In late June Azerbaijani President Aliyev inspected large-scale military exercises held on the 92nd anniversary of the nation’s armed forces, drills which included over 4,000 troops, 100 tanks, 77 armored vehicles, 125 artillery systems, 17 combat planes, 12 combat helicopters and four transport-combat helicopters. [26]

His speech at the event included the following threats:

“At any time we have to be able to liberate our homeland [Karabakh] from invaders. Along with political and diplomatic efforts, we must have a strong army, and this process is going well. Today the level of the Azerbaijani army is very high.”

“We have to increase our military strength. Today, the Azerbaijani army is ready to honorably fulfill all tasks assigned to it. Combat capability, professionalism, patriotism, a strengthened material-technical base, demonstrated by the state of attention and respect for the army – all these factors will enable us to liberate [our] homeland from invaders.” [27]

The president also boasted that over the last seven years “military expenditures in Azerbaijan increased by more than 13 times. Today in Azerbaijan military expenditures for 2010 amount to 2 billion 150 million dollars, which exceeds the entire state budget of Armenia.” [28]

That is the military that could be directed against not only Karabakh and Armenia but potentially Iran as well as part of a broader U.S. and allied attack.

Since 1991 Azerbaijan has been closely allied with its ethnic cousins in Turkey. But with the Turkish government increasing adopting a foreign policy approach Washington objects to – closer relations with Iran, strained ones with Israel – the U.S. is placing more emphasis on military cooperation with Azerbaijan (as well as Georgia) to achieve its geopolitical objectives in the region and throughout the Broader Middle East.

For example, “Roughly a quarter of all supplies bound for Afghanistan travel via Azerbaijan.

“And since 2001, about 100,000 military personnel have also traveled through ‘the Caucasus spur,’ a designation that includes Azerbaijan, on their way to deployment in Afghanistan, according to Pentagon data.

“Beyond possibly probing a larger transit role, American officials are looking into the possibility of using Azerbaijan as a supply source. The Azerbaijani Ministry of Defense Industry signed protocols in mid-May with three US weapons manufacturers for the production of mortars, machine guns, grenades and cartridges….Defense Industry Minister Yaver Jamalov said on May 14 that the US companies’ representatives will visit Azerbaijan soon to test the pilot products and possibly to sign contracts….” [29]

Battle For The Caucasus, Former Soviet Union As America’s New Frontier

After leaving Azerbaijan on July 4, Clinton went to Armenia. Since at least last October she has been attempting – with some degree of success – to not so much assist as supplant the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe’s Minsk Group/Process [30] in resolving the dispute over Karabakh.

Clinton’s mission is to intrude the U.S. – and NATO – further into the South Caucasus by directing negotiations between Azerbaijan, Armenia and Turkey. The end result is designed to limit Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Politically and economically. After all, Clinton is averse to “spheres of influence” as has been recorded.

The lingering conflicts that arose from the fragmentation of the Soviet Union – Karabakh, Abkhazia and South Ossetia in the South Caucasus and Transdniester to the northwest – are the pretexts for the U.S. and NATO to intervene in former Soviet space in the guise of mediators and arbiters.

The appeal to Armenia in this respect has resulted in that country sending its first troops to Afghanistan this year and may lead to its eventual departure from the Russian-led Collective Security Treaty Organization mutual defense bloc.

During the last leg of Clinton’s five-nation trip in Georgia, the country’s State Minister for Reintegration – that is, for forcibly seizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia – stated, “I would like to [recall] Clinton’s statement in Krakow. She noted that Washington would oppose the annexation of the occupied territories by Russia. It is important to sign a charter of strategic partnership between the United States and Georgia, [to determine] bilateral cooperation.” [31]

The resolution of the Georgia-Abkhazia and Georgia-South Ossetia conflicts, like the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict over Karabakh, may not be peaceful. Shortly before Clinton’s arrival in the Georgian capital, U.S. ambassador John Bass [32] said that “The United States will never quit supporting Georgia and protecting its territorial integrity” [33], citing similar pledges by Assistant Secretary of State for Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, Philip Gordon [34]:

“The President made it clear to President Medvedev last week and we’ve been consistent in noting that we respect Georgia’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and we call on Russia to abide by its commitments in the August, 2008 ceasefire, which…called upon the parties to move their military forces back to where they were before the conflict began. And that hasn’t been done. And we’ve been absolutely clear and consistent from the start that we believe that should happen….” [35]

Gordon also insisted that the U.S. had not and would not cease supplying the Saakashvili regime with arms, despite Russia calling on it to, as “Georgia is a sovereign state. It has the right to defend itself.” He added, “The United States appreciates the contribution that Georgia has made to the peacekeeping operation in Afghanistan, and will continue to cooperate with it in the military sphere.” [36]

The only sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union Washington objects to is Russia’s. Since 1991 the U.S. has seen that vast expanse of land as its own new private preserve, the American empire’s final frontier. Hillary Clinton’s extended Fourth of July weekend trip to Eastern Europe and the South Caucasus is a renewed initiative to that end.

Notes

1) Washington Post, July 5, 2010
2) Joint Press Availability With Georgian President Saakashvili
U.S. Department of State, July 5, 2010
3) Ibid
4) Remarks at a Town Hall With Georgian Women Leaders
U.S. Department of State, July 5, 2010
5) Remarks of Senator Barack Obama to the Chicago Council
on Global Affairs – April 23, 2007
http://www.thechicagocouncil.org/dynamic_page.php?id=64
6) Civil Georgia, August 7, 2008
7) Sunday Times, August 15, 2008
8) Associated Press, August 10, 2008
9) Remarks At the Closing of the Strategic Partnership Commission
U.S. Department of State, July 2, 2010
10) Polish Radio, July 3, 2010
11) Reuters/Warsaw Business Journal, July 2, 2010
12) Polish Radio, June 25, 2010
13) U.S.-Poland Bilateral Missile Defense Signing and Joint Press
Availability With Polish Foreign Minister Sikorski
U.S. Department of State, July 3, 2010
14) Ibid
15) Obama Doctrine: Eternal War For Imperfect Mankind
Stop NATO, December 10, 2009
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2009/12/11/obama-doctrine-eternal-war-for-imperfect-mankind
16) “Civil Society: Supporting Democracy in the 21st Century,” at the
Community of Democracies
U.S. Department of State, July 3, 2010
17) BBC News, January 19, 2005
18) Rustavi 2, July 5, 2010
The State Department website has: “Madam Secretary, you could have
seen on my bookshelves works by Thomas Jefferson and other founding
fathers, framers of the U.S. Constitution – I keep going back and
reading them.”
19) Remarks at a Town Hall With Georgian Women Leaders
U.S. Department of State, July 5, 2010
20) Ibid
21) Joint Press Availability With Azerbaijani Foreign Minister Mammadyarov
U.S. Department of State, July 4, 2010
22) Pentagon Chief In Azerbaijan: Afghan War Arc Stretches To Caspian And
Caucasus
Stop NATO, June 8, 2010
http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/1761
23) Associated Press, July 1, 2010
24) Vesti.Az, June 28, 2010
25) PanArmenian.net, June 23, 2010
26) Azeri Press Agency, June 24, 2010
27) Azeri Press Agency, June 25, 2010
28) Ibid
29) EurasiaNet, June 28, 2010
30) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OSCE_Minsk_Group
31) Trend News Agency, July 5, 2010
32) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/132835.htm
33) Rustavi 2, June 30, 2010
34) http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/biog/123518.htm
35) Rustavi 2, June 30, 2010
36) Trend News Agency, June 30, 2010

bama Administration

For more than half a century, Saudi Arabia has tried to use its vast oil wealth to build a lobby in the United States that could rival the imposing Israel Lobby. At top dollar, the Saudis hired law firms and PR specialists – and exploited personal connections to powerful families like the Bushes – but the Saudis never could build the kind of grassroots political organization that has given Israel and its American backers such extraordinary clout.

Indeed, Americans who did take Saudi money – including academic institutions and non-governmental organizations – were often pilloried as tools of the Arabs, with the Israel Lobby and its propagandists raising the political cost of accepting Saudi largesse so high that many people and institutions shied away.

But Saudi Arabia may have found another way to buy influence inside the United States – by giving money to Israel and currying favor with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Over the past several years, as both Saudi Arabia and Israel have identified Iran and the so-called “Shiite crescent” as their principal enemies, this once-unthinkable alliance has become possible – and the Saudis, as they are wont to do, may have thrown lots of money into the deal.

According to a source briefed by U.S. intelligence analysts, the Saudis have given Israel at least $16 billion over the past 2 ½ years, funneling the money through a third-country Arab state and into an Israeli “development” account in Europe to help finance infrastructure inside Israel. The source first called the account “a Netanyahu slush fund,” but later refined that characterization, saying the money was used for public projects such as building settlements in the West Bank.

President Obama and King Salman Arabia stand at attention during the U.S. national anthem as the First Lady stands in the background with other officials. (Official White House Photo by Pete Souza)

In other words, according to this information, the Saudis concluded that if you can’t beat the Israel Lobby, try buying it. And, if that is the case, the Saudis have found their behind-the-scenes collaboration with Israel extremely valuable. Netanyahu has played a key role in lining up the U.S. Congress to fight an international agreement to resolve a long-running dispute over Iran’s nuclear program.

Urged on by Netanyahu, the Republican majority and many Democrats have committed themselves to destroying the framework agreement hammered out on April 2 by Iran and six world powers, including the United States. The deal would impose strict inspections and other limits to guarantee that Iran’s nuclear program remains peaceful.

By crashing the deal, Israel and Saudi Arabia would open the door to more punitive sanctions on Iran and possibly clear the way for Israeli airstrikes, with Saudi Arabia granting over-flight permission to Israeli warplanes. The Saudi-Israeli tandem also might hope to pull in the U.S. military to inflict even more devastation on Iranian targets.

Neither the Israeli nor Saudi governments responded to requests for comment on Saudi payments into an Israeli account.

Congressional Acclaim

The reported Saudi-to-Israel money transfers put Netanyahu’s March 3 speech to a cheering joint session of the U.S. Congress in a different light, too. The Prime Minister’s bitter denunciations of Iran before hundreds of transfixed American lawmakers could be viewed as him demonstrating his value to the Saudi royals who could never dream of getting that kind of reaction themselves.

Indeed, as Congress now moves to sabotage the Iranian nuclear agreement, the Saudis could be finding that whatever money they invested in Israel is money well spent. The Saudis seem especially alarmed that the nuclear agreement would prompt the world community to lift sanctions on Iran, thus allowing its economy – and its influence – to grow.

To prevent that, the Saudis desperately want to draw the United States in on the Sunni side of the historic Sunni-Shiite conflict, with Netanyahu serving as a crucial middleman by defying President Barack Obama on the Iran deal and bringing the full force of the Israel Lobby to bear on Congress and on the opinion circles of Official Washington.

If Netanyahu and the Saudis succeed in collapsing the Iran nuclear framework agreement, they will have made great strides toward enlisting the United States as the primary military force on the Sunni side of the Sunni-Shiite sectarian divide, a dispute that dates back to the succession struggle after Prophet Muhammad’s death in 632.

This ancient feud has become a Saudi obsession over the past several decades, at least since Iran’s Shiite revolution overthrew the Shah of Iran in 1979 and brought to power the Islamic government of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini.

Upset with the ouster of a fellow monarch, the Shah, and fearing the spread of Khomeini’s ascetic form of Shiite Islamic governance, the Saudi royals summoned Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, a fellow Sunni, to Riyadh on Aug. 5, 1980, to encourage him to invade Iran.

According to top secret “Talking Points” that Secretary of State Alexander Haig prepared for a briefing of President Ronald Reagan after Haig’s April 1981 trip to the Middle East, Haig wrote that Saudi Prince Fahd said he told the Iraqis that an invasion of Iran would have U.S. support.

“It was … interesting to confirm that President [Jimmy] Carter gave the Iraqis a green light to launch the war against Iran through Fahd,” Haig wrote, in the document that I discovered in U.S. congressional files in 1994. Though Carter has denied encouraging the Iraqi invasion, which came as Iran was holding 52 U.S. diplomats hostage, Haig’s “Talking Points” suggest that the Saudis at least led Hussein to believe that the war had U.S. blessings.

Haig also noted that even after the overthrow of the Shah and the establishment of the Islamic state under Khomeini, Israel sought to maintain its clandestine relations with Iran by serving as an arms supplier. Haig reported that “Both [Egypt’s Anwar] Sadat and [Saudi Prince] Fahd [explained that] Iran is receiving military spares for U.S. equipment from Israel.”

Those Israeli weapons sales continued through the eight bloody years of the Iran-Iraq War with some estimates of the value reaching into the scores of billions of dollar. The Israelis even helped bring the Reagan administration into the deals in the mid-1980s with the so-called Iran-Contra arms shipments that involved secret off-the-books bank accounts in Europe and led to the worst scandal of Reagan’s presidency.

Rise of the Neocons

In the 1990s – with the Iran-Iraq war over and Iran’s treasury depleted – Israeli attitudes cooled toward its erstwhile trading partner. Meanwhile, American neocons – juiced by the demonstration of U.S. military supremacy against Iraq during the Persian Gulf War in 1991 and the collapse of the Soviet Union leaving the U.S. as “the sole superpower” – began advising Netanyahu on employing “regime change” to alter the Mideast dynamic.

During Netanyahu’s 1996 campaign, prominent neocons including Richard Perle and Douglas Feith outlined the plan in a policy paper entitled “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm.” The document argued that

“Israel can shape its strategic environment … by weakening, containing, and even rolling back Syria. This effort can focus on removing Saddam Hussein from power in Iraq – an important Israeli strategic objective in its own right — as a means of foiling Syria’s regional ambitions.” [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Mysterious Why of the Iraq War.”]

The overriding point of this neocon strategy was that by imposing “regime change” in Muslim nations that were deemed hostile to Israel, new friendly governments could be put in place, thus leaving Israel’s close-in enemies – Hamas in Palestine and Hezbollah in Lebanon – without outside sponsors. Starved of money, these troublesome enemies would be forced to accept Israel’s terms. “The Realm” would be secured.

The neocons first target was Sunni-ruled Iraq, as their Project for the New American Century made clear in 1998, but Syria and Iran were next on the hit list. Syria is governed by the Assads who are Alawites, an offshoot of Shiite Islam, and Iran is governed by Shiites. The neocon plan was to use U.S. military force or other means of subversion to take out all three regimes.

However, when the neocons got their chance to invade Iraq in 2003, they inadvertently tipped the Mideast balance in favor of the Shiites, since Iraq’s Shiite majority gained control under the U.S. military occupation. Plus, the disastrous U.S. war precluded the neocons from completing their agenda of enforced “regime change” in Syria and Iran.

With the new Iraqi government suddenly friendly with Iran’s Shiite leaders, Saudi Arabia became increasingly alarmed. Israel was also coming to view the so-called “Shiite crescent” from Tehran through Baghdad and Damascus to Beirut as a strategic threat.

Saudi Arabia, working with Turkey, took aim at the center of that crescent in 2011 by supporting a Sunni-led opposition to the government of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, a set of protests that quickly spiraled into bloody terrorist attacks and harsh military repression.

By 2013, it was clear that the principal fighters against Assad’s government were not the fictional “moderates” touted by the U.S. mainstream media but Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and a hyper-brutal Al-Qaeda spinoff that arose in resistance to the U.S. occupation of Iraq and evolved into the “Islamic State of Iraq and Syria” or simply the “Islamic State.”

Israeli Preference

To the surprise of some observers, Israel began voicing a preference for Al-Qaeda’s militants over the relatively secular Assad government, which was viewed as the protectors of Alawites, Shiites, Christians and other Syrian minorities terrified of the Saudi-backed Sunni extremists.

In September 2013, in one of the most explicit expressions of Israel’s views, Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren, then a close adviser to Netanyahu, told the Jerusalem Post that Israel favored the Sunni extremists over Assad.

“The greatest danger to Israel is by the strategic arc that extends from Tehran, to Damascus to Beirut. And we saw the Assad regime as the keystone in that arc,” Oren told the Jerusalem Post in an interview. “We always wanted Bashar Assad to go, we always preferred the bad guys who weren’t backed by Iran to the bad guys who were backed by Iran.” He said this was the case even if the “bad guys” were affiliated with Al-Qaeda.

Oren expanded on his position in June 2014 at an Aspen Institute conference. Then, speaking as a former ambassador, Oren said Israel would even prefer a victory by the Islamic State, which was massacring captured Iraqi soldiers and beheading Westerners, than the continuation of the Iranian-backed Assad in Syria.

“From Israel’s perspective, if there’s got to be an evil that’s got to prevail, let the Sunni evil prevail,” Oren said.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speaking to the United Nations General Assembly on Oct. 1, 2013. (UN Photo by Evan Schneider)

On Oct. 1, 2013, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu hinted at the new Israeli-Saudi relationship in his United Nations General Assembly speech, which was largely devoted to excoriating Iran over its nuclear program and threatening a unilateral Israeli military strike.

Amid the bellicosity, Netanyahu dropped in a largely missed clue about the evolving power relationships in the Middle East, saying:

“The dangers of a nuclear-armed Iran and the emergence of other threats in our region have led many of our Arab neighbors to recognize, finally recognize, that Israel is not their enemy. And this affords us the opportunity to overcome the historic animosities and build new relationships, new friendships, new hopes.”

The next day, Israel’s Channel 2 TV news reported that senior Israeli security officials had met with a high-level Gulf state counterpart in Jerusalem, believed to be Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the former Saudi ambassador to the United States who was then head of Saudi intelligence.

The reality of this unlikely alliance has even reached the mainstream U.S. media. For instance, Time magazine correspondent Joe Klein described the new coziness in an article in the Jan. 19, 2015 issue:

“On May 26, 2014, an unprecedented public conversation took place in Brussels. Two former high-ranking spymasters of Israel and Saudi Arabia – Amos Yadlin and Prince Turki al-Faisal – sat together for more than an hour, talking regional politics in a conversation moderated by the Washington Post’s David Ignatius.

“They disagreed on some things, like the exact nature of an Israel-Palestine peace settlement, and agreed on others: the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat, the need to support the new military government in Egypt, the demand for concerted international action in Syria. The most striking statement came from Prince Turki. He said the Arabs had ‘crossed the Rubicon’ and ‘don’t want to fight Israel anymore.’”

While the Saudis may still pay lip service to the plight of the Palestinians, that issue is no longer much of a priority. Indeed, the Saudi royals may view the Palestinians, many of whom are secular having seen first-hand the evils of Islamic extremism, as something of a regional threat to the Saudi monarchical governance which is based on an ultra-fundamentalist form of Islam known as Wahhabism. That some of the reported $16 billion Saudi payment to Israel was going to finance Israeli settlements on the Palestinian West Bank would further reflect this Saudi indifference.

In 2013, again collaborating with Israel, Saudi Arabia helped deal a devastating blow to the 1.8 million Palestinians locked in the Gaza Strip. They had received some relief when Egypt elected the Muslim Brotherhood government of President Mohamed Morsi, who relaxed the embargo on passage between Egyptian territory and Gaza.

But the Saudis saw the populist Muslim Brotherhood as a threat to monarchical rule and Israel was angry over Morsi’s apparent sympathy for Hamas, the party ruling Gaza. So, Saudi Arabia and Israel supported a military coup which removed Morsi from power. The two countries then showed off their complementary powers: the Saudis helped the government of General Abdel Fattah el-Sisi with money and oil, while Israel had its lobby work the corridors of power in Washington to prevent retaliation for the ouster of an elected government.

Back to Syria

Israel’s growing collaboration with Saudi Arabia and the two governments’ mutual hatred of the “Shiite crescent” have extended into a tacit alliance with Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front in Syria, with which the Israelis have what amounts to a non-aggression pact, even caring for Nusra fighters in Israeli hospitals and mounting lethal air attacks against Lebanese and Iranian advisers to the Syrian military.

Israel’s preference for the Saudi-backed jihadists over Iranian allies in Syria was a little-noticed subtext of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu’s address to Congress on March 3, urging the U.S. government to shift its focus from fighting Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State to fighting Iran. He trivialized the danger from the Islamic State with its “butcher knives, captured weapons and YouTube” compared to Iran, which he accused of “gobbling up the nations” of the Middle East.

To the applause of Congress, he claimed “Iran now dominates four Arab capitals, Baghdad, Damascus, Beirut and Sanaa. And if Iran’s aggression is left unchecked, more will surely follow.” His choice of capitals was peculiar, however, because Iran took none of those capitals by force and, indeed, was simply supporting the embattled government of Syria and was allied with Shiite elements of the government of Lebanon.

As for Iraq, Iran’s allies were installed not by Iran but by President George W. Bush via the U.S. invasion. And, in Yemen, a long-festering sectarian conflict has led to the capture of Sanaa by Houthi rebels who are Zaydi Shiites, an offshoot of Shia Islam that is actually closer to some Sunni sects.

The Houthis deny that they are agents of Iran, and Western intelligence services believe that Iranian support has consisted mostly of some funding. Former CIA official Graham E. Fuller has called the notion “that the Houthis represent the cutting edge of Iranian imperialism in Arabia – as trumpeted by the Saudis” a “myth.” He added:

“The Zaydi Shia, including the Houthis, over history have never had a lot to do with Iran. But as internal struggles within Yemen have gone on, some of the Houthis have more recently been happy to take Iranian coin and perhaps some weapons — just as so many others, both Sunni and Shia, are on the Saudi payroll. The Houthis furthermore hate al-Qaeda and hate the Islamic State.”

Indeed, the Saudi airstrikes, which have reportedly killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians, have aided the Yemen-based “Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula” by limiting Houthi attacks on the terrorists and enabling AQAP to overrun a prison and free scores of its militants.

But President Obama, recognizing the joint power of the Saudis and Israelis to destroy the Iran nuclear deal, authorized support for the Saudi airstrikes from U.S. intelligence while rushing military resupplies to the Saudis. In effect, Obama is trading U.S. support for Saudi aggression in a neighboring country for what he hopes might be some political space for the Iran-nuclear agreement.

New Terrorist Gains

Saudi Arabia and its Persian Gulf allies, along with Turkey, are also ramping up support in Syria for Al-Qaeda’s Nusra Front and the Islamic State. Flush with jihadist reinforcements, the two terrorist organizations have seized new territory in recent weeks, including the Islamic State creating a humanitarian crisis by attacking a Palestinian refugee camp south of Damascus.

All of these Saudi actions have drawn minimal criticism from mainstream U.S. media and political circles, in part, because the Saudis now have the protection of the Israel Lobby, which has kept American attention on the supposed threat from Iran, including allegedly controversial statements from Iranian leaders about their insistence that economic sanctions be lifted once the nuclear agreement is signed and/or implemented.

Neocon warmongers have even been granted space in major U.S. newspapers, including the Washington Post and the New York Times, to openly advocate for the bombing of Iran despite the risk that destroying Iran’s nuclear reactors could inflict both human and environmental devastation. That might serve the Saudi-Israeli interests by forcing Iran to focus exclusively on a domestic crisis but it would amount to a major war crime. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “NYT Publishes Call to Bomb Iran.”]

The strategic benefit for Israel and Saudi Arabia would be that with Iran unable to assist the Iraqis and the Syrians in their desperate struggles against Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State, the Sunni jihadists might well be hoisting the black flag of their dystopian philosophy over Damascus, if not Baghdad. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

Beyond the slaughter of innocents that would follow – and the likelihood of new terrorist attacks on the West – such a victory would almost surely force whoever is the U.S. president to recommit hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops to remove Al-Qaeda or the Islamic State from power. It would be a war of vast expense in money and blood with little prospect of American success.

If Saudi Arabia’s petrodollars helped secure Israel’s assistance in creating such a potential hell on earth, the Saudi royals might consider it the best money they ever spent – and the resulting orgy of military spending by the U.S. government might benefit some well-connected neocons, too – but the many victims of this madness would certainly feel otherwise as might the vast majority of the American people.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com). You also can order Robert Parry’s trilogy on the Bush Family and its connections to various right-wing operatives for only $34. The trilogy includes America’s Stolen Narrative. For details on this offer, click here.

The sudden cancellation of an academic conference on Israel, as well as the lack of outcry from ‘mainstream’ media, demonstrates once again the skewed limits to ‘free speech’ in ‘advanced’ Western democracies. ‘Je suis Charlie’ already feels like ancient history. It certainly does not apply when it comes to scrutiny of the state of Israel.

The conference, titled ‘International Law and the State of Israel: Legitimacy, Responsibility and Exceptionalism’, was to be held at the University of Southampton from 15-17 April 2015. Planned speakers included Richard Falk, the former UN special rapporteur on human rights in the Palestinian territories, Gabi Piterberg, a historian at the University of California at Los Angeles, Israeli academic Ilan Pappé and Palestinian historian Nur Musalha.

The meeting was billed as the ‘first of its kind and constitutes a ground-breaking historical event on the road towards justice and enduring peace in historic Palestine.’ The approach would be scholarly with ‘multidisciplinary debate reflecting diverse perspectives, and thus genuine disagreements’. Rather than being a coven of political extremists and violent hotheads, this was to be a serious gathering of respected and authoritative academics with in-depth knowledge of Israel and Palestine.

But intense pressure from the Israel lobby about the airing of ‘anti-Semitic views’ has torpedoed the University of Southampton’s earlier stated commitment to uphold ‘freedom of speech within the law’. In a classic piece of bureaucratic hand-wringing, the university issued a corporate-style statement on 1 April that leaned heavily on the pretext of ‘health and safety’ to kill off the conference. This happened a mere two weeks before the conference, planned months earlier in consultation with the university, was due to begin.

The Board of Deputies of British Jews was among those Zionist groups that had been urging the university to cancel the event. Its president, Vivian Wineman, said:

‘It is formulated in extremist terms, has attracted toxic speakers and is likely to result in an increase in anti-Semitism and tension on campus.’

The Telegraph reported that ‘at least two major patrons of the university were considering withdrawing their financial support. One is a charitable foundation, the other a wealthy family.’

There was also fierce criticism from several politicians at Westminster. Mark Hoban, the Conservative MP for Fareham, described the conference as a ‘provocative, hard-line, one-sided forum that would question and delegitimize the existence of a democratic state.’ Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Southampton North, said the university risked bringing itself into disrepute by hosting what she described as ‘an apparently one-sided event’.

A senior government minister even got involved. Eric Pickles, Secretary of State for Communities,derided the conference as a ‘one-sided diatribe’. He went further:

‘There is a careful line between legitimate academic debate on international law and the actions of governments, and the far-left’s bashing of Israel which often descends into naked anti-Semitism.’

This was outrageous high-level political interference in free speech. When the university confirmed that it was cancelling the conference, the decision was predictably welcomed by the Israeli embassy in London:

‘This was a clear instance of an extremist political campaign masquerading as an academic exercise, and it is only right to recognise that respecting free speech does not mean tolerating intolerance.’

Michael Gove, the Government Chief Whip and former Secretary of State for Education, could barely contain his glee:

‘It was not a conference, it was an anti-Israel hate-fest.’

The ‘Health And Safety’ Pretext

On April 2, the conference organisers responded to the university’s sudden reversal of its earlier commitment to hold the conference. The organisers, who include Israeli-born law professor Oren Ben-Dor, said that they were ‘shocked and dismayed’ at the university’s about-turn. This was especially disappointing given that the police had given assurances that they would be ‘able to manage the demonstrations’.

The organisers noted that ‘general sensitivity following recent terrorist events in Europe’ had been ‘misused to inflate the risks’ of the conference going ahead. More widely, warned the organisers, the implications for academic freedom would be dire:

‘The stakes for academic public space, for academic freedom and for freedom of speech are too high. The message it sends to other academic institutions and to students all over the world is grave and depressing. It will potentially make campuses obedient and depoliticised, distant and docile corporate spaces.’

An inadvertent clue to the reality underlying the university’s rhetoric on ‘security’ and ‘health and safety’ could be found in a report last month in the Jewish Chronicle. Board of Deputies of British Jews president Wineman told the Chronicle that:

‘When we had a meeting with the university vice-chancellor they said they would review it [the conference] on health and safety terms.

‘The two lines of attack [sic] possible were legal and health and safety and they were leaning on that one.’

The ‘line of attack’ about ‘health and safety’, then, appears to be cover for the university caving in to pro-Israel pressure. This fits a wider pattern of the pro-Israel lobby’s fear of increasing global condemnation of Israeli crimes against the Palestinian people and international law. As Ben White, an authoritative freelance journalist on the Middle East, reported last month, the British ambassador to Israel, Matthew Gould, recently met with UK university heads to discuss Israel and the limits of ‘freedom of speech’. Also present were representatives of at least three pro-Israel organisations: the Board of Deputies of British Jews, the Jewish Leadership Council, and the Union of Jewish Students.

Southampton University’s refusal at the time to buckle under pro-Israel lobby pressure was cited in the meeting. White noted:

‘This stubborn commitment to freedom of speech has clearly angered Britain’s Israel lobby, but the bigger question here is why a UK ambassador was involved in the first place.’

When pressed to explain this, a Foreign Office spokesperson told White that ‘part of Matthew Gould’s role involves outreach to the British Jewish Community.’ White added:

‘The spokesperson did not elaborate on whether lobbying British universities was part of the ambassador’s remit.’

The conference organisers have now lodged an injunction at the High Court in London in an attempt to prevent the university from curtailing their right to freedom of speech. The legal argument is that in unfairly withdrawing permission for the conference, the university has capitulated to the pro-Israel lobby. ‘This is blatant censorship under the guise of a specter of campus being overrun by violent hordes, which is patently groundless,’ said Mark McDonald, a public interest lawyer from the chambers of Michael Mansfield QC.

Many academics have protested the university’s decision. David Gurnham, the Director of Research at the university’s School of Law, wrote in an email to vice-chancellor Professor Don Nutbeam:

‘It seems to me outrageous that you seem to have allowed the bullying and threats of the Israeli lobby to prevent the perfectly lawful and legitimate exercise of free speech and academic debate. I understand that the police had reported that they would be perfectly able and willing to deal with any security concerns at the event: this ought to be good enough.

‘Cancelling the event in this way makes the University look weak, spineless and reactionary. I am proud to be a member of academic staff here, but your decision to withdraw support for a conference in this manner makes me, and I’m sure very many others like me, seriously question the University’s commitment to open and free debate.’

(More letters of protest from academics can be read here.)

All this comes at a time when the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement is gathering strength. A recent debate at the Cambridge Union Society even passed the motion that ‘This House Believes Israel Is A Rogue State’.

At the time of writing, a petition calling for the University of Southampton to uphold free speech has attracted almost 10,000 signatures in just one week (it took a Zionist petition in favour of cancelling the conference one month to reach around 6,500).

An earlier petition in support of the conference was signed by round 900 academics around the world, including Noam Chomsky.

All of this must make the pro-Israel lobby deeply uncomfortable. As Ben White observed:

‘Whatever the final outcome, this story is significant for the way in which it illustrates not so much the pro-Israel lobby’s power, but its weaknesses.’

No More ‘Je Suis Charlie’

Media coverage of the cancellation of the conference has been almost non-existent. We found justthree news articles in the national press: one in the Guardian, one in the Telegraph and one in the Express.

But what is even more glaring than the lack of news coverage is the editorial silence on the pro-Israel lobby’s bullying and intimidation. What happened to all those grand declarations from editorial offices, under the banner ‘Je suis Charlie’, to uphold freedom of speech and the ‘right to offend’? The journalists and cartoonists who were murdered at the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris were, we were told, ‘martyrs for freedom of speech’. The atrocity was ‘a war declared on civilisation’, ‘an attack on the free world’, ‘an assault on journalists and free speech’. A Guardian editorial proclaimed:

‘If there is a right to free speech, implicit within it there has to be a right to offend. Any society that’s serious about liberty has to defend the free flow of ugly words, even ugly sentiments.’

Where is the outpouring of dismay now from liberal commentators across the British media at the actions of the pro-Israel lobby? Where are the comment pieces decrying this latest attack on free speech? When it comes to Israel, the ‘right to offend’ is quietly dropped.

Moreover, why should it be ‘toxic’ to examine critically the founding ideology of Israel, a state that was built on one of the largest forced migrations in modern history? As Israeli historian Ilan Pappé documented in his acclaimed 2006 book, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, the establishment of Israel in 1948 was ‘Nakba’ – a catastrophe – for the Palestinians. More than half of Palestine’s native population, close to 800,000 people, were uprooted, and over 500 Palestinian villages destroyed.

Nakba largely remains a taboo subject for ‘mainstream’ coverage of the Middle East. Indeed, notes Pappé, the ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians by Israel is a ‘crime [that] has been erased almost totally from the global public memory’. This crime, he continues:

‘has been systematically denied, and is still today not recognised as an historical fact, let alone acknowledged as a crime that needs to be confronted politically as well as morally.’ (Ibid., p. xiii)

Sadly, the fear of offending the powerful pro-Israel lobby remains a major factor in British politics, cultural debate and media reporting of Israel and Palestine (see Peter Oborne’s Dispatchesdocumentary for Channel 4 in 2009). As one senior BBC television news producer revealed to Professor Greg Philo of the Glasgow Media Group:

‘We wait in fear for the telephone call from the Israelis.’

‘The Specious Slur Of Anti-Semitism’

In a moving piece of personal testimony, Professor Suleiman Sharkh of the University of Southampton, one of the conference organisers, published an open letter. He said:

‘I grew up in Gaza, but my family is originally from a town called Majdal Asqlan (now called Ashkelon by Israel). In November 1948, six months after the establishment of the State of Israel and after the wars had ended, the town was bombed and many people were killed. Those who survived were herded towards Gaza, crawling on their hands and knees in the thorny field. Since then we have lived in squalid refugee camps. I walked around in the sand soiled by the open sewers with my bare feet. I got my first shoes when I went to school at the age of six.’

Professor Sharkh then explained the relevance and importance of the conference to Palestinian people:

‘International Law was responsible for our misery. It was used to legalise the theft of our homes and it continues to be used to legalise the ongoing oppression of my people by the State of Israel. The questions asked by the conference are therefore questions that I have been asking all my life. They are important questions that need to be answered.’

The conference is now likely to go ahead at an alternative venue to be publicised soon.

The journalist and filmmaker John Pilger, whose powerful documentary Palestine Is Still The Issue is a must-see, told Media Lens (email, April 3, 2015):

‘Israel is a gangster state. It holds the world record in the breach and defiance of international law. It regularly massacres and terrorises the Palestinian civilian population of Gaza, which even David Cameron has described as an “open prison”. Its courts uphold racism as state policy. It has re-elected a congenital liar as its prime minister. Its historians have long revealed the criminality of its beginning — the theft of land, the murder and brutalising of the indigenous population.’

He continued:

‘What Israel has, however, are powerful collaborators, who, even at the lowest rung, are able to intimidate institutional bureaucrats and others with the specious slur of anti-Semitism. In Britain, the Jewish Chronicle and the Board of Deputies operate this barely disguised smear as efficiently as a metronome. They, and others, have now helped silence a much needed conference on Israel at the University of Southampton. But they should not be wholly blamed. The collusion of the university authorities as they run up the false flag of “security concerns” is to blame; and the memory of every murdered child in Gaza is now their spectre. And along with the so-called “lobby”, they cannot win.’

Pilger concluded:

‘The rest of humanity has long recognised the truth about Israel, as every international survey shows. With exquisite timing, student unions across the UK are joining the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement that is sweeping country after country, including the United States. The craven decision of Southampton will speed its progress; nothing is surer.’

DC

Suggested Action

Please sign this petition in support of the conference.

Academics can also sign this statement of support.

A Fulton County superior court judge on Tuesday handed down severe prison sentences to 10 former school administrators, principals and elementary school teachers for their role in a citywide test cheating scandal at the Atlanta Public Schools.

The educators and one other teacher were convicted April 1 for inflating test scores in 2009. The case has highlighted the relentless promotion of standardized tests by the Obama administration and both big business parties to justify the attacks on the jobs, living standards and work conditions of public school teachers along with the further diversion of resources to for-profit charter operations.

The case was brought by county prosecutors in what the Atlanta Journal-Constitution—which backs the vendetta—called a “novel use” of state racketeering laws normally reserved for organized crime activities such as such as prostitution, counterfeiting or illegal drugs and weapons trafficking.

To the gasps of courtroom onlookers on Tuesday morning, Judge Jerry Baxter announced maximum 20-year sentences for three former school administrators—Tamara Cotman, 44; Sharon Davis-Williams, 59; and Michael Pitts, 59—that include seven years in prison, 13 years on probation, fines of $25,000 each and 2,000 hours of community service.

Dobbs Elementary School teacher Angela Williams, 49, and assistant principal of Deerwood Academy Tabeeka Jordan, 43, were sentenced to five years, including two years in prison, three years probation, 1,500 hours of community service and a $5,000 fine.

Former principal of Dobbs Elementary School Dana Evans, 48; testing coordinator at Benteen Elementary Theresia Copeland, 58; and former Dunbar Elementary teacher Diane Buckner-Webb, 53, were sentenced to five years with one in prison, the balance on probation, 1,000 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine.

Another Dunbar Elementary School teacher, 31-year-old Shani Robinson, only escaped sentencing because she gave birth over the weekend. She faces sentencing in August with the threat of being separated from her newborn child hanging over her head.

An investigation by the Georgia governor’s office acknowledged that the Atlanta educators were subjected to a “culture of fear, intimidation and retaliation” in the school district, overseen by then-Superintendent Beverly Hall. Teachers faced humiliation, demotion and even dismissal if they did not meet student achievement targets measured by tests.

Hall was awarded the 2009 National Superintendent of the Year by the American Association of School Administrators (AASA) for “transforming the 102-school system through a comprehensive reform agenda.” She was convicted in the testing scandal but died of breast cancer last month.

Judge Baxter was visibly enraged by the public sympathy for the educators whose families and friends packed the courtroom Monday to demand leniency. When spectators reacted with horror to his sentencing, the judge angrily blurted,

“Everyone starts crying about these educators. There were thousands of children harmed in this thing. This is not a victimless crime…When you are passed and you can’t read, you are passed and passed on, there are victims that are in the jail that I have sentenced, kids.”

The argument that unaltered test scores would have led to immediate intervention to help at-risk children with expanded services is an utter fraud. Like public school districts across the country, the Atlanta schools have slashed thousands of jobs, shut dozens of schools and cut essential programs. In 2012 alone, APS wiped out at least 350 teaching and support staff positions.

The testing regime that has been at the center of Atlanta’s “school reform”—financed through the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation—has one purpose only: to scapegoat teachers for educational problems caused by decades of budget cuts and an increasing proportion of students suffering from poverty, and to justify the further privatization of public education.

Last week, attorney Sanford Wallack who represented now retired special education teacher Dessa Curb—the only defendant acquitted of all charges in the case—likened the years-long probe by the Georgia Bureau of Investigation to the Salem witch-hunt trials.

In an email statement to the World Socialist Web Site after the sentencing, Wallack said,

“I am greatly disappointed that both the Fulton County District Attorney’s Office and the Court felt that any period of incarceration was an appropriate sentence for any of the defendants in this case.

“Based on my experience as a criminal defense attorney for over 20 years and in my opinion, the facts and circumstances of these individuals and in this case—the same factors that courts routinely consider in determining sentences in criminal cases throughout the State of Georgia on a regular basis—do not warrant any term of incarceration, but rather warrant sentences of probation at worst. I am thankful, however, that the Court ultimately relented in granting appeal bonds and look forward to the appellate courts’ review of the case.”

Well aware that the case is a damning condemnation of the Obama administration’s anti-education policies, sections of the political establishment cautioned Judge Baxter to avoid prison sentences. This includes former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young, who said 20 years of emphasis on testing had warped public schools’ mission and set a “trap” for the educators.

In an opinion piece in the April 12 Atlanta Journal-Constitution, two of the judge’s predecessors on the Fulton County Superior Court bench, wrote,

“Judge Baxter should exercise his tremendous discretion in imposing sentences which reflect that any conspiracy involves our entire educational system in the high-stakes testing arena. These educators did not create the system in which schools have been corrupted across this nation by making standardized tests the chief measure of school, teacher and student performance. Certainly, incarceration is neither mandated nor appropriate in this case.”

Nevertheless, Baxter pressed ahead, saying there was “a faction of the community that wants me to throw the book at them” and “just max ‘em out.” After prosecutors sought to blackmail the educators with promises of lighter sentences if they accepted guilt and waived the right to appeal their convictions, Baxter reacted angrily, saying, “I’ve got a fair sentence in mind and it involves going to jail. Everybody.”

However, only two of the ten bowed to the pressure. A defiant Dana Evans told the judge Monday,

“I have been arrested, shackled, spent the last two weeks in jail. I have been punished. I am broke now. I have no retirement. All of it is gone… I know you want to hear an admission of guilt, but I can’t say that because it is not the truth.”

With virtually uncontrollable rage Tuesday, Judge Baxter made it clear he was handing down the savage sentences—even more egregious than those demanded by prosecutors—as retribution against those who had the audacity to uphold their rights to appeal their convictions.

“Yesterday, I said to everyone, this is the time to search your soul and we could end this and the punishment wouldn’t be so severe,” Baxter bellowed in the courtroom. “I was going to give everyone one more chance, but no one took it. All I want for many of these people is to just take some responsibility, but they refuse. They refuse.”

After meting out the brutal punishments to the first three educators, the judge said, “I just wanted them to get a taste of it,” referring to the others awaiting his sentencing. “Apparently, that didn’t quite move them.”

This is class justice. While police can get away with murder and the real racketeers who are conspiring to destroy public education or who wrecked the economy and waged wars based on lies are never held to account, the full weight of the capitalist courts is levied against the working class. Particular vindictiveness is reserved for any section of workers who dare defy the state and uphold their democratic rights.

The two educators who accepted the deals were hit with stiff punishments in any case. Testing coordinator Donald Bullock was ordered to spend six months of weekends in county jail, plus five years of probation, fines and community service. Former teacher Pamela Cleveland of Dunbar Elementary was sentenced to five years, including one year of home confinement from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m., 1,000 hours of community service and a $1,000 fine.

Far from defending the persecuted educators, American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten joined the witch-hunt. The AFT, which also received millions from the Gates Foundation, is an active partner in Obama’s corporate-backed “school reform.” The AFT boasted as early as 2005 that the local union reported allegations of cheating to then superintendent Beverly Hall.

The UN Security Council voted on Tuesday to impose an arms embargo on leading members of the Houthi militia as well as Ahmed Ali Abdullah Saleh, the son of former longtime dictator Ali Abdullah Saleh. The resolution was passed with 14 votes in favor and Russia abstaining.

The text of the embargo was drafted by Jordan, a nonpermanent member of the Security Council. The Jordanian monarchy is actively participating in the anti-Houthi air assault in Yemen being spearheaded by Saudi Arabia.

The Salehs have given support to the Houthi militia that seized control of Yemen’s capital in September, ousting President Abd Rabbuh Mansour Hadi and placing him under house arrest. Hadi fled for the southern port city of Aden in February before leaving the country in March for Saudi Arabia in the face of a Houthi-led assault on his compound.

While the Security Council resolution calls for the Houthis to “immediately and unconditionally end violence,” it says nothing about the airstrikes being carried out on a daily basis by a coalition of Arab Gulf States headed by Saudi Arabia.

Since March 26 Saudi coalition air forces have launched more than 1,200 airstrikes against targets throughout Yemen, with some strikes killing scores of civilians. A bomb dropped on the Al Mazraq refugee camp in northern Yemen on March 30 killed at least 30 civilians. An airstrike on a dairy factory in the port city of Hodeida on April 1 killed at least 37 workers.

The Saudi monarchy, with US backing, has launched a widespread air assault against Houthi-controlled military targets as well as major urban areas. Street fighting in Aden between Houthi forces and armed forces opposed to them has left hundreds dead and hundreds more wounded, littering the streets with corpses.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, released a statement Tuesday warning about the destruction of infrastructure and the high rate of civilian casualties in the three-week-old campaign. “Every hour we are receiving and documenting disturbing and distressing reports of the toll that this conflict is taking on civilian lives and infrastructure,” he said. “Such a heavy civilian death toll ought to be a clear indication to all parties to this conflict that there may be serious problems in the conduct of hostilities.”

Hussein noted that coalition airstrikes have hit residential areas and homes throughout the country, including in the provinces of Taiz, Amran, Ibb, Al-Jawf and Saada. An airstrike that hit a residential area in Taiz on Sunday killed ten civilians and injured seven others.

Schools and hospitals throughout the country have been damaged or destroyed by airstrikes. Eight hospitals in the provinces of Aden, Dhale, Sanaa, and Saada have been hit by coalition bombs.

Speaking to Al Jazeera on Monday, Ivan Simonovic, UN Deputy Secretary General for Human Rights, warned about the growing humanitarian crisis in Yemen, saying that a majority of those killed so far have been civilians. “Over 600 people killed, but more than half of them are civilians.” Of the civilian deaths counted by the UN, at least 84 have been children and 25 were women.

While the United States has provided intelligence and logistical support to the Saudi coalition from the onset of the assault, it has been gradually increasing its involvement in the conflict. American imperialism has long sought to maintain its control over Yemen, which lies next to the Bab-el-Mandeb Strait, a major oil choke point.

According to the Wall Street Journal, the Obama administration has a direct hand in the selection of targets for airstrikes. Pentagon war planners at a joint operations center are directly approving every target selected by the Saudi military. The US military planners also provide the Saudis with the specific locations where they should drop the bombs.

“The United States is providing our partners with necessary and timely intelligence to defend Saudi Arabia and respond to other efforts to support the legitimate government of Yemen,” Alistair Baskey, White House National Security Council spokesman told reporters on Sunday.

US warships stationed off the coast of Yemen in the Red Sea have also begun assisting the Saudi-led coalition in enforcing a blockade of the country. On April 1, US sailors boarded a Panamanian-flagged ship in the Red Sea in search of weapons supposedly bound for the Houthis. The search did not turn up any weapons.

American drones continue to fly over Yemen in support of Saudi operations against the Houthi militia and the targeting of members of Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

An apparent drone strike on the southeastern port city of Mukalla Sunday killed senior AQAP leader Ibrahim Al Rubaish and as many as six other people. Rubaish, a Saudi national, had been held at the Guantanamo Bay prison camp from 2002 until his release back to Saudi Arabia in 2006. He reportedly fled to Yemen in 2009 and joined AQAP, and the US recently placed a $5 million bounty on his head.

While neither the CIA nor the Pentagon have claimed responsibility for the attack, it was likely carried out by the US, since Mukalla, which was seized by AQAP fighters earlier this month, has yet to be targeted by Saudi airstrikes. If confirmed, the attack would mark the first US drone strike in Yemen in nearly six weeks.

It has been three weeks since US Special Forces evacuated the Al Anad airbase north of Aden. Al Anad had served as the main hub for the officially secret American air war, which has killed more than 1,000 people in Yemen since 2009.

Meanwhile, both Saudi Arabia and Egypt are actively preparing a possible ground invasion of the country. The Egyptian military dictatorship reported that it and the Saudi monarchy are discussing a “major military maneuver” along with other Gulf states in the coming days.

U.S. policies that were once thought to be written in stone have crumbled, over the years, in the face of the intended victims’ resistance. Vietnam triumphed, despite three million dead. Cuba has held out against empire for more than half a century. Iran remains a power in its part of the world. And “the Syrians proved that resistance is not futile.”

How does one know when American presidents aren’t telling the truth about foreign policy? The answer is simple. We know they are lying whenever their lips are moving. There is a long history of claims made about America’s relations with other nations that have been revealed as cynical, bald faced lies. When circumstances change for the political and ruling classes or if resistance is effective enough, a narrative repeated over many years can change very quickly.

Throughout the 1950s, 1960s, and into the 1970s, we were told that a communist victory in Vietnam would be an unthinkable catastrophe that should never be allowed to happen. After decades of terror and millions of lives lost in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia, the United States was finally forced to retreat. Not only did the Earth continue to turn, but business quite literally went on as usual. Now the words “made in Vietnam” are visible to any American purchasing clothing or athletic footwear. So much for the dangers of a communist state.

That dynamic of opportune propaganda shows no signs of letting up. For more than fifty years Americans were told that Cuba must be attacked, blockaded, sanctioned and prevented from engaging with other states. When the Cuban government built an airport on the tiny Caribbean island of Grenada in 1983, U.S. troops invaded, overthrew the elected Grenadian government and forcibly ended that alliance. Thirty years later there is rarely any discussion about Grenada. It certainly is no longer claimed to be a vital national interest.

Now after five decades of American declared enmity, president Obama says that Cuba and the United States ought to resume diplomatic relations. The Cuban Five political prisoners were suddenly freed, travel restrictions were loosened and Obama met with Raul Castro at the Summit of the Americas conference. Previously the United States prevented Cuba from even attending this meeting. The United States labeled Cuba a “state supporter of terrorism” in 1982 but is reportedly on the verge of lifting this designation which mandates the imposition of economic sanctions.

Cuba is not alone in getting the 180 degree turn from Barack Obama. Iran is also being treated quite differently of late. That nation’s experience with the United States is a litany of aggressions spanning many years. In 1953 an American coup overthrew an Iranian government and installed an absolute monarch. A subsequent revolution and the taking of American hostages in 1979 began more than thirty years of attacks on Iranian sovereignty.

In the 1980s the United States supported Saddam Hussein in a proxy war against Iran. More than one million people died in the decade long conflict but Hussein himself went from friend to enemy and suffered two American invasions of his country. In the end all he got out of his onetime alliance was a trip to the gallows.

Now after a coup, a United States instigated war, and years of sanctions, Iran is on its way to being dealt with as the influential regional power that it is. Barack Obama has gone from repeating all of the neocon lies about Iran to fighting some members of his own party in order to secure an agreement on nuclear capability.

The propaganda hasn’t ended altogether however. Every major American corporate media outlet falsely claimed that only the Iranians presented obstacles to the agreement. In fact, Iran has been the more responsible party, willing to make concessions even as it demanded its rights. Barack Obama and all of his predecessors might have changed relations between the two nations at any time if they had they wanted to.

Anyone who pays attention to these changes can end up with a severe case of whiplash and dizzying confusion. But these seemingly inexplicable policy maneuvers come about because American power has its limits. Iran’s ally, Syria, has held on after four years of a NATO instigated conflict. In league with the gulf monarchs, western nations have been unable to defeat or dislodge Syrian president Assad. Had they been able to do so, they would have resumed the effort to inflict regime change on Iran. Instead the Syrians proved that resistance is not futile.

Likewise, American nations took Obama to task over the exclusion of Cuba from the Summit of the Americas conference. But they didn’t just complain among themselves. They decided to do a little excluding of their own. Under the leadership of the late Hugo Chavez, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean states, CELAC, was formed in 2011 and excluded the United States and Canada from its proceedings. That thumb in America’s eye gave Obama an incentive to ease the fifty year long attack on Cuba and prevent further embarrassment for himself and his country.

It would all be funny if it weren’t so dangerous. Pariahs are suddenly given seats at the table if the right people decide that circumstances have changed enough to warrant an about face. Today’s state sponsor of terror may be tomorrow’s friend. The human rights violations are forgotten if the violator is deemed important.

It is good advice not to believe everything we read. But in American foreign policy that expression doesn’t go far enough. We should not believe anything our government feeds to the corporate media. They lie when their lips are moving.

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

Don’t believe the right-wing media’s emphasis on corruption—the recent demonstrations are motivated by entrenched elite discontent over expanding economic and political inclusion for the nation’s majority.

Reading the English-language press these days, one could be forgiven for thinking that Brazil is in the throes of a democratic uprising against a singularly corrupt government, a politically incompetent president, and a floundering economy. Since late last year, the center-left Workers’ Party (PT) government headed by President Dilma Rousseff has been rocked by an ever-widening scandal involving over-inflated contracts and kickbacks to government-allied politicians at the state-owned oil giant Petrobrás. Indignant PT militants—rather than lamenting corruption in a party that once ran on its anti-corruption credentials—have tended to attack the media for highlighting PT corruption after ignoring abuses during the 1995-2002 administration of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, as well as similar scandals in state governments controlled by the opposition Party of Brazilian Social Democracy (PSDB).

In part due to the collapse of Petrobrás’s stock, down 67% since the start of September, the Brazilian currency has plunged nearly 40% against the dollar since then. Inflation over the last year has reached nearly 8%, the highest since 2005, inviting Brazilians to nervously recall the hyperinflation of the 1980s and early 1990s. On March 15, nationwide demonstrations organized on social media gathered anywhere from 300,000 to two million protesters in dozens of cities. They brandished signs saying, “Out with the PT!” and demanded Rousseff’s impeachment, although the one-time head of Petrobrás has not been implicated in the kickback scheme and can constitutionally only be impeached for crimes committed during her presidency. In the wake of the demonstrations, the percentage of Brazilians rating her government as “excellent” or “good” dropped to an abysmal 12%, while 64% rated it “poor” or “terrible.” This disapproval rating is the highest for any president since Fernando Collor de Mello’s 68% on the eve of his own impeachment for corruption in 1992. (Incidentally, Collor, now a government-allied senator, is one of 47 politicians currently under investigation for their role in the Petrobrás scandal.)

Foreign media outlets have seized on Rousseff’s supposedly lackluster response to the Petrobrás scandal and Brazil’s gloomy macroeconomic outlook to speculate whether the collapse of the PT’s economic and political model, which has relied on cautiously redistributive policies and moderately increased government involvement in the economy, is imminent. Their sense of hope is palpable: “Brazil’s poor turn their back on Rousseff,” one headline gleefully reported on March 16. Another article insisted that the protests’ “cheerfully democratic multitudes” sought contrition from Rousseff for her party’s graft and economic mismanagement, but that the President had so far ignored their indignation. An opinion piece in a British daily expressed hope that “popular dissatisfaction” would persuade Rousseff to take the steps needed to solve Brazil’s economic problems – a reduced role for state credit agencies, increased independence for Petrobrás and monetary authorities, tax reform, brakes on special interests, and increased openness to foreign trade. The New York Times added an editorial on March 20 blasting Rousseff’s foreign policy, which, it suggested, should draw closer to the United States – despite Edward Snowden’s revelations of NSA spying on Rousseff’s communications.

It’s no secret that most foreign correspondents are neither politically well connected nor fluent in Portuguese. Part of the explanation for their bias, then, comes from their dependence upon Brazil’s notoriously one-sided media, owned by a few elite families and corporate groups. The major newspapers are all staunchly anti-government, their reporting on Rousseff’s administration universally negative. The Globo television network dedicated much of its March 15 programming to recruiting attendees for what it called, “peaceful demonstrations against corruption, with women, the elderly, and children asking for democracy and out with Dilma.” Indeed, the Brazilian and foreign press are engaged in an endless echo chamber of self-validation: foreign journalists get their information from anti-government media outlets, which then breathlessly report the foreign “analysis” in order to validate their own bias. For example, a March 21 story in the Folha de S. Paulo and Veja reported favorably on the New York Times’foreign policy editorial. If foreigners say it, it must be true.

Perhaps the most notorious recent example of press bias occurred when Brian Winter, Reuters’ chief Brazil correspondent, interviewed Fernando Henrique Cardoso. Published in Portuguese by Reuters Brasil, the story contained a paragraph admitting that one of the Petrobrás officials involved in the corruption scheme claims that it dated to Cardoso’s administration. The paragraph was followed by a parenthetical note, apparently penned by one of the Brazilian editors, that accidentally remained undeleted: “We can take this part out if you want.” To his credit, Winter didn’t remove the paragraph, but the gaffe shows the inner-workings of the Brazilian branch of an American media outlet, where protecting the opposition and attacking the PT trumps even a casual relationship with the truth. Although the article was hastily corrected (without any indication that it had been modified), it was too late: attentive readers had already posted the gaffe to Twitter, under the hashtag #PodemosTirarSeAcharMelhor.

Amidst predictions of Rousseff’s demise, the mainstream media has consistently downplayed, and occasionally outright ignored, one fact: the social backgrounds of protesters. It is not “the Brazilian people” who are in the streets, but rather a very specific segment of the population whose economic interests are historically opposed to those of the majority. They are largely middle and upper class and, consequently, mainly white. In the 2014 elections they sensed that their time had come to get rid of the PT, only to see their favored candidate, former Minas Gerais PSDB governor Aécio Neves, lose in Brazil’s closest-ever presidential contest. Despite the very real and serious flaws of the current government, this discontent with the PT finds its true source in centuries of elite fear of popular mobilization and a deep resentment of the gains working class people have made since Lula took office in 2003.

Of course, if one asks the demonstrators in the streets why they are protesting, no one will say that it’s because the poor aren’t as poor anymore. Indeed, 44% of demonstrators in Porto Alegre told pollsters that they were attending to speak out against corruption. And, responding to a question that permitted multiple answers, 58% indicated that their greatest disappointment lies with the political class overall, as compared to 44% that identified the PT and 29% Rousseff. A further 78% argued that political parties, including the opposition, should have no role in their movement. Could it be the case that the demonstrations were, in fact, overwhelmingly democratic and targeted primarily at corruption? Several clues indicate that this is not the case.

Although they represented a small minority of demonstrators, a vocal contingent was not satisfied with calls for impeachment. In a chilling scene for those who remember the repression unleashed during Brazil’s 1964-1985 military dictatorship, protesters carried signs emblazoned with slogans like “Military intervention now” and “SOS Armed Forces.” A banner in Rio de Janeiro featured a swastika and read, “Armed Forces, liberate Brazil.” Another read (in English), “Army, Navy, and Air Force. Please save us once again of [sic] communism.” “The best communist is a dead communist. Dilma, Maduro, Hugo, Fidel, Cristina, Lula: the world’s garbage.” Their signs were eerily reminiscent of the media’s enthusiastic response to Brazil’s 1964 coup, when the country’s press overwhelmingly cheered the military’s ouster of João Goulart—another mildly-leftist, so-called “communist” president—as a victory for democracy.

Figure 1: Protesters in São Paulo Plead for a Military Coup, March 15, 2015 (Source: Nelson Almeida / AFP)

In response to the pleas for military intervention, a spokesman for Revoltados ON LINE, a grassroots group that helped organize the protests and has 750,000 Facebook likes, commented, “The people asking for [military] intervention want to remove the PT from power. That is the sole focus. The participation of a variety of groups strengthens the group as a whole.” Though a military coup still looks unlikely, it is widely known that many in the military are incensed with the Rousseff administration over the final report of the National Truth Commission, which blasted the armed forces for torture and disappearances during its rule.

If those waxing nostalgic for dictatorships of yore were in the minority, what of the rest of the protesters? Despite attempts to highlight the supposed multi-class composition of the crowds on March 15, they represented, above all, Brazil’s white, university-educated economic elite. As Gianpaolo Baiocchi and Marcelo K. Silva recently pointed out, in Porto Alegre, nearly 70% of protesters were college-educated, in contrast with 11% of the general population, while over 40% belonged to the top income brackets, which make up but 3% of the population. Photographs confirm this; in a country with a high correlation between skin color and economic class, where over half of the population identifies as black or brown, the crowds had a decidedly lighter hue. A viral Tumblr accountpoked fun at the similarities with the upper-class, yellow-and-green-clad crowds that attended pricey World Cup matches last year by challenging visitors to determine if the photographs posted came from a March 15 demonstration or the World Cup.

Figure 2: Singer Wanessa Camargo performs the National Anthem for a largely white crowd in São Paulo, March 15, 2015 (Source: Vanessa Carvalho / BPP / AGNEWS)

Of course, the fact that the demonstrations largely consisted of white middle- and upper-class Brazilians does not automatically mean that they were anti-democratic. At the same time, it would be a grave mistake to interpret the class composition of the crowds outside the context of Brazil’s historic inequalities of class, race, and region. What does it mean if the majority of demonstrators demanding the ouster of a moderately redistributive center-left party come from the social classes and regions that have least benefited from its policies? What problems do they see with corruption, the PT, or Rousseff that are insufficient to motivate the working classes or people from the impoverished Northeast of the country to take to the streets?

Since the colonial period, political and economic power has been wielded by a tiny European-descended elite, and since the collapse of the Northeastern plantation sugar economy in the nineteenth century, economic power has been concentrated in the Southeast and South, especially in the coffee and industrial powerhouse of São Paulo—today the epicenter of the opposition. An influx of European immigration in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries only heightened the disdain light-skinned, prosperous Southeasterners felt for their mixed-race Northeastern and Northern countrymen and women, and after the 1950s, that prejudice was turned against Northeastern migrants who came to work in the region’s expanding industries. Brazil’s middle class of government bureaucrats, small business owners, and professionals, tied to the landowning and industrial elite by socialization and patronage, has in turn largely identified with elite interests. Whenever Brazilian leaders, be they the populist dictator and later elected president Getúlio Vargas (1930-1945, 1950-1954), or the left-leaning would-be reformer João Goulart (1961-1964), have proposed reforms that would decrease inequality and broaden political representation, they have been ousted by an indignant elite and middle class – at precisely the moments when the minimum wage was growing the fastest.

The leveling results of the last 12 years are striking, if still far short of what Brazil needs to comprehensively address income inequality. In January 2003, the Inter-union Department of Socioeconomic Statistics and Studies (DIEESE) calculated that in order to provide a living wage, the minimum wage should be 6.93 times what it actually was; by February 2015, the ratio had fallen to 4.03. The unemployment rate when Lula took office was 11.2%; today, it is 5.9% (though it has risen from 4.4% in November 2014). At the same time, the gains were not evenly spread out; between 2001 and 2013, the income of the poorest 10% of the population grew at nearly three times the rate of that of the richest 10%. The result was a Gini coefficient that, while still among the highest in the world at 0.527 in 2012, reached its lowest level since 1960. In sum, then, though economic growth between 2003 and 2014 benefited the whole population, it benefited the poor and working class the most, largely as a result of real increases in the minimum wage. As economist Luiz Carlos Bresser Pereira, a cabinet minister under Cardoso,put it, “This hatred [against the PT] is a result of the fact that the government revealed a strong and clear preference for workers and the poor.”

The persistence of prejudice against the poor and Northeasterners manifested itself most clearly on social media in the wake of the 2014 elections—when the Northeast voted overwhelmingly for Rousseff. “These Northeastern sons of bitches need to die in a drought; good-for-nothings, sucking on the government’s teat, ignorant sons of bitches,” read one tweet. “Northeasterners don’t have a brain, they have no culture; it’s the slum of Brazil,” read another. Even former president Cardoso, a one-time leftist sociologist and champion of the struggle against the military dictatorship, grumbled, “The PT relies on the least informed, who happen to be the poorest.” Much like in the United States, in the wake of government efforts to reduce inequality, the wealthy and middle class have reacted with racially inflected charges of laziness, dependency, and ignorance. And so far it has largely been the same social groups who voted for Neves and blasted Northeasterners who have been participating in the demonstrations against Rousseff.

If the March 15 demonstrations expressed the concerns of the middle class and elite, what are the implications for Rousseff’s government? First, despite Rousseff’s dismal approval ratings, the PT’s base of support in the working class and poor is not ready to abandon it. The PT has retained their support through policies like the wildly popular conditional cash transfer program Bolsa Família, the expansion of the federal university system, and race and class-based quotas in college admissions that have yielded tangible improvements in their daily lives. Unless the economy deteriorates to the point where the working class and poor join the demonstrations – and even Brazil’s small leftist press admits that this is not impossible – it’s hard to imagine the protests gaining further traction. Second, despite the common class interests of the demonstrators, a message decrying working class gains is not politically feasible. In the absence of this message, which in fact is the real motivator of the protests, the demonstrators are left in the tenuous position of calling for the outster of the PT through a legally invalid impeachment, with no agreement at all about or what should happen afterwards.

The same groups that organized the March 15 demonstrations are planning another round for April 12. Will they attract working class support? What developments in the Petrobrás scandal might affect their success? Will calls for military intervention become more prominent or fade into the background? One thing remains certain: In the absence of a mass working-class defection from the PT, proof of crimes justifying impeachment, or military interest in a coup, the prospects for a change in government are remote. Yet this is unlikely to dampen the hopes of wealthy and highly educated protesters, who will continue to use corruption as an excuse to protest against the socioeconomic ascension of those they see as their inferiors. As sociologist Jesse de Souza pointedly explains, “What distinguishes Brazil from the United States, Germany, and France, who we admire so much,” isn’t the level of corruption, “but the fact that we accept maintaining a third of the population in subhuman conditions.” The PT governments of the last 12 years made progress toward improving those conditions, but in the process they threatened the Brazilian elite’s deeply ingrained sense of superiority. Whether conscious or not, class and regional prejudice—not corruption—is the driving force behind the demonstrations.

Bryan Pitts is visiting assistant professor of History at Duke University and a Fulbright Scholars postdoctoral fellow at the Instituto de Ciência Política of the Universidade de Brasília (UnB).

Blackwater guards are in one incident at least finally being sentenced to prison for murder today. But their boss will be speaking at the University of Virginia on Wednesday.

Jeremy Scahill, author of Blackwater, visited Charlottesville 8 years ago and explained some of what’s wrong with private mercenaries.

He said that the Pentagon is useless to politicians because it doesn’t make campaign “contributions”. But when you take a big chunk of that enormous military budget and give it to private companies, you free it up to come back (some portion of it) to politicians every campaign season.

Thus you trade higher costs and less oversight for a built-in generator of systemic pressure for more wars. It’s win-win-win.

Scahill described the then recent “Bloody Sunday” incident in Baghdad in which Blackwater mercenaries shot and killed approximately 28 Iraqi civilians, including women and children, in a square. The Iraqi government claims to have video proving the shooting was unprovoked. Witnesses corroborated that story.

Within hours of the incident, Condoleezza Rice phoned Iraqi President and Bush puppet Nouri al Maliki. Within 5 days Blackwater was back on the streets. Five days. Prison sentences took 8 years.

House Oversight and Government Reform Committee Chairman Henry Waxman asked Prince to testify before Congress, but Prince had previously chosen not to. The State Department told Waxman that any information it provided Congress on occupation contractors would be classified.

Scahill described the size of the problem. There were at the time 181 “security” companies in Iraq and 180,000 private contractors, tens of thousands of whom were mercenaries. And they were basically unaccountable. When a Blackwater mercenary shot and killed the Iraqi Vice President’s body guard, Blackwater snuck the shooter out of the country. In February of 2007 year, Waxman held hearings and invited Prince to testify. Prince did not show up, but sent his lawyer instead. Rep. Dennis Kucinich noted at the hearing that Blackwater appeared to be complicit in the flight of a murder suspect.

Blackwater has frequently found itself in gun battles with Iraqis, as recounted by Scahill. The U.S. Embassy, Scahill said, lied when it said it had never had complaints about Blackwater. The Iraqis had complained frequently. But the U.S. wants shock troops, Scahill said. “They want Iraqis to have the fear of god in them if they try to approach Ryan Crocker or Condoleezza Rice.”

A US soldier can be court martialed. There had by 2007 been 64 courts martial for murder charges in Iraq, which Scahill found stunningly low, given that in his estimate there had been 750,000 Iraqis killed. Mercenaries are generally not prosecuted under Iraqi or U.S. law or courts martial.

Scahill said that when he recently testified before Congress, the whole issue seemed to be brand new to Congress members. After four years of slaughter and wild west tactics in Iraq, Scahill said, two freshman senators had finally proposed establishing a system of justice for mercenaries.

Scahill seemed to be of two minds about this proposal. He recognized that mercenaries, aggressive wars, and foreign occupations were illegal to begin with, making their regulation a dubious endeavor. He recognized that the mercenary companies were themselves supporting the proposal, and that this was a good indication of how worthless it was. Yet, he found something encouraging about the fact that there was a proposal and a discussion underway.

Scahill had recently given a talk in Eric Prince’s home town in Michigan (a town described well in Scahill’s book). Prince published an op-ed in the local paper claiming that Blackwater was not a mercenary company. But, Scahill explains, Blackwater has hired soldiers from countries like Chile whose democratically elected governments opposed the occupation, and sent those soldiers to fight in Iraq. Employing soldiers to fight for a foreign power, such as Chileans for the United States, is the very definition of mercenary used by Prince himself.

The Democrats in Congress were asleep on this issue, said Scahill, and he blamed the financial “contributions” they received from the war industry.

Is anyone awake yet?

Prince is still very much active. Possibly due to concern over criminal investigations and civil suits, Prince has set up residents in the United Arab Emirates.

But from there he oversees the same corrupt murderous activities for the U.S. and other governments.

Why exactly does the University of Virginia see fit to invite him to speak?

Part I:

Color Revolutions? The US State Department’s “Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine” Is Washington’s Plan For Central Asia By Andrew Korybko, April 14, 2015

The first part of the article examined the US’ stated goals in Central Asia, its geopolitical jealousy of Russia and China for their successes there, and the Color Revolution infrastructure that it’s building in the region. The concluding piece contains an overview and strategic forecast about the Lapis Lazuli Corridor and CASA-1000 projects and commentary on the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine’s inferred Lead From Behind partners (both willing and unintentional), before summing everything up in a brief concluding section.

“The New Silk Road”

The two American dignitaries boast about Washington’s plans for a “New Silk Road”, which is envisioned to provide the basis for intra- and inter-regional integration. Realistically speaking, most of this plan (which was never that feasible for the US) is already rendered null and void by the Russia’s Eurasian Union and China’s Silk Road Economic Belt, but there are still two important projects which have the potential for some sort of success:

The Lapis Lazuli Corridor:

This little-known plan was given all but one sentence in Hoagland’s speech, yet it’s extremely important and needs to be explained in detail. He said that “[Afghan President Ghani] then spoke of the Lapis Lazuli Corridor (during his recent visit to Washington), which would run through Afghanistan and Turkmenistan, across the Caspian to Georgia, and on to Turkey and Europe.” It may be that Hoagland excluded any further commentary on this branch of the “New Silk Road” owing to its deeper strategic significance, and not wanting to draw unnecessary attention to something that is largely ignored by the Russian and Chinese press despite its importance for American regional policy.

Lapis Lazuli Corridor (grey arrow)

Afghanistan’s Chamber of Commerce describes the Lapis Lazuli Corridor (LLC) as such:

“The Lapis Lazuli begins from Aqina in northern Faryab province and Turqundi in western Herat province of Afghanistan and continues to Turkmenbashi of Turkmenistan and after passing Caspian Sea, arrives Baku, the Azerbaijan’s capital and then it connects Baku to Tbilisi, Georgia’s capital and also to the ports of Polti and Batumi of Georgia. And then get cities of Kars and Istanbul of Turkey and finally ends in Europe.”

What’s not said but should be vividly understood by any regional observer is that this represents a modified institutionalization of the Northern Distributional Network (NDN), the de-facto conceptual successor to moving goods in/out of Afghanistan via trans-Caspian and trans-Caucasus shipping.Having at one time represented the US’ logistical sprawl during the main years of the Afghan War, it’s now poised for a resurgence of importance in becoming the US’ lifeline of influence into the region.

Its geography dictates that it touches upon the US’ key security constellation in the Caucasus (Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey) through which the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline, the South Caucasus gas pipeline, and the Baku-Tbilisi-Kars railroad already traverse. All three projects also serve fundamental American strategic goals, and it’s expected that the LLC will complement this existing infrastructure and serve to integrate the three countries even more. While Uzbekistan and Kazakhstan are not explicitly mentioned as members of this new framework, considering the fact that they already have the road and rail infrastructure necessary to facilitate the movement of various goods (and have a tried-and-true record of doing so through the NDN in the past), it’s likely they may also become conduits along this route, especially in the event that chaos envelops the Turkmen-Afghan frontier.

Furthermore, this alternate (or complementary) route appears even more likely when one realizes that the Germans are still basing 300 soldiers in Termez, Uzbekistan, right on the Afghan border and at the beginning of Central Asia’s NDN rail route. This force could be used to safeguard the path in the event of massive domestic destabilization concentrated in the country’s more populated eastern regions. Should it come under fire during the conflagration or perhaps even by Taliban or other terrorist insurgents that have found their way into the country, then the 12,000 NATO soldiers remaining in Afghanistan could rapidly come to their ‘aid’ and bolster their presence along the Uzbek portion of the railroad.

It must be said that all of the abovementioned infrastructural designs could possibly be rendered obsolete (although it doesn’t mean they won’t still be used in some capacity) if the 30 June Iranian nuclear deal deadline is reached, as Tehran would then be in a commanding position to offer a more efficient route for Afghan and Central Asian goods to both the European-destined Turkish transport hub and the Indian Ocean. This possibility will be discussed in the next section when the series addresses the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine’s envisioned Lead From Behind partners in the region, although it must be said that any means in which Iran indirectly supports American strategic policy in Central Asia would most likely be the unintentional collateral sum of Tehran’s expanding infrastructure ties with the region and the cessation of international sanctions on the country. No matter if that’s the case or not, however, the result of assisting American objectives (even if they are different and less impactful than those described above) is still the same.

CASA-1000:

Background and Context

Just as the LLC was given only one sentence in Hoagland’s speech, so too was CASA-1000 provided the same light treatment in Blinken’s, showing what may perhaps be a pattern of the US underplaying its latest strategic initiatives. However, unlike the LCC, CASA-1000 has fewer prospects for physical success and represents something more along the lines of a strategic backup plan that may or may not be implemented in the future.

Central Asia South Asia Electricity Transmission and Trade Project – CASA 1000

To begin with, CASA-1000 is an abbreviation for the partially World Bank-funded “Central Asia South Asia Electricity Transmission and Trade Project” that is supposed to transfer at least 1,000 megawatts of hydroelectric-generated energy from Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan to Afghanistan and Pakistan during the summer months after its completion. The problem with the project, despite its ambition, is that Kyrgyzstan is currently undergoing on energy crisis and is unable to provide its necessary 30% contribution to the project’s overall hydroelectric supply. The Diplomat, in its commentary on this portion of the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine, questions whether the project could go forward with Tajikistan being the sole energy provider, mentioning that this scenario hasn’t even attempted to be explained by Washington. Supposing that this challenge can be surmounted, there’s still the issue with Central Asian energy only being provided during the summer months when an excess of hydroelectric power generation makes the project possible, thus imposing a severe limitation on the entire project.

Having touched upon the problems and constraints of CASA-1000, it’s now time to look at the strategic advantages its completion would provide for the US. It’s understood that the project’s feasibility is also contingent on the construction of hydroelectric dams in Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan that the downstream state of Uzbekistan has strongly objected to in the past. As it stands, Russia and the World Bank are both supportive of Tajikistan’s plans to build the Rogun Dam (the project Uzbekistan is most ardently against), with the former likely being so due to political-strategic reasons vis-à-vis Uzbekistan and overall Eurasian integration, while the latter has certified that the environmental impact can be mitigated and could thus possibility provide a loan to finance the rest of the project’s costs.

Up until now, Tajikistan has had to depend on contributions from its citizens, with Russia reluctant to provide solid financial backing out concern that this would eliminate once and for all its trump card in restoring relations with regional military powerhouse Uzbekistan. Should Russia provide more than strategic and political support for this project and fully fund the rest of the endeavor (no matter how advantageous it is for its overall objectives), then it would lose the last significant opportunity to effect an Uzbek pivot, or at the very least, have Tashkent provide Moscow with an ear to listen to its concerns. Uzbekistan has been moving closer to the US as of late and could potentially become its Lead from Behind designator for the region, hence why it’s important for Russia to still have some options on the table for keeping bilateral relations stable. Right now, given the diplomatic complexity of Russian-Uzbek relations, Moscow has chosen a wait-and-see approach to Rogun, providing strong diplomatic and strategic support on the backend, but officially behaving hands-off in the public eye and letting the project develop on its own per Tajikistan’s initiatives, not Russia’s. This gives Moscow the saving face necessary to maintain cordial diplomatic ties with Tashkent while simultaneously promoting its own regional objectives.

Pivot Potential

While it doesn’t look like the US-Uzbek and Russian-Kyrgyz-Tajik configuration is going to change anytime soon, a regional trade-off between Russia and the US for regional allies wouldn’t be completely unprecedented. To explain, consider that Russia would ideally like to integrate the entirety of the Central Asian space into the Eurasian Union, especially since Uzbekistan presents the most formidable economic and military opportunities in the region. At the same time,Uzbekistan is inarguably close to America nowadays, but it’s still strategically dependent on the Russian-aligned upstream states of Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan for the water sources that power its economy and provide for its people, which would only deepen with the construction of the hydroelectric dams necessary to power CASA-1000 and the possible lessening of downstream supply.

If somehow Russia manages to make breakthrough inroads with Uzbekistan in hammering out their regional visionary differences and come to some type of implicit accord, then the US can immediately interject itself by offering to fund the remainder of the Rogun Dam’s costs or by offering some kind of other large-scale assistance in its construction. The purpose behind Washington’s obtrusive intervention would be to draw a line between Uzbekistan and Tajikistan (both of which would at that point be understood to have come to agreement with Russia’s integrational objectives) and Russia and Tajikistan, knowing that this would break the delicate agreement that Moscow had brokered between its allies. Of course, the US would only sacrifice its immensely strategic relations with Uzbekistan if it felt they could not be (easily) recovered from Russia, but should it be able to pull off another Color Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, it could capitalize off of its newfound high-ground ally and the geographic split between the Eurasian Union and Tajikistan to try to rapidly bring Dushanbe into the fold as well.

One should remember that downstream Uzbekistan is ultimately dependent on Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s water supplies, and that the Great Power which exercises influence over these states indirectly controls the Uzbek economy (especially if the dams are eventually built). The consequence of a combined Color Revolution in Kyrgyzstan with a near-simultaneous US Rogun pivot to Tajikistan would surely lead to war with Uzbekistan, which in this overall scenario would result in fractious chaos in Central Asia that would shatter Russia’s integration plans. Could such a ‘switch off’ between allies happen? Well, something similar occurred with the US and the USSR over Ethiopia and Somalia during the 1977-1978 Ogaden War, whereby Moscow switched its support to Addis-Ababa and Washington in turn flipped towards Mogadishu in a stunning and relatively sudden reversal of regional geopolitics. Such a reconfiguration may not have been premeditated, but it still happened nonetheless, meaning that such scenarios mustn’t be precluded by astute decision makers.

Contingent On A Pivot (Or Lack Thereof)

Another absolutely crucial issue that mustn’t be precluded is whether or not the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine’s envisioned Lead From Behind partners will succeed in their outlined mission. The probability is still up for grabs, but nonetheless, because the Doctrine alludes to both Turkey and Iran serving this role, this topic must be addressed in full.

Turkey:

Strobe Talbott

Blinken doesn’t include Ankara in his joint doctrine with Hoagland until prompted to by Strobe Talbott, former Deputy Secretary of State from 1994-2001 and his self-admitted mentor who was present in the audience and largely presided over and dominated the Q&A session. The following brief exchange definitely needs to be highlighted and analyzed:

“MR. TALBOTT: Which brings to mind one other country, and then we will go to Johannes. I remember Turgut Ozal, at the time that the USSR was disintegrating, making no secret of a Turkish dream, given the Turkic influences in the region that we’re talking about. What is – how is Turkey seen today, particularly given some of the tumult that’s going on there?

DEPUTY SECRETARY BLINKEN: It’s a good question and frankly one that I’m almost more comfortable asking of our partners in the region. I don’t want to necessarily suggest how they’re seeing Turkey. I think you’re right about Turkey’s interest and ambition. It’s also true that the Turks have a tremendous amount on their hands in their immediate environs right now, and that’s challenging.

But the bottom line, at least from our perspective, again, is this is not about creating false choices or imposing choices on our partners in Central Asia. One of the differences that we bring to the table is a profound and strong belief that our partners have a right to make their own decisions and make their own choices about the future. And if that involves us, so much the better. But if it involves other countries in the region, that is their decision.”

The first thought that comes to mind is that Blinken didn’t refrain from unnecessarily suggesting how Central Asian states are seeing Russia, having earlier gone on and on about how he imagines that they “fear” Moscow ever since the reunification with Crimea. The hypocritical bias that’s on full display in this instance is indicative of a clear strategic preference by the State Department over which states should and shouldn’t have influence in Central Asia. Turkey’s deepening soft power involvement in Central Asia doesn’t compete with the US’ strategic objectives, it furthers them, since the essence of Lead From Behind is that the US relies on proxy entities to carry out its policies and overall will in targeted geostrategic regions. Ideally, the US would like for Turkey’s Neo-Ottoman foreign policy to penetrate across the Caspian and into the heart of the former empire’s ethnic affiliates. This would assist Ankara in spreading the subversive and terrorist Muslim Brotherhood, the latest proxy group that it’s taken patronage of, throughout the region in order to undermine the associated governments and establish an anchor of influence that could only be expelled via forcible means that would further destabilize those states.

One of the key components of the American strategy is to have Turkmen gas (the reserves of which are among the world’s largest) enter the European market via a Turkish hub in order to assist with anti-Russian energy diversification. Ankara and Ashgabat already signed a deal last November to bring the latter’s gas to Europe through the TANAP pipeline, but the lingering question has always been how to bridge the geographic divide between the two countries. While some have spoken of a trans-Caspian pipeline, the lack of maritime delineation between Iran on one hand, and Azerbaijan and Turkmenistan on the other makes this all but impossible pending a forthcoming agreement on the Sea (which even then could result in the sea being designated as a lake, and as such, all of its profits [and possibly decisions] would have to be shared). The proto-deal with Iran could surprisingly change the calculation, however, and facilitate a Turkish-Iranian-Turkmen energy axis that would do away with the Caspian complication and also work out to Iran’s benefit as well (whereas the trans-Caspian pipeline would have been to its absolute detriment).

No matter which way Ankara does it, if Turkey is able to craft an infrastructural foothold in Central Asia via Turkmenistan, then it could use this as a springboard for pumping its soft power and political influence deeper into the region (a ‘reverse pipeline’, if one can call it that). However, Turkey’s role as one of the US’ two Lead From Behind partners in the area is contingent on it not pivoting away from the West and towards Eurasia, which has increasingly become a plausible possibility in the past year. Should that happen, then the Turkish-Iranian-Turkmen energy axis could turn against the US’ grand strategy and present an asymmetrical threat to the unipolar world instead of a complementary component, although the Brzezinski-esque threat posed by the Muslim Brotherhood virus could still be exploited as a unipolar weapon, whether intentional or not.

Iran:

As with Turkey, Iran isn’t mentioned much in the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine, but this shouldn’t be taken to mean that it doesn’t occupy an important envisioned strategic role. Hoagland only briefly comments, almost as an aside, that:

“Central Asia’s geography also places it in close proximity to Iran, a country that shares many ancient cultural and economic ties with Central Asia. We are aware that there are areas on which Iran’s Central Asian neighbors need cooperation, such as water conservation, desertification, and countering the trade of illicit narcotics. So we hope that Iran finds a productive way to work with its Central Asian neighbors.”

Blinken also has barely anything to say about Iran, muttering that:

“Iran’s historic and cultural ties to the region are deep and longstanding, and for countries that are increasingly focused on their connectivity to the rest of the world, Iran stands as a potential gateway to Europe as well as a maritime route to Asia.”

Later, in response to one of Talbott’s talking-point questions, he elaborates that:

“Depending on Iran’s evolution over the next years or more, it could be Iran as well, as a gateway to Europe, as a gateway to India.”

While they may not seem like much, these small statements are loaded with strategic meaning and hint at the White House’s future plans for Iran in a post-deal world. It should be said that the author wrote a forecast back in mid-November touching upon some of the strategic risks for Tehran inherent in any kind of nuclear deal with the US, such as the soft vulnerabilities of Western trade dependency and NGO infiltration. These warnings are still relevant today and they demonstrate some of the measures by which the West can gain influence over Iran even against Tehran’s will. The reason is that Iran doesn’t have to intentionally pivot towards the US (although this is what America would ultimately prefer, despite its near-impossible odds), since Washington can exploit the regional moves that Tehran makes to further its own advantage in a post-deal (non-sanctioned) world.

In the event that a final deal is reached before 30 June (which would signify a global pivot for all the Great Powers in some sense, the pivot on which the following is dependent), the US actually wantsthere to be as much infrastructure connecting Iran to Central Asia as possible owing to the geographic efficiency in using the country as a conduit for facilitating interregional connectivity (ergo the “gateway to Europe, as a gateway to India” comments). Iran would thus become the gatekeeper to Central Asia’s exports to the outside world and Europe and India’s imports to the heart of Asia, which would be an arrangement equally beneficial for both the country and the region. So what can go wrong?

The US now seems to be testing a softer, ‘friendlier’ face.

Plenty, actually. As the case of Cuba clearly shows, the US now seems to be testing a softer, ‘friendlier’ face to its long-term regime change ambitions, and opening up Iran might be the Mideast application of this prototype policy. Everything therefore depends on the effectiveness of the Iranian and Central Asian security services in preventing, identifying, and stopping Color Revolutionary influences from taking hold of their countries and setting up expansive social and physical infrastructure projects. Even though these are still a threat without increased trade traversing their territory, as a typical rule, the more physical foreign influence that moves through a country (such as trade goods), the more likely it is that Color Revolutionary forces will try to exploit this logistics pipeline to infiltrate their target. It’s well-known that the West was behind the 2009 Green Color Revolution attempt in Iran, and although ultimately a failure, it did succeed in rattling the nerves of the security establishment which hadn’t fully prepared for this asymmetrical scenario.

Even though Iran has obviously made defensive arrangements to guard against a repeat of such contingencies ever since learning from the failed Green Revolution, the US is typically always one step ahead in its Color Revolution innovations, as seen by the terrorist war that followed Syria’s failed Color Revolution or the ultra-violent and hard-core nationalist tactical and strategic ‘modifications’ of EuroMaidan. It already looks like an unconventional war might be heating up in Baluchistan with the killing of 8 Iranian border guards earlier this week (an insurgency that was forecasted by the author in early January), and it’s likely to increase in intensity (and mutate with its methods) as Western covert influence enters the region via new non-sanctioned trade routes to Central Asia.

Additionally, the greater Iran’s economic dependence becomes in enabling easier Central Asia-European/Indian trade (and reaping some of the benefits, too), the more vulnerable it is to any type of Taliban-ISIL hybrid destabilization targeting Turkmenistan, the projected desert ‘highway’ linking it with the region’s more populous reaches (and notably avoiding anarchic Afghanistan). This also means that it would become vulnerable to any forthcoming destabilization in Uzbekistan, the region’s most populous market, as would its Indian and European partners that the US may try to indirectly affect through prodding this scenario forward (amongst other strategic reasons that it may have). Thus, it’s not to say that Iranian-Central Asian (and consequently, Central Asian-Indian/European) trade networks should not be constructed – not in the least! – but that they must be monitored with extreme vigilance. Crucially, strategic considerations must be at the forefront of Tehran’s thinking in order to prevent such dire scenarios from occurring, mitigate their aftershocks if they do, and avoid overdependence on Central Asian-European-Indian trade and/or Turkish-Iranian-Turkmen energy cooperation.

Concluding Thoughts

The Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine is motivated by the US’ geopolitical jealousy against Russia and China’s successful infrastructure and integration advances in Central Asia. Being poorly clothed in cooperative rhetoric, it’s easy to see through the layer of talk and expose what’s underneath the deceptive words and colorful euphemisms. The reality is that “the Emperor has no clothes”, and that after the eloquently spun ‘clothes’ come off and the charade is finally over, the regime change mannequin is laid bare for all to see.

The US wants to hold the region hostage under the threat of regime change destabilization in order to keep it in check and promote its two infrastructure projects, the Lapis Lazuli Corridor and CASA-1000. It’s banking on Turkey and Iran being its Lead From Behind partners (with Turkey willingly filling this role and Iran unintentionally) in order to indirectly deepen its strategic influence over Central Asia. It can’t conclusively be said which of the examined scenarios will eventually play out or in what exact manner (although the Kyrgyz Color Revolution convincingly appears imminent), but the examined possibilities are based on strategic reasoning, established facts, and most importantly, Hoagland and Blinken’s own words.

The US is definitely planning to reengage Central Asia like never before, as the construction of state-of-the-art embassies all over the region attest. The unveiling of the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine is thus no mere coincidence and should be taken to signify a new era of relations between the US and Central Asia. Even if Washington isn’t as successful in its doctrine as it hopes, it can still make an impact simply by retaining a diplomatic and shadow presence in the area. After all, as Blinken himself quipped, “As we all know, 90 percent of life is showing up.”

Andrew Korybko is the political analyst and journalist for Sputnik who currently lives and studies in Moscow, exclusively for ORIENTAL REVIEW.

La Plataforma Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda del Estado español (PACD) quiere dar su más firme apoyo al lanzamiento de la auditoría de la deuda griega, un largo proceso que tiene como misión identificar la parte ilegal, ilegítima, odiosa o insostenible de la misma. La comisión de auditoría cuenta con un nutrido grupo de activistas y expertos griegos y con la participación activa de la PACD a través de nuestro compañero Sergi Cutillas, también miembro del Observatorio de la Deuda de la Globalización (ODG) y coautor del libro ‘Por qué no debemos pagar la Deuda’. Este proceso contará con la presencia de movimientos sociales a través de algunos de sus representantes: Maria Lucia Fattorelli, que participó en el comité de auditoría de la deuda de Ecuador y coordinadora nacional de la Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda en Brasil (Auditoria Cidadã da Dívida); Olivier Bonfond, economista miembro de la Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda en Bélgica (AciDE); Michel Husson (del consejo científico de ATTAC Francia) y Patrick Saurin (sindicato SUD BPCE y CADTM Francia), ambos miembros del Colectivo francés para una Auditoría Ciudadana de la deuda pública. Destacamos también la participación de Cephas Lumina, antiguo ponente especial de las Naciones Unidas sobre los efectos de la deuda en el ejercicio de los Derechos Humanos y de Margot Salomon, directora del centro jurídico de la London School of Economics así como muchos otros expertos, economistas, politólogos o juristas. Esa comisión será coordinada por Eric Toussaint, portavoz del CADTM internacional.

Este 4 de abril de 2015 ha sido un día histórico para los movimientos sociales que luchan por una justicia a favor de los pueblos y en contra del pago de una deuda ilegítima que nos somete: la presidenta del Parlamento en Grecia, Zoe Konstanstopoulou, abrió la sesión inaugural del comité de auditoría de la deuda, llamado también Comité de la verdad sobre la deuda, que contó con la presencia del presidente la República, Prokopis Pavlopoulos y del primer ministro Alexis Tsipras. La presencia en esa convocatoria de una decena de ministros del nuevo gobierno griego es de especial relevancia, dado que aseguraron que sus ministerios aportarían un apoyo activo al trabajo de auditoría.

A partir de ahora, seguiremos atentos a la evolución del trabajo de dicho comité de la verdad sobre la deuda, para trasmitir la información al pueblo español y para animar la movilización alrededor del trabajo de auditoría ciudadana que ya se ha iniciado también aquí, en el Estado español. Lo que sucede en Grecia tiene un impacto directo sobre lo que puede ocurrir en estas tierras.

Apoyamos la auditoría de la deuda griega y la intención de su gobierno de promover la participación ciudadana: es mucha la premura por desvelar el proceso de generación de tan colosal deuda, pero estamos convencidas de que cualquier herramienta para facilitar la transparencia del proceso y el acceso de la ciudadanía a la información, servirá para abrir el camino hacia una sociedad libre de deudas ilegitimas y sometimiento.

Ahora más que nunca, nos solidarizamos con este comité de la verdad y con el pueblo griego contra el pago de esa deuda ilegítima, inhumana e insostenible, que dificulta brutalmente el desarrollo de las políticas sociales elegidas en las urnas el pasado 25 de enero. Vamos a acompañar en este proceso a Grecia, y también lo estamos promoviendo en el Estado español. Nos estamos preparando para auditar nuestras cuentas, exigir transparencia y rechazar igualmente las deudas ilegales, ilegítimas, odiosas o insostenibles que no han beneficiado a los ciudadanos sino a los acreedores. Se reclamarán reparaciones a los responsables del sobre-endeudamiento ilegítimo, que sirve de pretexto para la aplicación de una austeridad salvaje y mortífera. Sólo pagaremos lo que realmente debemos. Porque la mayor parte de la deuda no es nuestra; es ilegítima. Exigimos moratoria, auditoría ciudadana y ¡reparaciones ya!

Solidaridad con el pueblo griego y con todos los pueblos sometidos a una deuda que nos esclaviza y nos impide vivir en democracia.

La Plataforma Auditoría Ciudadana de la Deuda, no debemos, no pagamos.
9 de abril de 2015

For three days, wearing a kaleidoscope of camouflage patterns, they huddled together on a military base in Florida. They came from U.S. Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and U.S. Army Special Operations Command, from France and Norway, from Denmark, Germany, and Canada: 13 nations in all. They came to plan a years-long “Special Operations-centric” military campaign supported by conventional forces, a multinational undertaking that — if carried out — might cost hundreds of millions, maybe billions, of dollars and who knows how many lives.

Ask the men involved and they’ll talk about being mindful of “sensitivities” and “cultural differences,” about the importance of “collaboration and coordination,” about the value of a variety of viewpoints, about “perspectives” and “partnerships.”  Nonetheless, behind closed doors and unbeknownst to most of the people in their own countries, let alone the countries fixed in their sights, a coterie of Western special ops planners were sketching out a possible multinational military future for a troubled region of Africa.

From January 13th to 15th, representatives from the U.S. and 12 partner nations gathered at MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa for an exercise dubbed Silent Quest 15-1. The fictional scenario on which they were to play out their war game had a ripped-from-the-headlines quality to it.  It was an amalgam of two perfectly real and ongoing foreign policy and counterterrorism disasters of the post-9/11 era: the growth of Boko Haram in Nigeria and the emergence of the Islamic State, also known as the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant or ISIL.  The war game centered on the imagined rise of a group dubbed the “Islamic State of Africa” and the spread of its proto-caliphate over parts of Nigeria, Niger, and Cameroon — countries terrorized by the real Boko Haram, which did recently pledge its allegiance to the Islamic State.

Silent Quest 15-1 was just the latest in a series of similarly named exercises — the first took place in March 2013 — designed to help plot out the special ops interventions of the next decade.  This war game was no paintball-style walk in the woods.  There were no mock firefights, no dress rehearsals.  It wasn’t the flag football equivalent of battle.  Instead, it was a tabletop exercise building on something all too real: the ever-expanding panoply of U.S. and allied military activities across ever-larger parts of Africa.  Speaking of that continent, Matt Pascual, a participant in Silent Quest and the Africa desk officer for SOCOM’s Euro-Africa Support Group, noted that the U.S. and its allies were already dealing with “myriad issues” in the region and, perhaps most importantly, that many of the participating countries “are already there.”  The country “already there” the most is, of course, Pascual’s own: the United States.

In recent years, the U.S. has been involved in a variety of multinational interventions in Africa, including one in Libya that involved both a secret warand a conventional campaign of missiles and air strikes, assistance to French forces in the Central African Republic and Mali, and the training and funding of African proxies to do battle against militant groups like Boko Haram as well as Somalia’s al-Shabab and Mali’s Ansar al-Dine.  In 2014, the U.S. carried out 674 military activities across Africa, nearly two missions per day, an almost 300% jump in the number of annual operations, exercises, and military-to-military training activities since U.S. Africa Command (AFRICOM) was established in 2008.

Despite this massive increase in missions and a similar swelling of bases, personnel, and funding, the picture painted last month before the Senate Armed Services Committee by AFRICOM chief General David Rodriguez was startlingly bleak.  For all the American efforts across Africa, Rodriguez offered a vision of a continent in crisis, imperiled from East to West by militant groups that have developed, grown in strength, or increased their deadly reach in the face of U.S. counterterrorism efforts.

“Transregional terrorists and criminal networks continue to adapt and expand aggressively,” Rodriguez told committee members. “Al-Shabab has broadened its operations to conduct, or attempt to conduct, asymmetric attacks against Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and especially Kenya.  Libya-based threats are growing rapidly, including an expanding ISIL presence… Boko Haram threatens the ability of the Nigerian government to provide security and basic services in large portions of the northeast.”  Despite the grim outcomes since the American military began “pivoting” to Africa after 9/11, the U.S. recently signed an agreement designed to keep its troops based on the continent until almost midcentury.

Mission Creep   

For years, the U.S. military has publicly insisted that its efforts in Africa are negligible, intentionally leaving the American people, not to mention most Africans, in the dark about the true size, scale, and scope of its operations there.   AFRICOM public affairs personnel and commanders have repeatedly claimed no more than a “light footprint” on the continent.  They shrink from talk of camps and outposts, claiming to have just one baseanywhere in Africa: Camp Lemonnier in the tiny nation of Djibouti.  They don’t like to talk about military operations.  They offer detailed informationabout only a tiny fraction of their training exercises.  They refuse to disclose the locations where personnel have been stationed or even counts of the countries involved.

During an interview, an AFRICOM spokesman once expressed his worry to me that even tabulating how many deployments the command has in Africa would offer a “skewed image” of U.S. efforts.  Behind closed doors, however, AFRICOM’s officers speak quite a different language.  They have repeatedly asserted that the continent is an American “battlefield” and that — make no bones about it — they are already embroiled in an actual “war.”

According to recently released figures from U.S. Africa Command, the scope of that “war” grew dramatically in 2014.  In its “posture statement,” AFRICOM reports that it conducted 68 operations last year, up from 55 the year before.  These included operations Juniper Micron and Echo Casemate, missions focused on aiding French and African interventions in Mali and the Central African Republic; Observant Compass, an effort to degrade or destroy what’s left of Joseph Kony’s murderous Lord’s Resistance Army in central Africa; and United Assistance, the deployment of military personnel to combat the Ebola crisis in West Africa.

The number of major joint field exercises U.S. personnel engaged in with African military partners inched up from 10 in 2013 to 11 last year. These included African Lion in Morocco, Western Accord in Senegal, Central Accord in Cameroon, and Southern Accord in Malawi, all of which had a field training component and served as capstone events for the prior year’s military-to-military instruction missions.

AFRICOM also conducted maritime security exercises including Obangame Express in the Gulf of Guinea, Saharan Express in the waters off Senegal, and three weeks of maritime security training scenarios as part of Phoenix Express 2014, with sailors from numerous countries including Algeria, Italy, Libya, Malta, Morocco, Tunisia, and Turkey.

The number of security cooperation activities skyrocketed from 481 in 2013 to 595 last year.  Such efforts included military training under a “state partnership program” that teams African military forces with U.S. National Guard units and the State Department-funded Africa Contingency Operations Training and Assistance, or ACOTA, program through which U.S. military advisers and mentors provide equipment and instruction to African troops.

In 2013, the combined total of all U.S. activities on the continent reached 546, an average of more than one mission per day.  Last year, that number leapt to 674.  In other words, U.S. troops were carrying out almost two operations, exercises, or activities — from drone strikes to counterinsurgency instruction, intelligence gathering to marksmanship training — somewhere in Africa every day.  This represents an enormous increase from the 172 “missions, activities, programs, and exercises” that AFRICOM inherited from other geographic commands when it began operations in 2008.

Transnational Terror Groups: Something From Nothing

In 2000, a report prepared under the auspices of the U.S. Army War College’s Strategic Studies Institute examined the “African security environment.”  While it touched on “internal separatist or rebel movements” in “weak states,” as well as non-state actors like militias and “warlord armies,” there was conspicuously no mention of Islamic extremism or major transnational terrorist threats.  Prior to 2001, in fact, the United States did not recognize any terrorist organizations in sub-Saharan Africa and a senior Pentagon official noted that the most feared Islamic militants on the continent had “not engaged in acts of terrorism outside Somalia.”

In the wake of 9/11, even before AFRICOM was created, the U.S. began ramping up operations across the continent in an effort to bolster the counterterror capabilities of allies and insulate Africa from transnational terror groups, namely globe-trotting Islamic extremists.  The continent, in other words, was seen as something of a clean slate for experiments in terror prevention.

Billions of dollars have been pumped into Africa to build bases, arm allies, gather intelligence, fight proxy wars, assassinate militants, and conduct perhaps thousands of military missions — and none of it has had its intended effect.  Last year, for example, Somali militants “either planned or executed increasingly complex and lethal attacks in Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti, and Ethiopia,” according to AFRICOM.  Earlier this month, those same al-Shabab militants upped the ante by slaughtering 142 students at a college in Kenya.

And al-Shabab’s deadly growth and spread has hardly been the exception to the rule in Africa. In recent testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee, AFRICOM commander Rodriguez rattled off the names of numerous Islamic terror groups that have sprung up in the intervening years, destabilizing the very countries the U.S. had sought to strengthen.  While the posture statement he presented put the best gloss possible on Washington’s military efforts in Africa, even a cursory reading of it — and under the circumstances, it’s worth quoting at length — paints a bleak picture of what that “pivot” to Africa has actually meant on the ground. Sections pulled from various parts of the document speak volumes:

“The network of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents continues to exploit Africa’s under-governed regions and porous borders to train and conduct attacks. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is expanding its presence in North Africa. Terrorists with allegiances to multiple groups are expanding their collaboration in recruitment, financing, training, and operations, both within Africa and trans-regionally. Violent extremist organizations are utilizing increasingly sophisticated improvised explosive devices, and casualties from these weapons in Africa increased by approximately 40 percent in 2014…

“In North and West Africa, Libyan and Nigerian insecurity increasingly threaten U.S. interests. In spite of multinational security efforts, terrorist and criminal networks are gaining strength and interoperability. Al-Qaeda in the Lands of the Islamic Maghreb, Ansar al-Sharia, al-Murabitun, Boko Haram, the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, and other violent extremist organizations are exploiting weak governance, corrupt leadership, and porous borders across the Sahel and Maghreb to train and move fighters and distribute resources…

“Libya-based threats to U.S. interests are growing… Libyan governance, security, and economic stability deteriorated significantly in the past year… Today, armed groups control large areas of territory in Libya and operate with impunity. Libya appears to be emerging as a safe haven where terrorists, including al-Qaeda and Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant-affiliated groups, can train and rebuild with impunity. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is increasingly active in Libya, including in Derna, Benghazi, Tripoli, and Sebha…

“The spillover effects of instability in Libya and northern Mali increase risks to U.S. interests in Europe, the Middle East, and Africa, including the success of Tunisia’s democratic transition…

“The security situation in Nigeria also declined in the past year. Boko Haram threatens the functioning of a government that is challenged to maintain its people’s trust and to provide security and other basic services… Boko Haram has launched attacks across Nigeria’s borders into Cameroon, Chad, and Niger…

“…both the Central African Republic and Democratic Republic of the Congo are at risk of further destabilization by insurgent groups, and simmering ethnic tensions in the Great Lakes region have the potential to boil over violently in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.”

All this, mind you, is AFRICOM’s own assessment of the situation on the continent on which it has focused its efforts for the better part of a decade as U.S. missions there soared.  In this context, it’s worth reemphasizing that, before the U.S. ramped up those efforts, Africa was — by Washington’s own estimation — relatively free of transnational Islamic terror groups.

Tipping the Scales in Africa

Despite Boko Haram’s pledge of allegiance to the Islamic State and scareheadlines lamenting their merger or conflating those or other brutal terror outfits operating under similar monikers, there is currently no real Islamic State of Africa.  But the war game carried out at MacDill Air Force Base in January against that fictional group is far from fantasy, representing as it does the next logical step in a series of operations that have been gaining steam since AFRICOM’s birth. And buried in the command’s 2015 Posture Statement is actual news that signals a continuation of this trajectory into the 2040s.

In May 2014, the U.S. reached an agreement — it’s called an “implementing arrangement” — with the government of Djibouti “that secures [its] presence” in that country “through 2044.”  In addition, AFRICOM officers are nowtalking about the possibility of building a string of surveillance outposts along the northern tier of the continent.  And don’t forget how, over the past few years, U.S. staging areas, mini-bases, and airfields have popped up in the contiguous nations of Senegal, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger, and —  skippingChad (where AFRICOM recently built temporary facilities for a special ops exercise) — the Central African Republic, South Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, and Ethiopia.  All of this suggests that the U.S. military is digging in for the long haul in Africa.

Silent Quest 15-1 was designed as a model to demonstrate just how Washington will conduct “Special Operations-centric” coalition warfare in Africa.  It was, in fact, designed to align, wrote Gunnery Sergeant Reina Barnett in SOCOM’s trade publication Tip of the Spear, with the “2020 planning guidance of Army Maj. Gen. James Linder, commander of Special Operations Command Africa.” And the agreement with Djibouti demonstrates that the U.S. military is now beginning to plan for almost a quarter-century beyond that.  But, if the last six years — marked by a 300% increase in U.S. missions as well as the spread of terror groups and terrorism in Africa — are any indicator, the results are likely to be anything but pleasing to Washington.

AFRICOM commander David Rodriguez continues to put the best face on U.S. efforts in Africa, citing “progress in several areas through close cooperation with our allies and partners.”  His command’s assessment of the situation, however, is remarkably bleak.  “Where our national interests compel us to tip the scales and enhance collective security gains, we may have to do more — either by enabling our allies and partners, or acting unilaterally,” reads the posture statement Rodriguez delivered to that Senate committee.

After more than a decade of increasing efforts, however, there’s little evidence that AFRICOM has the slightest idea how to tip the scales in its own favor in Africa.

Nick Turse is the managing editor of TomDispatch.com and a fellow at the Nation Institute. A 2014 Izzy Award and American Book Award winner for his book Kill Anything That Moves, he has reported from the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa and his pieces have appeared in the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, the Nation, and regularly atTomDispatch. His latest book, Tomorrow’s Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa (Haymarket Books), will soon be published.

Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit’s Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt’s latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

The Houthi rebellion in Yemen that was already in existence more than five years ago had recently turned into a full-blown conflict that escalated into an international crisis in the first week of April of 2015 when Houthi rebels in Yemen deposed President Abed Rabou Mansur Hadi, throwing him out of the helm of Yemeni government. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia while the Houthis effectively captured the capital Sana’a. Thereafter, Saudi Arabia, has initiated massive aerial bombings against the de facto Houthi government in Sana’a and in various strategic areas of Yemen that are now being occupied by the Houthi militia. 

 It is as clear as the midday sun that US plays a great role in Saudi’s armed interventionism in Yemen. It is indeed a wonder why Saudi Arabia and its allies against Houthis have not taken any confrontational military action against the ISIS of Iraq and Syria when the so-called “Islamic State” committed heinous crimes against Arabs and Kurds in these areas.

Saudi Arabian armed forces did not invade nor bother to bomb even one ISIS camp in Iraq, Syria and the Levant when the inhumanities that this so-called “Islamic State” has done and is still continuously inflicting up till now against Sunni Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Christians as well as against Yezidis were far more brutal, far more cruel and far more heinous compared to any acts committed by other rebel movements in the Middle East, Houthi rebels of Yemen included. It is very telling to note that America immediately and directly condones the undeclared war and unilateral military interventionism of Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, whereas US and Saudi Arabia did not do anything that can be construed as serious military operations against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

The reason why the USA is enthusiastically supporting the undeclared war of Saudi Arabia against the Houthi rebels in Yemen is clearly geopolitical: imperialistic design to control the politics and the economy of Yemen, and eventually the Gulf states in the Arabian Peninsula, by using Saudi Arabia as its more than willing proxy warrior.

The US strategic plan for the Middle East in general, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf countries in particular, is to exploit the volatile situation of the region, by initiating regime changes, by manufacturing dissent and by financing proxy wars so that the US can, in effect, hold each nation-state by their necks and thus realize its imperialistic intentions in these countries so that US can make these countries subservient to its hegemonic dream of controlling the geopolitics in this region (for example; military and economic control of the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea using military and tactical cooperation with US’ allied regimes in these regions) and controlling economic resources: fossil fuel being the foremost resource in these countries.

We can now observe that Yemen’s situation is truly hazardous from the point of view of international politics, and the ultimate result of this US-Saudi interventionism upon Yemen is indeed perilous for Yemen and for its people. It can be accurately predicted that US-Saudi interventionism in Yemen if absolutely successful, may have the same tragic results as that of present-day Libya, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan—these nations are now failed states, thanks to the unabashed and unabated US military intervention in these countries!

Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian and totalitarian theocratic monarchy. Despite of this, US continues to actively support Saudi monarchy even though the latter’s government is one of the most undemocratic dictatorships among nation-states in the entire Middle East! The sad truth is that US never cares to propagate democracy in the Middle East, contrary to what is being harped and proclaimed far and wide by the Western mainstream media outfits that are unthinking supporters of the already discredited CIA propaganda called “Arab Spring”.

The glaring proof that US is not interested in the democratization of the Middle East is the fact that the US supports the most corrupt and cruel dictators of the world: the dictators of the Middle East first and foremost—for so long as these tyrants actively support the continued US hegemonization in the region! And in return, these dictators and tyrants in the Middle East must pay absolute allegiance to US hegemony in order to be assured of US support against internal democratic movements within and domestic rebellions that are constantly besetting their totalitarian regimes.

The old adage, “it takes two to waltz or tango” proves to be an apt and veritable depiction describing the reciprocal, co-dependent, symbiotic yet parasitic relationship between US hegemony and the corrupt monarchs and dictators in the Middle East region.

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-VI of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City. He was former Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014. His research interests include Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence, Islamic feminist discourses, Islamic philosophy, the writings of Al-Ghazali on tolerance and pluralism, Turkish Sufism and Public Theology. He can be freely contacted at his email address: [email protected].

The Houthi rebellion in Yemen that was already in existence more than five years ago had recently turned into a full-blown conflict that escalated into an international crisis in the first week of April of 2015 when Houthi rebels in Yemen deposed President Abed Rabou Mansur Hadi, throwing him out of the helm of Yemeni government. Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia while the Houthis effectively captured the capital Sana’a. Thereafter, Saudi Arabia, has initiated massive aerial bombings against the de facto Houthi government in Sana’a and in various strategic areas of Yemen that are now being occupied by the Houthi militia. 

 It is as clear as the midday sun that US plays a great role in Saudi’s armed interventionism in Yemen. It is indeed a wonder why Saudi Arabia and its allies against Houthis have not taken any confrontational military action against the ISIS of Iraq and Syria when the so-called “Islamic State” committed heinous crimes against Arabs and Kurds in these areas.

Saudi Arabian armed forces did not invade nor bother to bomb even one ISIS camp in Iraq, Syria and the Levant when the inhumanities that this so-called “Islamic State” has done and is still continuously inflicting up till now against Sunni Muslims, Shi’a Muslims, Sufi Muslims, Christians as well as against Yezidis were far more brutal, far more cruel and far more heinous compared to any acts committed by other rebel movements in the Middle East, Houthi rebels of Yemen included. It is very telling to note that America immediately and directly condones the undeclared war and unilateral military interventionism of Saudi Arabia against the Houthis, whereas US and Saudi Arabia did not do anything that can be construed as serious military operations against ISIS in Iraq, Syria and the Levant.

The reason why the USA is enthusiastically supporting the undeclared war of Saudi Arabia against the Houthi rebels in Yemen is clearly geopolitical: imperialistic design to control the politics and the economy of Yemen, and eventually the Gulf states in the Arabian Peninsula, by using Saudi Arabia as its more than willing proxy warrior.

The US strategic plan for the Middle East in general, and in the Arabian Peninsula and Gulf countries in particular, is to exploit the volatile situation of the region, by initiating regime changes, by manufacturing dissent and by financing proxy wars so that the US can, in effect, hold each nation-state by their necks and thus realize its imperialistic intentions in these countries so that US can make these countries subservient to its hegemonic dream of controlling the geopolitics in this region (for example; military and economic control of the sea lanes in the Persian Gulf, the Arabian Sea, Mediterranean Sea and the Red Sea using military and tactical cooperation with US’ allied regimes in these regions) and controlling economic resources: fossil fuel being the foremost resource in these countries.

We can now observe that Yemen’s situation is truly hazardous from the point of view of international politics, and the ultimate result of this US-Saudi interventionism upon Yemen is indeed perilous for Yemen and for its people. It can be accurately predicted that US-Saudi interventionism in Yemen if absolutely successful, may have the same tragic results as that of present-day Libya, Iraq, Egypt and Afghanistan—these nations are now failed states, thanks to the unabashed and unabated US military intervention in these countries!

Saudi Arabia is an authoritarian and totalitarian theocratic monarchy. Despite of this, US continues to actively support Saudi monarchy even though the latter’s government is one of the most undemocratic dictatorships among nation-states in the entire Middle East! The sad truth is that US never cares to propagate democracy in the Middle East, contrary to what is being harped and proclaimed far and wide by the Western mainstream media outfits that are unthinking supporters of the already discredited CIA propaganda called “Arab Spring”.

The glaring proof that US is not interested in the democratization of the Middle East is the fact that the US supports the most corrupt and cruel dictators of the world: the dictators of the Middle East first and foremost—for so long as these tyrants actively support the continued US hegemonization in the region! And in return, these dictators and tyrants in the Middle East must pay absolute allegiance to US hegemony in order to be assured of US support against internal democratic movements within and domestic rebellions that are constantly besetting their totalitarian regimes.

The old adage, “it takes two to waltz or tango” proves to be an apt and veritable depiction describing the reciprocal, co-dependent, symbiotic yet parasitic relationship between US hegemony and the corrupt monarchs and dictators in the Middle East region.

Prof. Henry Francis B. Espiritu is Associate Professor-VI of Philosophy and Asian Studies at the University of the Philippines (UP), Cebu City. He was former Academic Coordinator of the Political Science Program at UP Cebu from 2011-2014. His research interests include Islamic Studies particularly Sunni jurisprudence, Islamic feminist discourses, Islamic philosophy, the writings of Al-Ghazali on tolerance and pluralism, Turkish Sufism and Public Theology. He can be freely contacted at his email address: [email protected].