Global Research

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 and social is vital and it creates an image and thought which leads to a behaviour in a community accordingly. In etymology aspect, phobia means: “irrational fear, horror, aversion,” abstracted from compounds in -phobia, from Greek -phobia, from phobos “fear, panic fear, terror, outward show of fear; object of fear or terror,”. It became the common word for “fear” via the notion of “panic, fright” (compare phobein “put to flight, frighten”), from PIE root *bhegw- “to run.”

The Islam-phobia is chosen to describe of any actions or reactions (verbally or practically) including propaganda against Islam and Muslims in the world. While you study etymologically the prefix of Anti, you will find Anti is a word-forming element meaning “against, opposed to, opposite of, instead,” from Old French anti- and directly from Latin antiAnti-Semitic (also antisemitic) and anti-Semite (also antisemite) also are from 1881, like anti-Semitism they appear first in English in an article in the “Athenaeum” of Sept. 31, in reference to German literature. Thus any actions or reactions against Zionists will consider by zionists and applied by media as Anti Semitism or Anti Judaism choosing the prefix of Anti on purpose and meaningfully.

To explain more about the term of “phobia”, it is first better to look at the psychological point of view :

“Fear is a reaction to danger that involves both the mind and body. It can serve a protective purpose, signalling us of danger and preparing us to deal with it, or it can be disruptive.” To understand Fears, psychologists say:

“Fear is a built-in survival mechanism with which we are all equipped. Fear is a normal human emotional reaction. Even as babies, we possess the survival instincts necessary to respond when we sense danger. A fear reaction happens whenever we sense danger or when we are confronted with something new or unknown that seems potentially dangerous. Most people tend to avoid the things they feel afraid of. There are, of course, exceptions such as people who seek out the thrill of extreme sports because the rush of fear can be exciting. We all experience fear slightly differently and with more or less intensity. Some normal fears seem pretty much like a worry, or something you feel generally afraid of or uneasy about.

However, at other times, fear comes as a sudden reaction to a sudden confrontation with danger.”

They also distinguish the difference between Fear and Anxiety and psychologists believe: Fear is a reaction to an actual danger signal – it involves physical and mental tension that helps you spring into action to protect yourself from something that is happening. The body suddenly gears up into fight or flight mode when, for example, the car in front of you swerves and you just miss it. Once you know the danger has passed, the fear goes away.

The physical and mental tension of anxiety is very similar to fear but with one important difference. With anxiety, there isn’t usually anything actually happening right then and there to trigger the feeling. The feeling is coming from the anticipation of future danger or something bad that could happen, but there is no danger happening now.

Understanding Phobias:

A phobia is an intense, unreasonable fear of situations, objects, activities, or persons where the fear is far out of proportion to the actual danger or harm that is possible. The fear and distress is so intense that the person will do whatever they can to avoid coming into contact with the object of their fear, and often spend time thinking about whether they’re likely to encounter it in a given situation. In fact, if you have a phobia, you probably realize that your fear is unreasonable, yet you still can’t control it. If you are exposed to the thing you’re afraid of, you become overwhelmed with extreme feelings of anxiety, fear, and even panic. This experience is so unpleasant that you will go to great lengths to avoid the object or situation you fear.

Cause:

When someone develops a phobia, they quickly learn that they feel anxious when they are near the object or situation they fear – and that they feel relief when they avoid it. They learn that avoidance can reduce their anxiety (at least for the moment) and increase the likelihood that they will avoid the feared situation or object next time. The difficulty is that these avoidance behaviors have to keep increasing and happening even sooner to provide the same relief. Pretty soon, a person finds himself spending time worrying about the possibility of encountering the feared situation and avoiding anything that might bring him into contact with it. With a phobia, the pattern of anxiety, avoidance, and worry about the possibility of contact tends to grow bigger and interferes more with life over time.

Source: http://www.psychologistanywhereanytime.com/phobias_psychologist_and_psychologists/psychologist_ fears_and_phobias.htm

But having Anti behaviour such as antisocial behaviour is A pattern of behavior that is verbally or physically harmful to other people, animals, or property, including behavior that severely violates social expectations for a particular environment. Regardless of this possibility, these behaviors often lead to major difficulties in many life areas, including work and personal relationships and the disorder is often linked to criminal behavior.

http://psychology.about.com/od/psychiatricdisorders/a/dis_antisocial.htm

Therefore the phobia is talking about an unpleasant feeling in confrontation with a danger and Islamphobia holding the same meaning of danger and fear in unconscious mind although it is irrational but the outcome is a Fear causes by a fact called Islam.

Whereas using “Anti” for anti-semitism indicating violence and crime against Jewish people (racism) which it generates a feeling to defend or help the victims.

Now who needs help and who are victims:

• when Gazans are under siege and bombardment by Zionists,
• Syrians are facing a civil war led by ISIS assisted by the US and Israel,
• Muslims are shot at in the US,
• Iranians are suffering from sanctions,
• Yemenis , Iraqis, are the victims of airstrikes,
• and so on

“Der Jemen, das ärmste Land der arabischen Welt, wird gerade zum Schlachtfeld und zum nächsten gescheiterten Staat im Nahen Osten gemacht. Wenn es zu einem Bodenkrieg kommt, was wegen des Kräftemessens zwischen Saudi-Arabien und dem Iran sehr wahrscheinlich ist, wird alles nur noch schlimmer. Beide Mächte unterstützen Gruppierungen, von denen sie glauben, sie für ihre Zwecke einspannen zu können, und wohin diese destruktive Konkurrenz führt, lässt sich gerade in Syrien und im Irak beobachten,” war am 6. März in dem US-Magazin Foreign Policy

Die Allianz der Huthis mit dem Iran: Pragmatismus oder religiös begründeter Hilferuf?

Die Huthis kämpfen keineswegs für iranische Interessen. Die Huthi-Bewegung ist politisch unabhängig und entstanden, weil die jemenitische Bevölkerung unterdrückt wurde. Wer meint, die Huthis führten einen Stellvertreterkrieg für den Iran, ignoriert die jemenitische Geschichte und die bisher dort betriebene Politik. “Wenn jetzt im Krieg konfessionelle Trennungslinien aufbrechen, geschieht das nicht, weil es die im Jemen schon immer gegeben hat, sondern weil ausländische Kriegstreiber sie geschaffen haben,” gibt sogar Foreign Policy zu.

Die Huthi-Führer haben schon wiederholt Behauptungen zurückgewiesen, dass sie Anweisungen aus Teheran ausführen. Das hat Offizielle und Medien in Saudi-Arabien und in den Emiraten aber nicht daran gehindert, iranische Statements immer wieder zu manipulieren oder die Huthis mit den Basidsch-e Mostaz’afin (eine iranischen Miliz,) zu vergleichen und sie als “Agenten Teherans” darzustellen.

Die Huthis sind weder iranische Agenten, noch gibt es überhaupt Verbindungen zwischen den Schiiten im Iran und im Jemen. Wer mit solchen Unterstellungen arbeitet, will nur die Motivation der unterdrückten Huthis und die Ursachen des politischen Konfliktes im Jemen verschleiern. Bis in die 1970er Jahre war das saudische Königshaus die Hauptstütze der royalistischen Splittergruppen im Jemen, die überwiegend aus schiitischen Muslimen bestanden.

Außerdem sind die schiitischen Muslime im Jemen keine Imamiten – wie die Mehrheit der Schiiten im Iran, in der Republik Aserbaidschan, im Libanon, im Irak, in Afghanistan, in Pakistan und in einigen Gebieten am Persischen Golf. Außer einigen Gruppen von Ismailiten in den Bezirken Saada, Hajja, Amran, Al-Mahwit, Sanaa, Ibb und Al-Jawf sind die meisten jemenitischen Muslime Zaiditen. Die Ismailiten im Jemen gehören größtenteils zu zwei Sekten der Mustali- Ismailiten, die sich von den Nizari-Ismailiten abgespalten haben.

Nur weil sie von den USA und vom saudischen Königshaus angegriffen wurden, haben die Huthis den Iran um Hilfe gebeten. Das Wall Street Journal hat dazu am 6. März berichtet: “Die militanten Huthis, die Sanaa, die Hauptstadt des Jemen, kontrollieren, versuchen Verbindungen zum Iran, zu Russland und zu China zu knüpfen, um die Unterstützung des Westens und der Saudis für den abgesetzten jemenitischen Präsidenten auszugleichen. Die von den Huthis eingesetzte Übergangsregierung hat nach Aussage höherer Offizieller Delegationen entsandt, die mit dem Iran über die Lieferung von Treibstoffen und mit Russland über Investitionen in Energieprojekte verhandeln sollen. Eine weitere Delegation soll in den kommenden Wochen China besuchen.”

Die Bemühungen der Huthis haben dazu geführt, dass seit 2. März täglich Hilfsflüge zwischen Teheran und Sanaa stattfinden.

Geht es im Jemen um konfessionelle Differenzen, oder dienen die nur als Vorwand?

Die Instabilität im Jemen haben nicht der Iran oder die Huthis zu verantworten; sie wurde durch die Einmischung der USA und der Saudis verursacht; die begann mit der saudischen Invasion im Jahr 2009 und hat sich mit den US-Drohnen Angriffen und der Unterstützung Saudi-Arabiens für das autoritäre Regime Hadis bis heute fortgesetzt.

Der Jemen war nicht in sich bekämpfende islamische Konfessionen aufgespalten. Vor dem Auftauchen der von den USA und den Saudis finanzierten Unruhestifter der Al-Qaida gab es keinerlei Konflikte zwischen schiitischen und sunnitischen Jemeniten. Um das Streben der jemenitischen Bevölkerung nach Unabhängigkeit zu stören, haben die Saudis und die USA Schiiten und Sunniten gegeneinander aufgehetzt.

Berichte, in denen behauptet wird, der Iran unterstütze nur Schiiten, treffen nicht zu. Die palästinensischen Verbündeten Teherans sind überwiegend Sunniten, und im Irak und in Syrien hilft der Iran neben den Regierungen beider Länder ganz unterschiedlichen ethnischen und religiösen Gruppierungen – auch Christen und Menschen, die keine Araber sind. Dazu gehören auch die überwiegend sunnitischen syrischen und irakischen Kurden und der Sutoro-Flügel der Syriac Union Party / SUP. Im Libanon unterstützt der Iran außer der Hisbollah auch noch sunnitische Muslime, die Drusen und christliche Parteien wie die Freie Patriotische Bewegung von Michel Aoun – die größte christliche Partei im Libanon.

Wenn jemand den Konflikt zwischen Schiiten und Sunniten schürt, dann sind es die USA und die mit ihnen verbündeten arabischen Ölscheichtümer. Früher haben die USA und Saudi-Arabien die Huthis zur Bekämpfung der Muslimbruderschaft im Jemen angestiftet. Während des Kalten Kriegs haben Washington und das saudische Königshaus die jemenitischen Schiiten gegen die Republikaner im Nordjemen und gegen die Volksdemokratische Republik im Südjemen aufgehetzt. Erst als sich die Huthis nicht mehr von Washington und Riad einspannen ließen, wurden sie zu Feinden erklärt.

Die Invasion des Jemen wird vorbereitet

Am 20. März sprengten sich Selbstmordattentäter während des Nachmittagsgebetes in den Moscheen Al-Badr und Al-Hashoosh in die Luft. Mehr als dreihundert Menschen wurden getötet. Abdul Malik al-Houthi beschuldigte die USA, Israel und Saudi-Arabien für alle von ISIL, ISIS, Daesh oder Al-Qaida begangenen Terroranschläge im Jemen verantwortlich zu sein.

Marokko, Jordanien und die arabischen Ölscheichtümer schwiegen zu den Anschlägen, nur Marziyeh Afkham, die Sprecherin des iranischen Außenministeriums, verurteilte den Terror im Jemen. Auch Syrien, der Irak, Russland und China haben sich gegen Terrorangriffe in jeder Form ausgesprochen. Teheran schickte zwei Transportflugzeuge mit humanitären Hilfsgütern in den Jemen, und der Rote Halbmond des Irans flog mehr als fünfzig bei den Terroranschlägen Verletzte zur ärztlichen Behandlung in iranische Krankenhäuser.

Die Einmischung des saudischen Königshauses im Jemen ist misslungen

Die jetzige Huthi-Bewegung ist nur entstanden, weil Saudi-Arabien das autoritäre Regime im Jemen immer unterstützt hat. Die Huthis haben also nur auf die Brutalität der Saudis und des jemenitischen Regimes reagiert. Ihre Bewegung ging aus einem Aufstand hervor, den Hussein Badreddin Al-Houthi 2004 gegen die jemenitische Regierung entfacht hatte.

Die Regime im Jemen und in Saudi-Arabien haben den Huthis fälschlicherweise unterstellt, in Arabien ein Ziaditisches Kalifat errichten zu wollen, um ihre Bewegung zu diskreditieren. Damit konnte jedoch nicht verhindert werden, dass sie noch stärker wurden. Das jemenitische Militär konnte sie schon 2009 nicht bezwingen; daraufhin kamen ihm die Saudis am 11. August 2009 mit der Operation Scorched Earth (Verbrannte Erde) zur Hilfe.

Aber auch das in den Jemen gerufene saudische Militär konnte die Huthis in den Jahren 2009 und 2010 nicht zum Aufgeben zwingen. Als es die Huthis und ihre Übergangsregierung aufforderte, sich Saudi-Arabien unterzuordnen und mit Riad zu verhandeln, wiesen beide dieses Ansinnen zurück, weil sie befürchteten, dadurch an den Rand gedrängt und über den Tisch gezogen zu werden. Dabei wurden sie sogar von Hadis eigener Partei, dem Allgemeinen Volkskongress, und der jemenitischen Baath-Partei unterstützt.

Soll der Jemen geteilt werden?

Bei Aufständen im Jemen haben die USA und Saudi-Arabien immer militärisch interveniert; dabei ist es ihnen sogar gelungen, im Südjemen eine separatistische Strömung in Gang zu setzen. Das jemenitische Militär ist auseinander gebrochen, und zwischen einzelnen Stämmen ist es zu Spannungen gekommen. Es ist sogar schon von einem gescheiterten arabischen Staat die Rede.

2013 hat die New York Times vorgeschlagen, Libyen, Syrien, den Irak und den Jemen in Teilstaaten aufzuspalten. Der Jemen sollte nach einem Referendum im Südjemen wieder zweigeteilt werden. Die New York Times empfahl auch, “einen Teil oder den ganzen Südjemen in Saudi-Arabien einzugliedern”. Da fast der ganze saudische Handel übers Meer abgewickelt wird, würden die Saudis durch eine Annexion des Südjemen einen direkten Zugang zum Arabischen Meer erhalten und wären dann weniger abhängig vom Persischen Golf, den der Iran durch eine Blockade der Straße von Hormuz sperren könnte.

Saudi-Arabien und (der abgesetzte jemenitische Präsident) Hadi setzen jetzt auf die Separatisten im Südjemen, die aber nur von einem Zehntel der Bevölkerung unterstützt werden. Mit einer Abspaltung des Südjemen hoffen sie einen totalen Sieg der Huthis verhindern zu können. Dadurch würde sichergestellt, dass Saudi-Arabien und der GCC einen eigenen Zugang (zum Arabischen Meer und) zum Indischen Ozean haben und die USA weiterhin den Golf von Aden kontrollieren können.

Klicken Sie hier, um einen Artikel zu lesen.

Von Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Strategic Culture Foundation, I und II 30./31.03.2015; Übersetzung: Luftpost, 14.04.2015.

Der in Kanada lebende Soziologe Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, ein Experte für den Nahen und Mittleren Osten, untersucht die Gründe für den Krieg im Jemen.

Die USA und das Königreich Saudi-Arabien waren sehr beunruhigt, als die jemenitische Bewegung der Huthi – die Ansarallah, was auf Arabisch Soldaten Allahs heißt (s. hier) – im September 2014 die Kontrolle über die jemenitische Hauptstadt Sanaa übernahmen. Der von den USA unterstützte jemenitische Präsident Abed Rabbo Mansur Hadi musste nachgeben und seine Macht mit den Huthis und einer Koalition von Stämmen aus dem nördlichen Jemen teilen, die sich mit den Huthis verbündet hatten. Hadi hatte sich zu Verhandlungen über eine nationale Einheitsregierung für den Jemen bereit erklärt, und seine Unterstützer USA und Saudi-Arabien wollten den Nationalen Dialog dazu nutzen, die Huthis einzubinden und zu besänftigen.

Die Wahrheit über den Krieg im Jemen wurde auf den Kopf gestellt. Der Krieg und die Vertreibung des Präsidenten im Jemen sind nicht die Folge des “Huthi-Staatsstreichs”, sondern das Gegenteil. Hadi wurde vertrieben, weil er mit Unterstützung der Saudis und der USA die Abmachung über die Teilung der Macht rückgängig machen und den Jemen wieder allein und autoritär regieren wollte. Die Vertreibung des Präsidenten Hadi durch die Huthis und ihre politischen Verbündeten war nur die Reaktion auf die von Hadi mit der Unterstützung Washingtons und des saudischen Königshauses geplante erneute Alleinherrschaft.

Die Huthis und ihre Verbündeten stellen einen repräsentativen Querschnitt durch die jemenitische Gesellschaft und die darin herrschenden Mehrheitsverhältnisse dar. Zu dem Huthi-Bündnis gegen Hadi, das im Jemen selbst entstanden ist, gehören sowohl schiitische als auch sunnitische Muslime. Die USA und das saudische Königshaus haben nicht damit gerechnet, dass es den Huthis gelingen würde, Hadi zu entmachten, und die haben ja auch zehn Jahre dafür gebraucht. Zusammen mit dem saudischen Königshaus hat Hadi schon die Huthis bekämpft und jemenitische Stämme manipuliert, bevor er überhaupt Präsident wurde. Als er Präsident geworden war, verschleppte er die Umsetzung der Maßnahmen, die nach der Entmachtung Ali Abdullah Salihs im Jahr 2011 im Nationalen Dialog für den Jemen ausgehandelt worden waren.

Staatsstreich oder Gegenstaatsstreich: Was ist im Jemen geschehen?

Als die Huthis gegen Ende 2014 Sanaa einnahmen, wiesen sie Hadis neue Angebote für eine formelle Vereinbarung über eine Beteiligung an der Macht zurück, weil sie ihn als moralisch verkommene Figur kannten, der frühere Versprechen, die politische Macht zu teilen, bisher immer gebrochen hat. Wegen seiner Kumpanei mit Washington und dem saudischen Königshaus hatte sich Präsident Hadi bei der Mehrheit der jemenitischen Bevölkerung sehr unbeliebt gemacht. Am 8. November 2014 setze ihn sogar seine eigene Partei, der Allgemeine Volkskongress, als Vorsitzenden ab.

Am 20. Januar griffen die Huthis schließlich den Präsidentenpalast und andere Regierungsgebäude im Jenem an und nahmen den Präsidenten Hadi fest. Mit Unterstützung der Bevölkerung bildeten die Huthis bereits am 6. Februar eine Übergangsregierung und zwangen Hadi zum Rücktritt. Sie teilten der jemenitischen Bevölkerung mit, Hadi habe mit Unterstützung der USA und Saudi-Arabiens am 26. Februar einen Putsch geplant.

Hadis Rücktritt war ein Rückschlag für die US-Außenpolitik. Dadurch wurden die CIA und das Pentagon gezwungen, ihr Geheimdienst- und Militärpersonal aus dem Jemen abzuziehen. Die Los Angeles Times berichtete am 25. März unter Berufung auf US-Offizielle, als die Huthis das National Security Bureau (das Büro des jemenitischen Geheimdienstes) besetzt hätten, der eng mit der CIA zusammenarbeitete, seien ihnen zahlreiche Geheimdokumente über Operationen Washingtons im Jemen in die Hände gefallen.

Hadi floh am 21. Februar aus der jemenitischen Hauptstadt Sanaa nach Aden und erklärte es am 7. März zur neuen provisorische Hauptstadt. Die USA, Frankreich, die Türkei, und ihre westeuropäischen Verbündeten schlossen daraufhin ihre Botschaften (in Sanaa). Bald darauf verlegten – vermutlich nach Absprache mit den USA – Saudi-Arabien, Kuwait, Bahrain, Katar und die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate ihre Botschaften von Sanaa nach Aden. Hadi widerrief seinen Rücktritt und erklärte, er werde eine Exilregierung bilden.

Die Huthis und ihre politischen Verbündeten weigerten sich, auf die Forderungen der USA und Saudi-Arabiens einzugehen, die Hadi in Aden und die zunehmend hysterischer reagierenden Saudis in Riad erhoben. Daraufhin bat Hadis Außenminister Riyadh Yaseen, am 23. März Saudi-Arabien und die arabischen Ölscheichtümer, militärisch zu intervenieren, um die Huthis an der Übernahme der Kontrolle über den jemenitischen Luftraum zu hindern. Über sein Sprachrohr, die saudische Tageszeitung Asharq al-Awsat, ließ Yaseen Bombenangriffe und die Errichtung einer Flugverbotszone über dem Jemen ankündigen.

Als die Houthis begriffen, dass ein militärischer Angriff drohte, versuchten sie und ihre Verbündeten in den jemenitischen Streitkräften möglichst schnell möglichst viele Flugplätze wie Al-Anad unter ihre Kontrolle zu bringen. Um Hadi zu neutralisieren, nahmen sie daraufhin am 25. März Aden ein.

Als die Huthis und ihre Verbündeten in Aden eindrangen, war Hadi schon aus der jemenitischen Hafenstadt geflohen. Als am 26. März die saudischen Angriffe auf den Jemen begannen, tauchte Hadi in Saudi-Arabien auf. Von dort aus flog er nach Ägypten, um an der Sitzung der Arabischen Liga teilzunehmen und den Krieg gegen den Jemen zu legitimieren.

Der Jemen und das sich ändernde strategische Gleichgewicht im Nahen Osten

Die Machtübernahme der Huthis in Sanaa fand im gleichen Zeitraum statt, in dem der Irandie Hisbollah, Syrien und der Widerstandsblock, den sie gemeinsam mit anderen lokalen Kräften bilden, weitere Erfolge verbuchen konnten. In Syrien konnte die syrische Regierung ihre Position festigen, und im Irak gelang es, mit Hilfe von Teheran unterstützter irakischer Milizen die ISIL/ISIS/Daesh-Mörder zurückzudrängen.

Das strategische Gleichgewicht im Nahen Osten verschiebt sich, weil der Iran immer wichtiger für die Sicherheitsarchitektur und die Stabilität wird. Dem saudischen Königshaus und dem israelischen Premierminister Benjamin Netanjahu passt es nicht, dass der Iran in Beirut, Damaskus, Bagdad und Sanaa, also schon in vier Hauptstädten der Region, immer mehr Einfluss gewinnt; sie mussten etwas tun, um die iranische Expansion zu stoppen. Infolge des veränderten strategischen Gleichgewichts haben sich die Israelis und das saudische Königshaus mit dem gemeinsamen strategischen Ziel verbündet, den Iran und seine regionalen Verbündeten zu bekämpfen. “Wenn sich die Israelis mit Arabern verbünden, sollten die Nachbarn aufpassen,” sagte der israelische Botschafter Ron Dermer am 5. März in der TV-Sendung Fox News zur neuen Allianz zwischen Israel und Saudi-Arabien.

Die von den Israelis und den Saudis gemeinsam betriebene Angstmacherei scheint aber nicht mehr zu wirken. Bei einer Meinungsumfrage, die stattfand, als Netanjahu in Washington gegen einen Atom-Deal mit dem Iran wetterte, bezeichneten nur noch 9 Prozent der befragten US-Bürger den Iran als größten Feind der USA.

Die von der US-Regierung und den Saudis mit dem Krieg im Jemen verfolgten strategischen Ziele

Während das saudische Königshaus den Jemen schon immer als untergeordnete Provinz und Teil seiner Einflusssphäre betrachtet hat, wollen die USA auch weiterhin die Meerenge Bab Al-Mandab den Golf von Aden und die Sokotra-Inseln kontrollieren. Der Bab al-Mandab ist ein wichtiges strategisches Nadelöhr für den internationalen Seehandel und den Öltransport aus dem Persischen Golf über das Arabische und das Rote Meer ins Mittelmeer. Diese Meerenge ist ebenso wichtig für die Seeschifffahrt und den Handel zwischen Afrika, Asien, und Europa wie der Suezkanal.

Auch Israel ist betroffen, weil die Macht, die den Jemen kontrolliert, auch seine U-Boote daran hindern könnte, durch das Rote und das Arabische Meer in den Persischen Golf vorzudringen und den Iran zu bedrohen. Deshalb hat Netanjahu, als er am 3. März auf dem Capitol Hill in seiner Rede vor den US-Kongress über den Iran gesprochen hat, auch auf die notwendige Kontrolle über den Jemen hingewiesen; die New York Times war die einzige US-Zeitung, die in ihrer Ausgabe vom 4. März Netajahus Rede “wenig überzeugend” fand.

Saudi-Arabien fürchtet sich offensichtlich davor, dass der Jemen völlig unter den Einfluss des Irans gerät, weil der dann auf der arabischen Halbinsel Unruhen gegen das saudische Königshaus schüren könnte. Das befürchten auch die USA, denken dabei aber auch an globale Konkurrenten. Sie wollen verhindern, dass neben dem Iran auch Russland oder China eine strategisch wichtige Position im Jemen beziehen, von der aus sie den Bab al-Mandab und den Golf von Aden überwachen könnten.

Die strategische Bedeutung des Jemen bei der Überwachung wichtiger Seewege wird noch erhöht durch die Raketen, über die sein Militär verfügt. Im Jemen abgefeuerte Raketen können jedes Schiff im Bab al-Mandab oder im Golf von Aden treffen. Deshalb dienen saudische Angriff auf die Raketendepots des Jemen auch den Interessen der USA und Israels. Die Raketen sollen nicht nur zerstört werden, damit sie nicht zur Abwehr saudischer Angriffe verwendet werden können, sie sollen auch nicht in die Hände des Irans, Russlands oder Chinas fallen.

Das Verhalten des saudischen Königshauses im Jemen steht in totalem Widerspruch zu seiner Syrien-Politik. (Während es in Syrien den Sturz Assads betreibt und dessen Gegner unterstützt), droht es den Huthis und ihren politischen Verbündeten mit weiterer militärischer Gewalt, wenn sie nicht mit Hadi verhandeln. Als Reaktion auf die saudischen Drohungen gab es am 25. März im Jemen zahlreiche Proteste gegen das saudische Königshaus. Weil die USA, Saudi-Arabien, Bahrain, die Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate und Katar Hadi wieder zur Macht verhelfen wollen, haben sie im Nahen Osten einen weiteren Krieg angezettelt.

Den Krieg im Jemen führen die Saudis eigentlich gegen den Iran

Trotz des ganzen Geredes über Saudi-Arabien als regionale Militärmacht ist es allein zu schwach, um sich mit dem Iran anzulegen. Das saudische Königshaus strebt deshalb ein regionales Bündnis an, das stark genug für eine Konfrontation mit dem Iran und dessen Verbündeten ist. Es will Saudi-Arabien mit Ägypten, der Türkei und Pakistan zu einer fälschlicherweise als “sunnitische Achse” bezeichneten Allianz gegen den Iran und dessen regionale Verbündete vereinigen.

Scheich Muhammad bin Zayid Al Nahyan, der Kronprinz des Emirates Abu Dhabi und Stellvertretende Kommandeur der Streitkräfte der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate, hat am 17. März Marokko besucht, um über eine kollektive Militäraktion der arabischen Ölscheichtümer, Marokkos, Jordaniens und Ägyptens gegen den Jemen zu beraten. Am 21. März hat er mit dem saudischen König Salman ibn Abd al-Aziz über eine militärische Reaktion auf die Vorgänge im Jemen gesprochen. Gleichzeitig hat Hadi Saudi-Arabien und den Golf Cooperation Council / GCC um eine militärische Intervention im Jemen gebeten. Nach den Treffen fand noch ein Gespräch über einen neuen regionalen Sicherheitspakt der arabischen Ölscheichtümer statt.

Von den fünf Mitgliedern des GCC nahm nur das Sultanat Oman nicht an diesem Gespräch teil. Oman will sich nicht an dem Krieg gegen den Jemen beteiligen. Oman mit seiner Hauptstadt Maskat unterhält freundschaftliche Beziehungen zu Teheran. Außerdem lehnt der Oman die Taktik der Saudis und des GCC ab, konfessionelle Unterschiede als Begründung für eine Konfrontation mit dem Iran und dessen Verbündeten zu missbrauchen. Die Mehrheit der Bewohner Omans ist weder sunnitisch, noch schiitisch; als Ibaditenwollen sie sich aus weiteren vom saudischen Königshaus und den anderen arabischen Ölscheichtümern angefachten “Konfessionskriegen” heraushalten.

Saudische Propagandisten hetzten zum Krieg (gegen den Iran) – mit der falschen Behauptung, der Iran wolle Saudi-Arabien einkreisen. Auch die Türkei will sich an dem Krieg gegen den Jemen beteiligen. An dem Tag, an dem die Luftangriffe begannen, erklärte der türkische Präsident Erdogan, weil der Iran versuche, die ganze Region zu dominieren, müssten sich die Türkei, Saudi-Arabien und der GCC gemeinsam dagegen zur Wehr setzen.

Während dieser Vorgänge stellte der ägyptische Präsident Sisi fest, Kairo habe das gleiche Sicherheitsbedürfnis wie Saudi-Arabien und die arabischen Ölscheichtümer. Am 25. März hatte Kairo noch erklärt, es werde sich nicht am Krieg gegen den Jemen beteiligen, aber schon einen Tag später griffen auch ägyptische Kriegsschiffe und Kampfjets den Jemen an.

Auch der pakistanische Premierminister Nawaz Sharif erklärte am 26. März, jede Bedrohung Saudi-Arabiens werde eine heftige Reaktion Pakistans bewirken. Diese Warnung war natürlich an den Iran gerichtet.

Die Rollen der USA und Israels im Krieg gegen den Jemen

Am 27. März wurde im Jemen bekannt, dass auch Israel den Angriff Saudi-Arabiens auf das arabische Nachbarland unterstützt. “Das ist das erste Mal, dass die Zionisten bei einer gemeinsamen Operation mit Arabern kollaborieren,” schrieb Hassan Zayd, der Chef der jemenitischen Al-Haq-Partei (s. hier) im Internet, um auf die Interessengleichheit zwischen Saudi-Arabien und Israel hinzuweisen. Die israelisch-saudische Allianz gegen den Jemen ist jedoch nicht neu. Die Israelis haben das saudische Königshaus Haus bereits während des Bürgerkrieges im Nordjemen ab 1962 unterstützt, indem sie den Saudis Waffen für den Kampf der Royalisten gegen die Republikaner im Nordjemen lieferten. (s. hier)

Auch die USA mischen im Hintergrund mit. Während sie einen Atom-Deal mit dem Iran aushandeln, helfen sie gleichzeitig den Saudis beim Schmieden ihres Bündnisses gegen Teheran. Das Pentagon stellt dem saudischen Königshaus “geheimdienstliche und logistische Unterstützung” zur Verfügung. Der Krieg der Saudis gegen den Jemen ist auch Washingtons Krieg. Der GCC hat sich nur auf Druck der USA zum Angriff auf den Jemen entschlossen.

Gespräche über die Bildung einer panarabischen militärischen Streitmacht gab es schon lange, tatsächlich beschlossen hat sie dieArabische Liga aber erst am 9. März. Die Schaffung einer vereinigten arabischen Militärmacht dient vor allem den Interessen der USA, Israels und Saudi-Arabiens. Die Gründung panarabischer Streitkräfte wurde durch die Vorbereitung eines Angriffs auf den Jemen beschleunigt; dabei geht es nicht nur darum, Hadi wieder zur Macht zu verhelfen, sondern vor allem um die Bildung eines Gegengewichtes gegen den Iran, Syrien, die Hisbollah, und den aus ihnen bestehenden regionalen Widerstandsblock.

Klicken Sie hier, um den zweiten Teil zu lesen.

Von Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Strategic Culture Foundation, I und II 30./31.03.2015; Übersetzung: Luftpost, 14.04.2015.

Der in Kanada lebende Soziologe Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, ein Experte für den Nahen und Mittleren Osten, untersucht die Gründe für den Krieg im Jemen.

Los estudiantes quebequeses salieron una vez más a las calles de la ciudad canadiense de Montreal, contra las políticas de austeridad y la explotación de los hidrocarburos. La represión policial que sufre el actual movimiento estudiantil fue denunciada por los manifestantes.

“The interventions of US imperialism, with the direct collaboration of the Saudi monarchy, have plunged the entire Middle East into chaos and bloodshed—from the destruction of Iraq, to the transformation of Libya into a militia-ravaged “failed state,” to the ongoing carnage inflicted upon Syria … This predatory imperialist offensive threatens to ignite a region-wide conflagration, even as Washington deliberately ratchets up military tensions with both Russia and China. The threat of these separate conflicts coalescing into a third world war grows by the day.”

– Bill Van Auken, Obama’s criminal war against Yemen, World Socialist web Site

“Will the reactionary rulers of Saudi Arabia manage to break the legitimate hopes and enthusiastic dreams burning in the hearts of thousands of young people of the Arabian Peninsula? Never!”

– Gamal Abd al-Nasser, President of Egypt 1956 to 1970

In its ongoing effort to prevent the rise of “any popularly supported government in the region”, the US has joined Saudi Arabia’s savage war of annihilation against Yemen’s northern tribal rebels, the Houthis. The Pentagon has expedited the delivery of bombs, ammunition and guidance systems to assist the Saudi-led campaign and is providing logistical support to maximize the impact of its bombing raids. The US has also set up a “joint fusion center”, provided “aerial re-fueling platforms” and “advanced US-made weaponry” with the explicit intention of suppressing a militant group that overthrew the US-backed puppet government in the capital of Sanaa in the fall of 2014. The level of coordination between the makeshift Arab coalition (The Gulf Cooperation Council or GCC) and the US suggests that Washington is not only fully aware that food depots, water facilities, refugee camps and critical civilian infrastructure are being deliberately targeted and destroyed, but that the White House has given the green light to actions that will inevitably lead to widespread famine and social collapse. Here’s a little background from an article in The National:

“Yemen Economic Corporation, one of Yemen’s largest food storage centres, was destroyed by three coalition missile strikes in Hodeidah last Tuesday, according to the Houthi-controlled defence ministry. The corporation had enough food for the entire country. The government’s military food storage centre in Hodeidah was also targeted and destroyed on Tuesday, according to the defence ministry.

Also in Hodeidah, country’s second largest dairy plant was hit by five Saudi missiles on Wednesday, killing at least 29 people, mostly employees, and injuring dozens of others.” (Yemeni civilians struggle to get by amid conflict, The National)

This is from Channel News Asia:

DUBAI: Warships from the Saudi-led coalition have blocked a vessel carrying more than 47,000 tonnes of wheat from entering a Yemeni port, demanding United Nations guarantees that the cargo would not go to military personnel, shipping sources said on Thursday.” (Saudi-led coalition bars wheat ship from entering Yemen port – sources, Channel News Asia)

This is from WSWS:

“Airstrikes as well as fighting on the ground has knocked out electrical infrastructure, cutting off power in many urban areas and stopping the operation of crucial pumps that supply Yemen’s cities with drinking water. “We’re worried that this system will break down shortly; Aden is a dry, hot place, and without water people will really suffer,” UNICEF representative Harneis told reporters…

The no-fly zone and blockade enforced by Saudi Arabia and its coalition partners has effectively blocked the delivery of medical aid and supplies for the last two weeks, exacerbating the developing crisis.” World Socialist Web Site

Live reports on the ground confirm that food depots have been bombed across the country; ” in Asr (west) hit as well as Urdhi complex (center) & Noqum (east).

This is how America fights its wars, by precipitating massive humanitarian crises that help it to achieve its political objectives. If that isn’t terrorism, then what is?

Here’s more from the Washington Post:

“As tons of desperately needed medical supplies await clearance to be flown into Yemen, aid workers warned Tuesday of an unfolding humanitarian crisis, saying at least 560 people, including dozens of children, have been killed, mostly in a Saudi-led air campaign and battles between Shiite rebels and forces loyal to the embattled president. More than 1,700 people have been wounded and another 100,000 have fled their homes as fighting intensified over the past three weeks, the World Health Organization said.” (560 dead amid fears of humanitarian collapse in Yemen, Washington Post)

The Saudis launched this latest aggression invoking the thinnest of pretexts, that it wanted to “restore the legitimate government” and protect the “Yemeni constitution and elections.” As CNN’s Ali Alahmed sardonically quipped:

“The need to protect constitutions and elections is a rather strange message from the representative of an absolute monarchy … The kingdom’s real motives seem clear if one looks at Saudi monarchy’s history of not allowing regional competition of any kind, while consistently combating efforts to build democratic governments that empower the people…

The Saudi goal is simple: Prevent the rise of any popularly supported government in the region that seeks self-determination. And the excuse of “resisting Iran’s influence,” meanwhile, appears to be nothing but sectarian bluster.” (What Saudi Arabia wants in Yemen, CNN)

While we agree with Alahmed’s basic thesis, we think the rule applies more to the United States than Saudi Arabia. After all, it’s the US that has gone from one country to the next, toppling governments, installing puppets, and spreading anarchy wherever it goes. Whatever role the Saudis might have played in Washington’s grand plan to redraw the map of the Middle East and project US tentacles into Eurasia, it is quite small by comparison. It’s the US that refuses to allow an independent government to emerge in a region that it’s committed to control. And it’s the US that is facilitating the attacks on innocent Yemenis by providing the bombs, weaponry and logistical support to the reactionary Saudi leadership. Check this out from Gregory Johnson at Buzzfeed:

“A consensus appears to be building in Riyadh, Cairo, and Islamabad toward inserting ground troops into the conflict in Yemen. One Egyptian military official told BuzzFeed News the decision had already been made. “Ground forces will enter the war,” the official said on condition of anonymity in order to discuss classified military operations.

The timing of such a move, which would be a significant escalation in the Saudi-led air campaign in Yemen, is still being discussed. But the Egyptian military source said it could happen as soon as “two or three days.” (Ground Forces Seen Joining Bloody War In Yemen, Buzzfeed)

So after two weeks of nonstop bombing, the coalition is now planning to intensify the conflict by putting boots on the ground. But that will only prolong the hostilities and plunge the country deeper into crisis. It will also increase the risk of Houthi retaliation, which appears to already be taking place. According to Al Arabiya English, fighting broke out in the Southern Saudi city of Narjan on April 11. (#BREAKING Asiri: Houthi militias are amassing close to the Saudi-Yemeni border… #BREAKING: Asiri: clashes reported near the Saudi city of Najran)

While no one expects the Houthis to invade their northern neighbor, there are some analysts who think the monarchy has taken on more than it can chew and will eventually suffer blowback from its incursion. One such critic is Sayed Hassan Nasrallah, Secretary General of the Lebanese paramilitary organization Hezbollah. In a recent interview, Nasrallah suggested that the Houthis have the means to curtail vital energy supplies, strike a blow against Saudi Arabia, and send financial markets tumbling at the same time. Here’s an excerpt from the interview:

“There is now a demand on the Yemeni leaders… who have not taken the decision to close (the strategic Strait) of Bab al-Mandeb, which they could do at any time. (It is only 20 kilometres-large, they are quite capable of it.) And they could also hit targets inside Saudi Arabia with missiles, or even enter the interior of Saudi Arabia, although they have not yet made this decision, so far … There is currently a Yemeni popular demand: “Let us go to Saudi Arabia.” Leadership thus far has not taken such a decision. I wanted to indicate this.”…

Nasrallah again: “I am absolutely certain that Saudi Arabia will undergo a major defeat. And its defeat will impact its internal situation, the royal family … and the entire region.” (“Hassan Nasrallah: The war in Yemen announces the end of the House of Saud”, The Vineyard of the Saker)

So the Houthis could close the Bab Al Mandeb straits and prevent millions of barrels of oil from getting to market? That changes the calculus entirely. How would that effect Washington’s plan to crash Russia’s economy with plunging oil prices? How would it impact global stock markets which are already jittery over the Fed’s projected rate hikes? What effect would it have on al Nusra, ISIS and other Al Qaeda-linked groups that would then seek to launch similar attacks against critical energy infrastructure as the best way to achieve their aims?

There are things the Houthis can do to discourage Saudi aggression. They can take matters into their own hands and strike where it hurts most. Washington is so convinced of its own invincibility, that no one has even thought of this. Without the slightest hesitation, the Obama troupe has embroiled a key ally in bloody conflagration that could backfire and seriously undermine US interests in the region. Saudi Arabia is the cornerstone of US power in the Middle East, but it is also its Achilles heel. By supporting the attack on the Houthis instead of seeking a political solution, Washington has strengthened Al Qaeda on the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) which poses the greatest single threat to the monarchy. As Nasrallah notes: “they (the US and SA) protect Al Qaeda and Daesh in Yemen, and more, they drop them weapons by air. This is an achievement? This goes against the interests of Saudi Arabia.”

Indeed, it does. Al Qaeda has much greater ability to infiltrate Saudi Arabia and either launch terrorist attacks or foment popular revolution. The Houthis present no such security threat, they’re only interest is to maintain their own sovereignty, borders, and independent foreign policy. A 2003 article in the Atlantic by CIA Bureau Chief Robert Baer titled “The Fall of the House of Saud” provides a window into Riyadh’s vulnerabilities and draws the ominous conclusion that the kingdom’s days are numbered. Here’s a clip from the article:

“Saudi oil is controlled by an increasingly bankrupt, criminal, dysfunctional, and out-of-touch royal family that is hated by the people it rules and by the nations that surround its kingdom…

Signs of impending disaster are everywhere, but the House of Saud has chosen to pray that the moment of reckoning will not come soon—and the United States has chosen to look away. So nothing changes: the royal family continues to exhaust the Saudi treasury, buying more and more arms and funneling more and more “charity” money to the jihadists, all in a desperate and self-destructive effort to protect itself.

The most vulnerable point and the most spectacular target in the Saudi oil system is the Abqaiq complex—the world’s largest oil-processing facility, which sits about twenty-four miles inland from the northern end of the Gulf of Bahrain. All petroleum originating in the south is pumped to Abqaiq for processing. For the first two months after a moderate to severe attack on Abqaiq, production there would slow from an average of 6.8 million barrels a day to one million barrels, a loss equivalent to one third of America’s daily consumption of crude oil. For seven months following the attack, daily production would remain as much as four million barrels below normal—a reduction roughly equal to what all of the opec partners were able to effect during their 1973 embargo…

I served for twenty-one years with the CIA’s Directorate of Operations in the Middle East, and during all my years there I accepted on faith my government’s easy assumption that the money the House of Saud was dumping into weaponry and national security meant that the family’s armed forces and bodyguards could keep its members—and their oil—safe … I no longer believe this …  sometime soon, one way or another, the House of Saud is coming down.” (The Fall of the House of Saud, Robert Baer, The Atlantic)

Neither the United States nor Saudi Arabia have any right to interfere in Yemen’s internal affairs or to install their own political puppets to head the government. That is the right of the Yemeni people. And while the current process of regime change might be messy and violent, the Houthi rebels better represent the interests of the indigenous population than anyone in Riyadh or Washington. The Saudi-US war is merely aimed at controlling the outcome so Yemen remains within the imperial grip. As Nasrallah says, “The real goal of the war is to retain control and domination of Yemen (but) the Yemeni people will not put up with this aggression and humiliation. They will fight to defend their dignity, their existence, their families, and their territory. And they will be victorious.”

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

A federal district court judge sentenced four former Blackwater Worldwide mercenaries to lengthy prison terms on Monday for their role in the Nisour Square massacre in Baghdad, Iraq in 2007.

Nicholas Slatten, Evan Liberty, Paul Slough and Devin Heard were convicted on charges of first-degree murder and manslaughter by a federal jury in October 2014. The four were part of a security team working for the US State Department in Iraq.

On September 16, 2007 the members of the convoy, unprovoked, opened fire with their automatic weapons on stopped traffic in Nisour Square and also launched stun grenades. The mercenaries continued to fire their weapons as civilians tried to flee the area. One member of the security team did not stop firing his automatic rifle, despite calls to cease fire, until a fellow mercenary threatened to shoot him. Blackwater mercenaries in helicopters also fired into traffic from overhead.

The massacre resulted in the deaths of 17 unarmed Iraqis and wounded at least 20 others.

Monday’s sentencing was the conclusion of a years-long process, which has wound its way through the federal court system. Charges were first brought by the Department of Justice in 2008 and subsequently dismissed by a district judge in 2009 before being reinstated by an appeals court in 2011. The US government rejected Iraqi demands that the Blackwater mercenaries stand trial in Iraq.

Jeremey Ridgeway and Donald Ball, two other Blackwater contractors who were involved in the massacre, were originally charged along with the four others but had their cases resolved previously. Ridgeway struck a deal with prosecutors in 2010 and pled guilty to manslaughter, attempted manslaughter and aiding and abetting. All charges against Ball were dropped in 2013.

The judge sentenced Slatten who was convicted of first-degree murder to life in prison. Liberty, Slough and Heard, convicted of voluntary manslaughter and using a machine gun to carry out a violent crime, were each given the mandatory minimum sentence of 30 years in prison. All four men have filed appeals of their convictions and sentences.

US District Court Judge Royce Lamberth rejected a motion by the defense to reduce the four men’s sentences. “Based on the seriousness of the crimes, I find the penalty is not excessive,” the judge stated. Lamberth also turned down a motion by the federal prosecutor to impose harsher sentences.

Monday’s sentencing hearing was taken up by testimony from family members of the Iraqi victims as well as character witness for the mercenaries. Mohammad Kinani Al-Razzaq testified about the murder of his nine-year-old son, Ali Mohammed Hafedh Abdul Razzaq, demanding that the judge show the former Blackwater employees “what the law is.”

“What’s the difference between these criminals and terrorists?” Razzaq asked rhetorically.

Assistant US Attorney T. Patrick Martin stated that the lengthy sentences handed out Monday would prevent American contractors from carrying out similar atrocities in the future. “You are entrusted to do a job with deadly weapons, but you must use them only when necessary, and their use must be justified. You can’t just shoot first and seek justification later,” he said.

The convictions, handed down in October, have been depicted as an example of the US government’s commitment to justice and democratic principles. “This verdict is a resounding affirmation of the commitment of the American people to the rule of law, even in times of war,” US Attorney Ronald Machen said last year.

While the Blackwater guards are certainly guilty of the wanton murder of innocent Iraqis, the massacre in Baghdad was just one of many notorious atrocities, which flowed out of the logic of the illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq launched in 2003. The perpetuators of these crimes were, among others, President George W. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of State Colin Powell and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice.

Other notorious incidents seared in the collective consciousness are the US military’s assault on the city of Fallujah in 2004 in which white phosphorous and incendiary bombs were deployed, the torture of inmates at the notorious Abu Ghraib prison facility and the Haditha massacre in which US Marines killed 24 unarmed civilians.

There were an estimated 20,000 to 30,000 so-called security contractors employed by the US at the peak of its occupation of Iraq. Blackwater was just one of a number of private firms that were providing security and military services for the US military and State Department. A report by the Democratic staff of the House Oversight Committee released in 2007 found that Blackwater guards were firing their weapons an average of 1.4 times a week and in 80 percent of cases were the first to open fire.

While the four former Blackwater mercenaries have been sentenced to prison, those who placed them in Nisour Square, Bush et al, remain free from even the threat of prosecution. To date none of those ultimately responsible for the destruction of Iraqi society and the deaths of more than a million Iraqis have been held to account. When it comes to those in positions of power the Obama administration has held to its mantra in relation to other crimes of the US government, including systematic torture carried out by the CIA, “look forward, not back.”

Blackwater Worldwide, which has since changed its name to Academi Services, continues to offer its mercenary services to governments around the world. Amidst anti-austerity protests Academi was contracted by the Greek government at the end of 2012 to oversee police services and provide protective services to government members and agencies. German media reported that Academi operators were working alongside the fascist Right Sector militia in Ukraine to suppress pro-Russia separatists opposed to last year’s US backed right-wing coup.

A lead article in Monday’s New York Times describing a debate within the US government over whether to assassinate another American citizen brings into relief one basic fact: the United States is run by criminals.

The Times article revealed the name of an American citizen who had been placed on the so-called “kill list” for drone assassination. Due to a number of contingencies, the life of Texas-born Mohanad Mahmoud Al Farekh was ultimately spared. He was captured in a raid in Pakistan last year and was taken to the United States to face trial in Brooklyn, New York.

It has been known since 2010 that the Obama administration had decided to place at least one US citizen on its “kill list” of targets for drone assassination. This was Anwar al-Awlaki, who was assassinated in Yemen on September 30, 2011, many months later. The killing was a premeditated and unconstitutional act, targeting an individual who had not been charged, let alone convicted for any crime.

In a May 2013 speech at the National Defense University, President Barack Obama formally acknowledged the killing al-Awlaki, while also admitting that three other Americans had been killed as part of the “collateral damage” of other drone strikes. This included Awlaki’s teenage son one month after the killing of his father.

In February 2014, the Associated Press, citing “senior US officials,” reported that the White House was “wrestling with whether to kill [another US citizen] with a drone strike.” That man, unnamed at the time, was evidently Farekh.

Monday’s New York Times article makes clear that the life of Farekh was spared not because of any fundamental constitutional or democratic concerns, but rather as a result of tactical disagreements and jurisdictional conflicts among the agencies responsible for drone killings, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Pentagon and the Justice Department.

According to the Times,

“The Pentagon nominated Mr. Farekh to be placed on a so-called kill list for terrorism suspects; CIA officials also pushed for the White House to authorize his killing. But the Justice Department, particularly Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr., was skeptical of the intelligence dossier on Mr. Farekh.”

In other words, the decision against murdering Farekh was entirely a matter of expediency, based, according to the Times, on the belief by the Justice Department that his capture would better serve the purposes of American imperialism than his extrajudicial killing.

According to the Times piece, a major reason for not killing Farekh was the fact that he fell through the jurisdictional cracks between the Pentagon and the CIA in their operations inside Pakistan.

The Times writes that in 2013,

“The White House directed that the Pentagon, rather than the CIA, should conduct lethal strikes against American citizens suspected of terrorism … But the Pentagon has long been banned from conducting drone strikes in Pakistan, part of a 2004 deal with Pakistan that all such attacks be carried out by the CIA under its authority to take covert action—allowing Pakistan to publicly deny any knowledge of the strikes and American officials to remain silent.”

Between 2004 and 2015, the US killed as many as 3,949 people through drone strikes in Pakistan alone, according to the Bureau of Investigative Journalism.

Top administration officials are well aware that what they are doing is illegal and unconstitutional, particularly in relation to US citizens. One unnamed “former senior official” told the Times that “Post-Awlaki, there was a lot of nervousness” about killing American citizens, reflecting the very real awareness in the Obama administration that its actions could leave it open for prosecution in the future.

Whatever these concerns, however, the Obama administration, along with the entire political establishment, has vigorously defended the right of the president to assassinate US citizens without due process.

Tellingly, the Times reported that congressional leaders functioned not as a restraint and a check on the criminal actions of the White House and CIA, but rather sought to goad the White House to murder Farekh. The article states, “During a closed-door hearing of the House Intelligence Committee in July 2013, lawmakers grilled military and intelligence officials about why Mr. Farekh had not been killed.”

In February 2013, Attorney General Holder made clear that the administration claims its right to extrajudicially assassinate US citizens, even within the borders of the United States.

Holder wrote in a letter to Senator Rand Paul:

“It is possible, I suppose, to imagine an extraordinary circumstance in which it would be necessary and appropriate under the Constitution and applicable laws of the United States for the President to authorize the military to use lethal force within the territory of the United States.”

In his May 2013 speech, Obama reinforced his commitment to the drone murder program, declaring, “America’s actions are legal … We were attacked on 9/11. Within a week, Congress overwhelmingly authorized the use of force.”

Obama then declared, seemingly contradicting himself, “For the record, I do not believe it would be constitutional for the government to target and kill any US citizen—with a drone or with a shotgun—without due process.”

This statement revolves around a crude verbal sophistry. In 2012, Attorney General Holder argued that the Constitution’s declaration that no person shall “be deprived of life … without due process of law” did not specify judicial process, but rather could apply to the internal deliberations within the executive branch.

As a result, the administration argued, the types of negotiations between cabinet officials, intelligence agencies and allied governments chronicled in Monday’s Times piece qualify as “due process.”

The Times article on Farekh was certainly cleared with the Obama administration and US intelligence agencies before being published. This may indicate that the turf battles described in it continue, and the article is part of ongoing maneuvers between the military and intelligence agencies of the US state apparatus.

The article is also part of a process of legitimizing and normalizing the clearly illegal and impeachable offenses described. In June of last year, the Obama administration released the drone murder memo outlining is pseudo-legal rationale for killing US citizens. Neither the memo not the crimes it outlined produced any significant objection from within the state or media establishment, the representatives and spokesmen of the corporate and financial aristocracy in America.

Dozens of aid agencies have called for international sanctions on Israel over its continued illegal blockade of the occupied Gaza Strip and the fact that six months after its deadly and devastating assault, there has been virtually no reconstruction in the territory.

The report, “Charting a New Course: Overcoming the stalemate in Gaza,” signed by 46 international nongovernmental organizations working in Palestine, says that Israel must lift the blockade and allow free movement between the occupied West Bank and Gaza Strip or face punitive consequences.

“The blockade constitutes collective punishment; it is imposed in violation of [international humanitarian law] and, according to the UN, may entail the commission of war crimes,” the report says. “The international community should promptly develop a common response to the government of Israel if immediate progress is not made to lift the blockade.”

It also names the deadbeat states – including Turkey, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia – that have failed to deliver on the reconstruction aid they promised for Gaza.

The report’s signatories, including Oxfam, Save the Children, KinderUSA, Medical Aid for Palestinians, The Carter Center, Norwegian People’s Aid and Médecins du Monde Switzerland, also call for a suspension of arms transfers to Israel and revocation of arms export licenses.

“Unprecedented destruction”

“Operation Protective Edge – the codename used by Israel for the 51-day military operation and the associated conflict between Israel, Hamas and other Palestinian armed groups – has inflicted unprecedented destruction and human suffering in Gaza,” the report states.

“Yet today, six months after the donor conference, little tangible change has taken place on the ground in Gaza and living conditions for women, girls, men and boys continues to worsen,” it adds.

Despite the fact that more than 100,000 people whose homes Israel destroyed remain without permanent shelter, “no permanent housing has been rebuilt.”

“As of January 2015, only 36 schools with minor damage have been repaired out of a total of over 258 damaged and eight destroyed in the attacks,” the report states.

It notes that of more than 2,100 Palestinians killed as a result of the Israeli assault (other sources put the figure at more than 2,200), 70 percent were civilians, including at least 501 children. At least 11,100 Palestinians were injured.

Around 70 Israelis, of whom five were civilians, died as a result of clashes between Israeli occupation forces and Palestinian resistance groups in Gaza.

What ceasefire?

The report also confirms that Israel has relentlessly violated the 26 August ceasefire; there have been more than 400 recorded incidents of Israeli fire on farms in Gaza and on fishing boats, “resulting in the death of one fisherman and injuries to other Palestinians workers.”

In an acknowledgment that Palestinians have with very rare exceptions rigorously abided by the one-sided ceasefire, the report confirms that in the period from 26 August 2014 to 31 March 2015, “Four rockets have been fired from Gaza toward Israel, resulting in no injuries.”

At least ten people have been killed and 36 injured due to unexploded munitions since the “ceasefire,” the report states.

Deadbeat donors

Shortly after Israel’s attack on Gaza, an international donor conference in Cairo pledged $3.5 billion for reconstruction. Yet six months later only about a quarter of the funds have been delivered.

Qatar, which pledged $1 billion has delivered just ten percent of what it promised. Saudi Arabia has also transferred ten percent of the $500 million it pledged. Kuwait, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates have not provided a single dollar of the $600 million they collectively pledged.

The EU, which made a modest pledge of $348 million, has only delivered 40 percent. Ironically, the US, which actively assisted Israel in the destruction and killing in Gaza by providing many of the weapons used, has already delivered 85 percent of its also modest pledge – given its size and wealth – of $277 million.

There must be consequences

The report advocates that “Israel’s illegal policies need to be challenged with practical measures.”

Among the measures the aid agencies propose:

• Making EU and other international relations with Israel conditional on it meetings its legal obligations, including using the EU-Israel Association Agreement as a form of pressure.
• Ensuring that companies that violate international law in the occupied West Bank and Gaza do not financially benefit from the reconstruction of Gaza. States should “issue clear guidance to national companies, including state-owned companies and pension and investment funds, to ensure they not only respect international law in their own activities but do not invest in companies involved in violations of international law.”
• “Where arms and ammunition could be used to commit or facilitate violations of [international humanitarian law], the Arms Trade Treaty (ATT), which all contributors at the Cairo donor conference have at least signed (if not ratified), obliges state parties to suspend transfers and consider revoking licenses to the parties concerned.”

The report notes that “by closing the Rafah crossing, Egypt may also be failing to uphold its humanitarian obligations,” but there is no specific recommendation for how the Egyptian military regime should be held accountable.

Artificial balance

Throughout, the report affects a tone of balance – at times falsely equating the actions of the occupying power with those legitimately resisting its occupation and siege. And all the measures its proposes are similarly aimed at Israel and Palestinian resistance groups.

But no one looking at the stark facts the report contains can reach any other conclusion except that the overwhelming responsibility for, and power to change, the catastrophic situation lies with Israel – which the report terms the “occupying power” in Gaza – and the countries that are complicit in its crimes.

Moreover, since Hamas is embargoed and boycotted by the EU and the so-called “international community,” and only Israel receives weapons from these same states, in practice, the proposed punitive measures can only apply to Israel.

Indeed, the report faults the policy of boycotting Hamas – the de facto authority within Gaza – and calls for more engagement.

“Restricted contact can undermine humanitarian access and implementation of humanitarian programs,” the report states, “it also often prevents recovery and development assistance from reaching vulnerable populations.”

Positive step

The “balanced” language – and the attempt, in places, to falsely equate the occupier with the occupied – likely reflect the difficulty of achieving consensus among dozens of aid agencies, especially those that receive funding from governments closely allied with Israel.

Nonetheless, this report includes the strongest recommendations to date for holding Israel accountable, from aid agencies many of which have been all too willing to uphold a status quo that leaves Israel’s crimes unchallenged. As such it is a modest and belated step in the right direction.

It remains to be seen whether the complicit governments, especially those of the EU, that are full partners in what the report correctly terms Israel’s “war crimes,” will begin to reform their behavior.

The very same people that caused the last economic crisis have created a 278 TRILLION dollar derivatives time bomb that could go off at any moment.  When this absolutely colossal bubble does implode, we are going to be faced with the worst economic crash in the history of the United States.  During the last financial crisis, our politicians promised us that they would make sure that “too big to fail” would never be a problem again.  Instead, as you will see below, those banks have actually gotten far larger since then.  So now we really can’t afford for them to fail.  The six banks that I am talking about are JPMorgan Chase, Citibank, Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, Morgan Stanley and Wells Fargo.  When you add up all of their exposure to derivatives, it comes to a grand total of more than 278 trillion dollars.  But when you add up all of the assets of all six banks combined, it only comes to a grand total of about 9.8 trillion dollars.  In other words, these “too big to fail” banks have exposure to derivatives that is more than 28 times greater than their total assets.  This is complete and utter insanity, and yet nobody seems too alarmed about it.  For the moment, those banks are still making lots of money and funding the campaigns of our most prominent politicians.  Right now there is no incentive for them to stop their incredibly reckless gambling so they are just going to keep on doing it.

So precisely what are “derivatives”?  Well, they can be immensely complicated, but I like to simplify things.  On a very basic level, a “derivative” is not an investment in anything.  When you buy a stock, you are purchasing an ownership interest in a company.  When you buy a bond, you are purchasing the debt of a company.  But a derivative is quite different.  In essence, most derivatives are simply bets about what will or will not happen in the future.  The big banks have transformed Wall Street into the biggest casino in the history of the planet, and when things are running smoothly they usually make a whole lot of money.

But there is a fundamental flaw in the system, and I described this in a previous article…

The big banks use very sophisticated algorithms that are supposed to help them be on the winning side of these bets the vast majority of the time, but these algorithms are not perfect.  The reason these algorithms are not perfect is because they are based on assumptions, and those assumptions come from people.  They might be really smart people, but they are still just people.

Today, the “too big to fail” banks are being even more reckless than they were just prior to the financial crash of 2008.

As long as they keep winning, everyone is going to be okay.  But when the time comes that their bets start going against them, it is going to be a nightmare for all of us.  Our entire economic system is based on the flow of credit, and those banks are at the very heart of that system.

In fact, the five largest banks account for approximately 42 percent of all loans in the United States, and the six largest banks account for approximately 67 percent of all assets in our financial system.

So that is why they are called “too big to fail”.  We simply cannot afford for them to go out of business.

As I mentioned above, our politicians promised that something would be done about this.  But instead, the four largest banks in the country have gotten nearly 40 percent largersince the last time around.  The following numbers come from an article in the Los Angeles Times…

Just before the financial crisis hit, Wells Fargo & Co. had $609 billion in assets. Now it has $1.4 trillion. Bank of America Corp. had $1.7 trillion in assets. That’s up to $2.1 trillion.

And the assets of JPMorgan Chase & Co., the nation’s biggest bank, have ballooned to $2.4 trillion from $1.8 trillion.

During this same time period, 1,400 smaller banks have completely disappeared from the banking industry.

So our economic system is now more dependent on the “too big to fail” banks than ever.

To illustrate how reckless the “too big to fail” banks have become, I want to share with you some brand new numbers which come directly from the OCC’s most recent quarterly report (see Table 2)…

JPMorgan Chase

Total Assets: $2,573,126,000,000 (about 2.6 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $63,600,246,000,000 (more than 63 trillion dollars)

Citibank

Total Assets: $1,842,530,000,000 (more than 1.8 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $59,951,603,000,000 (more than 59 trillion dollars)

Goldman Sachs

Total Assets: $856,301,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $57,312,558,000,000 (more than 57 trillion dollars)

Bank Of America

Total Assets: $2,106,796,000,000 (a little bit more than 2.1 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $54,224,084,000,000 (more than 54 trillion dollars)

Morgan Stanley

Total Assets: $801,382,000,000 (less than a trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $38,546,879,000,000 (more than 38 trillion dollars)

Wells Fargo

Total Assets: $1,687,155,000,000 (about 1.7 trillion dollars)

Total Exposure To Derivatives: $5,302,422,000,000 (more than 5 trillion dollars)

Compared to the rest of them, Wells Fargo looks extremely prudent and rational.

But of course that is not true at all.  Wells Fargo is being very reckless, but the others are being so reckless that it makes everyone else pale in comparison.

And these banks are not exactly in good shape for the next financial crisis that is rapidly approaching.  The following is an excerpt from a recent Business Insider article…

The New York Times isn’t so sure about the results from the Federal Reserve’s latest round of stress tests.

In an editorial published over the weekend, The Times cites data from Thomas Hoenig, vice chairman of the FDIC, who, in contrast to the Federal Reserve, found that capital ratios at the eight largest banks in the US averaged 4.97% at the end of 2014, far lower than the 12.9% found by the Fed’s stress test.

That doesn’t sound good.

So what is up with the discrepancy in the numbers?  The New York Times explains…

The discrepancy is due mainly to differing views of the risk posed by the banks’ vast holdings of derivative contracts used for hedging and speculation. The Fed, in keeping with American accounting rules and central bank accords, assumes that gains and losses on derivativesgenerally net out. As a result, most derivatives do not show up as assets on banks’ balance sheets, an omission that bolsters the ratio of capital to assets.

Mr. Hoenig uses stricter international accounting rules to value the derivatives. Those rules do not assume that gains and losses reliably net out. As a result, large derivative holdings are shown as assets on the balance sheet, an addition that reduces the ratio of capital to assets to the low levels reported in Mr. Hoenig’s analysis.

Derivatives, eh?

Very interesting.

And you know what?

The guys running these big banks can see what is coming.

Just consider the words that JPMorgan Chase chairman and CEO Jamie Dimon wrote to his shareholders not too long ago…

Some things never change — there will be another crisis, and its impact will be felt by the financial market.

The trigger to the next crisis will not be the same as the trigger to the last one – but there will be another crisis. Triggering events could be geopolitical (the 1973 Middle East crisis), a recession where the Fed rapidly increases interest rates (the 1980-1982 recession), a commodities price collapse (oil in the late 1980s), the commercial real estate crisis (in the early 1990s), the Asian crisis (in 1997), so-called “bubbles” (the 2000 Internet bubble and the 2008 mortgage/housing bubble), etc. While the past crises had different roots (you could spend a lot of time arguing the degree to which geopolitical, economic or purely financial factors caused each crisis), they generally had a strong effect across the financial markets

In the same letter, Dimon mentioned “derivatives moved by enormous players and rapid computerized trades” as part of the reason why our system is so vulnerable to another crisis.

If this is what he truly believes, why is his firm being so incredibly reckless?

Perhaps someone should ask him that.

Interestingly, Dimon also discussed the possibility of a Greek exit from the eurozone…

“We must be prepared for a potential exit,”  J. P. Morgan Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon said. in his annual letter to shareholders. “We continually stress test our company for possible repercussions resulting from such an event.”

This is something that I have been warning about for a long time.

And of course Dimon is not the only prominent banker warning of big problems ahead.  German banking giant Deutsche Bank is also sounding the alarm…

With a U.S. profit recession expected in the first half of 2015 and investors unlikely to pay up for stocks, the risk of a stock market drop of 5% to 10% is rising, Deutsche  Bank says.

That’s the warning Deutsche Bank market strategist David Bianco zapped out to clients today before the opening bell on Wall Street.

Bianco expects earnings for the broad Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index to contract in the first half of 2015 — the first time that’s happened since 2009 during the financial crisis. And the combination of soft earnings and his belief that investors won’t pay top dollar for stocks in a market that is already trading at above-average valuations is a recipe for a short-term pullback on Wall Street.

The truth is that we are in the midst of a historic stock market bubble, and we are witnessing all sorts of patterns in the financial markets which also emerged back in 2008right before the financial crash in the fall of that year.

When some of the most prominent bankers at some of the biggest banks on the entire planet start issuing ominous warnings, that is a clear sign that time is running out.

By Chemical Concern

In November last year, Brian Leung, a Southeast Asia-based journalist, observed:

“Vietnam continues to roll out the red carpet for foreign biotech giants, including the infamous Monsanto, to sell the controversial genetically modified (GM) corn varieties in the country. Jeffrey Smith and other critics say that by welcoming Monsanto, Vietnam has been too nice to the main manufacturer of Agent Orange, the toxic defoliant used during the Vietnam War that left a devastating legacy still claiming victims today.”

Just Means, an online publisher of news about corporate social responsibility, sustainability, energy, health, education, technology and innovation, added an update:

Monsanto sees a large potential in Vietnam as a main market for the company, and plans to increase its investments in the country in the future. Juan Ferreira, vice president of Monsanto said that the country has a combination of good soil, good governance, and appetite for investment, which paves the way for the entry of advanced technologies.

No mention of GM by name – but plenty of enabling activity

Ferreira said that with advanced technologies, it is possible to develop agriculture sustainably by using the same or less water and nitrogen and achieve greater yields. The technologies were not named. No reference was made to the Vietnamese government’s 2006 plan (see Leung) to develop GM crops as part of a “major program for the development and application of biotechnology in agriculture and rural development.”

In August 2014, it was announced that cultivation of the country’s first GM crops will be underway by 2015 and 30-50% of farmland covered with genetically modified organisms by 2020. The country’s agriculture ministry approved the imports of four corn varieties engineered for food and animal feed processing: MON 89034 and NK 603, products of DeKalb Vietnam (a subsidiary of U.S. multinational Monsanto), and GA 21 and MIR 162 from the Swiss firm Syngenta. The Vietnamese environment ministry has to date issued bio-safety certificates for Monsanto’s MON 89034 and NK 603 corn varieties and Syngenta’s GA 21, meaning farmers can start commercially cultivating the crops. The ministry is considering issuing a similar certificate for the other variety, MR 162.

Would Vietnam be throwing away its great advantage as a non-GMO producer?

There has been a surge in consumer rejection of GMOs in the U.S., with food companies scrambling to secure non-GMO supplies, according to the New York Times. Last year, China rejected 887,000 tons of U.S. corn because it contained Syngenta’s GM maize MIR 162 – the very same variety that has just been licensed for use in Vietnam. Could these terraced fields in Mu Cang Chai, in the northeastern region of Vietnam be bull-dozed for agri-business or other forms of maldevelopment?

GMOs in their current state have nothing to offer the cause of feeding the hungry, alleviating poverty, and creating sustainable agriculture, according to the IAASTD report.

The International Assessment of Agricultural Knowledge, Science and Technology for Development report, an exhaustive analysis of agriculture and sustainability, concludes that the high costs of seeds and chemicals, uncertain yields, and the potential to undermine local food security make biotechnology a poor choice for the developing world.

It is feared that introducing Monsanto’s modified corn and the toxic weed killer Roundup Monsanto plugs for use along with its crops could have tragic consequences, as did their product Agent Orange.

Copyright Chemical Concern 2015

 

 

On April 12, 2015, the student-organizers of the Statement of No Confidence in Harold Koh (left) drafted the following letter in response to faculty intimidation:

To Our Classmates and Members of the NYU Community:

“We do not kill our cattle the way the US is killing humans in Waziristan with drones.”      – Rafiq ur Rehman

In the fall of 2013, Rafiq ur Rehman traveled with his 13-year-old son, Zubair, and 9-year-old daughter, Nabila, from their small village in North Waziristan to Capitol Hill. Their purpose in making this long and painful trek was simple: to appeal to the hearts of U.S. lawmakers by sharing stories of the carnage wrought upon their community and upon their family by U.S. drone strikes. In 2012, a U.S. drone strike had killed Rafiq’s elderly mother and severely wounded two of his young children.

Only five members of Congress showed up.

The suffering of thousands of individuals like Rafiq, Zubair, and Nabila, moved a few of us to author a Statement of No Confidence in Harold H. Koh. The Statement is fairly simple. It argues that due to Mr. Koh’s role as a key legal architect of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, a program that violates International Human Rights Law, the Law School should not have hired him to teach that particular body of law. The petition extensively documents the factual basis for our position—and echoes the concerns of other students, academics, and human rights activists.

The gravity of targeted killings via drones and the factual basis upon which we built our petition warranted this expression of disaffection. Academic institutions, after all, are supposed to be places for honest and critical debates. At times, we have known NYU Law to be such a place—that is, a setting where compassionate and thoughtful people confront, rather than dismiss uncomfortable facts.

While we welcomed disagreement with the petition, we never fathomed that some faculty and administrators would, intentionally or not, work hard to quash our expression of dissent and intimidate numerous students. Professor Ryan Goodman, for instance, emailed every individual signatory of the petition, including some of his own students and advisees, and urged them to withdraw their support for the Statement. Withdrawal, he stated, “will reflect well on us as a community” [Goodman Letter].  Due to the power imbalances between students and faculty, we find his request inappropriate.

Stephen Bright, meanwhile, a Yale Law professor and known anti-death penalty lawyer, sent a disparaging email to his former intern, an organizer of the petition and an aspiring anti-death penalty lawyer, following repeated phone calls. He asked her whether she didn’t have better things to do with her time, and later claimed that the petition arose out of ignorance and inexperience. Concerning our corporate colleagues who signed the petition, Mr. Bright asked, “Does someone who is going to a firm to make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year representing corporations [have] any position to express a lack of confidence in Harold Koh?” [Bright Letter] Finally, another student was told that s/he was not welcome at Human Rights First for an internship since the organization held Harold Koh in high regard and was aware of the student’s signature on the petition.[1]

Rather than a trial of the Obama administration’s targeted killing program, and the distortion of Human Rights Law that it represents, what we have seen unfolding over the past few weeks is the trial of students, mostly women and students of color, who have been dismissed as “naïve” and maligned as “smearers.” There has been no acknowledgement of the concern for human life that prompted the petition, or any acknowledgement that the more than 260 supporters of the students’ Statement include lawyers, students, scholars and pacifists from all over the globe.

Figuring prominently in this trial is Dean Trevor Morrison, who preemptively announced his verdict prior to meeting with the authors of the recent CoLR Statement: “[allegations of intimidation] are unfounded.” Ironically, the Dean himself, in his first-year constitutional law class, had described the petition as “smear,” “wholly inaccurate” and, once again, urged students to withhold support. Two of his students did, in fact, withdraw their signatures from the petition despite privately expressing agreement with its merits.

Soon after, the Dean initiated a meeting with the organizers of the petition, ostensibly for the purpose of making our upcoming event “productive.” In the process, he called our public letters “vitriol unseen in the law school” and accused us of “inflicting wounds that will not heal.” His words, uttered to three students of color, two of whom are of South Asian descent, revealed a painful truth: the wounds inflicted upon the egos of the powerful are recognized and defended, while the wounds of Rafiq, Zubair, Nabila and thousands of unnamed others fail to register—not in our university discourse or in the government’s civilian casualty count. This, more than anything else, illustrates what this petition aims to counter and why it is so important.

For all that has been said by some members of the faculty and administration, we have been saddened by the silences prevailing in their responses. None of the thousands of people assassinated by U.S. drones are mentioned—not once. There has been no questioning of the “Drone War’s” legitimacy or meaningful engagement with our concern that Mr. Koh did in fact provide the legal rationale and cover for this program. There has been no reflection upon the relationship between state-sponsored violence abroad and state-sponsored violence here at home, in places like Ferguson, North Charleston, and New York. And there has been little concern with human rights becoming a field that legitimizes U.S. global hegemony by masking its questionable interference in the social and political structures of other nations.

Indeed, the silences do not stop there. Neither the facts nor the sources that we extensively cite and upon which we base our critique, were genuinely examined. Rather, they were largely dismissed. Meanwhile, we have been accused of leveling attacks that are not “evidence-based” and of launching nothing more than a “smear” campaign. We wonder: if we have gotten the facts wrong about Mr. Koh’s well-documented role in shaping and defending the U.S. government’s targeted killing program, why haven’t the true facts surfaced? Why are we asked to blindly take the word of his friends, who speak of past actions that have no bearing on his role in this particular violation?

We have sought to understand the troubling responses that we have received from some faculty and administrators. It occurs to us that those in government who defend drone attacks in Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, and now the Philippines, or who justify wars whether in Iraq or Libya, expect to waltz comfortably through the revolving door from government back into the academy, while demanding silence concerning these crimes.

We desire to break these silences in order to demand accountability and to express our outrage with the devaluation of human life that the U.S. extrajudicial killing program reflects.

The Undersigned,

Aman Singh
Lisa Sangoi
Amanda Bass
Calisha Myers
Dami Obaro
Saif Ansari
Jon Laks

[1] For these reasons, the names of NYU Law student signatories have been made temporarily unavailable for public viewing.

*                    *                    *

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

On April 3, 2015, the Coalition on Law and Representation (CoLR), an NYU Law student group whose mission is to push for faculty diversity within the law school, released a public letter which condemns the repression that NYU law students have been facing in connection with their support for the Statement of No Confidence in Harold Koh. Their statement is included below.

Fellow Students,

Greetings and Happy holidays. We write to address the recent suppression of student voices by members of the faculty. About a month ago, several of our peers wrote a statement criticizing the decision to bring Harold Koh into our NYU Law family. In the finest tradition of student engagement, our peers asked if other students would voice support, and some did. Professors quickly responded.

One response was submitted publicly to the student body, and disagreed with the statement’s arguments on the merits. This response added to the public debate on hiring Harold Koh, and was exactly the kind of response that contributes to a more informed dialogue. However, this was not the only response.

Dissenting students received other emails. A number of faculty members sent private email messages to every student who signed the letter of concern regarding Mr. Koh, asking them to withdraw her or his support. Some students received more than one email.

Students have received emails from their current professors. Students have received emails from professors who manage programs in which those students are currently participating. Students have received emails from professors currently serving as their advisors or job references. Students have received emails from professors who head the students’ scholarship programs. Students have received emails from professors at other universities.

All of these emails shared a theme: signatories, withdraw your support, and, students, you must not speak out. No voice. No loyalty. Just exit.

We are troubled by the faculty’s tactics because they worked.  We spoke with students who withdrew or withheld their support not because they disagreed with the statement, but because they were concerned with reprisal.  At least one prominent faculty member has repeatedly denounced the petition to his class, leveraging his authority as a leader and a professor to silence the issue in exactly the environment in which it should be freely discussed.

In offering this statement, we take no position on Harold Koh or his employment at NYU. We take no stand on our national security policy. We offer this statement in support of student voices.

Student voices must be fostered, bolstered, and heard.  We are, after all, training to be advocates. We cannot stand by while the faculty of this institution and others silence dissenting student voices. We find these actions inappropriate, and we find their chilling effect worrisome.

We also think the presence of robust, structured engagement of diverse student opinion regarding potential faculty members or guests prior to their appointment would help to direct student and faculty differences through less personal channels.

Fellow students, we encourage you to remain engaged, to continue sharing your affirmative or dissenting opinions. We encourage you to continue speaking. This is what our profession calls us to do.

In solidarity,

The CoLR Leadership Collective

To add to the wanton destruction of world heritage in the museums of Mosul, Islamic State now proudly shows a video of the total and complete destruction of the ancient city of Nimrud, including its unique archeological treasures dating back to the thirteenth century BC. But what about the rumors that the USA is supporting Islamic State?

After Kosovo, after Afghanistan, after Iraq, after Libya and after Syria, the high moral card linked to Washington’s foreign policy and that of its Poodles in Europe unfortunately does not exist. There is no moral card and if there is a card at all, it is a very low one without any value.

Zero credibility after Iraq

True, the United States of America and its Poodle in Chief, Britain, led the charge into Iraq based upon lies, after a decade of sanctions had caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children, destroyed the State and created the conditions for ISIL, later Islamic State, to appear, and watched as it spread throughout central and northern Iraq and eastern Syria.

Watched, and more, some say, because it was a useful tool to deploy against President Assad. They watched as terrorists in Syria used chemical weapons against Bashar al-Assad’s forces and civilians, then lied again blaming President Assad as a pretext to go to war, until Moscow saved the day with the D-word, Diplomacy.

Allegations of US involvement with Islamic State

And now we have reports from Iraqi popular forces who have claimed to wiretap communications between the United States of America‘s armed forces and Islamic State militants, pointing towards the purposeful supply by the USAF of weaponry, medicines and food to IS.

The source of these allegations is Iran’s Fars News Agency, and let us be honest, the Iranians have attacked nobody and to date have not been caught lying. The liars are those who consider themselves their enemies.

Fars News Agency (FNA) in turn quotes multiple sources, which claim that the USA is prolonging the conflict, making sure the attacks against Islamic State are cosmetic and while bombing raids are filmed taking off from aircraft carriers what do they actually drop? And where? According to the Commander of the Ali Akbar Battalion, fighting in Iraq against Islamic State, “the wiretapped ISIL communications by Iraqi popular forces have revealed that the US planes have been dropping weapons and foodstuff for the Takfiri terrorist group”.

Speaking about “regular contact” between the US armed forces and IS, he referred to sentences like “a share of the ammunition” and “you will also receive your share”. He claimed “The US forces have provided a lot of help to ISIL” and mentioned dropping points such as Spiker Base in Hay al-Qadessiya, Yassreb and al-Ramadi.

Multiple reports and sources

But there have been other reports. FNA quotes an official as having stated that in February “western powers” were already supplying Islamic State, while Jafar al-Jaberi, Coordinator of the Iraqi popular forces, states that the USA is trying to help the IS terrorists to return to the places that have been liberated by his forces. There are eye witness reports of US aircraft making drops in al-Havijeh, Kirkuk, while in al-Khas, Diyala, “coalition planes” were seen above the town “and they carried the Takfiri terrorists to the region that has been liberated from the ISIL control”. Other reports state that drops have been made to Islamic State militants in the provinces of Diyala, al-Anbar and Salahuddin.

It does not end here. The Deputy Chief of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Brigadier General Massoud Jayazeri, was quoted as saying “The US and the so-called anti-ISIL coalition claim they have launched a campaign against this terrorist and criminal group – while supplying them with weapons, food and medicine in Jalawla region.

Indeed, as far back as December, Majid al-Gharawi, Iraqi Parliamentary Security and Defense Commission Member of Parliament, said that US aircraft were supplying Islamic State in several locations, stating that the USA and its allies “are not serious in fighting against the ISIL organization because they have the technological power to determine the presence of ISIL gunmen and destroy them in one month”.

Jome Divan, leader of the al-Sadr bloc in Iraq’s Parliament, claims that “The coalition has not targeted ISIL’s main positions in Iraq”. Nahlah al-Hababi, senior Iraqi parliamentarian, considers that “the international coalition is not serious about air strikes on ISIL terrorists and is even seeking to take out the popular forces from the battlefield”.

She added that the precision air strikes are launched in areas where the Kurds are fighting, to help the Kurdish Peshmerga but the strikes in other areas are not so precise.

The list goes on and on and on.

Conclusions: As stated in this column at the time, when the US-led coalition decided to breach every fiber of international law in 2003, attacking Iraq based upon lies, the foreign policy of the USA and its NATO allies would never again be able to claim one ounce of credibility. Unfortunately since then nothing has been done to redress the situation, in fact the conviction that the pariahs in this world are the USA and its NATO allies (the more active and aggressive ones, namely the FUKUS Axis – France, UK, US) has only been underlined and confirmed.

There will be those who do not believe the Iranian news agency which quotes these multiple sources, and would only give any credibility to a western corporate media outlet. But it is precisely the western media that lies all the time, bases stories upon invention and imagination, and presents a squeaky-clean media package daily which runs along the same lines as the caprices of the lobbies which control these media groups.

Informed people these days go to the social media to find out what is really going on. And for what reasons should we disbelieve Fars news agency? With so many voices saying the same thing?

As for Islamic State, quite apart from the humanitarian crimes, such as murdering children for reasons known only to a psychopath, raping girls, beheading women for wearing red jackets, the World Heritage they have already destroyed belongs to humankind, not to them and anyway how can statues from ancient times, which were built before Islam existed, thousands of years before Islam existed, be considered as idolatrous? These crimes are a cultural outrage. The ancient Assyrian city of Nimrud, which was already ancient when Alexander the Great passed by and saw it before the Romans existed, will, for the best reasons, remain forever in the hearts and minds of humankind. Islamic State and those who fund, aid, abet and arm it, will do so for the very worst.

Timothy Bancroft-Hinchey has worked as a correspondent, journalist, deputy editor, editor, chief editor, director, project manager, executive director, partner and owner of printed and online daily, weekly, monthly and yearly publications, TV stations and media groups printed, aired and distributed in Angola, Brazil, Cape Verde, East Timor, Guinea-Bissau, Portugal, Mozambique and São Tomé and Principe Isles; the Russian Foreign Ministry publication Dialog and the Cuban Foreign Ministry Official Publications. He has spent the last two decades in humanitarian projects, connecting communities, working to document and catalog disappearing languages, cultures, traditions, working to network with the LGBT communities helping to set up shelters for abused or frightened victims and as Media Partner with UN Women, working to foster the UN Women project to fight against gender violence and to strive for an end to sexism, racism and homophobia. He is also a Media Partner of Humane Society International, fighting for animal rights. ([email protected])

“Hillary [Clinton] likes hashtags.  But she doesn’t know what leadership means.” – Carly Fiorina, Feb 26, 2015

Carly Fiorina is doing her bit to make things on the GOP side of politics interesting for the White House contest.  She has been deemed an “underdog,” which, in political circles, is somewhat better than being seen as a stellar prospect even before the sun has risen.  Fiorina lacks the boom element of fellow Republican candidates, but that may well be to her advantage.

The Republicans are hoping that she will be able to put the wind up Hillary Clinton’s sails.  According to Craig Robinson, the former political director of the Iowa Republican party, “She’s the most aggressive Republican candidate when it comes to someone attacking Hillary Clinton” (The Guardian, Mar 31). There are no gender divides, no risks of falling into the chasm of sexist denigration here.  Hillary against the men is one thing; against a female GOP opponent, quite another matter.

A recent move is afoot to heap much upon the former First Lady’s efforts to make it to the White House, with the heavy artillery being directed by Fiorina.  “Yes, she’s had a lot of impressive titles, but a position is just a position – it’s all about what you do in it, and I think her time in the position of secretary of state is demonstrably one that lacks accomplishment but that it also has some real blemishes on it.”[1]

The traditional ground here is what Clinton supposedly did – or did not do – in a range of areas.  There was the Benghazi incident, which always seemed to jar with the GOP.  There was the misunderstanding about Vladimir Putin (“there no way a red reset button is going to work”), which is hardly improved upon by Fiorina’s odd reflections on colour, buttons and a supposed understanding of the Slavic inner beast.  Clinton is also accused of letting the relationship with Israel slide into discomfort and suspicion.

Then there are various instances of hypocrisy, of which the Clinton Foundation is rather good at. Explain, Fiorina challenged at the Conservative Political Action Conference held in February, “why we should accept that the millions and millions of dollars that have flowed into the Clinton Global Initiative from foreign governments doesn’t represent a conflict of interest.”[2]

Well, that’s all rather understandable, if you reflect upon the vast creation of the Clinton political machinery, fuelled for decades on double-speak, contradiction and dirty money.  At least Fiorina picks up on the antics of Clinton, tweeting on the one hand “about women’s rights in this country” while taking “money from the governments that deny women the most basic rights.”  A somewhat dishonest way of pocketing the proceeds, with Fiorina sounds almost envious.

What ideas of novelty will Fiorina be offering?  Well and good to be the nagger of the political scene, the negative critic, the savage counter, but platforms and self-reflection also count in the policy stakes.  Potential zingers are already being readied for firing.

Fiorina, for one, has her own eye towards emancipating a few more Wall Street wolves, wishing to abolish reforms of the financial sector while paying tribute to the God of the invisible yet rather aggressive hand.  The 2010 Dodd-Frank legislation is the satanic spawn of a regulatory mind, and she wishes to neuter it by way of swift abolition.  Showing that history is not necessarily important for anybody in particular, notably the GOP, Fiorina ignores the reason the rules were introduced to begin with, and argues that they do not work.  Forget any preventive measures regarding a financial crisis, or a meltdown inflicted by roguish carelessness.  White collar criminals, convicted or otherwise, will be rejoicing.

“Let’s start by making sure that the 26 regulatory agencies that were supposed to be overseeing the financial system that were supposed to be predicting the financial crisis – 26 of them all missed it.  We haven’t even started to look at that problem.”  Fine stuff, till you realise that advice, warnings and concerns about an imminent crisis during the first decade of 2000 were treated as Cassandra-like evocations of a disturbed, killjoy mind.

Fiorina attempts some understanding of how best to combat “crony capitalism” but struggles to understand its links to the US political system.  The connections between government and the private sector are matters of record in Washington, D.C., with the latter sinking spreading its octopi like influence across a range of corporate, military and financial deals.  There is no cleaning up to be done, because there is a general feeling that all functions smoothly in a republic that has seen better days.

Interestingly enough, Fiorina is right to suggest that, “Bigger government creates more crony capitalism” but that is to miss the point that all governments since Clinton have expanded even as they have been condemned.  Under Bush, government hardly shrank, and sweet deals were done between officials and private sector interests.  Attacking small government remains a fashionable nonsense.

Shrinkage – at least an inflicted variant of it on the workplace – is certainly something Fiorina believes in.  Her six-year tenure at Hewlett-Packard was marked by savage cuts – the laying off of 30,000 employees provided Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) ample ammunition in her re-election campaign in 2010.  In 2005, she was ousted by the company’s disgruntled board.  An air of ecstatic relief pushed shares of HP (Research) up 6.9 per cent.  “The stock is up a bit on the fact that nobody liked Carly’s leadership all that much,” suggested analyst with Fulcrum Global Partners, Robert Cihra.  This may prove that Fiorina has more in common with Clinton than she wishes to admit.  Both risk doing well in the anti-popularity stakes.

Sexist forays of the sort The New Republic has dabbled in, calling Fiorina “Sarah Palin 2.0,” are misguided.  But Fiorina is not, for all her underdog credentials, a vast improvement upon candidates in the GOP flock.[3]  She is certainly no Sarah Palin, but she may well prove to be another scarecrow in the realm of dull-witted Republican policy.  The sell, in the end, is what will matter.

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

Notes

 “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 that projects that are relatively low-risk investments, but high impact for community resilience will be able to get the capital they need to get started.” – Jenna Orsi, from this week’s interview (see transcript below)

“Anyone who believes exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.” -Kenneth E Boulding [1]

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:03)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Economics dominates the lives of human beings and in fact all life on Earth, because inevitably it governs how resources in the natural world are cultivated and exploited for the benefit of the planet’s dominant species.

Unfortunately, the economic system does not seem to serve natural or even human purposes. A minority might benefit, and then only in the short term. The more wealth human society generates, the more destruction it seems to do to both our global habitat and our inter-personal relations.

 Does it have to be this way?

 This week’s Global Research News Hour explores alternatives to economic paradigms that reward human greed while ripping apart the web of life that sustains us all.

 James Magnus-Johnston is a political economist, an instructor at Canadian Mennonite University in Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada, and the Canadian Director of the Center for the Advancement of the Steady State Economy (CASSE). In the first half hour he focuses on what’s wrong with the current economic paradigm of economic growth, and how an economic system rooted in stability rather than growth is crucial for addressing climate change along with other social and environmental challenges threatening humanity.

 Janelle Orsi makes her debut on the show in the second half hour. She is co-founder and executive director of The Sustainable Economies Law Center in the San Francisco Bay Area. In this piece (transcribed below) Orsi guides guest interviewer Kellia Ramares-Watson through the fascinating field of ‘Sharing Law.’

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:03)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

Jenna Orsi, in Conversation with Kellia Ramares-Watson 

Transcript

Janelle Orsi is a cofounder and Executive Director of The Sustainable Economies Law Center in the San Francisco Bay Area. She was profiled by the American Bar Association in 2010 as a “legal rebel”, an attorney who is “remaking the legal profession through the power of innovation.” She was named a 2014 Ashoka fellow. Ashoka fellows are “leading social entrepreneurs who have innovative solutions to social problems and a potential to change patterns across society. Ashoka fellows work in over 70 countries around the globe in every area of human need.”

I’m Kellia Ramares-Watson. I began my interview by asking Janelle how she discovered Sharing Law.

JO: Sharing Law… I guess it was a phrase I put together in my head when as I was a third year in law school. And at the time, I was living in Berkeley in what we called casual co-housing. So it was four households that lived adjacent to one another and that shared a lot of things. We shared laundry. We shared a garden. We shared meals a couple of days week. We shared a vacuum cleaner. And sharing kept coming up in my life as a way that made my life easier; it helped me save money. It was cutting down on my impact on the planet. So I started to think about all the people who are struggling to meet their needs in the society, and the way that sharing, if we just take it to greater levels, could really do a lot of good. So I thought, “I could become a lawyer who helps people share things because there are a lot of agreements that need to be made, a lot of regulations that need to be navigated” and I decided to focus my whole law practice on sharing.

Then I was also watching things around me in the Bay Area. Like I got to know People’s Grocery, the nonprofit in West Oakland that was creating community gardens, and was also working to create a worker-owned grocery store at the time. And these ideas just made so much sense to me, and, particularly, in helping to meet the needs of young people in this society, to help meet their food and nutrition needs, the needs for jobs. So I was just seeing examples all around me of ways that sharing was benefiting a lot of people.

KRW: Any other ways you would describe Sharing Law?

JO: Sharing Law: it’s a field of legal practice and I sometimes refer to it as Sharing Economy Law. Sometimes I call it Counity Resilience Law. Sometimes people call it Sustainable Economies Law because my nonprofit is Sustainable Economies Law Center. But basically, it’s a field of law practice through which lawyers and other legal professionals provide support to people in forming organizations, in forming agreements to share things. So, drafting agreements, drafting bylaws for cooperatives, helping people choose and structure collaborative entities, helping people understand how their sharing arrangements could bring up employment law, tax law, securities law, health and safety laws. A lot of regulations come up and I didn’t even expect this when I became a sharing lawyer. But we have so many laws that are designed to protect people from one another, and sharing is people helping each other out, and there are actually laws that prevent people from helping each other out. So there is a lot to learn and think about.

KRW: Where do you think that regulations most harm attempts to share?

JO: Regulations that have been designed to temper the harms of really large companies have also had the perverse ct of privileging those really large companies. So companies that have a lot of money, for example, to register securities’ offerings to raise money and capitalize their businesses are also the businesses that succeed because they have access to capital. But let’s say someone is starting a new farm and they need to raise a little bit of money to get a tractor and to lease some farmland. Maybe they want to raise $50,000. They can’t just advertise to their community that they want, maybe 50 micro-loans of $1000. You can’t do that without a substantial amount of legal compliance, and so it means the small-scale economic activities just can’t even compete with the large ones because they can’t comply with the same laws that were designed for the big ones.

KRW: There’s some changes going on. Not only here but in Europe as well, about crowdfunding for small firms. Do you think that’s going to take off in the US anytime soon?

JO: I do. And part of the reason I think it’s going to take off is because the Sustainable Economies Law Center, our organization, just wrote a law that we are shopping around to legislators in California – we have at least two legislators that are interested – and I think we’re going to call it the Local Economies Securities Act. One thing it does is reduces barriers to farmers to raise money to purchase farmland. 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 that projects that are relatively low-risk investments, but high impact for community resilience will be able to get the capital they need to get started.

KRW: What else does the SELC do?

JO: We have 10 different programs. So we kind of hit all realms of life. We work on energy, housing, food. A major goal of ours is to think about the legal profession itself and what lawyers do and how they practice and get lawyers all over the world trained to tailor their services to the creation of more sustainable local economies.

KRW: You wrote this book called Practicing Law in the Sharing Economy. Are you one of the leaders or founders of this as a legal discipline?

JO: One thing I have done is I think I’ve brought together a lot of legal practice areas under one umbrella of Sharing Economy Law or Community Resilience Law, because there are definitely lawyers everywhere who have provided legal support to cooperatives in every state. I shouldn’t say there are many lawyers, but there are lawyers because there have been cooperatives around since the 19^th century. But there are also lawyers who have created co-housing communities, lawyers who have provided support to nonprofit community farms. But the lawyers who do this work hadn’t identified themselves as part of a movement or part of an area of focus. And so, I think that my work has really helped to bring that together under one umbrella.

And then the book was published by the American Bar Association, and a lot of lawyers around the country, and actually around the world, have reached out and said that they’ve found the book and it really spoke to them as something that they of sort of, in the back of their minds, been wanting to do. Or it help to communicate what they were trying to communicate about their priorities. And so it’s helping to create a community of lawyers internationally.

KRW: You said, in a video that I saw, that 70% of Americans are not being adequately served by the legal profession. Could you elaborate on that?

JO: Well, most people think of lawyers as being very expensive. And lawyers do charge anywhere from $200-$500 an hour, or even $600 an hour. A friend of mine told me that’s what his law firm charges for his time. So, lawyers made themselves inaccessible to anybody but maybe the top 10 or 20% of society. There are nonprofit legal service organizations that are meeting some of the needs of some of the lowest income members of society. But even these organizations say that they have to turn away pretty much, I think, four out of five of the requests for legal services.

So, it leaves a huge gap in the middle, between the wealthiest and the poorest members of society, of people who have day-to-day legal needs, needing support for family law, buying or renting their homes, for creating wills or trusts. There are a lot of just aspects of life they require a little bit of legal expertise from time to time and people don’t think of hiring a lawyer because they can’t even imagine affording it. So, lawyers have really elevated themselves to this place in society where they have made themselves inaccessible to the vast majority of people. And it has really benefited lawyers to do this for a long time because the wealthiest sector of society has had enough work to keep lawyers busy. And I think that bubble has now begun to burst, and there are a lot of unemployed lawyers who should be shifting the focus to serving more average members of society to do average legal work.

KRW: The transactional lawyers who would be needed for the sharing economy.

JO: Transactional lawyers as opposed to litigators who go to court. Transactional lawyers are the people who draft contracts, and form organizations, and just advise people on “Here are your steps to complying with the law.” We need tons of transactional lawyers people do this because we have to create a whole new economy. I think we need to create a whole new economy. We have to replace all of the giant businesses that are destroying our planet. We need to replace them with community-managed, localized, sustainable businesses, and we need tons of lawyers to help people set those businesses up.

KRW: But also, as you said in that video, law school does not prepare you to practice on your own. And I’m sure that there aren’t yet courses in Sharing Law in a lot of places. So how does a lawyer get started with that?

JO: Well, one thing that I like to make sure that the whole world knows is that, in four states, California included, you can become a lawyer without going to law school. So there are four staff members in my organization who are apprenticing, either with me or another attorney, to become lawyers. And so they are learning this work on the ground by just basically learning it in practice.

For people who have already become lawyers, I think the best thing to do is just start taking clients and looking at what’s already out there and how lawyers have assisted in the development of cooperatives and other new economy enterprises, and try to replicate those models.

But as far as what law schools are doing, there’s a little bit of change happening here and there. There are transactional, community economic development law clinics at maybe 20 or 30 different law schools that are starting to think more progressively, thinking more along the lines of supporting community-scale economic projects. And so, that’s a step in the right direction. But legal education hasn’t changed nearly enough to keep up with the needs of our society.

New York has the apprentice program although you need one year of law school. There are actually three other states: Washington, Virginia, and Vermont. Those three states, you don’t need to go to law school at all. In Maine, you have to go to law school for two years and then you can apprentice for the rest. So, I think that basically accounts for the states where you can do it.

And my organization has a blog called LikeLincoln.org and we started a Facebook group called Apprenticing to Become a Lawyer. So now we are being contacted by people in other states: Oregon, Ohio and Florida, who said, “Ah, I wish I could do that in my state. How could I lobby legislators or the [state] Supreme Court to change this and make this a viable pathway to becoming a lawyer?”

Because the other problem in the legal profession right now is that lawyers are graduating law school with $200,000 of debt and they can’t find jobs, and it’s just not an economically smart decision to go to law school anymore. We still need lawyers.

KRW: Are there enough sharing lawyers in the formal sense, that they recognize this is a legal discipline, to have your own professional organization like the trial lawyers? You have your own convention?

JO: I think there’s just about to be enough lawyers who are doing this work. Our organization is creating a website. We call it NextLegal.org: a Platform for Creating the Next Legal Profession. It’s not launched yet, but we’re hoping that will create an organization of sorts. It’s really a community-building and resource-sharing website.

But also, our organization has a fellowship program and we’ve helped mentor 11 attorneys as they’ve been starting their law practices in this realm, and a bunch of them got together and have formed an organization. I think they call it the Ssustainable Economies Lawyer Organization, something like that, and so, I think this is going to start emerging. I think lawyers are going to realize they need to come together and learn from one another.

Also, Australia has a Sharing Lawyer Association that’s in formation.

KRW: Is the US a leader in sharing law or are other countries more ahead of us in that way and which ones?

JO: Australia has definitely picked it up. I took a speaking tour of three cities in Australia last year and made a lot of connections. And I think that it sparked the creation of an organization there. I don’t see really a unified movement elsewhere, such as Europe or South America, but I hear from attorneys there that they are interested in these things. And, of course, both Europe and South America are places where I see a lot of examples of great things happening, especially in the realm of worker-owned cooperatives. And so, there must be lawyers who have come together and created best practices around that.

KRW: Specifically, what areas of life could we be sharing more but for current law?

JO: We could be sharing more in the realm of food, were it not for a lot of health and safety and agricultural laws that prevent us from doing so. A really disturbing example right now is that there seed sharing libraries throughout the US. There’s at least 300 of them. They are places where people can go to get free seed to grow vegetables and other plants, and then they are encouraged to harvest seeds later on and donate seeds back to the library. And in at least three or maybe four states now, the departments of agriculture have said “No, you can’t do this. This violates seed labeling laws. Laws that say you have to test the seeds that you’re providing to people and label them with the testing information.” And so seed libraries can’t comply with this.

In the realm of food, when people come together and create formal arrangements to share food, or they go into the community and donate food like Food Not Bombs goes into the community and gives food out people, they’re often crackdown upon due to health and safety laws. And they’re just so restrictive that it’s basically just going to force a lot of people to go hungry if we don’t create exemptions for community-scaled food sharing.

It’s also very hard, if you grow food in your backyard, to find out how to comply with the laws in order to sell that food.

I guess another area of law that is just going to prevent the localization of our economic system is zoning laws, because zoning laws have divided up our cities and divided up the function of our lives to be separate from each other. So we live in a residential zone, and we might work in an industrial zone. We go shopping in a commercial zone. Our food comes from an agricultural zone and these could all be very separate from each other. But if you want to re-localize economies, you want to create the ability to grow food in our neighborhoods, and do small-scale, cottage-scale manufacturing, and to trade and exchange with neighbors, and that brings residential, industrial, agricultural all back into our neighborhoods, which violates zoning laws. And so we really have to rethink that whole framework for urban design.

KRW: How does the gender breakdown among attorneys work out? Do women find themselves more interested in sharing law than men? Do you feel that it’s fairly equal? What have you seen in your experience?

JO: Sometimes I wonder if our sample size is too small, but it’s been a lot of women attracted to volunteer in our organization and our fellows are mostly women. But it’s definitely the case that men have been emerging and been involved and been very interested in doing this work. Of course, the majority of lawyers in our society are men, though increasingly law schools are seeing more women and I think that’s in some cases, the majority of many law school classes are now women. So, I’m hoping that will bring greater balance.

But yeah, other than that I don’t know that I’ve noticed any trends so far.

KRW: So what do you think is the impact of the sharing economy on the environment?

JO: I think it’s inevitably going to reduce consumption, if by sharing economy you mean people are actually sharing tangible goods, providing for one another locally. I think probably one of the greatest impact things we can do is share housing, because the way that we have built the majority of housing and infrastructure, in this country, at least, is around single-family units. Every household needs to have their own kitchen and they need to have their own living areas and I think co-housing has helped to create new models that give people less personal space but much, much more shared space, but overall takes up less landmass and encourages people to provide for one another more and share tangible goods that each household might otherwise have to buy, like [lawn] equipment and vacuum cleaners and so on. So I think shared housing, much more community-oriented living will really reduce our consumption a good deal.

Sharing transportation is another realm. You know the free sharing economy’s been picked up and applied to a lot of things that don’t even necessarily reduce our consumption. They might even do the opposite, so Uber and Lyft are companies that enable people to get rides with strangers who are, in effect, operating taxis in their private vehicles. And so, in some ways, this could be leading people to take more car trips rather than fewer, because it’s possible they’re ordering a Lyft vehicle or an Uber vehicle when they otherwise might take a shuttle, or a bus, or train, or bicycle.

But the power that could come from such technology in such practices is that people who are driving their car someplace are able to use and app to find other people who need to go to and from the same place. And that way we fill the empty seats in our cars and cars are one of the biggest culprits in climate change. So that’ll make a huge difference when people really start to practice ridesharing, car sharing.

KRW: So we’re going to have, with more sharing, less need for duplicative things. What’s the impact of that, though, on the vaunted job creation?

JO: Hmm… I think it just means that people are going to be doing jobs and creating things that we actually need, such as solar panels and organic food and buildings built out of renewable materials. And there’s a lot of labor that’s going to be needed in order to create a more sustainable economy. I don’t think that we ought to worry that there’s not going to be work for people to do.

I think that we should be worried that people are not getting out of jobs in these destructive industries fast enough. But everybody who works in the coal industry or fracking and all of the things, of course, create jobs but they’re going to destroy the planet for all of our children and grandchildren. And, gosh, there’s a lot of work to do in renewable energy so we shouldn’t let the whole job issue hold us back from doing any of this. But yeah, it’s definitely a sensitive issue because it does mean people’s lives will be upset, at least during the transition.

KRW: Do you see the sharing economy and sharing law is a way we can transition to a moneyless society where economics is based on fulfilling needs rather than making money? The derivatives market is 7 to 10 times the value of the world’s real goods and services and I think that’s a problem.

JO: Yeah, that’s a problem! Yeah, I think sharing is going to enable us to feel a greater sense of confidence that our needs are going to be met. And I think that it’s not that we need money but that we need the assurance that our basic needs are going to be provided for. And there are many other ways to do that beyond simply working a job and earning money to buy everything they need.

And so a lot of our needs can increasingly be met through the gift economy. By the gift economy, I mean people borrowing and lending things from each other, sharing ownership of things, a lot of that will replace a lot of the things we do currently spend money on. And then, there will also be ways to recognize people’s contributions and help them, in a sense, bank their contributions in order to provide for themselves in the future. I think what a lot of people are worried about is “We need to save money because we’re going to grow old and at some point we won’t be able to work and we’re going to need to have savings to provide for ourselves.” But I think that society can figure this out. We can come up with ways to ensure people will be provided for in the times of their lives when they can’t make as much of a productive contribution, through time-banking for example. People can accumulate time dollars or time credits for the work they do or the favors they do for others. And that, they can later on benefit from, by receiving favors from others.

KRW: I’m a little concerned about that because exactly favors are gifts. And this time- banking turns it into an economic transaction, where I might want to go ahead and give you something just because you’re my friend. It makes time a different currency but it’s still this exchange model.

JO: It’s true, you know I think there have been many opportunities for me to participate in the time bank or to get time credits locally here for things that I’ve done, but I haven’t felt the need to, because again, we all have a natural instinct to provide for one another and to provide gifts for one another. But I think there are some things that people won’t do as gifts, or they won’t be as motivated to do them. I think maybe one example where time banks could ultimately succeed is in elder care, or other caring professions, because it can be very labor-intensive, time-consuming, not always the most pleasant work, but eventually all of us are going to need it in some form, whether it’s for ourselves or for family members. In Japan, I think, their system, their time bank for elder care has been more successful than other time banks. And I think that particular realm is where it will be useful.

KRW: Have you run into the argument that somehow, this idea of sharing economy, and sharing law, and co-housing and things like that, is a limit to people’s freedom? That freedom is doing it yourself, by yourself, for yourself, and the sharing business is just a bunch of pinko communism?

JO; Hm, I think in many ways going to give us more freedom because, right now, we’re… So many people are just slaves to this demand that we earn money and slaves to our 9 to 5 jobs and I think most people just aren’t free to begin with.

There’s something in sharing that intimidates people, especially people who feel that they need to have control over their personal space, over their time, especially introverts.

KRW: Do you think that measurements other than GDP [Gross Domestic Product] will help develop the sharing economy?

JO: YES!! And the measurements can serve multiple functions. And one of them, I guess, is to help us prioritize the use of our resources. But I think, in general, we need to recognize the value in different types of business models.

So recognize what is a worker-owned business. And what are the benefits that it’s providing to the workers and to the local community? And if we’re able to recognize that, and measure it, then we as a society can provide benefits to such businesses to encourage their growth. Because. right now, many worker cooperatives struggle to get off the ground. But if we were able to see the many benefits they provide, it would enable us to prioritize them.

I think another measure is just to know the economic impact of local spending. So, if I spend a dollar in my local economy, it’s more likely to be re-spent in my local economy. It’s kind of like a pinball machine. I like to use that metaphor, which is, in a pinball machine, a ball goes in and bounces around and each time it bounces off of something, your points are going up. And that’s like a dollar in the local economy.

So, if we could measure the value of spending a dollar at a locally-owned, worker-owned business versus spending a dollar at a Walmart or a big-box store, and recognize that that dollar at that local business is going to be worth maybe even five times as much as the other dollar to our local economy, having those kinds of measurements will help us prioritize the economic development funds that we use, the regulations we impose on businesses, and so much more. We can calibrate our legal system to prioritize what actually benefits us.

KRW: What’s being done politically in the United States or elsewhere to promote more sharing? You already talked about your organization’s attempt to have a law introduced in California. What else is going on?

JO: There are a handful of cities where the city government has recognized sharing as a priority. Seoul, in South Korea, is one of them. San Francisco is one of them. San Francisco’s mayor [Ed Lee] created a sharing economy working group. I can’t name all the other cities but I think cities in general are revisiting their policies and revisiting their funding priorities and thinking about sharing in its many forms. Some cities are thinking, “How can we prioritize worker-owned businesses?” Other cities are thinking about shared transportation. Different cities are looking at different pieces of the sharing economy, but all with the recognition that it’s going to benefit us locally.

KRW: Anything else?

JO: I focus a lot of my energy on cooperatives, and especially worker-owned cooperatives. And I think that is a piece of the sharing economy that a lot of people have not wrapped their minds around yet, or don’t really see what is the value, what is the potential impact. But the two things people really should know about worker-owned cooperatives is that they’re democratically governed, meaning workers control their work environment and their jobs, and they distribute their earnings to workers on the basis of the value of the work they do. So they are not people who are working to earn profits and limitless profits for others. They are people who are working, basically to benefit themselves.

And that’s going to really change the flow of wealth in our society. We have such enormous wealth inequality right now. Worker cooperatives are things that have enormous power to shift that. And I think that we really need to grow cooperative literacy in society, so that everybody graduating from high school understands what a worker cooperative is, and can say what a worker cooperative is… Would aspire to work in a worker cooperative, because if the opportunity is there, everybody should want to have control over their work and not just go let somebody else capitalize off of their labor. So worker cooperatives might be the moral to many stories in the sharing economy.

KRW: You have been listening to California attorney Janelle Orsi, executive director of the Sustainable Economies Law Center. The center’s website is www.THESELC.org. That’s www.THESELC.org. I’m Kellia Ramares-Watson in Berkeley California.

LISTEN TO THE SHOW

Length (59:03)

Click to download the audio (MP3 format)

The Global Research News Hour airs every Friday at 1pm CT on CKUW 95.9FM in Winnipeg. The programme is also podcast at globalresearch.ca .

The  show can be heard on the Progressive Radio Network at prn.fm. Listen in every Monday at 3pm ET.

Community Radio Stations carrying the Global Research News Hour:

CHLY 101.7fm in Nanaimo, B.C – Thursdays at 1pm PT

Boston College Radio WZBC 90.3FM NEWTONS  during the Truth and Justice Radio Programming slot -Sundays at 7am ET.

Port Perry Radio in Port Perry, Ontario – Thursdays at 1pm ET

Burnaby Radio Station CJSF out of Simon Fraser University. 90.1FM to most of Greater Vancouver, from Langley to Point Grey and from the North Shore to the US Border. It is also available on 93.9 FM cable in the communities of SFU, Burnaby, New Westminister, Coquitlam, Port Coquitlam, Port Moody, Surrey and Delta, in British Columbia Canada. – Tune in every Saturday at 6am.

 Notes:

1)  United States. Congress. House (1973) Energy reorganization act of 1973: Hearings, Ninety-third Congress, first session, on H.R. 11510. p. 248 (source wikipedia)

Eurasianet.org’s Joshua Kucera first reported on two important speeches by the State Department that supposedly heralded in a new policy towards Central Asia. The announcements were made within one day of each other by Richard Hoagland, the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Bureau of South and Central Asian Affairs, and Antony Blinken, the Deputy Secretary of State. Considering that George Soros’ Open Society Foundation openly operates the website, the summarized claim that the US is interested mostly in counter-terrorism and economic cooperation was immediately met with suspicion by the author, who felt it pressing to examine the primary sources being referenced to see what’s fully being mentioned within them. The result is that both State Department officials presented not necessarily a new policy, but rather an updated one full of geopolitical jealousy and Color Revolution undertones.

The first part of the article begins by describing the US’ self-stated goals in the region, followed by addressing Washington’s aforementioned geopolitical jealousies as they pertain to Russia and China, and analyzing the Color Revolution plans laid bare in the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine. Part II then explores the more technical aspects of the US’ designs, focusing on the two main infrastructure projects it wants to spearhead. Finally, it ends by addressing the US’ intended Lead From Behind partners for Central Asia.

Security And Stability? No, Geostrategy, Resources, And Markets!

Richard E. Hoagland Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary, BUREAU OF SOUTH AND CENTRAL ASIAN AFFAIRS

The Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine is admittedly one of projecting the US’ geostrategic interests in the region and securing its natural resources and market potential. For example, when describing why Central Asia is important to the US, Hoagland reminds everyone that it “shares borders with Afghanistan, China, Russia, and Iran – this is an “interesting” neighborhood, to say the least”, and that “if nothing else, geography makes Central Asia critically important for the United States.” He then lists off the energy and market characteristics of this geostrategic region that would make any Neo-Con drool:

“Further, the region is awash in natural resources:

• Turkmenistan has the fourth-largest natural gas reserves in the world;
• Kazakhstan has the second-largest oil reserves of the former Soviet Union, second only to Russia;
• Uzbekistan is a major producer of uranium (as is Kazakhstan) and has large natural gas reserves, as does, quite likely, Tajikistan;
• And Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have significant hydropower potential.

But the economies of Central Asia are more than the sum of their energy-generating potential:

• Kazakhstan pursued fundamental macro-economic reform from the beginning and has now created a financial services hub for the region.
• Uzbekistan’s educated population of 30 million has a huge potential to provide entrepreneurial, innovative economic growth.
• Kyrgyzstan implemented democratic structures from the beginning and to this day remains the test case for democracy in Central Asia.
• And Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan’s natural beauty could attract throngs of trekkers from Boise to Beijing, powering a thriving tourism sector, as could Uzbekistan’s great Silk Road cities of Samarkand, Bohkhara, and Khiva.”

While the Doctrine does briefly make mention counter-terrorism and other security-related shared goals, such references are rare and by no means embody the core of the policy. Rather, more attention is paid by both men to the objectives of economic integration and ‘democracy/human rights’ promotion. Take for example what Blinken said were the “two distinct ideas” that guide America’s policy towards Central Asia:

“First, that our own security is enhanced by a more stable, secure Central Asia that contributes to global efforts to combat terrorism and violent extremism; and second, that stability can best be achieved if the nations of Central Asia are sovereign and independent countries, fully capable of securing their borders, connected with each another and with the emerging economies of Asia, and benefitting from governments that are accountable to their citizens.”

Antony J. Blinken, Deputy Secretary of State

He then says that “we have three important objectives for our engagement with each of the Central Asian states: strengthening partnerships to advance mutual security; forging closer economic ties; and advancing and advocating for improved governance and human rights”. For his part, Hoagland talks about the US’ “four critical areas of cooperation and concentration in Central Asia – security cooperation, economic ties, promotion of human rights and good governance, and efforts to bolster each country’s sovereignty and independence.” It will be revealed in this series that all of his talk about economic integration and ‘democracy/human rights’ promotion was just a simple allusion to geopolitical jealousy and Color Revolution motives, while the references to “sovereignty and independence” are code words for sabotaging Russian-led integration and pragmatic policies towards Moscow.

Geopolitical Jealousy

The US is reeling with jealousy over Russia and China’s strategic advancements in Central Asia, and it doesn’t do much to hide its feelings.

Russia:

Washington is outraged with Moscow over its reunification with Crimea, and Blinken embodies the Beltway’s hysteria when he says that “Russia’s actions on its periphery, including its violation of the territorial integrity and sovereignty of Ukraine, threaten the very foundation of international order – not only in the region, not only in Europe, but beyond and around the world…They are threatening the fundamental principles that we all have a stake in defending in Europe and, indeed, around the world.” He then decries what he terms as Russia’s “linguistic nationalism”, while forgetting that it’s actually the US which is guilty of this crime per its 1990s destruction of the Balkans and authoritative ‘academic’ decree (enforced by NATO) that Bosnians, Croats, and Serbs are different people and languages intrinsically incapable of living side-by-side in harmony.

Another major point is that the US is clearly jealous of Russia’s success at post-Soviet integration through the Eurasian Union. Hoagland, for example, says the US wants “to help connect Central Asia to lucrative external markets in Europe and Asia”, while obviously not mentioning that this is exactly the purpose behind the Eurasian Union. When he remarks that “the United States is doing its part to help build those markets and links…which focuses on improving north-south energy markets, trade and transport infrastructure, customs and borders procedures, and business networks”, he’s purposeful omitting the fact that the Eurasian Union and Shanghai Cooperation Organization already fulfill these roles.

Showing how out of touch with reality his ideology has made him, Hoagland says that “we encourage the Eurasian Economic Union to follow the successful, open model of the European Union and not establish new trade barriers”, which is laughable precisely because the EU has enacted globally notorious trade barriers against Russia ever since the ‘sanctions war’ began(to unintended consequences). To top off the jealous lunacy, Blinken, his ideologue-in-arms, says that “we’re not telling countries that they shouldn’t join (the Eurasian Union)”, yet former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton loudly threatened in 2012 that “There is a move to re-Sovietise the region, it’s not going to be called that. It’s going to be called a customs union, it will be called Eurasian Union and all of that, but let’s make no mistake about it. We know what the goal is and we are trying to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent it.” Her warning came true when the US engineered the EuroMaidan Color Revolution one year later, and by all indications, it looks like the US is planning to do something similar in Kyrgyzstan this fall.

China:

Things are kept a bit more civil when the US addresses China’s role in Central Asia, although it doesn’t shy away from passive-aggressive pouting. Both diplomats attempt to assure everyone that there’s no “zero-sum” choice in the region, especially between the US and China, but this is more tactical than true. In the offensive sense, the US clumsily wants to gain the false confidence of Central Asia’s neighbors (which obviously aren’t buying such outright lies of intent), while defensively, it can always resort to the “no zero-sum terms” argument to excuse away any future foreign policy failings in the region.

This Janus-faced policy is on full display when it comes to China’s Silk Road Economic Belt. Hoagland says that:

 “China’s development of energy, road, and transport infrastructure in Central Asia can be consistent with and fully complementary to U.S. efforts” before complaining that“because international companies are more likely to invest when they can compete on a level playing field, we need to ensure that the emerging regulatory architecture in the region meets international standards.”

What he’s really saying here is that “international standards” are synonymous to the US government with ‘Western standards’, and since the latter weren’t in effect and/or didn’t result in the desired outcome of American contractors, then there’s some kind of ‘unlevel’ playing field discriminating against the US that must be remedied by “cooperating with the governments of Central Asia to help create institutions that meet those international standards” (i.e. ‘democracy promotion’ and Color Revolutions).

Blinken is the more passive-aggressive of the two officials towards China when he talks about the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), which Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Tajikistan have joined:

“Our concern with the bank is this: We don’t oppose it; to the contrary. The more investment you can bring in infrastructure in the region, in Asia more broadly, we think the better. It’s desperately needed. It’s a foundation for economic progress. But as I suggested earlier, how it happens is vitally important, and so the concerns that we’ve had about the infrastructure investment bank really go to its own standards. What are the governance rules of the bank? What role does the board of directors play? What are the standards that it would advance in terms of worker rights, environmental protections, intellectual property, capital requirements, things of that nature?… What we don’t want to see happen is some kind of race to the bottom where the standards are diluted, and that’s been our only concern.”

What he’s indirectly accusing China of is creating an international kleptocracy, which ironically is exactly what the West built with the IMF and World Bank, the two American-controlled institutions that the AIIB is set to rival. Aside from this swipe and a few less significant ones, the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine largely steers clear of directly confronting China, largely out of an understanding that its growing economic gravity in Central Asia is a fait accompli that must be recognized as a regional reality (if it can’t be overturned with a series of Color Revolutions or Euro-Indian trade, that is).

The Color Of Chaos

This section needs to be predicated by Hoagland’s overly defensive and out-of-the-blue assertion that his doctrine has nothing to do with Color Revolutions:

“This kind of “soft diplomacy” does NOT have as its goal “Color Revolutions,” as Moscow nefariously whispers in Central Asian ears with its onslaught of “black propaganda.” What we simply do is stand with the people of Central Asia who want nothing more than better lives for their children and grandchildren, as do people all over the world.” (emphasis is Hoagland’s)

The reason he felt so compelled to underline this is because a lot of the doctrine actually does contain Color Revolution planning mechanisms and intent, and due to its obviousness, Hoagland was obligated to at least say the opposite in order to maintain at least an official degree of plausible deniability.

What could he have said beforehand that would make one suspect that such underhanded regime change tactics are being prepared by Washington? Well, allow the author to reference two of the four “critical areas of cooperation and concentration in Central Asia” that were cited previously cited: “promotion of human rights and good governance, and efforts to bolster each country’s sovereignty and independence”. The latter’s invocation of ‘sovereignty’ is a barely concealed allusion to pressuring the region’s states away from Russia, while the former’s remarks about ‘human rights’ and ‘good governance’ are the grounds on which future Color Revolutions would be justified if anti-Russian policies are not enacted. His buddy Blinken begs the world to believe that:

“We do not ask any country to choose ties with the U.S. to the exclusion of anyone else. We reject the false choices imposed by anyone else. We fully support the aspirations of Central Asian states to pursue a multi-vector foreign and economic policy.”

Which colour is the next for the next revolution organised/sponsored by the US?

But who can believe such rhetoric when the US’ actions in Ukraine prove the exact opposite? And considering that Ukraine represented Russia’s soft Eastern European frontier, what makes one think the exact same false choice (with all of its destabilizing consequences) under the threat of a EuroMaidan-like Color Revolution 2.0 won’t be forced upon Russia’s soft Central Asian frontier, too? The US is already expanding the physical infrastructure capable of managing Color Revolutions, i.e. its embassies. Look at what Hoagland said early on in his speech:

“For over a year, we have been saying, “No, we assure you we are NOT going to cut and run! And if you want objective evidence, simply look at the fact that we have built, or are now building, major new, state-of-the-art embassies in every capital of Central Asia. Why would we expend this kind of taxpayers’ money if we weren’t serious about long-term relationships? I want to emphasize: the U.S. diplomatic presence in Central Asia is not temporary; it’s enduring long into the future.” (emphasis is Hoagland’s)

Think the US hasn’t built up a Color Revolutionary cadre over the years? Well, Hoagland would beg to differ, proudly boasting that:

“Here’s an interesting factoid. Over the last 23 years, well over 24,000 citizens of Central Asia have come to the United States on State Department-funded exchange programs. They have gone on to become high-ranking government officials, effective community leaders, and successful business pioneers. We are very pleased for them. We’re investing in people to drive the region’s growth and evolution, because we know how important this region is to our own interests.”

Let’s remember that Richard Miles, the ‘Male Nuland’ of Color Revolutions, became the Executive Director for the Open World Leadership Center for most of 2006, during which he fostered the creation of thousands of pro-American ‘leaders’ in the former Soviet Union, including Central Asia.This Color Revolutionary mastermind hasn’t even retired from his regime-changing job yet…well, he did, until he was recalled out of retirement to become the charge d’affaires in Kyrgyzstan. Why the urgency to send him to Kyrgyzstan, out of all places? Besides the fact that the country occupies the premier geostrategic position in the region, it’s also slated for legislative elections in October, which would be its first vote after it joins the Eurasian Union in May. Remember that earlier reference to Hillary Clinton’s threat “to figure out effective ways to slow down or prevent [Eurasian Union integration]”? Well, it seems that Kyrgyzstan is the next country on the roll-back list after the US’ recent ‘success’ in Ukraine, and truth be told, it might even be more susceptible to the coming Color Revolution carnage than Ukraine was.

Blinken brags that:

“One of the things we’re very proud of is having hosted nearly 80 percent of Kyrgyz parliamentarians here in the United States, where they discuss the responsibilities of public service with American officials and representatives of civil society. Time and again, we have seen the value of building these lifelong relationships – helping to expand the marketplace of ideas and foster greater democratic ethos.”

Going even further, he then adds that “In Kyrgyzstan, 40 members of parliament recently participated in more than 30 town hall meetings across the country”. In and of itself, the town hall meetings don’t necessarily portend anything negative, however, they can easily be weaponized on a grassroots level to divide local communities along ethnic and political lines in agitating for Color Revolutions and subsequent pogroms (of which Kyrgyzstan unfortunately already has a tragic history). In fact, the most critical demographic for the success of any forthcoming Color Revolution is already in place, as Blinken proudly states that “Today, Central Asia is not only bursting with resources, but brimming with youthful, entrepreneurial potential. A full half of its population is under the age of 30.”

The combination of the State Department’s prior threat to unravel the Eurasian Union, Kyrgyzstan’s upcoming electoral vulnerability, the US government’s close contacts with Kyrgyz Parliamentarians, proto-Color Revolution ‘town hall’ meetings, ‘perfect’ demographic conditions, and the out-of-retirement placement of Color Revolutionary mastermind Richard Miles as charges d’affaires in Bishkek foreshadows all-but-guaranteed chaos in Central Asia.

How does the US ‘justify’ this through the prism of the Hoagland-Blinken Doctrine? Among a couple other factors, Blinken decrees that “governments that are accountable to their citizens” are a foundation of regional security, which is American political jargon for democracy promotion in an area that doesn’t want it. One should also recall Blinken’s earlier-referenced listing of the US’ “three important objectives for [its] engagement with each of the Central Asian states”, since “advancing and advocating for improved governance and human rights” is one of them.

That’s not all, though, since Blinken also says that “a critical aspect of our foreign policy is advancing the democratic values that we share with people all over the world, including in Central Asia. These values are at the very core of our engagement with the region.” What kind of values, one may ask? “Greater respect for human rights, a stronger voice for civil society, and greater religious freedom”, all of which in actual American political practice mean threatening countries with sanctions, holding the threat of Color Revolutions over their heads, and agitating for the acceptance and legal proselytization of radical Saudi-controlled Wahhbist movements.

Blinken isn’t too pleased with the region’s rejection of American ‘values’, so he said that “Progress has been halting, but I believe we are better able to address these difficult issues because we are present and engaged with these governments and their civil society.” The vehicle that Blinken specifies is to be used in carrying out the aforementioned civil society engagement is a regime change program rolled out by President Obama in 2013, the Stand with Civil Society initiative, which will allow the US to “continue to support civil society and its ability to serve communities and speak up for peaceful change without government interference”. Part of the change that he’s referring to is that the US will “continue to advocate for free media and more open political systems”, which translates into an expansion of the planned-to-be-upgraded US propaganda mediums into the region and consequently even more unwanted external tinkering in domestic affairs.

All of this is expected to generate ‘controlled chaos’ in the heart of Russia, China, and Iran’s vulnerable periphery, which would be the latest manifestation of the US’ modus operandi in key geopolitical theaters across the world.

To be continued…

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

Farmers from El Salvador make many US biotech farming practices look like the work of a bunch of crazed lunatics. At least in El Salvador they realize the importance of non-GM food and heritage seed saving. After outperforming Monsanto’s biotech seed with record crop yields, they have also now managed a giant defeat of Monsanto by preventing the company from supplying El Salvador with its poison seeds.

Monsanto’s biotech crops have been linked with kidney disease, liver failure, reproductive problems, and more. Most recently, the WHO called glyphosate, the main chemical ingredient in Monsanto’s herbicide Round Up, ‘probably carcinogenic.’

The El Salvador farmer resistance is great news considering the monopoly that Monsanto and other biotech companies have managed to hold over much of the rest of the world. Monsanto will deny having sway over the government, including federal judges in the US – but they actually do. Though they don’t have control everywhere. El Salvador farmers are working with the Minister of Agriculture there to lessen local farmers’ dependency on biotech seeds.

Juan Luna Vides, the director of diversified production for the Mangrove Association, a nongovernmental organization that was created to support a grassroots social movement for environmental conservation in El Salvador, says:

“Remember that Monsanto is together with DuPont, Pioneer, all the large businesses that control the world’s seed market. Unfortunately, many of the governments in Latin America, or perhaps the world, have beneficiary relationships with these companies.”

The Ministry of Agriculture just released a new round of contracts to provide seed to subsistence farmers across the country.

Monsanto attempts to do business in other markets with other company names, or brands, but the transnational hold is the same. And make no mistake, it is run by Monsanto and the other Big Six.

For example, companies like Pioneer generate commercials for various media outlets in El Salvador marketing their agrochemical products, and exerting great influence over the local farmers of the country.

Many farmers see the importance of keeping their seed supply local, though. small-scale seed producer Santos Cayetan told Truthout:

“We are losing the traditions of local seed, so we are trying to maintain it here. Native seeds don’t have what these other seeds have that come with the chemicals, based in chemicals.”

Cayetan, who is a recipient of corn seed from the government program that uses local, GMO-free seeds and also works to grow native corn, said that the difference between using local seed versus Monsanto’s is quite amazing.

“[Native seeds are] always the same, they always produce, and they’re always there,” he said. “[Native seeds] are drought resistant.”

This and other farmers also comment on the fact that local seed has been adapted to the conditions specific to the region, and Monsanto’s seed has not. The local seed grows well even in dry soil. Farmers can also save and re-use seed without having to worry about patent infringement, as well as having to repurchase seed every season since much of the GM seed Monsanto, Pioneer, and others sell is meant to self-destruct after just one season, otherwise known as suicide seed.

As in many areas of the world, one of Monsanto’s sinister goals is to force farmers to purchase the company’s seeds every year, at highly inflated prices. These seeds also rely on toxic industrial fertilizers and their best-selling herbicide, Round Up.

“[Using only local seed] would be much better [for Salvadoran farmers]; they wouldn’t have to buy seeds every year,” Vides added. “It has to do with generating the conditions to promote food security … you can produce what you consume … produce and consume the same product.”

Cayetan explains that most farmers in El Salvador cannot afford Monsanto seeds – but that is by design.

“If all the producers produced [imported] seed, [local producers] would lose their businesses … this is what [Monsanto] wants.”

Additional Sources:

Photo credit: Farmers drive through the “coffee lands” of El Salvador, November 6, 2013. (Photo: Stuart)

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Comrade Khaled Barakat of The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) said that “what is happening today in Yemen is a complete failure of the Saudi and US plans to restore a puppet regime that serves their interests.”

A new study published in the journal JAMA Pediatrics claims to delineate the source and spread of measles during the widely hyped Disneyland measles outbreak, of course blaming the unvaccinated for this ridiculous non-event. But the data points presented in the study reveal that the vast majority of those who caught measles had previously been vaccinated, and yet the outbreak is still somehow being blamed 100% on the unvaccinated.

According to information from the study presented by California Healthline, as many as 86% of those who caught measles at Disneyland were fully up to date on their MMR vaccinations for measles, mumps and rubella. This means that none of them should have gotten measles, if you believe the official story anyway.

But in the fantasy reality of so-called “herd immunity,” 86% just isn’t enough to prevent a disease outbreak, or so goes the myth. In order for full protection to be gained, claims the establishment, a 95% vaccination rate is required for vaccines that are 100% effective — though these numbers often shift between 90% and 99%, or are omitted entirely, depending on the agenda of a particular media report.

“Clearly,” maintain the study’s authors, “MMR vaccination rates in many of the communities that have been affected by this outbreak fall well below the necessary threshold to sustain herd immunity, thus placing the greater population at risk as well.”

Most outbreak victims were vaccinated, but the unvaccinated are to blame?

Ah yes, the infamous herd immunity scapegoat. It’s just too convenient for vax-pimping scientists to claim that their precious vaccines don’t work because not enough people are getting them. It couldn’t be that these vaccines simply don’t work at all, as clearly demonstrated by the fact that most of the people affected during disease outbreaks were jabbed in accordance with government guidelines.

No, it must be all those crazy anti-vaxxers spreading measles, even though the unvaccinated typically don’t contract measles during outbreaks (and thus don’t spread it, since they don’t actually have it). In this case, only a very small percentage of those affected hadn’t been vaccinated, so to surmise that they somehow triggered the outbreak is an absurd stretch.

More than likely, it was a vaccinated individual who triggered the outbreak as a result of live attenuated viral vaccines (LAV) like MMR, which are known to shed vaccine-type viruses following vaccine administration.

“The public health community is blaming unvaccinated children for the outbreak of measles at Disneyland, but the illnesses could just as easily have occurred due to contact with a recently vaccinated individual,” said Sally Fallon Morell, president of the Weston A. Price Foundation (WAPF).

“Evidence indicates that recently vaccinated individuals should be quarantined in order to protect the public.”

The jig is up: Vaccines don’t work, so give it up already!

Though it would be loathe to admit it, the vaccine mafia is clearly losing major ground in its failing war on natural immunity. No matter how these charlatans try to spin the issue, vaccines don’t work if people who get them are still contracting disease, supposedly because other people around them aren’t getting vaccinated.

“At best, vaccines boost our defenses only temporarily,” explained Shane Ellison from The People’s Chemist. “That’s because your immune system is programmed to recognize and attack invaders that come through the biological ‘front door.’ That would be your nose, mouth and eyes. It doesn’t work properly when we shove infection into our body with a needle.”

Concerning “herd immunity,” Ellison adds that it’s “nothing more than a silly catch-phrase used to scare and bully parents into vaccinating their kids.”

Sources for this article include:

http://www.californiahealthline.org

http://www.wallstreetotc.com

http://www.nydailynews.com

http://www.westonaprice.org

http://www.ageofautism.com

http://thepeopleschemist.com

http://www.westonaprice.org

At least two instructors at a medical college in Michigan taught lessons instructing students to intimidate patients into receiving vaccinations, a lawsuit claims.

Filed in the Genesee Circuit Court on April 6, the suit alleges a teacher at Baker College in Flint taught her students to exhaust various methods of coercion in order to pressure patients into getting innoculated.

“She stated that we would go in there if they declined and then we would use threats to coerce them,” claims plaintiff and former student Nichole Rolfe.

One threat students were directed to make targeted a patient’s enrollment in the federal health care and financial assistance program Medicaid.

“You’re going to lose your Medicaid and if you lose your Medicaid because you refuse the vaccine you will have to pay for your entire hospital stay,” the teacher told her students to say, according to Rolfe.

That same week, Rolfe, 35, says another instructor had also encouraged students to lie to new and expectant fathers, directing pupils to tell dads they wouldn’t be able to visit their newborns if they weren’t up-to-date on their vaccines.

“The vaccinations would do little to protect the newborns because they would not have taken effect by the time the fathers interacted with the babies, Rolfe claimed,” reports MLive.com.

After questioning the lessons, Rolfe was subsequently cut from the nursing program five months before she was due to graduate.

In their dismissal, the school accused Rolfe of aggressively arguing in defense of her vaccine exemption beliefs, and claimed she exhibited a “persistent, aggressive, oppositional behavior.”

Rolfe says the lessons went against what they learned about fully informing patients, and that her questions were harmless and apt for the classroom.

“I was asking questions that a nursing student should ask,” she said.

“This goes against the patient’s right to informed consent,” Rolfe claims. “Our job is to build trust with the family and patient. We are to educate this patient.”

A person claiming to be one of Rolfe’s peers said on Facebook that Rolfe didn’t espouse anti-vaccine beliefs, but that she merely “felt that lying and coercion went against ANA guidelines and violated the patients right to refuse any medical intervention,” according to Inquisitr.

Had Rolfe taken the instructors’ lessons to heart she could have landed in hot legal waters, her lawyer says.

“[U]sing fake or threatening information to force someone into receiving a medical treatment, such as an inoculation, would likely constitute an assault and battery,” Rolfe’s attorney told MLive.

The school had previously drafted a behavior contract with Rolfe after another student accused her of harassment over the student’s views on homosexuality, which Rolfe denies.

Rolfe’s claim seeks around $25,000 in damages and asks the school to rescind her dismissal, which is affecting her ability to enroll in other colleges.

The lawsuit comes amid a heated national debate regarding vaccinations, with the state of California leading the effort to severely restrict vaccine exemptions for parents and school-aged children.

A Gallup poll issued on April 13th headlines “Americans Choose the Environment Over Energy Development,” and on April 9th another report from Gallup was titled “About Half in U.S. Say Environmental Protection Falls Short.” The bottom-line from both findings is that “the U.S. government” isn’t doing enough to protect the environment but is doing too much to boost energy-production. Republicans feel the exact opposite way, on both matters.

Among the total American public, 48% say that the federal government is doing “too little … in terms of protecting the envirionment”; 34% say that it’s doing “the right amount”; and only 16% say that it’s doing “too much.” So, clearly, the public greatly favors increased envifonmental protection by “the U.S. government.” However, whereas 64% of Democrats feel that the government is doing “too little,” only 39% of Republicans do; and so, the partisan divide on this issue is stark.

Similarly, the U.S. general public give higher priority to (49% opt for) “Environment” over (39% opt for) “Development of U.S. energy supplies”; but among Republicans, 62% favor “Development of U.S. energy supplies,” and only 27% favor “Environment.” By contast: 72% of Democrats favor “Environment,” and only 18% favor “Development of U.S. energy supplies.”

Basically, the reason why the overall U.S. public prefers protecting the environment over boosting U.S. energy-production, is that Democrats are more lopsided for protecting the environment than Republicans are lopsided for boosting energy-production.

This partisan divide has always been high, but is now a bit higher than normal. The divide was at its highest during the period from 2004 to 2006. The divide was smaller in 2000 than at any other time during Gallup’s polling on the matter, which started in 2000.

Independents (neither “Democrat” nor “Republican”) have always been closer to Democrats than to Republicans on these issues; and, in 2012 (the last Presidential campaign), Independents were almost identical to Democrats on them.

If, during the 2016 campaign, the Republican candidate fails to moderate his position more toward the environment, the Democratic candidate will have a major vulnerability to exploit against the Republican’s campaign. If the Democrat exploits that advantage, there will be little likelihood that Independents — the crucial voting-segment — will swing Republican that year.

The environment has always been a low-priority concern of American voters, but energy-production is an even lower-priority concern. And that, plus the highly Democratic slant of Independents on those two issues, could turn that low-priority concern into a kingmaker (or queenmaker) in the 2016 campaigns.

Here are Gallup’s four graphs and charts summarizing their findings:

My most complete summary of Gallup’s findings on the partisan political divide was titled “Gallup Poll Finds Democrats More Compassionate; Republicans More Psychopathic.”

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.

Obama is systematically raping Yemen – using Saudi-led terror-bombing to do his dirty work. He wants Washington regaining control over its former client state. The lives and welfare of millions of Yemenis don’t matter.

Israel’s Institute for National Security Studies (INSS) believes “(t)he Saudi-led collective move in Yemen entails a significant advantage for Israel.”

Houthi Ansarullah fighters “cannot be defeated from the air. The Saudi goal is to prevent (them) from using advanced weapons – fighter jets and surface-to-surface missiles – and keep the strategic port city of Aden from falling into their hands.”

Houthis don’t threaten Israel. Al Qaeda, IS and likeminded extremist groups don’t have air power except when Washington supplies it.

Endless war in Yemen continues. Casualties mount daily. Human suffering is extreme.

Streets in conflict areas are deserted – accept for bodies piling up. Essentials to life are in short supply or unavailable altogether. A humanitarian catastrophe is unfolding in real time.

Saudi Arabia dismissed Iran’s call to halt fighting. Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said “(h)ow can Iran call for us to stop fighting…”

He lied claiming “(w)e came to Yemen to help the legitimate authority, and Iran is not in charge of Yemen.”

The so-called “legitimate authority” is US-installed with no legitimacy whatever.

Saudi terror-bombing serves US imperial interests and its own. Mass-murdering Yemenis is considered OK – including deliberately targeting civilian men, women and children, killing them in cold blood.

The death toll likely tops 2,000.  Numbers injured include thousands more – many maimed for life.

Official figures way undercount. Slow-motion genocide explains things.

Well over 100,000 have been displaced. Eighteen days of terror-bombing and ground fighting caused horrific conditions.

Hospitals are overwhelmed. At least five were terror-bombed. Those operating haven’t enough supplies for the wounded.

The longer conflict continues, the worse things get. A grocer running out of food said “(t)he war of hunger has not started yet.”

Residents in conflict areas have no place to hide. Yemen is being systematically raped, ravaged and destroyed – another US imperial victim.

It may be turned to rubble before things end. Tens of thousands may die.

An Aden resident said everything around him is “damaged, ruined. Everything is destroyed.”

Saudis “are bombing innocent people and families.” French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius visiting Riyadh expressed support for Saudi-led terror-bombing.

“(W)e are here to demonstrate our support, especially political, to the Saudi authorities,” he said.

One rogue regime supports another. Mass slaughter and destruction are OK.

Resolving things militarily is impossible. Violence assures more of it.

Diplomacy alone can work. Iran’s state-run Al-Alam TV said hackers accessed its Twitter account and You Tube channel.

They published fabricated reports about Houthi leader Abdul-Makik Houthi’s death.

Al-Alam officials blamed Saudi anger for its critical reporting of its terror-bombing.

Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kkamenei called Riyadh’s campaign a “crime and genocide.”

He cited rising civilian casualties. Obama refuses to evacuate up to 4,000 stranded US citizens.

Russia continues rescuing hundreds of people in need – so far citizens from 19 countries, including 45 Russian nationals and 18 Americans on Sunday.

Others are being evacuated by air and sea. Five air rescue missions were undertaken.

At least eight other countries are evacuating their nationals – including China and India.

A trapped US citizen told RT International:

“Nobody will help us evacuate. The (US government’s) reply was an automated message that they do not have any evacuation plans. Basically we are left on our own.”

America prioritizes waging global direct and proxy wars of aggression.

Its message to trapped US citizens in Yemen: You’re on your own, out of luck, too bad if you’re killed or injured. Expect no help from Washington.

US resources go for war-making – not helping its own citizens in need, at home or abroad.

Last week, Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah said Houthis haven’t decided whether to launch attacks on Saudi territory or try cutting off the strategically important Bab-el-Mandred strait – connecting the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden.

Nasrallah believes Saudi aggression will end in “catastrophic failure.” How many thousands of Yeminis will perish in the meantime?

How much unspeakable human suffering will continue?

Russia urged all sides to halt fighting – to resolve things diplomatically.

Obama wants endless conflict. He operates by his own rules. He invents them to fit policy.

He does so to justify mass murder. Human lives don’t matter. Civilians are as fair game as combatants.

He once bragged to aides about murder by drones saying “I’m really good at killing people.”

Millions died on his watch – by violence, preventable diseases, starvation and overall deprivation.

How many more will perish before his tenure ends? How much more human suffering is too much?

How much longer will US unaccountability for high crimes against peace be tolerated? When will long denied justice be served?

A Final Comment

On Sunday, Fars News reported senior Yemeni Ansarullah movement member Hossein al-Ezzi saying “differences have intensified in the Al Saud dynasty over the Saudi-led airstrikes on Yemen.”

“(I)nsecurities (in several Saudi regions) have been intensified.” Some Saudi official fear possible internal chaos.

Conflict threatens to spill cross-border. Anything ahead is possible.

War has a way of widening on its own. The entire Gulf area may be embroiled before things end.

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. 

Attention!  Time and date have been changed!!  If you saw the previous announcement saying it will be on the 20th, please take note!

American flags will be given to Americans who want to show their support.  Please share on social media, email, etc.

Media outlets worldwide published on Saturday the words by Cuban President Raul Castro during his speech at the 7th Summit of the Americas, where the presence of Cuba for the first time captured attention.

Headlines such as “First speech by Castro receives ovation and captures media attention,” “It was time for me to speak here on behalf of my country” and “Historic speech by Raul Castro at Summit of the Americas”, appeared in various news programs in the world, the Prensa Latina news agency reported.

The Colombian newspaper El Tiempo described as historic the speech by the Cuban head of state, noting the willingness expressed by him for “respectful dialogue and civilized coexistence” with the United States, the Juventud Rebelde newspaper published on Sunday.

The first speech by a Cuban President at a Summit of the Americas received an ovation in the room where the meeting was held and captured the attention of hundreds of journalists, the Uruguayan newspaper El Pais commented.

The Mexican newspaper La Jornada highlighted Raul’s assertion that the U.S. blockade against Cuba should be resolved, continued Juventud Rebelde.

As long as there is a blockade -which is not the responsibility of the President, and that was codified with a bill in Congress that he can not change- we must keep fighting and support Barack Obama’s intention to put an end to it, citing in turn the Huffington Post.

The most urgent question that needs to be resolved has to do with the repeal of the policy imposed in 1962, a decision that concerns the U.S. Congress, said in this regard the Portuguese newspaper Público.

For its part, Italy’s La República reported that the Cuban President highlighted the fact that Venezuela is not a threat to the United States, in a condemnation of the executive order made public by Obama against the South American country.

The British newspaper The Guardian, meanwhile, reflected the historic panorama covered by Raul in his words, which included the imperialism’s desire for more than a century now for taking over the island, to the most recent aggressions it has been the victim of as result of the aggressive and hostile policy applied by 10 U.S. administrations, which on December 17 Barack Obama acknowledged as failed.

Democrat and Republican hardliners are toughening the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 (INAR)

Obama opposes it. A possible veto-proof majority looms. The legislation aims to undermine consummating a final deal by giving Congress vetting power over its terms.

Israel and its Lobby want them tougher than any responsible government would accept – their way to kill an equitable deal altogether.

Congress is on board to oblige. More than 50 amendments are being considered.

On April 14, Senate Foreign Relations Committee members will begin debating them. Obama wants no congressional action until a final deal is reached by end of June.

All 535 congressional members know Iran’s program is entirely peaceful – with no military component or intention to have one.

They know Iran doesn’t threaten Israel or any other nation. It’s leadership goes all-out for mutual cooperation with all other countries.

Israel, Obama and pro-Israeli zealots infesting his administration know all of the above. They fabricate accusations claiming otherwise. They deplore peace and stability. They relish endless wars.

Reports indicate intense negotiations over ways to amend INAR – largely irresponsibly.

Current provisions let Obama lift Iranian sanctions by executive edict. At the same time, it prohibits him from acting for 60 days.

During the period, Congress would review and have final say up or down.

Ranking Senate Democrat Foreign Relations Committee member Ben Cardin and several likeminded party colleagues propose letting Obama lift sanctions as long as not in violation of any final deal.

They want a shorter congressional vetting period – from 10 to 30 days instead of 60 Republicans demand.

They want a provision eliminated requiring Obama to certify Iran hasn’t conducted or supported an act of anti-American terrorism anywhere worldwide.

Republican hardliner/presidential aspirant Senator Marco Rubio wants Obama required to certify Iran publicly accepted Israel’s right to exist – something totally unrelated to provisions negotiated so far nor will it be.

It’s a deal-killer. Iran won’t accept piling on requirements unrelated to its nuclear program – not should it.

Another possible deal-killer is requiring any final deal be in treaty form requiring two-thirds Senate approval.

Senator John Barrasso proposes Obama certify any funds Iran receives following sanctions relief  not go for nuclear weapons development and production, ballistic missiles or terrorism.

He says he won’t introduce his amendment as long as Democrats don’t weaken the already tough bill he supports.

Republican Senator Johnny Isakson wants Congress demanding Iran compensate 52 Americans held hostage from November 1979 to January 1981. Otherwise no deal. No sanctions relief. No establishing diplomatic relations with Iran.

If a final deal is consummated, America’s longstanding record shows it won’t be worth the paper it’s written on. It’s virtually certain Washington will breach it like all other treaties, conventions and agreements it signed on to.

The whole world knows Iran has no nuclear weapons, isn’t developing any, wants none, and is the leading proponent for a nuclear-weapons-free world.

Talks with Iran “are about policing America’s interests in the Persian Gulf,” Francis Boyle explains.

They’re to reestablish Washington’s pre-Iranian revolution relationship. They’re about “reintegrating Iran into the US imperial order,” Boyle stressed.

They’re to strengthen America’s regional dominance partnered with israel. Everything else is meaningless window dressing.

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.

We live in a world where all currencies are “fiat”, none backed by gold, silver, oil or anything else.  Yes of course the dollar, otherwise known as the “petrodollar” has functioned and survived (so far) based on oil revenues being recycled back into U.S. Treasury bonds, but this has been changing over recent years.  The change has accelerated greatly over the last five years.  This era of “fiat” everywhere and real money nowhere is now 44 years long in the tooth and the very first time in human history there was no alternative currency with a real foundation.

Before you tell me “the U.S. is the most powerful military nation in the world, we don’t need no stinkin’ backing”, think this through.  Though for a time, this “arrangement” worked and no one could stand up to the U.S., is this still true?  Can we impose our will with everyone and everywhere on the planet?  Or has our military technology been leapfrogged as evidenced by the USS Donald Cook last year?  Can’t countries just decide to do business with each other …at the exclusion of the U.S. and use their own currencies to settle?  Isn’t this what has begun to happen with China and other nations doing individual trade deals?  Countries’ trade moving away from the U.S. and away from using dollars is as simple as grade school kids gravitating away from the schoolyard bully and deciding to play in harmony amongst themselves.

This 44 year old experiment has always needed “confidence” to exist.  At first it worked because the U.S. was not over indebted and had plenty of room to lever up or “reflate” if you will.  We still had plenty of untapped or unencumbered collateral left to borrow against, this is no longer so.  Once the 2nd Great Depression kicked off in 2007, the Treasury started to run trillion dollar deficits and have now doubled our indebtedness.  The Federal Reserve has more than quadrupled their balance sheet to well over $4 trillion that sits on the head of an equity needle of less than $70 billion, they are THE largest and most leveraged hedge fund in the world!  The monetary lunacy by no means is confined to the U.S., it spans the globe and is practiced everywhere.  Europe and Japan’s central banks have done the same, so has China to some extent but with a couple of large caveats.

In order to have monetary confidence, there are two prime necessities, collateral and credibility.  In other words, who wants to do business with a bankrupt or someone who cheats or lies?  Any business partner or someone you will do business with must be both solvent and truthful, neither of these conditions still exist in the big three monetary nations of the West.  Each and every year since 2011 we have been told the Federal Reserve would end QE, begin to tighten and thus normalize interest rates.  As I have written several times before, the Fed cannot ever raise interest rates again, this would destroy derivatives, the economy, the Fed’s own balance sheet and create a situation where tax revenues would not be enough to pay the interest on federal debt.  Raising rates is not an option.  Unfortunately, it is the same situation in both Europe and Japan, they have no options left either http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-10/japan-qe-limit-approaching-goldman-says-boj-risks-losing-crediblity  .  Japan began a very outsized QE operation last year while the ECB began theirs just two months ago.

Aleida Guevara, daughter of Cuban-Argentinean revolutionary Ernesto Che Guevara, described as shameful the presence in the activities of the Summit of the Americas of Felix Rodriguez Mendigutia, who was directly involved in the assassination of her father in Bolivia.

“In was a nonsense decision by whoever admitted him, said Guevara and reiterated that the presence of the former CIA agent is shameful. Felix was a CIA instrument and he offered himself in a mean manner to murder him.”

Che’s daughter also said that the presence of Rodriguez Medigutia at the continental forum, the first to have Cuba’s participation in history, is a provocation and she added that the former CIA agent and other anti-Cuba paid mercenaries there are fully discredited before public opinion because it is evident—she said—that they are trying to disrupt the summit.

Guevara said that as the daughter of Che she was pleased with the strong rejection expressed by Cubans and other nationals attending the activities prior to the summit.

“Such response rewards me a lot because you realize that Che is still a living example for the honest young people in this world.”

The nuclear fuel chain destroys the environment and kills from the start, with uranium mining, to the finish, with long-lived, deadly, nuclear waste. Why does the US government refuse to protect America’s National Forests and water supply? Why does it fail to uphold its obligations to the American Indians?Especially at the behest of foreign mining companies? Why must Americans fight foreign companies in court, and even fight Congressmen, to protect the land and water?

Boating down the Colorado River Below Havasu Creek in Grand Canyon National Part, by Mark Lellouch, NPS

Grand Canyon, National Park Service (NPS)

Press Release from the Center for Biological Diversity: “April 8, 2015

Federal Judge OKs Uranium Mining Next to Grand Canyon National Park

Decision Allows Mining Without Tribal Consultation or Update Decades-old Environmental Review

PHOENIX, Ariz.— U.S. District Court Judge David Campbell denied a request to halt new uranium mining at the Canyon uranium mine, located only six miles from Grand Canyon National Park’s South Rim. The Havasupai tribe and a coalition of conservation groups had challenged the U.S. Forest Service’s decision to allow Energy Fuels Inc. to reopen the mine without initiating or completing formal tribal consultations and without updating an obsolete federal environmental review dating to 1986. At stake are tribal cultural values, wildlife and endangered species, and the risk of toxic uranium mining waste contaminating the aquifers and streams that sustain the Grand Canyon and Colorado River.

“We are very disappointed with the ruling by Judge Campbell in the Canyon Mine case,” said Havasupai Chairman Rex Tilousi. “We believe that the National Historic Preservation Act requires the Forest Service to consult with us and the other affiliated tribes before they let the mining company damage Red Butte, one of our most sacred traditional cultural properties. The Havasupai Tribal Council will meet this week to talk about appealing this ruling.”

The decision fails to protect “Red Butte Traditional Cultural Property,” which the Forest Service designated in 2010 for its critical religious and cultural importance to several tribes, especially Havasupai. As a “traditional cultural property,” Red Butte is eligible for inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places. The Havasupai tribe and conservation groups argued that the Forest Service violated the National Historic Preservation Act by failing to consult with tribes to determine how the adverse impacts of the Canyon Mine on Red Butte could be avoided or mitigated prior to approving mining.

“This is bad news for protecting Grand Canyon and tribal sacred sites,” said Roger Clark of the Grand Canyon Trust. “Over the last two decades, we’ve learned how uranium mining can pollute aquifers that feed canyon springs and Havasu Falls. But the Forest Service has ignored that information and failed to require Energy Fuels to take reasonable steps to prevent contamination of water, sacred sites and public lands.”

The Forest Service first approved the Canyon mining plan in 1986, despite a challenge from the Havasupai tribe. Uranium prices plummeted shortly thereafter and the mine closed in 1990 before producing any uranium. The Forest Service allowed the Canyon Mine to reopen in 2012 without a plan update or environmental assessment to reflect the extensive changed circumstances since the original review and approval. These changes include the 2010 designation of the Red Butte traditional cultural property, reintroduction of the endangered California condor in the vicinity of the Canyon Mine, and the 2012 decision to ban new uranium mining across 1 million acres near the Grand Canyon.

“This uranium project could haunt the Grand Canyon region for decades to come,” said Katie Davis with the Center for Biological Diversity. “Uranium mining leaves a highly toxic legacy that endangers human health, wildlife and the streams and aquifers that feed the Grand Canyon. It’s disappointing to see the Forest Service prioritizing the extraction industry over the long-term protection of a place as iconic as the Grand Canyon.”

“We will continue to fight to protect Grand Canyon, its waters and its watershed,” said Sandy Bahr, director of Sierra Club’s Grand Canyon Chapter.“The Forest Service should consider the harm this mine could cause to the groundwater and ultimately the waters in Grand Canyon National Park. We are extremely disappointed in the judge’s failure to recognize that.”

Geologists have warned that uranium mining could deplete and contaminate aquifers that discharge into Grand Canyon and that cleaning them up would be next to impossible. A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey study found elevated uranium levels in soil and water sources associated with past uranium mining. Groundwater connectivity studies of the Grand Canyon that were published subsequent to the Canyon Mine’s 1986 approval indicate the potential for uranium contamination to infiltrate perched and deep aquifers and regional creeks and springs, including Havasu Falls. Energy Fuels plans to start mining uranium at the Canyon Mine in mid-June of 2015.

Plaintiffs in the suit include the Havasupai tribe, Grand Canyon Trust, Center for Biological Diversity and Sierra Club. The coalition has 60 days to appeal Judge Campbell’s decision to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Background

The Canyon Mine is located on the Kaibab National Forest six miles south of Grand Canyon National Park. The mine’s original approval in 1986 was the subject of protests and lawsuits by the Havasupai tribe and others objecting to potential uranium mining impacts on regional groundwater, springs, creeks, ecosystems and cultural values associated with Red Butte. Aboveground infrastructure was built in the early 1990s, but a crash in uranium prices caused the mine’s closure in 1992 before the shaft or ore bodies could be excavated. Pre-mining exploratory drilling drained groundwater beneath the mine site, eliminating an estimated 1.3 million gallons per year from the region’s springs that are fed by groundwater.

A 2010 U.S. Geological Survey report noted that past samples of groundwater beneath the mine exhibited dissolved uranium concentrations in excess of EPA drinking water standards. Groundwater threatened by the mine feeds municipal wells and seeps and springs in Grand Canyon, including Havasu Springs and Havasu Creek. Aquifer Protection Permits issued for the mine by Arizona Department of Environmental Quality do not require monitoring of deep aquifers and do not include remediation plans or bonding to correct deep aquifer contamination. Originally owned by Energy Fuels Nuclear, the mine was purchased by Denison Mines in 1997 and by Energy Fuels Resources Inc., which currently operates the mine, in 2012.

The judge’s decision can be found here.” http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/public_lands/mining/Grand_Canyon_Uranium_Mining/pdfs/Canyon_Mine_Decision.pdf

Press release and more info found here: http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/news/press_releases/2015/uranium-mining-04-08-2015.html (Emphasis our own)

“Red Butte is a distinct knob located on the Coconino Plateau south of Grand Canyon National Park. The summit of Red Butte and the fire lookout tower are reached by a short but relatively steep 1.25 mile trail, one way. The Red Butte Trail climbs from 6,460 ft. (1970M) elevation at the trailhead to 7,326 ft. (2233M) elevation on top of Red Butte. For the first .75 mile, the trail climbs moderately and has only a few switchbacks. The last .5 mile ascends the steep, upper slopes of the butte and has several switchbacks and steep grades. The trail is well-marked and easy to follow. Caution should be taken in the summer months when rattlesnakes may be present on or along the trail.

Red Butte, a prominent topographic feature on the Coconino Plateau, is a lava-capped remnant of overlying rock layers that have been eroded from the surrounding area. For much of the Tusayan Ranger District, the rock layer on the surface is the Paleozoic Era Kaibab Limestone. The Kaibab Limestone is also found along the rim of the Grand Canyon. A marine limestone approximately 270 million years old, it records an ancient tropical ocean environment. Red Butte is the only locale in which the layers from the Mesozoic Era and Cenozoic Era can be viewed for quite some distance. The base of the butte is comprised of red sandstones and siltstones of the approximately 240 million year-old Moenkopi Formation. These rocks were once sand and mud in tropical tidal flats. Above this layer are conglomerates, rocks with fragments and grains of many sizes, in the Shinarump Member of the Chinle Formation. The Shinarump Member was deposited about 225 million years ago as sands and pebbles in river channels. These two rock layers are capped by a basalt, or iron-rich volcanic rock, which has been dated as about 8.5 to 9 million years old. This basalt cap is the only remnant of an ancient lava flow that once covered the area.”

http://www.fs.usda.gov/recarea/kaibab/recreation/outdoorlearning/recarea/?recid=11684&actid=119 Discusses 2010 traditional cultural designation: http://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/stelprdb5297268.pdf

President Obama met President Castro in Panama on April 11th and pledged to develop a new relationship between the two countries, adding that the U.S. (forgetting Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib and many other sins) would ‘continue pressing Cuba on human rights’. The writer thought, “At least the US government did not use armed drones in Cuba” and searched on ‘drones cuba’, finding Professor Andreas’ thoughtful article in the Baltimore Sun, summarised here.  

Obama’s ‘reasonable guidelines’ for using drones to carry out targeted killings overseas:

• to be used only “against terrorists who pose a continuing and imminent threat to the American people”;

• to be used only when other governments are unwilling or unable to stop terrorists in their territories and we do not have the ability to capture them.
  

Andreas pointed out that these guidelines still give the U.S. a self-granted licence to use remote-controlled planes to kill people at its discretion around the world. He asked, “What the world be like when leaders of other nations adopt Mr. Obama’s guidelines — as they surely will?” One example:

“Mr. Obama’s guidelines would seem to give Havana abundant justification for sending killer drones to Florida. For decades, Cuban exile groups based in Florida have organized lethal attacks against Cuba with impunity. The U.S. has refused to prosecute members of these groups and has rejected Cuban requests for extradition. As a result, they continue to operate freely in Florida and continue to threaten Cuba.

“The most prominent leader of these groups is Luis Posada Carriles. Mr. Posada worked for the CIA for many years; he helped organize the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba and helped funnel arms to the Nicaraguan Contras. There is overwhelming evidence that he planned the bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner in 1976, which killed 73 people. He has admitted organizing the bombing of hotels and restaurants in Havana in 1997, in which an Italian tourist was killed and many others injured. In Panama in 2001, he was convicted of plotting to blow up an auditorium where Fidel Castro was to speak. After being pardoned by the Panamanian president, he returned to Miami, where he currently lives, a free man. Although the U.S. Justice Department has called Mr. Posada “an admitted mastermind of terrorist plots and attacks,” U.S. authorities have failed to prosecute him for any of these crimes and have refused to extradite him to Cuba”.

See New York Times passim and the USA’s declassified National Security Archive:http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB153/

Professor Andreas continued: “Many countries will treat Mr. Obama’s guidelines as an invitation. For now, only the U.S. and two close allies — the United Kingdom and Israel — conduct drone strikes. But this monopoly will not last.

“Scores of countries are rushing to add drones to their arsenals. This year, China (the third-largest producer of drones after the U.S. and Israel) pointedly announced that it had considered using drones to kill a fugitive Myanmar drug trafficker, held responsible for murdering 13 Chinese sailors, in the highland jungles of Laos (in the end China decided to capture him instead)”.

As the U.S. is setting up a global network of drone bases from which to launch strikes against suspected enemies, Professor Andreas sees an era of warfare, without beginning or end and without defined battlefields, looming on the horizon and asks: “Will robotic weapons make the world a safer place? Not likely”.

He ends: “Many would argue that the genie is already out of the bottle and by now there is no way to stop the drone race. But we need not be so fatalistic. Chemical weapons were first used, to devastating effect, in World War I. Debate about these weapons began during the war, with many arguing they were so dangerous they should be outlawed, but . . . an international convention banning production of chemical weapons went into effect.

“That should also be our goal for robotic warfare”.

Read the complete article here

Joel Andreas is associate professor of sociology at the Johns Hopkins University,

The complete article was published in the Baltimore Sun in 2013. 

 http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2013-05-30/news/bs-ed-drones-20130530_1_u-s-justice-department-drones-cuba

Sedqi al-Maqet, a Syrian activist who lives in the Israeli-occupied part of Syria known as the Golan Heights was interned after a dawn raid on his home by Israeli secret police at the end of February. Until quite recently, the Israeli media was absolutely banned from mentioning his case at all, even from referring or linking to foreign press reports on the issue. 

Al-Maqet is a Syrian Druze from Majdal Shams known for his media activism and support of the Bashar al-Assad regime. He had published information online (including via his Facebook account) about contacts he said he had witnessed between Israeli armed forces in the Golan and what he termed terrorists active in the Syrian-controlled sector of the Golan.

As I have noted in this column before, Israeli military spokespeople have now admitted to what the reports of UN peace-keeping forces in the Golan have been implying for some time: Israel has an active alliance with the Nusra Front, al-Qaeda’s official affiliate in Syria.

Although al-Qaeda as a movement has a history of making hostile statements against Israel (and statements of an anti-Semitic nature) it has never been involved in much in the way of military confrontations against the Zionist state. Al-Qaeda has historically had two main focuses: US military and civilian targets, and military and civilian targets within Arab states (often specialising in brutal sectarian attacks against those it considers false Muslims).

Since the Nusra Front took over a key checkpoint in the Golan in the summer, it has not gone unnoticed by Arabs that Nusra has completely avoided attacking Israeli military targets in the region. The Qunaitra crossing stands between the Israeli-occupied and the Syrian-controlled sectors of the Golan – Nusra has held it since August.

UN peacekeepers have observed regular contacts between Nusra forces in the area and the Israeli troops stationed on the other side of the ceasefire line (Israel has illegally occupied part of the Golan since 1967). They also observed cargo of an unknown nature passing between the two sides from the Israelis.

More recently, when an army spokesperson talking to the Wall Street Journal confirmed Israel’s aid to al-Qaeda, it was shown that it also took the form of treating Nusra fighters in Israeli field hospitals near the ceasefire line and then sending them back to fight against the government of Syria. (Some defenders of Israel have claimed this is no different from how it supposedly treats any enemy fighter in its hospitals. But there is a crucial difference: fighters from Hamas or Hizballah captured by Israel would be sent straight to jail after hospital discharge.)

Now, thanks to the extreme risks al-Maqet took, we know a little more about this secret Israeli war in Syria. Its tactical alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria has been exposed, and the Shabak, Israel’ secret police force, is none too happy about it.

Al-Maqet posted a video online, which was later aired on Syrian TV, containing his commentary to camera on what he said he had seen in the Golan: a meeting taking place between the Israeli occupation forces and the terrorists, as he put it.

Although the Israeli media was at first banned by military decree from covering the story, the Hebrew-literate American blogger Richard Silverstein has covered the story in detail. He was the first journalist to report al-Maqet’s arrest. It was likely in part thanks to his work that the gag order was partly lifted (it did little to stop the story getting out onto the internet in any case).

Silverstein has seen a copy of part of the indictment against al-Maqet. Although some of the charges remain secret, most of the ones we know of relate to posting comments and videos to Facebook and YouTube. As Silverstein put it in a detailed summary of the case for Middle East Eye this week: “Al-Maket may be the first individual accused of spying through social media. Along with a description of the content of the posts, the clerks in the Shabak or prosecutor’s office have taken the trouble to compile the number of Likes, Shares and YouTube clicks his posts obtained.”

Al-Maqet was detained without access to a lawyer for ten days, and the military court eventually ruled that he must use a lawyer with a high-level security clearance (in other words he has to use a former Israeli military officer as a lawyer … as his defender in a military court).

The amount of trouble that Israel’s Deep State is going to in order to shut this man up is deeply emblematic of the state’s fundamentally anti-democractic nature. It also shows that, the more press coverage there is of Israel’s alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria (it has been pretty much ignored by mainstream media to date) the more Israel is sensitive to the facts being exposed.

After all, by aiding al-Qaeda in Syria, Israel is by providing material support to a group that it itself defines as a terrorist organization, as do the US and British governments.

Scouring Hebrew media, Silverstein also found last year that Israel established “a Camp Ashraf-style Syrian rebel encampment just inside Israeli[-occupied] territory” in the Golan Heights. Israeli media have even filmed the camp, as video on Silverstein’s blog shows. (Camp Ashraf was the former base of the MEK, an Iraq-based group that was backed by the US and Israel and used as a proxy force in a terrorist war against Iran).

With ISIS, the so-called “Islamic State,” currently battling it out for control of Yarmouk, the Palestinian refugee camp in Damascus, this issue has become even more important. The Nusra Front has reportedly put aside some of its differences with ISIS, and allied with the group in Yarmouk, allowing it to take over much of the camp.

Israel. Nusra. ISIS. The capture of Yarmouk. The alliances in the war in Syria grow ever more strange and complicated.

The internment of al-Maqet likely shows that Israel is beginning to get a little worried that the reality of its alliance with al-Qaeda in Syria may eventually start to break through to mainstream media in the west. So far, the media has shown little interest in the story, but that is not guaranteed to hold true.

An associate editor with The Electronic Intifada, Asa Winstanley is an investigative journalist who lives in London.

The release of the vintage clips, from the archive of the Greek War Museum, comes as Athens demands US$302 billion in war reparations. The Greek Ministry of Defense has published a video containing rare footage of the Nazi occupation of Greece during World War II.

The release of the vintage clips, from the archive of the Greek War Museum, comes as Athens demands US$302 billion in war reparations, from the enforced loan the invaders imposed, and as compensation for the some 800,000 civilians deaths.

According to translations by Keep Taking Greece, the video claims that,  “Greece lost 13% of its population during the WWII. One part was lost in the battlefield, but the largest part due to famine and the Nazis’ atrocities.”

The footage shows emaciated men, women and children, streets reduced to rubble, and conveys of Nazi motorbikes and tanks.

“The agreement of 14 March 1942 foresaw that Greece paid to its occupiers 1.5 billion drachmas per month, a total of US$3.5 billion, according to the Dollar value of 1938. The current value of the enforced loan is 54 billion euro without the interest,” the video’s voice over says, explaining that this loan was to blame for the starvation of some 300,000 Greeks in the capital city alone.

Last week, Germany’s economy minister called Greece’s demand for reparations “stupid,” even though Greek Defense Minister Panos Kammenos said his government had obtained “stunning evidence” to support its claim.

Washington in its arrogance, seeing itself as “indispensable,” poses a continuing threat to the lives of hundreds of millions of people. The extraordinary number of dead that Washington has murdered in the 21st century–”The American Century”–is dismissed as “collateral damage” in the “war on terror.”

The war on terror is a hoax. It is a creation of the evil neoconservatives who intend Washington’s world hegemony and Israel’s hegemony from the Nile to the Euphrates. The rest of mankind has realized that Washington’s drive for world hegemony means the entire human race will be dismissed as “collateral damage” as Washington establishes itself as the “exceptional, indispensable country,” the country whose will is above the rule of law and whose morality is non-existent.

The stark reality is that America, which wore the White Hat during the Cold War, now wears the Black Hat, and Russia and China have traded the Black Hat for the White Hat. The hope for mankind no longer resides in the West, which has entered a militarized gestapo existence conducting war against its own citizens and the world at large.

Aggression is the hallmark of 21st century Washington and its captive European vassal states. There has not been a 21st century year without slaughter of innocents by “Western civilization.”

In this interview with Eric King– http://kingworldnews.com/dr-paul-craig-roberts-4-12-15/ – I speak of the hope that comes from revulsion at the looting of southern Europe by fellow EU members and the American hedge funds. If southern Europeans can find the intelligence to comprehend that the New York and German financial interests have decided to destroy the prospects of southern Europeans for the sake of the profits of American and northern European financial interests, European peoples, brainwashed into the grand glorious prospects of being an EU member, might realize the treachery to which they were subjected and leave the exploitative system known as the European Union, a system designed to destroy the sovereignty of European nations.

Powerful Russia stands there as an alternative. As does China. If the Greek government has the sense to default to those who are determined to exploit and to destroy Greece, Italy and Spain will follow. Russia and China are waiting with open arms, and unlike the Western governments, Russia and China are not bankrupt.

Without southern Europe NATO is a non-entity. The Brzezinski and neocon doctrines of Washington controlling Eurasia come to naught. Without NATO Washington’s pretense of speaking for “the world community,” that is, for the white people, rings hollow.

We have to pray for life. Unless Washington can be isolated life on earth has dim prospects.

L’idea che la maggior parte degli attacchi terroristici siano compiuti da Arabi o da Mussulmani, non solo manca di prospettiva storica, ma costituisce un’impressione soggettiva che deriva dall’orientalismo moderno, ben vivo. Lo stesso “orientalismo” è molto legato al concetto statunitense dell’eccezionalismo. E’ un campo del pensiero nel quale le concezioni eccezionaliste e razziste coincidono completamente. Infatti sono divise da una linea sottile

Stando a un modo di pensare lineare desueto e geograficamente etnocentrico, tutte le società che si situano a Est e a Sud degli Stati Uniti, del Canada e dell’Europa occidentale – soprattutto la Francia, la Gran Bretagna e i paesi germanofoni – vengono considerati come deficienti e inferiori. In Europa questo significa che chiunque viva a Est della Germania viene descritto tacitamente o apertamente come arretrato culturalmente. Questo giudizio comprende i Balcani, i popoli slavi, gli Albanesi, i Greci, i Turchi, i Rumeni, i cristiani ortodossi e le ex Repubbliche sovietiche.

Nella concezione orientalista degli Stati Uniti, i Non Europei si situano su di un gradino ancora più basso. Il giudizio riguarda i popoli dell’Africa, di Asia, dell’America del Sud e dei Caraibi.

Così come gli atteggiamenti eccezionalisti, anche le concezioni orientaliste hanno grande importanza nel sostegno alla politica estera ed alle guerre di Washington, considerate come nobili imprese. Gli atteggiamenti orientalisti statunitensi vedono il resto del mondo, dal Messico all’Iraq e alla Russia, come bisognosi della tutela e della cura degli Stati Uniti. E’ una espressione di quel che viene chiamato “il fardello dell’uomo bianco”, un concetto che serve a giustificare la colonizzazione dei popoli considerati non bianchi.

La relazione tra terrorismo, Arabi e mussulmani

Gli Arabi e i Mussulmani sono bersagli di prima scelta per l’orientalismo statunitense. Tacitamente o apertamente, gli Arabi e i Mussulmani vengono descritti come gente non civilizzata. Il terrorismo è profondamente legato alle immagini degli Arabi e dei Mussulmani nella considerazione di molti cittadini statunitensi ed è per questo che essi credono erroneamente che la maggior parte dei terroristi siano Arabi o Mussulmani.

A diversi livelli, ogni qualvolta degli individui mussulmani o etnicamente arabi commettono dei crimini in quelle che vengono definite società occidentali, come il Canada o gli Stati Uniti, seguono valutazioni che comportano, espressamente o tacitamente, un giudizio che coinvolge tutti i mussulmani o tutti gli Arabi, collettivamente. Le origini arabe o mussulmane di costoro sono invocate per spiegare i loro crimini. I crimini di individui arabi o mussulmani non vengono presentati come crimini di singoli individui ma come un crimine collettivo. Queste idee ignorano il fatto che i mussulmani sono le principali vittime del terrorismo.

Sette dei dieci paesi più colpiti dagli attacchi terroristi sono in maggioranza mussulmani, secondo l’edizione 2014 del catalogo globale sul terrorismo, pubblicato dall’Istituto per l’economia e per la pace, con sede in Australia, realizzato sulla base di dati meta-analitici sul terrorismo globale dell’Università del Maryland. L’intera comunità internazionale è classificata secondo una scala che va da dieci, il massimo, a zero, il minimo. Benché la definizione di incidente terrorista utilizzata nei dati sul terrorismo globale dell’Università del Maryland sia opinabile, si possono comunque ricavare delle deduzioni importanti da essi e dal catalogo globale del terrorismo dell’istituto per l’economia e per la pace.

Se i lettori pongono attenzione alla natura e all’identità degli autori di atti qualificati come terroristi nei trenta primi paesi del catalogo del terrorismo mondiale 2014, possono rilevare diverse importanti caratteri. Il primo è che la violenza generata da gruppi definiti come terroristi interviene in un contesto di insurrezione e di guerre civili, successivamente assimilati ad atti di terrorismo. E’ per esempio il caso di paesi come la Somalia, le Filippine, la Tailandia, la Colombia, la Turchia, il Mali, la Repubblica Democratica del Congo e il Nepal, collocati rispettivamente al settimo, nono, decimo, sedicesimo, ventiduesimo e ventiquattresimo posto. Un esame più analitico di queste sollevazioni dimostra che esse sono legate a rivalità internazionali e a dei giochi di potere di cui sono protagonisti gli Stati Uniti e i loro alleati. Tutto ciò risulta evidente, se si osservino le cose più da vicino.

Il secondo carattere è che la maggioranza dei casi di terrorismo nei paesi presi in considerazione, in particolari in quelli collocati ai livelli più alti della classifica, sono in rapporto con una interferenza diretta o indiretta di Washington nei loro affari interni. E’ il caso per esempio dell’Iraq, dell’Afghanistan (presidio della NATO), del Pakistan, della Siria, della Somalia, dello Yemen, della Russia, del Libano, della Libia, della Repubblica Democratica del Congo, del Sud Sudan, della Cina e dell’Iran, che sono rispettivamente classificati al primo, secondo, terzo, quinto, settimo, ottavo, undicesimo, quattordicesimo, quindicesimo, diciottesimo, diciannovesimo, ventesimo, venticinquesimo e ventottesimo posto. Le guerre degli Stati Uniti, gli interventi del Pentagono, i colpi di Stato sostenuti dagli Stati Uniti o il sostegno del governo statunitense a sedicenti gruppi di opposizione o a regimi infeudati, sono tutti all’origine dei drammi terroristici in questi paesi. Tra i paesi più su citati, secondo il catalogo del terrorismo mondiale, l’82% dei morti dovuti ad atti di terrorismo nel mondo si sono avuti nel presidio afghano della NATO, in Iraq, in Pakistan, in Siria e in Nigeria. Sono chiari i rapporti con la politica estera degli Stati Uniti.

Non tutti gli Arabi/mussulmani sono terroristi, ma la maggior parte dei terroristi sono Arabi/mussulmani?

Si è detto che, se non tutti i terroristi sono Arabi/Mussulmani, lo è però la maggior parte. E’ vero o si tratta ancora una volta di una leggenda? Una analisi empirica dei dati raccolti negli Stati Uniti e in Europa ci aiuterà a trovare una risposta a questa domanda.

Negli Stati Uniti, che occupano il trentesimo posto nel catalogo globale del terrorismo 2014, la maggior parte dei terroristi non sono mussulmani, secondo l’Ufficio federale di investigazione (Federal Bureau of Investigation – FBI). Sul territorio degli Stati Uniti, solo il 6% degli atti terroristici commessi tra il 1980 e il 2005 sono attribuibili a mussulmani (1). Gli altri, il 94% – vale a dire l’immensa maggioranza – non hanno nulla a che vedere con Arabi, mussulmani e Islam (2).

Benché opinabile, accettiamo qui per comodità di argomentazione il criterio adottato dallo FBI per definire un attacco terrorista. Secondo lo stesso rapporto dello FBI, vi sono stati più attacchi terroristi lanciati sul suolo degli Stati Uniti da parte di ebrei che da parte di mussulmani, tra il 1980 e il 2005.

Gli stessi dati dello FBI sono stati elaborati dall’università di Princeton sulla pagina www.loonwatch.com nella forma di una tavola descrittiva della ripartizione degli attacchi terroristi sul suolo degli Stati Uniti tra il 1980 e il 2005, nel modo che segue: 42% di terrorismo ispanico; 24% di terrorismo da parte di gruppi di estrema sinistra; 16% di altri tipi di terrorismo non rientranti nelle principali categorie; 7% di terrorismo da parte di ebrei; 6% da terroristi mussulmani e 5% da terroristi comunisti (3).

Mentre gli atti terroristi commessi da mussulmani rappresentano il 6% di quelli realizzati sul suolo degli Stati Uniti tra il 1980 e il 2005, gli ebrei e gli ispanici sono responsabili rispettivamente del 7% e del 42% di essi. E però nessuna paura si è diffusa nei confronti degli ebrei e degli ispanici. I media e il governo non prestano nei loro confronti la stessa attenzione che riservano alle persone di origine araba o mussulmana.

Lo stesso schema si ripete nell’Unione Europea. Loonwatch.com elabora anche i dati sul terrorismo nell’Unione Europea, a partire dai rapporti annuali di Europol (i servizi di polizia dell’Unione Europea) del 2007, 2008 e 2009, sulla situazione e le tendenze del terrorismo nell’Unione Europea (4). Anche qui il dato è che il 99,6% degli attacchi terroristi sono stati commessi da non mussulmani (5). Il numero di attacchi falliti, sventati o riusciti, attribuibili a mussulmani nella UE, dal 2007 al 2009, è di soli 5, mentre quelli commessi da gruppi separatisti si eleva a 1352, ciò che corrisponde approssimativamente all’85% del totale. (6)

Secondo Europol, il numero di attacchi falliti, sventati e riusciti, attribuibili a gruppi di estrema sinistra è stato di 104, mentre altri 52 sono considerati come “non specifici” (7). Nello stesso periodo, due attacchi sono attribuiti da Europol a pretesi gruppi di estrema destra (8).

Vi è una enorme incongruenza tra quelli che provocano e commettono atti di terrorismo e quelli che ne sono vittime o accusati. Malgrado i dati evidenti che si sono forniti, tutte le volte che un Arabo o un mussulmano commette crimini o atti di terrorismo, questi ultimi vengono posti a carico di tutta la comunità, ciò che non accade quando autori dei fatti sono non Arabi e non mussulmani.

Se si aggiunge che i mussulmani sono le maggiori vittime del terrorismo, deve riconoscersi che l’orientalismo continua a gravare di colpe le vittime del terrorismo, dipingendole come appartenenti a comunità o società selvagge, più esposti ad una morte violenta, come animali nella giungla.

Miti e Impero

Trionfano le leggende nel mondo. La verità va a gambe all’aria. Le vittime sono trasformate in assassini.

Con candore, in modo implicito o silenzioso, l’idea che gli Arabi e i Mussulmani siano dei selvaggi e dei terroristi si fonda sul mito che il sedicente mondo occidentale incarni l’uguaglianza, la libertà, la scelta, la civiltà, la tolleranza, il progresso e la modernità, mentre il preteso mondo arabo mussulmano rappresenti, sotto la superficie, l’ineguaglianza, le restrizioni, la tirannia, l’impossibilità di scelta, la ferocia, l’intolleranza, l’arretratezza, il primitivismo.

Questo mito serve infatti a depoliticizzare la natura politica delle tensioni. Fa apparire asettiche le iniziative dell’Impero, dalla diplomazia coercitiva verso l’Iran e il tentativo di rovesciare il governo in Siria, fino alle invasioni dell’Afghanistan e dell’Iraq e agli interventi militari in Somalia, Yemen e Libia.

Come abbiamo detto più su, a diversi livelli, lo stesso mito si estende ad altri luoghi, considerati dagli orientalisti statunitensi come luoghi o entità non occidentali, come la Russia e la Cina.

Alla base, questi miti sono davvero parte di un discorso che sostiene un sistema di potere che intende dominare in modo imperiale i terzi estranei e gli stessi concittadini. E’ a causa della politica estera degli Stati Uniti e dei loro interessi economici che gli Arabi e i mussulmani vengono soggettivamente dipinti come terroristi, mentre vengono ignorati i dati reali che dimostrano che è l’intervento degli Stati Uniti che crea il terrorismo. E’ per questo che si presta tanta più attenzione all’attacco contro il Parlamento in Canada, alla crisi degli ostaggi di Martin Place a Sydney e all’attacco contro Charlie Hebdo a Parigi. Ma si passa sotto silenzio che l’appoggio del governo degli Stati Uniti, del Canada, dell’Australia e della Francia è costato decine di migliaia di vite in Siria.

Note:

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism 2002-2005, (US Department of Justice, 2006): pp.57-66

[2] Ibid.

[3] «All Terrorists are Muslims… Except the 94% that Aren’t», loonwatch.com, 20 gennaio 2010.

[4] «Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t,» loonwatch.com, 28 gennaio 2010.

[5-8] European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2007 (The Hague, Netherlands: Europol, Marzo 2007); European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2008 (The Hague, Netherlands: Europol, 2008); European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2009 (The Hague, Netherlands: Europol, 2009).

are ongoing in the settlement of Shirokino near Mariupol. One…

Sometimes I’m challenged over my linking belligerent neoconservatives with “liberal interventionists” who justify U.S. military invasions under the “humanitarian” banner of “responsibility to protect” – or R2P – meaning to intervene in war-torn countries to stop the killing of civilians, like the 1994 slaughter in Rwanda.

And, most people would agree that there are extraordinary situations in which the timely arrival of an external military force might prevent genocide or other atrocities, which was one of the intended functions of the United Nations. But my overall impression of R2Pers is that many are careerist hypocrites who voice selective outrage that provides cover for the U.S. and its allies to do pretty much whatever they wish.

Though one can’t generalize about an entire group – since some R2Pers act much more consistently than others – many of the most prominent ones operate opportunistically, depending how the dominant narrative is going and where the power interests lie.

So, while many R2Pers were eager to seek war against the Syrian government when it cracked down on both peaceful and violent opponents in 2011 – and especially after a mysterious Sarin gas attack in 2013 – many of the star R2Pers went silent when Israel bombarded Gaza in 2008-09 and again in 2014.

The reason is obvious: There was no powerful lobby defending the Syrian government but there was one protecting the Israeli government. Additionally, the mainstream U.S. media is hostile to the Syrian government but almost universally supports the Israeli government. In other words, many R2Pers practice a double standard depending on who’s doing the killing of civilians.

In 2011, the neocons and the R2Pers teamed up for a war against Libya, which was sold to the United Nations Security Council as simply a limited intervention to protect civilians in the east whom Muammar Gaddafi had labeled “terrorists.” However, once the U.S.-orchestrated military operation got going, it quickly turned into a “regime change” war, killing Gaddafi and unleashing bloody chaos across Libya and neighboring African countries. It turns out that Gaddafi was right about many of his enemies being Islamic terrorists.

The Ukraine Case

We saw this neocon-R2P “chaos promotion” again in Ukraine where neoconservative officials and “liberal interventionist” activists rallied to the cause of the Maidan protesters when they challenged the elected government of President Viktor Yanukovych in late 2013 and early 2014.

On Feb. 20, 2014, when unidentified snipers killed both police and protesters, the neocons and R2Pers along with the Western media blamed Yanukovych – though he insisted that he had ordered the police NOT to use deadly force – and later studies suggested the snipers were likely working for the anti-Yanukovych side and had fired from locations controlled by the Right Sektor, extremists associated with the Maidan’s neo-Nazi “self-defense” commandant Andriy Parubiy.

If indeed the sniper attack was a false-flag provocation, it worked, laying the bloody groundwork for the violent overthrow of Yanukovych two days later. Since then, the U.S.-backed regime in Kiev has dragged its feet on the sniper investigation, but independent field reports, including one from the BBC, indicated that the snipers likely were associated with the protesters, not the Yanukovych government. [Another worthwhile documentary on this mystery is “Maidan Massacre.”]

But the West favored a Ukraine narrative that made the Maidan coup-makers the good guys and Yanukovych’s supporters the bad guys. This was the view not only of neocons, like Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, but prominent R2Pers like New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof. In April 2014, he returned to his family’s ancestral home in Karapchiv in western Ukraine to interview some of its residents and presented their views as the true voice of the people.

Kristof depicted his father’s old home town as an idyllic place where everyone loves the music of Taylor Swift and dreams of their place in a prosperous Europe – if only President Barack Obama would send them weapons to kill Russians (or go “bear-hunting” as Kristof wrote in one column).

Pretty soon that desired outcome had become a reality. On May 2, 2014, pro-regime neo-Nazis massacred scores of ethnic Russians by the burning down of the Trade Union Building in Odessa. Amid the horror – and reports of graffiti hailing the Galician SS, one of western Ukraine’s contributions to the Nazi war effort – there was little protest from the R2P community or from the West in general. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Ukraine’s Dr. Strangelove Reality.”]

Similarly, when Kiev’s coup regime announced its “anti-terrorist operation” to destroy the resistance in eastern Ukraine – and again dispatched neo-Nazi militias to spearhead the killing – the thousands of deaths, mostly among ethnic Russians, were blamed on “Russian aggression” and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The R2Pers showed very little outrage even when the Kiev forces began shelling cities and leveling towns. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Seeing No Neo-Nazi Militias in Ukraine.”]

Muted Outrage

A couple of human rights groups did take note of some outrages. Amnesty International reportedabuses committed by Kiev’s far-right Aidar militia against civilians:

“Members of the Aidar territorial defence battalion, operating in the north Luhansk region, have been involved in widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, and possible executions. … Some of the abuses committed by members of the Aidar battalion amount to war crimes, for which both the perpetrators and, possibly, the commanders would bear responsibility under national and international law.”

Human Rights Watch said “Ukrainian government forces used cluster munitions in populated areas in Donetsk city” despite the fact that “the use of cluster munitions in populated areas violates the laws of war due to the indiscriminate nature of the weapon and may amount to war crimes.”

However, the language in these reports was relatively restrained, possibly because both groups receive large donations from billionaire George Soros, who has sided with the Kiev authorities and is supporting the crushing of the eastern Ukrainian resistance. The human rights complaints also drew scant notice in the mainstream U.S. news media, which has also taken sides against the ethnic Russians and in favor of the Kiev regime.

So, although more than 5,000 Ukrainians have been killed – the vast majority ethnic Russians in the east – there has been virtual silence among the R2Pers about the responsibility to protect the ethnic Russians. Indeed, when the Russian government has supplied these people with weapons to defend themselves, many “liberal interventionists” have joined with the neocons in condemning Moscow and Putin, fuming about a “Russian invasion.”

So, it’s apparently okay for the U.S.-backed government in Kiev to engage in the slaughter of an ethnic population in eastern Ukraine – even employing neo-Nazis to do the dirtiest work – with many R2Pers cheering what looks a lot like ethnic cleansing.

Bombing Yemen

A similar situation is now playing out in Yemen where a long-running civil war saw Houthi rebels capturing the capital Sanaa and other major cities. President Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi fled to Saudi Arabia seeking protection and encouraging the Saudi royal family to reinstall him.

The Saudis, citing alleged Iranian support for the Houthis, began a U.S.-backed bombing campaign that has apparently killed hundreds of civilians, prompting Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei to denounce the airstrikes as “a crime” and “a genocide.”

Though the Saudis are undeniably intervening in another nation’s civil war, the Obama administration supports this intervention and doesn’t seem too troubled by the large-scale civilian deaths being inflicted. Instead of restraining the Saudis, the United States is rushing military resupplies and providing logistical and intelligence support.

Rather than protest this Saudi “invasion,” Secretary of State John Kerry chastised the Iranians for supposedly helping the Houthis. In one of his most clueless and disingenuous remarks – and there is plenty of competition – Kerry told the PBS NewsHour on Wednesday that Washington was “not going to stand by while the region is destabilized.”

Kerry, of course, was one of the U.S. senators in 2002 to authorize President George W. Bush’s invasion of Iraq, a conflict that not only killed hundreds of thousands of people but gave rise to the hyper-violent “Al-Qaeda in Iraq” which has since morphed into the “Islamic State,” which has spread its particularly savage brand of jihad across the Middle East and into Africa.

Another major breeder of Mideast destabilization has been the Saudi royal family, which spurred Iraq’s Saddam Hussein to invade Iran in 1980, reviving the ancient Sunni-Shiite rivalries which have escalated to the present day. Elements of the Saudi royal family also supported Saudi Osama bin Laden as he founded and built Al-Qaeda to engage in terrorism against the West. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “The Secret Saudi Ties to Terrorism.”]

For Kerry to present himself and the Saudis as the protectors of Middle East stability would be laughable if there weren’t so many dead and maimed innocents across the region. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “What’s the Matter with John Kerry?”]

Kerry also reprised his infamous fact-free-rush-to-judgment style that he used in pushing the United States nearly into a war with Syria over his dubious charge that President Bashar al-Assad’s government was responsible for an Aug. 21, 2013 Sarin attack outside Damascus – and in blaming Russia for the shoot-down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 over Ukraine on July 17, 2014. In both cases – still unresolved – subsequent information suggested a different conclusion. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Kerry’s Latest Reckless Rush to Judgment.”]

Regarding the Saudi bombing of Yemen, Kerry justified the attacks by blaming Iran:

“There are obviously supplies that have been coming from Iran. … There are a number of flights, every single week that have been flying in. We trace those flights, and we know this. We are well aware of the support that Iran has been giving to Yemen.”

Beyond the hypocrisy of Kerry’s protest – given U.S. interference in dozens of civil wars – there is the contrary analysis by many Yemen watchers that – while Iran may have given the Houthis some money and possibly weapons – Tehran exercises very little control over the Houthis who are Zaydi Shia, an offshoot of Shiite Islam considered relatively close to Sunni Islam.

The Houthis also are not anti-American — and they are anti-Al-Qaeda. They made overtures to the Obama administration, expressing a desire to press ahead with the war against Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula. But the Saudi intervention, with U.S. support, has damaged the Houthis’ ability to continue that fight and, indeed, has allowed Al-Qaeda to capture more territory and free scores of its imprisoned militants.

Yet, while this tangle of contradictions and hypocrisies may be expected from the U.S. State Department, one might think that the “principled” R2Pers would hold themselves to a higher standard and denounce the Saudi-led and U.S.-backed slaughter of innocents. But, again, the cries of humanitarian protests have been muffled.

High-Profile Hypocrite

Possibly the most high-profile R2P hypocrite is U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Samantha Power, who earned wide acclaim for developing R2P theories and scolding U.S. officials for not stopping the Rwanda genocide in 1994.

Power even got in trouble in 2002 when she responded to a hypothetical question about the possible need to dispatch U.S. troops to prevent Israel from committing genocide against the Palestinians. In her rambling and convoluted answer, she suggested that a military solution might have to be imposed on Israel:

“It may mean, more crucially, sacrificing, or investing I think more than sacrificing, literally billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel’s military but actually investing in the new state of Palestine; in investing billions of dollars it would probably take also to support I think what will have to be a mammoth a protection force — not of the old Srebrenica kind or of the Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence.

“Because it seems to me at this stage – and this is true of actual genocides as well and not just major human rights abuses which we’re seeing there – that is that you have to go in as if you’re serious, you have to put something on the line.

“And unfortunately — imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful, I mean it’s a terrible thing to do, it’s fundamentally undemocratic — but sadly… you know, we don’t just have a democracy here either, we have a liberal democracy, there are certain sets of principles that guide our policy, or they are meant to anyway, and there it’s essential that some set of principles becomes the benchmark, rather than a deference to people who are fundamentally, politically destined to destroy the lives of their own people.”

Power also did some of the political calculation involved, saying:

“What we need is a willingness to actually put something on the line in the service of helping the situation. And putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import”

– an obvious reference to Jewish-American supporters of Israel.

However, when it became clear that her answer had upset that powerful constituency and thus threatened her future employment in government, she scurried away from it, disavowing her comments to an Israeli journalist.

Then, in a closed 2011 meeting with 40 Jewish leaders, Power reportedly broke down in tears showing what Rabbi Shmuley Boteach described as “her unabashed display of emotional attachment to the security of the Jewish people.” Boteach is a self-professed supporter of Jewish settlements in the occupied Palestinian territories.

In other words, when her career was in danger, she pitched the Palestinian people and their human rights over the side. She also has been a staunch defender of the Kiev regime’s brutal “anti-terrorist operation” against the ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, showing little regard for their lives and safety.

Clearly, Samantha Power and many other R2Pers fashion their responsibility to protect around protecting their own political and financial interests.

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 andbarnesandnoble.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.

La que fuera ciudad multicultural de la paz durante miles de años ha sido conquistada, dividida y transformada en los 12 años transcurridos desde la invasión de Estados Unidos. Pero los bagdadíes resisten, dice Haifa Zangana.

Dos escenas de la caída de Bagdad en 2003 permanecen en la memoria histórica. La primera es el derrocamiento coreografiado de la estatua de Sadam Husein en la Plaza Firdos a manos de los marines estadounidenses después de haberla ocultado con su bandera. La segunda es el caos del saqueo de los museos y de los bienes del Estado.

La primera fue una declaración de victoria militar y de “misión cumplida”. La segunda fue una declaración de inicio del proceso de erradicación de la cultura, la historia y la identidad iraquíes.

Bagdad era el microcosmos de lo que ocurría en Iraq: violada una y otra vez por tropas estadounidenses, mercenarios, fuerzas especiales, proxies y milicias; estigmatizada por la destrucción humana y física.

Una amarga ironía para una ciudad conocida históricamente como Madinat as-Salam, la ciudad de la paz. Los iraquíes honran a Bagdad como el último símbolo de su unidad, de su modernidad y de su identidad multicultural.

Las glorias pasadas de Bagdad –polifacética capital de las ciencias, las artes y la música en la época en que Europa gateaba en la semi-oscuridad de la Edad Media– habían revivido en buena parte del siglo XX a pesar de los golpes de Estado y de las dictaduras. Luego vino la ocupación.

Bagdad hoy está horadada físicamente por incontables puestos de control, muros de segregación de hormigón y cloacas abiertas.

Los puestos de control son de dos clases: los establecidos por los militares en los que los hombres son objeto de acoso sectario y las mujeres de abuso sexual, y aquellos creados ad hocpor las milicias para secuestrar, exigir rescates y asesinar a quienes detienen. Los gobiernos posteriores a la invasión de Nuri al-Maliki y Haider al-Abadi anunciaron reiteradamente la eliminación de los muros y los puestos de control, pero estos permanecen para desfigurar la ciudad y atormentar a sus gentes.

Luego están los muros, por lo general bloques de cemento de al menos tres metros de altura. Se han erigido, se nos dice desde hace tiempo, para protegernos de cualquier amenaza que se ajuste al discurso dominante: de los partidarios de Sadam, de los combatientes extranjeros, de al-Qaeda, del grupo del Estado Islámico.

Estados Unidos construyó muchos de estos “muros de seguridad” como parte de una “nueva estrategia… para romper el ciclo de la violencia sectaria” y permitir la reconciliación entre los suníes y los chiíes de la capital que durante siglos habían vivido en paz hasta que se produjo la invasión.

El ejército estadounidense prefirió no mencionar que los muros han transformado comunidades mixtas en guetos confinados en zonas pobladas casi exclusivamente por criterios sectarios.

Divide y vencerás

No es de extrañar que se haya comparado esta política con el Muro del apartheid de Israel ni que los bagdadíes consideren estas moles como un método de control y no de protección.

Esta realidad –los puestos de control, los guetos amurallados, la segregación y el miedo– ha arraigado y ha hecho jirones el tejido social de la ciudad. Y a pesar de eso, los coches bomba y los ataques continúan.

Los políticos corruptos agravan esta realidad manufacturada –una realidad que nunca fue la de Bagdad y que nunca debería haberse creado– con políticas que promueven la segregación.

¿Y qué pasa con los y las bagdadíes? Siguen resistiendo. La mayoría de los residentes de Bagdad son de origen étnico y religión mixtos; los matrimonios entre parejas de diferentes sectas son algo menos frecuentes que antes, pero persisten.

La vieja tradición de convivencia intercomunitaria entre suníes y chiíes, kurdos, turcomanos y árabes, musulmanes y cristianos, ha sobrevivido.

Los y las bagdadíes siguen resistiendo como siempre lo han hecho para hallar la manera de defender su ciudad, su forma de vida y para rebelarse contra cualquier política que fragmente las identidades para controlarlos. Bagdad ha sobrevivido a invasiones, destrucciones y tiranías a lo largo de la Historia. Y sobrevivirá.

Haifa Zangana

 

 

Fuente: http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/comment/2015/4/8/and-how-is-baghdad-today

Traducción para Rebelión de Loles Oliván.

Haifa Zangana, escritora y pintora iraquí, es miembro del comité asesor del Tribunal Brussell para Iraq y colabora con diversas publicaciones árabes y europeas.

 

La idea de que la mayoría de los ataques terroristas los cometen árabes o musulmanes no solo carece de perspectiva histórica sino que es insostenible empíricamente y está ligada al orientalismo moderno, que sigue vivo y coleando. El propio orientalismo está fuertemente vinculado con el relato estadounidense del excepcionalismo. Se trata de un ámbito de reflexión en el que las opiniones de los excepcionalistas y de los racistas coinciden totalmente. De hecho, una línea muy delgada separa los tres.

Siguiendo una manera de pensar anticuada, lineal y geo-etnocéntrica, cualquier sociedad que esté situada tanto al este como al sur de EE.UU., Canadá y Europa occidental –en particular Francia, Gran Bretaña y los países de habla alemana– es vista como una sociedad deficiente e inferior. En Europa esto significa que cualquiera al este de Alemania es retratado, tácita o abiertamente, como culturalmente atrasado, lo que incluye a los pueblos eslavos, los albaneses, los griegos, los turcos, los rumanos, los cristianos ortodoxos y los habitantes de los Balcanes y de las antiguas repúblicas soviéticas.

Para el orientalismo estadounidense, más abajo aún quedan los no europeos, es decir, los pueblos de África, Asia, América Latina y el Caribe.

Como ocurre con el excepcionalismo, las ideas orientalistas son importantes para sostener la política exterior de Washington y entender las guerras como una empresa noble. El orientalismo estadounidense ve al resto del mundo, desde México hasta Iraq y Rusia, como necesitado de la tutela y administración estadounidense. No es más que una reconstrucción de lo que se llamó la “carga del hombre blanco”, que sirvió para justificar la colonización de quienes eran vistos como no blancos.

La relación entre terrorismo y árabes y musulmanes 

Los árabes y los musulmanes son las víctimas del orientalismo estadounidense. Ya sea tácita o abiertamente, tanto los árabes como los musulmanes son retratados como sujetos incivilizados. En la mente de muchos ciudadanos estadounidenses el terrorismo está profundamente ligado a las imágenes de árabes y musulmanes, y por eso se piensa erróneamente que la mayoría de los terroristas son árabes o musulmanes.

En diverso grado, cada vez que individuos musulmanes o de etnia árabe cometen algún delito en las llamadas sociedades occidentales, como Canadá o EE.UU., las declaraciones que aparecen condenan, tácita o abiertamente, a los musulmanes o a los árabes en su conjunto. Los delitos cometidos por personas árabes o musulmanas no son presentados como delitos exclusivamente individuales, sino como un delito colectivo. Estas ideas ignoran el hecho de que los musulmanes son las mayores víctimas del terrorismo.

Siete de los diez países más afectados por ataques terroristas son en su mayoría musulmanes, según el Índice Global de Terrorismo 2014 (GTI, por sus siglas en inglés) del Instituto para la Economía y la Paz, con sede en Australia. Este índice se elabora analizando la información de la Base de Datos del Terrorismo Global (GTD, por sus siglas en inglés) de la Universidad de Maryland, y en él están clasificados todos los países entre un valor máximo de 10 y uno mínimo de 0. Aunque indudablemente la definición que se da de incidentes terroristas es discutible, se pueden sacar importantes conclusiones a partir de esos conjuntos de datos y del propio índice.

Si uno se fija en la naturaleza y la identidad de los autores de los que aparecen clasificados como actos terroristas en los países que ocupan los treinta primeros lugares del índice 2014, puede identificar varias características claves. La primera de ellas es que la violencia generada por los grupos terroristas se enmarca dentro de insurrecciones y guerras civiles que generalmente se equiparan con actos de terrorismo. Este sería el caso de países como Somalia, Filipinas, Tailandia, Colombia, Turquía, Malí, República Democrática del Congo y Nepal, que ocupan los puestos séptimo, noveno, décimo, décimo sexto, décimo séptimo, vigésimo segundo y vigésimo cuarto, respectivamente. Tras ser examinadas en profundidad, varias de esas insurgencias pueden asociarse a rivalidades internacionales y juegos de poder de EE.UU. y sus aliados. Esto se vuelve obvio cuando se multiplican las observaciones.

La segunda característica es que la mayoría de los casos de terrorismo en los países clasificados, sobre todo cuanto más aumenta su puntuación, están relacionados con la intromisión directa o indirecta de Washington en sus asuntos. Este sería el caso de Iraq, Afganistán, Pakistán, Siria, Somalia, Yemen, Rusia, el Líbano, Libia, República Democrática del Congo, Sudán, Sudán del Sur, China e Irán, que ocupan los puestos primero, segundo, tercero, quinto, séptimo, octavo, décimo primero, décimo cuarto, décimo quinto, décimo octavo, décimo noveno, vigésimo, vigésimo quinto y vigésimo octavo, respectivamente. Las guerras dirigidas por Washington, las intervenciones del Pentágono, los golpes de Estado respaldados por EE.UU., o el apoyo del Gobierno estadounidense a los llamados grupos de la “oposición” o regímenes sustitutos, están en la base de la tragedia que supone el terrorismo en estos países. De los países citados arriba, según el Índice de Terrorismo Global, el 82% de todas las muertes debidas a actos de terrorismo ocurren en Afganistán, Iraq, Pakistán, Siria y Nigeria. Los vínculos con la política exterior estadounidense deberían estar claros.

No todos los árabes/musulmanes son terroristas, ¿pero son la mayoría de los terroristas árabes/musulmanes? 

Se ha afirmado que aunque todos los terroristas no son árabes o musulmanes, la mayoría sí lo son. ¿Es cierto o se trata de otro mito? Una mirada empírica a los datos recogidos en EE.UU. y Europa ayudará a responder esta pregunta.

En EE.UU., que ocupa el puesto trigésimo en el Índice de Terrorismo Global 2014, la mayoría de los terroristas son no musulmanes, según datos del FBI. Dentro de EE.UU., un 6% de los actos de terrorismo entre 1980 y 2005 fueron cometidos por terroristas musulmanes [1]. El otro 94%, es decir la gran mayoría, no guardaban relación alguna ni con árabes ni con musulmanes ni con el Islam [2].

Aunque la metodología del FBI sobre lo que es y no es un ataque terrorista es cuestionable, aquí se acepta en aras de la discusión. Según el informe del FBI, entre 1980 y 2005 el número de ataques terroristas en suelo estadounidense realizados por judíos fue mayor que el de los perpetrados por musulmanes. Los mismos datos que maneja el FBI fueron compilados por la página loonwatch.com, vinculada a la Universidad de Princeton, en un cuadro que presenta así el desglose de los casos de ataques terroristas en suelo estadounidense en ese periodo: 42% terrorismo hispano; 24% terrorismo de grupos de extrema izquierda; 16% otros tipos de terrorismo que no encajan en ninguna de las principales categorías; 7% terroristas judíos; 6% terroristas musulmanes; y 5% terroristas comunistas [3].

Se observa entonces que entre los terroristas que cometieron ataques en EE.UU. en el periodo 1980-2005 el 6% eran musulmanes, el 7% judíos y el 42% hispanos. Sin embargo, no se ha desatado una campaña de pánico hacia los judíos o los hispanos. Ni los medios ni el gobierno hablan de estos grupos como lo hacen de los musulmanes o las personas de etnia árabe.

El mismo patrón se repite en la Unión Europea. Loonwatch.com también ha compilado información sobre el terrorismo en la UE en los años 2007, 2008 y 2009 a partir de los informes anuales que publica Europool (TE-SAT, por sus siglas en inglés) [4]. Los datos distancian aún más a los musulmanes de los actos terroristas: el 99,6% de los ataques terroristas que se produjeron en la UE fueron cometidos por no musulmanes [5]. Los ataques terroristas fallidos, frustrados o culminados perpetrados por musulmanes en la UE entre 2007 y 2009 fueron cinco, mientras que el número de atentados de grupos separatistas ascendió a 1.352, lo que equivale aproximadamente al 85% de todos los incidentes terroristas que tuvieron lugar en la UE [6].

Según la Europool, el número de ataques terroristas fallidos, frustrados o culminados de los llamados grupos de izquierda fue 104, mientras que otros 52 atentados fueron clasificados como ataques no específicos [7]. En el mismo periodo, dos ataques fueron atribuidos por la Europool a los llamados grupos de derecha [8].

Existe una enorme disparidad entre quien causa y comete actos de terrorismo y a quien se convierte en víctima y culpa de ello. A pesar de los datos abrumadores, cada vez que árabes o musulmanes cometen delitos y actos de terrorismo, es en ellos en quienes se pone el foco mientras se ignora a los no árabes y los no musulmanes.

Aun reconociendo que los musulmanes son las mayores víctimas del terrorismo, el orientalismo todavía dirige parte de la culpa hacia estas víctimas presentándolas tácitamente como miembros de una comunidad o sociedad salvaje y, por eso mismo, más propensas a que su vida tenga un final violento, como les ocurre a los animales de la selva.

Imaginario e imperio 

Las ilusiones intervienen en el mundo. La verdad se ha invertido, y se presenta a las víctimas como los autores de los ataques.

Tanto si se declara abiertamente, se insinúa o no se menciona, la idea de los árabes y los musulmanes como salvajes y terroristas es funcional al imaginario según el cual el llamado mundo occidental encarna los ideales de igualdad, libertad, elección, civilización, tolerancia, progreso y modernidad, mientras que lo que aparece bajo la superficie del llamado mundo árabe-musulmán son la desigualdad, las restricciones, la tiranía, la falta de opciones, la barbarie, la intolerancia, el atraso y el primitivismo.

Este imaginario sirve para despolitizar la naturaleza política de las tensiones y suavizar las acciones del imperio, desde la diplomacia coercitiva empleada con Irán y el apoyo al cambio de régimen en Siria hasta las invasiones de Afganistán e Iraq y la intervención militar de EE.UU. en Somalia, Yemen y Libia. Como se mencionó más arriba, este imaginario se extiende en diverso grado a otros lugares que son considerados por los orientalistas estadounidenses como lugares o entidades no occidentales, como por ejemplo Rusia y China.

Originalmente, este imaginario forma parte del discurso que sostiene un sistema de poder que permite que éste sea ejercido por un imperio sobre “los de fuera” y en contra de sus propios ciudadanos. Debido a la política exterior y los intereses económicos de EE.UU., y sin ninguna base empírica, se presenta a los árabes y los musulmanes como terroristas, mientras se ignoran los datos reales que muestran el terrorismo generado por las intervenciones estadounidenses. De ahí la fijación con el ataque al Parlamento de Canadá (en el área conocida como Parliament Hill ) , el secuestro en una cafetería del centro financiero de Sidney ( el Lindt Chocolate Café de Martin Place) y el atentado contra el semanario satírico Charlie Hebdo en París, al tiempo que se pasa por alto el apoyo de los gobiernos de EE.UU., Canadá, Australia y Francia al terrorismo que ha costado decenas de miles de vidas en Siria. 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
 

Texto original:

Imagery and Empire: Understanding the Western Fear of Arab and Muslim Terrorists, 6 de Abril de 2015

Fuente: http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2015/04/06/imagery-empire-understanding-western-fear-arab-and-muslim-terrorists.html

Traducido del inglés para Rebelión por Sara Plaza.

Notas

[1] Federal Bureau of Investigation, Terrorism 2002-2005, (US Department of Justice, 2006): pp. 57-66.

[2] Ibid.

[3] «All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 94% that Aren’t», loonwatch.com, 20 de enero, 2010.

[4] «Europol Report: All Terrorists are Muslims…Except the 99.6% that Aren’t», loonwatch.com, 28 de enero, 2010.

[5-8] European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2007 (La Haya, Países Bajos: Europol, marzo 2007); European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2008 (La Haya, Países Bajos: Europol, 2008); European Police Office, EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2009 (La Haya, Países Bajos: Europol, 2009).

 

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya es sociólogo, analista geopolítico y un reconocido autor.

 

Since the beginning of the Western-backed foreign invasion of jihadist terrorists into Syria in late 2010, the American and Western mainstream media has attempted to present the death squad fighters on the ground as two-sided – one group being Islamist extremists and the other being “moderate rebels.” As I have documented extensively, this characterization is entirely inaccurate as there is no such thing as a moderate rebel in Syria. Still, this information has not stopped major media outlets from producing presentations in stark contrast to the facts.

In recent months, however, as more and more evidence surfaces proving the official narrative of the existence of “moderate rebels” to be false, the corporate media outlets have taken to yet more propaganda-based name-changes and distortion surrounding the proxy forces fighting on the ground inside Syria.

For instance, al-Nusra Front forces are now being referred to as “Al-Qaeda-linked” fighters and being painted as if they are a mixture of moderate agents who are also willing to work with anyone that has similar objectives as themselves, even al-Qaeda.

The truth, however, is that al-Nusra is not merely “al-Qaeda-linked” but that it is al-Qaeda itself.

In the orbit of the “Levant” and the Syria/Iraq areas, al-Nusra was merely the Syrian branch of al-Qaeda while Al-Qaeda In Iraq was the Iraqi version. Later AQII was rebaptized The Islamic Emirate of Iraq and the Levant. All of these groups were subsidiaries of the same overarching terrorist organization, al-Qaeda proper.

Eventually, both of these groups were renamed “ISIS” because the West, who funds, controls, and directs these terrorists, needed a name change for propaganda purposes. Due to logistical constraints and because of Western-propaganda needs, the names of the various individual groups, (i.e. al-Nusra, al-Qaeda, al-Qaeda in Iraq, etc.) were retained. However, the fact remains that there is no difference between ISIS, al-Nusra, or al-Qaeda nor is there any difference in the source of their funding, training, weapons, and direction – the United States, Israel, and NATO.

The Western propaganda needs mentioned above revolve around the requirement that the US/NATO have forces on the ground that they can at least present as moderate to a gullible publicso as to justify the aid provided to them. There is also the need to present the “opposition” as multi-faceted in the sense that there is no centralized control over the hordes of terrorists running rampant across Syria.

Even mainstream outlets were forced to admit that the organizations were one in the same – albeit accidentally – by stating that all of the groups mentioned above are merely offshoots of al-Qaeda. In the tangled web of Western propaganda and false narratives, the constant debate over whether this group or that is either working together or fighting with one another reveals that the command and control structure remains the same for all of these organizations and that any disagreement between the leaders of these organizations is the result of logistical, public relations, or strategic advantages posed as a result of the presentation of division and conflict– not a true lack of cooperation or where their ultimate orders originate.

In this regard, it must be remembered that one of the principle direct-employers of extremist terrorists in Syria – Qatar – recently offered to provide al-Nusra with an even greater supply of money and weapons than is currently being provided to them by the US/NATO/GCC conglomerate on condition that Nusra publicly renounce their affiliation with al-Qaeda. This renunciation was not based on the methods or actions of the terrorist group but merely on the verbal denouncement for public relations purposes. In a telling response, Nusra refused to play along.

Of course, why should it? It will continue to receive weapons, intelligence, training, and money regardless of whether or not it repudiates al-Qaeda. It has done so since its formation and continues to do so today.

The representation of al-Nusra or any other terrorist fighting group in Syria as merely having “links” to al-Qaeda is thus nothing more than a propaganda motif designed to perpetuate the lie that there is such a thing as a moderate fighting force opposing the Assad government.

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. 

Next week will mark the 20th anniversary of the terrorist bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people including 19 children. The mainstream media will undoubtedly focus its attention on Timothy McVeigh, who was put to death in June 2001 for his part in the crime. They might also mention Terry Nichols, who was convicted of helping McVeigh plan the bombing and is serving a life sentence without parole.

There will be less discussion about how the FBI spent years hunting for a man who witnesses say accompanied McVeigh on the day of the bombing. They called this accomplice John Doe #2 and theories about his identity range from an Iraqi named Hussain Al-Hussaini, to a German national described below, to a neo-nazi bank robber named Richard Guthrie. The Justice Department finally gave up its search and said it was all a mistake— that there was never any credible evidence of a John Doe #2 being involved.

That reversal demonstrates a pattern of cover-up by authorities and limited media coverage in the years since the crime. This week, accounts will not repeat early reports of secondary devices in the building, or reports of the involvement of unknown middle-eastern characters. There will also be little if any mention of the extensive independent investigation into the crime that was conducted by leading members of the OKC community. Here are seven more facts that will probably not see much coverage on the 20thanniversary.

1. Attorney Jesse Trentadue began investigating the case after his brother Kenney was killed in prison, apparently having been tortured to death by the FBI in its search for John Doe #2. Trentadue’s investigation led to a federal judge nearly finding the FBI in contempt of court for tampering with a key witness. Trentadue now says, “There’s no doubt in my mind, and it’s proven beyond any doubt, that the FBI knew that the bombing was going to take place months before it happened, and they didn’t stop it.”

2. Judge Clark Waddoups, who presided over the case brought by Jesse Trentadue, ruled in 2010 that CIA documents associated with the case must be held secret. These documents show that the CIA was involved in the OKC bombing investigation and the prosecution of McVeigh. This means that foreign parties were involved because the CIA is prohibited from interfering in purely domestic investigations.

3. Andreas Strassmeir, a former German military officer, was suspected of being John Doe #2. Strassmeir became close friends with McVeigh and they were both associated with a neo-nazi organization located in Elohim City, OK. A retired U.S. intelligence official claimed that Strassmeir was “working for the German government and the FBI” while at Elohim City. Mainstream reports about the OKC bombing typically avoid reference to Strassmeir.

4. Larry Potts was the FBI supervisor who was responsible for the tragedies at Ruby Ridge in 1992, and Waco in 1993. Potts was then given responsibility for investigating the OKC bombing. Terry Nichols claimed that McVeigh—who allegedly had been recruited as an undercover intelligence asset while in the Army—had been working under the supervision of Potts.

5. Terry Yeakey, an officer of the OKC Police Department, was among the first to reach the scene and he was heralded as a hero for rescuing many victims. Yeakey was also an eyewitness to conversations and physical evidence that convinced him that there was a cover-up of the bombing by federal agents. Yeakey was committed to getting to the truth about what happened but a year after the bombing he was found dead off the side of a rural road. His death was ruled a suicide despite overwhelming evidence that he was murdered. Authorities reported that Yeakey, “slit his wrists and neck… then miraculously climbed over a barbed wire fence… walked over a mile’s distance, through a nearby field, and eventually shot himself in the side of the head at an unusual angle.” No weapon was found, no investigation was conducted, no fingerprints were taken, and no interviews were conducted. His family continues to fight for the truth about his death.

6. Gene Corley, the engineer who was hired by the government to support its claims about the structural fire at the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, was brought in to investigate the destruction of the Murrah Building. Corley brought along three other engineers: Charles Thornton, Mete Sozen, and Paul Mlakar. Their investigation was conducted from half a block away—where they could not observe any of the damage directly—yet their conclusions supported the pre-existing official account. A few years later, within 72 hours of the 9/11 attacks, these same four men were on site leading the investigations at the Word Trade Center and the Pentagon.

7. There are many other links between OKC and 9/11. For example, the alleged hijackers visited the OKC area many times and even stayed in the same motel that was frequented by McVeigh and Nichols. After both the OKC bombing and 9/11, building monitoring videos went missing, FBI harassment of witnesses was seen, and officials ignored evidence that did not support the political story. Additionally, numerous oddities link the OKC area to al Qaeda. In 2002, OKC resident Nick Berg was interrogated by the FBI for lending his laptop and internet password to alleged “20thhijacker” Zacarias Moussoui. Two years after this interrogation, Berg became world famous as a victim of beheading in Iraq. Investigators looking for clues about these connections will be particularly interested in two airports in OKC, the president of the University of Oklahoma, and the CIA leader who both monitored the alleged hijackers in Germany and was hired at the university just before 9/11.

On April 19, 2015, at the 20th anniversary of one of the worst terrorist attacks in history, citizens should be reminded that we don’t know what happened that day. We don’t know because officials have covered-up the crime for unknown reasons and most media sources will not challenge that cover-up.

Kevin Ryan blogs at Dig Within.

Image from internal USAID document, caption reads: “Site flooding due to improper drainage”

On March 25, 2015, USAID suspended CEEPCO Contracting – which had been working on shelter programs in Haiti –from receiving further government contracts, pending the outcome of an ongoing investigation. CEEPCO joins Thor Construction, which was suspended in early February. The investigation concerns faulty construction practices related to 750 houses built in Caracol, Haiti by USAID. CEPR Research Associate Jake Johnston reported in February for VICE News:

CEEPCO’s CEO is Harold Charles, a Haitian-American who was formerly one of the Haitian government’s representatives to the Interim Haiti Reconstruction Commission (IHRC), run by Bill Clinton and meant to be in charge of the $10 billion in earthquake relief. The IHRC had initially approved the USAID shelter program back in December 2010.

Charles also enjoys a close, personal relationship with Haitian President Michel Martelly. In an interview in 2013, Charles said, “I do know and have very close friends up through the highest ranks of government,” adding, “Martelly is a childhood friend of mine.” One former government official in Haiti said in an interview, “this was seen as a deal that would please Martelly.”

Despite the initial assessment in August, 2014 that revealed the construction problems, USAID extended CEEPCO’s contract for work at other shelter sites in Haiti this past January. CEEPCO’s contract for the Caracol site was awarded without competition. A Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request for the justification document is ongoing. A FOIA request for the initial assessment documenting the problems with the houses was recently responded to, but USAID withheld the entire document that was sought, citing the ongoing legal investigation.

Though the investigation continues, many thousands of Haitians continue to live in the poorly constructed houses. A contracting document from November, 2014, stated that repairs must be “carried out immediately in order to prevent possible harm to residents.” But it is unclear if meaningful remediation efforts have taken place.  An internal document reveals that many of the identified problems would require serious structural work to the houses.

In November, Tetra Tech, another U.S.-based firm, received a $5 million contract to oversee the repair efforts. The firm has been performing structural evaluations of the houses in anticipation of a future legal suit. One draft document, prepared by Tetra Tech and obtained by HRRW, details 29 instances “of material substitutions, field design changes, lack of quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) and lack of quality workmanship.”

Among the myriad problems: concrete blocks far below required strength; drainage pipes not installed as designed; water and sewage pipes not separated; lack of ventilation blocks; wrong materials used for roofing; wrong materials used for framing; as well as more cosmetic deficiencies.

 

This is also revealing as it shows CEEPCO was aware of the substandard materials used by the construction contractor, Thor. CEEPCO was responsible for construction management as well as some site work, such as water and sanitation. Although CEEPCO managed to hold off USAID for a few months longer than Thor, both contractors responsible for USAID’s model housing program have now been suspended.

The proponents of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) are doing everything they can to try to push their case as they prepare for the fast-track vote before Congress this month. Today, Roger Altman, a Wall Street investment banker and former Clinton administration Treasury official weighed with a NYT column, co-authored by Richard Haass, the President of the Council on Foreign Relations.

They begin by giving us three myths, all of which happen to be accurate depictions of reality. The first “myth” is that trade agreements have hurt U.S. manufacturing workers and thereby the labor market more generally. Altman and Haas cite work by M.I.T. economist David Autor showing that trade with China has reduced manufacturing employment by 21 percent, but then assert that the problem is trade not trade agreements. They tell us:

“the United States does not have a bilateral trade deal with China.”

Of course if China became a party to the TPP the United States would still not have a bilateral trade agreement with China. (That’s right, the TPP is a multilateral trade agreement, not a bilateral trade agreement.) This indicates the level of silliness to which TPP proponents must turn to push their case. As a practical matter, a trade agreement, the WTO, was enormously important in the increase in China’s exports to the United States. China joined the WTO at the end of 2001, three years later the U.S. trade deficit with China had nearly doubled from $83 billion to $162 billion.

The second “myth” is:

“the TPP would degrade labor and environmental standards and raise drug costs. …. As for the environment, there is nothing new in the TPP that would affect existing dispute-resolution mechanisms. Finally, it is far from certain that new protections for drug companies would lead to higher drug costs.”

It is simply not true that “there is nothing new in the TPP that would affect existing dispute-resolution mechanisms.” Of course we don’t have the final text, but based on past agreements like NAFTA, foreign investors would be able to contest a wide range of labor and environmental issues in the investor-state dispute settlement tribunals established by the TPP. For example, if New York State wants to restrict fracking, a foreign gas or oil company could contest the ban in an investor-state tribunal. If Altman and Haass have information indicating that this is not true, they do not disclose it in the column.

As far as the impact of the TPP on drug prices, the leaked intellectual propertychapter indicates several extension of patent and related monopoly protections that would be expected to raise prices. Of course it is not “certain” that the effect will be to raise drug prices, just as it is not certain that shooting someone at close range will lead to their death.

Then we get the third myth:

“A third myth is that the TPP is flawed because it won’t prevent countries from competing unfairly by devaluing their currencies to stimulate exports.”

Altman and Haass actually don’t dispute that this is true, they just tell us the criticism is short-sighted. Their argument is that we are too dumb to tell the difference between expansionary monetary policy (which will typically lead to a lower value for a currency) and a deliberate effort to lower the value of a currency by selling large amounts in international currency markets and buying up foreign currencies. That one doesn’t seem too hard to distinguish to me and other economists (e.g. Fred Bergsten, the former president of the Peterson Institute for International Economics). I’m sorry that Altman and Haass find it so complicated. Perhaps they should turn to another line of work.

Their response that this should be taken up at the I.M.F. is another sign of the contempt they have for the general public. The United States has never raised a currency case with the I.M.F. in its almost 70 years of existence.

Then we get their praise for the deal:

“Better protection of American intellectual property will help industries, from high-tech manufacturing to Hollywood, in which Asian piracy has been rampant.”

“Free trade leads to greater overall prosperity.”

How is that most of us will benefit from Pfizer, Disney, and Microsoft getting more money from Asian and Latin American countries for their patents and copyrights? Those who own lots of stock in these companies obviously benefit, but for the rest of us there is no obvious case. The higher payments to Disney and Microsoft will crowd out other U.S. exports. Maybe the NYT should give Altman and Haass another column to try to explain their argument here.

Finally, the bromide that “free trade leads to greater overall prosperity,” is not relevant here. The TPP is about increasing protection in the form of stronger and longer patent and copyright protection. If we were talking about reducing the barriers to trade in the services of physicians and other highly paid professionals and reducing patent and copyright protection, then we could be singing the merits of free trade with the TPP. But the TPP is about corporate profits, not free trade.

Former First Lady Hillary Clinton officially announced Sunday she would seek the Democratic nomination for president of the United States in the 2016 election.

In addition to being the Democratic frontrunner, Clinton, having served as Secretary of State under Obama, is the candidate most closely tied to the incumbent administration. Given the centrality of the Clinton campaign to the 2016 election and the American political system, the announcement sets the tone for the entire election.

Eschewing a traditional speech at a campaign rally, Clinton made her announcement in a two-minute online video that is almost entirely devoid of political content and noteworthy for its striking banality, even by the standards of American politics.

The first minute and a half of Clinton’s announcement video consists of actors (or people who seem to be actors) portraying “ordinary” Americans speaking about their plans in the coming years. This includes one anonymous couple declaring, “We’ve been doing a lot of home renovations, but most importantly we just want to keep our dog from eating the trash.”

Three quarters of the way through the video, Clinton makes her first appearance, declaring, “I’m getting ready to do something too. I’m running for president.”

In other words, Clinton is declaring her bid for an office from which she could, at virtually her sole discretion, incinerate most of mankind in a nuclear apocalypse, in almost the same breath as random people talking about their dogs.

That the most significant candidate in the election chooses to announce her candidacy in such entirely vacuous fashion is an expression of the well-advanced decay of democratic norms in the United States, and the enormous chasm that exists between official politics and the sentiments and concerns of the great majority of the population.

That her candidacy is announced without calling for any particular policies underscores the fact that the election is not about the American people deciding the course of policy, but rather the vetting of candidates to serve the interest of the financial oligarchy.

Indeed, the utter lack of political content in the announcement is a testament to how little voters actually mean in an election decided by a handful of billionaires, together with the military/intelligence apparatus.

The purpose of the saccharine video is not to convince the population that Clinton represents their interests, but rather to mobilize her base among the affluent upper-middle class while making no statements that would draw criticism from the Republican right.

The remaining content of Clinton’s campaign announcement, in its entirety, is as follows: “Americans have fought their way back from tough economic times, but the deck is still stacked in favor of those at the top. Everyday Americans need a champion, and I want to be that champion.

“So you can do more than just get by, you can get ahead. And stay ahead, because when families are strong America is strong. So I’m hitting the road to earn your vote, because it’s your time, and I hope you’ll join me on this journey.”

There is, of course, no acknowledgment that Clinton was part of an administration that oversaw and continues to oversee the greatest transfer of wealth from the bottom to “those at the top” in US history.

Clinton’s new campaign website is equally empty. There is not a single word on the entire site about what the nominee stands for, only a brief biography of Clinton with personal and family photos and forms to donate and volunteer.

Referencing the content of video, Politico commented that Clinton “is under intense scrutiny, however, to show that she has learned lessons from her unsuccessful prior run, in which she was seen as out-of-touch with middle-class sensibilities.”

In June 2014, Clinton told the Guardian she is “unlike” the “truly well off,” despite the fact that she had made $5 million in speaking fees over the previous 15 months, putting her within the top 0.1 percent of income earners.

Earlier that month, Clinton told ABC News she and her husband Bill Clinton “came out of the White House… dead broke.” Yet between 2000 and 2007, Bill and Hillary Clinton earned a combined $109 million in speaking fees, charging as much as $300,000 per appearance.

The video fails to note Clinton’s record as Obama’s secretary of state between 2009 and 2013. But as Time magazine wrote last year:

“As Secretary of State, Clinton backed a bold escalation of the Afghanistan war. She pressed Obama to arm the Syrian rebels, and later endorsed air strikes against the Assad regime. She backed intervention in Libya, and her State Department helped enable Obama’s expansion of lethal drone strikes. In fact, Clinton may have been the administration’s most reliable advocate for military action. On at least three crucial issues—Afghanistan, Libya, and the bin Laden raid—Clinton took a more aggressive line than Gates, a Bush-appointed Republican.”

The benign, motherly posture of Clinton in the video does not quite square with the cold-blooded character of the former secretary of state who upon hearing of Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi’s lynching by US-backed Islamic fundamentalist forces laughingly told a reporter, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Among the main aims of the video announcement is to portray Clinton, a multi-millionaire who is well-connected with the highest echelons of the military and intelligence apparatus, as an “ordinary” American, who is “in touch” with the “middle class.” It is entirely telling that Clinton attempts to convey this phony message without addressing any of the realities of American life, from mass unemployment to falling wages, police killings and the danger of war.

The end result is something that resembles a life insurance commercial more than a political statement, and stands as a testament to the sclerotic character of American politics.

Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

Who knew that the revolution would start with those radical Icelanders? It does, though. One Frosti Sigurjonsson, a lawmaker from the ruling Progress Party, issued a report today that suggests taking the power to create money away from commercial banks, and hand it to the central bank and, ultimately, Parliament.

Can’t see commercial banks in the western world be too happy with this. They must be contemplating wiping the island nation off the map. If accepted in the Iceland parliament , the plan would change the game in a very radical way. It would be successful too, because there is no bigger scourge on our economies than commercial banks creating money and then securitizing and selling off the loans they just created the money (credit) with.

Everyone, with the possible exception of Paul Krugman, understands why this is a very sound idea. Agence France Presse reports:

Iceland Looks At Ending Boom And Bust With Radical Money Plan

Iceland’s government is considering a revolutionary monetary proposal – removing the power of commercial banks to create money and handing it to the central bank. The proposal, which would be a turnaround in the history of modern finance, was part of a report written by a lawmaker from the ruling centrist Progress Party, Frosti Sigurjonsson, entitled “A better monetary system for Iceland”.

“The findings will be an important contribution to the upcoming discussion, here and elsewhere, on money creation and monetary policy,” Prime Minister Sigmundur David Gunnlaugsson said. The report, commissioned by the premier, is aimed at putting an end to a monetary system in place through a slew of financial crises, including the latest one in 2008.

According to a study by four central bankers, the country has had “over 20 instances of financial crises of different types” since 1875, with “six serious multiple financial crisis episodes occurring every 15 years on average”. Mr Sigurjonsson said the problem each time arose from ballooning credit during a strong economic cycle.

He argued the central bank was unable to contain the credit boom, allowing inflation to rise and sparking exaggerated risk-taking and speculation, the threat of bank collapse and costly state interventions. In Iceland, as in other modern market economies, the central bank controls the creation of banknotes and coins but not the creation of all money, which occurs as soon as a commercial bank offers a line of credit. The central bank can only try to influence the money supply with its monetary policy tools.

Under the so-called Sovereign Money proposal, the country’s central bank would become the only creator of money. “Crucially, the power to create money is kept separate from the power to decide how that new money is used,” Mr Sigurjonsson wrote in the proposal. “As with the state budget, the parliament will debate the government’s proposal for allocation of new money,” he wrote.

Banks would continue to manage accounts and payments, and would serve as intermediaries between savers and lenders. Mr Sigurjonsson, a businessman and economist, was one of the masterminds behind Iceland’s household debt relief programme launched in May 2014 and aimed at helping the many Icelanders whose finances were strangled by inflation-indexed mortgages signed before the 2008 financial crisis.

* * *

Iceland Monetary Reform

By Stephen Ebert 

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.

Over the centuries there have been many stories, some based on loose facts, others based on hearsay, conjecture, speculation and outright lies, about groups of people who “control the world.” Some of these are partially accurate, others are wildly hyperbolic, but when it comes to the historic record, nothing comes closer to the stereotypical, secretive group determining the fate of over 7 billion people, than the Bank of International Settlements, which hides in such plain sight, that few have ever paid much attention.

Tyler Durden

This is their story.

 First unofficial meeting of the BIS Board of Directors in Basel, April 1930

The following is an excerpt from TOWER OF BASEL: The Shadowy History of the Secret Bank that Runs the World by Adam LeBor. 

Reprinted with permission from PublicAffairs.

The world’s most exclusive club has eighteen members. They gather every other month on a Sunday evening at 7 p.m. in conference room E in a circular tower block whose tinted windows overlook the central Basel railway station. Their discussion lasts for one hour, perhaps an hour and a half. Some of those present bring a colleague with them, but the aides rarely speak during this most confidential of conclaves. The meeting closes, the aides leave, and those remaining retire for dinner in the dining room on the eighteenth floor, rightly confident that the food and the wine will be superb. The meal, which continues until 11 p.m. or midnight, is where the real work is done. The protocol and hospitality, honed for more than eight decades, are faultless. Anything said at the dining table, it is understood, is not to be repeated elsewhere.

Few, if any, of those enjoying their haute cuisine and grand cru wines— some of the best Switzerland can offer—would be recognized by passers-by, but they include a good number of the most powerful people in the world. These men—they are almost all men—are central bankers. They have come to Basel to attend the Economic Consultative Committee (ECC) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), which is the bank for central banks. Its current members [ZH: as of 2013] include Ben Bernanke, the chairman of the US Federal Reserve; Sir Mervyn King, the governor of the Bank of England; Mario Draghi, of the European Central Bank; Zhou Xiaochuan of the Bank of China; and the central bank governors of Germany, France, Italy, Sweden, Canada, India, and Brazil. Jaime Caruana, a former governor of the Bank of Spain, the BIS’s general manager, joins them.

In early 2013, when this book went to press, King, who is due to step down as governor of the Bank of England in June 2013, chaired the ECC. The ECC, which used to be known as the G-10 governors’ meeting, is the most influential of the BIS’s numerous gatherings, open only to a small, select group of central bankers from advanced economies. The ECC makes recommendations on the membership and organization of the three BIS committees that deal with the global financial system, payments systems, and international markets. The committee also prepares proposals for the Global Economy Meeting and guides its agenda.

That meeting starts at 9:30 a.m. on Monday morning, in room B and lasts for three hours. There King presides over the central bank governors of the thirty countries judged the most important to the global economy. In addition to those who were present at the Sunday evening dinner, Monday’s meeting will include representatives from, for example, Indonesia, Poland, South Africa, Spain, and Turkey. Governors from fifteen smaller countries, such as Hungary, Israel, and New Zealand are allowed to sit in as observers, but do not usually speak. Governors from the third tier of member banks, such as Macedonia and Slovakia, are not allowed to attend. Instead they must forage for scraps of information at coffee and meal breaks.

The governors of all sixty BIS member banks then enjoy a buffet lunch in the eighteenth-floor dining room. Designed by Herzog & de Meuron, the Swiss architectural firm which built the “Bird’s Nest” Stadium for the Beijing Olympics, the dining room has white walls, a black ceiling and spectacular views over three countries: Switzerland, France, and Germany. At 2 p.m. the central bankers and their aides return to room B for the governors’ meeting to discuss matters of interest, until the gathering ends at 5.

King takes a very different approach than his predecessor, Jean-Claude Trichet, the former president of the European Central Bank, in chairing the Global Economy Meeting. Trichet, according to one former central banker, was notably Gallic in his style: a stickler for protocol who called the central bankers to speak in order of importance, starting with the governors of the Federal Reserve, the Bank of England, and the Bundesbank, and then progressing down the hierarchy. King, in contrast, adopts a more thematic and egalitarian approach: throwing open the meetings for discussion and inviting contributions from all present.

The governors’ conclaves have played a crucial role in determining the world’s response to the global financial crisis. “The BIS has been a very important meeting point for central bankers during the crisis, and the rationale for its existence has expanded,” said King. “We have had to face challenges that we have never seen before. We had to work out what was going on, what instruments do we use when interest rates are close to zero, how do we communicate policy. We discuss this at home with our staff, but it is very valuable for the governors themselves to get together and talk among themselves.”

Those discussions, say central bankers, must be confidential. “When you are at the top in the number one post, it can be pretty lonely at times. It is helpful to be able to meet other number ones and say, ‘This is my problem, how do you deal with it?’” King continued. “Being able to talk informally and openly about our experiences has been immensely valuable. We are not speaking in a public forum. We can say what we really think and believe, and we can ask questions and benefit from others.”

The BIS management works hard to ensure that the atmosphere is friendly and clubbable throughout the weekend, and it seems they succeed. The bank arranges a fleet of limousines to pick up the governors at Zürich airport and bring them to Basel. Separate breakfasts, lunches, and dinners are organized for the governors of national banks who oversee different types and sizes of national economies, so no one feels excluded. “The central bankers were more at home and relaxed with their fellow central bankers than with their own governments,” recalled Paul Volcker, the former chairman of the US Federal Reserve, who at- tended the Basel weekends. The superb quality of the food and wine made for an easy camaraderie, said Peter Akos Bod, a former governor of the National Bank of Hungary. “The main topics of discussion were the quality of the wine and the stupidity of finance ministers. If you had no knowledge of wine you could not join in the conversation.”

And the conversation is usually stimulating and enjoyable, say central bankers. The contrast between the Federal Open Markets Committee at  the US Federal Reserve, and the Sunday evening G-10 governors’ dinners was notable, recalled Laurence Meyer, who served as a member of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve from 1996 until 2002. The chairman of the Federal Reserve did not always represent the bank at the Basel meetings, so Meyer occasionally attended. The BIS discussions were always lively, focused and thought provoking. “At FMOC meetings, while I was at the Fed, almost all the Committee members read statements which had been prepared in advance. They very rarely referred to statements by other Committee members and there was almost never an exchange between two members or an ongoing discussion about the outlook or policy options. At BIS dinners people actually talk to each other and the discussions are always stimulating and interactive focused on the serious issues facing the global economy.”

All the governors present at the two-day gathering are assured of total confidentiality, discretion, and the highest levels of security. The meetings take place on several floors that are usually used only when the governors are in attendance. The governors are provided with a dedicated office and the necessary support and secretarial staff. The Swiss authorities have no juridisdiction over the BIS premises. Founded by an international treaty, and further protected by the 1987 Headquarters Agreement with the Swiss government, the BIS enjoys similar protections to those granted to the headquarters of the United Nations, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and diplomatic embassies. The Swiss authorities need the permission of the BIS management to enter the bank’s buildings, which are described as “inviolable.”

The BIS has the right to communicate in code and to send and receive correspondence in bags covered by the same protection as embassies, meaning they cannot be opened. The BIS is exempt from Swiss taxes. Its employees do not have to pay income tax on their salaries, which are usually generous, designed to compete with the private sector. The general man- ager’s salary in 2011 was 763,930 Swiss francs, while head of departments were paid 587,640 per annum, plus generous allowances. The bank’s extraordinary legal privileges also extend to its staff and directors. Senior managers enjoy a special status, similar to that of diplomats, while carrying out their duties in Switzerland, which means their bags cannot be searched (unless there is evidence of a blatant criminal act), and their papers are inviolable. The central bank governors traveling to Basel for the bimonthly meetings enjoy the same status while in Switzerland. All bank officials are immune under Swiss law, for life, for all the acts carried out during the discharge of their duties. The bank is a popular place to work and not just because of the salaries. Around six hundred staff come from over fifty countries. The atmosphere is multi-national and cosmopolitan, albeit very Swiss, emphasizing the bank’s hierarchy. Like many of those working for the UN or the IMF, some of the staff of the BIS, especially senior management, are driven by a sense of mission, that they are working for a higher, even celestial purpose and so are immune from normal considerations of accountability and transparency.

The bank’s management has tried to plan for every eventuality so that the Swiss police need never be called. The BIS headquarters has high-tech sprinkler systems with multiple back-ups, in-house medical facilities, andits own bomb shelter in the event of a terrorist attack or armed conflagration. The BIS’s assets are not subject to civil claims under Swiss law and can never be seized.

The BIS strictly guards the bankers’ secrecy. The minutes, agenda, and actual attendance list of the Global Economy Meeting or the ECC are not released in any form. This is because no official minutes are taken, although the bankers sometimes scribble their own notes. Sometimes there will be a brief press conference or bland statement afterwards but never anything detailed. This tradition of privileged confidentiality reaches back to the bank’s foundation.

“The quietness of Basel and its absolutely nonpolitical character provide a perfect setting for those equally quiet and nonpolitical gatherings,” wrote one American official in 1935. “The regularity of the meetings and their al- most unbroken attendance by practically every member of the Board make them such they rarely attract any but the most meager notice in the press.”8 Forty years on, little had changed. Charles Coombs, a former foreign exchange chief of the New York Federal Reserve, attended governors’ meetings from 1960 to 1975. The bankers who were allowed inside the inner sanctum of the governors’ meetings trusted each other absolutely, he recalled in his memoirs. “However much money was involved, no agreements were ever signed nor memoranda of understanding ever initialized. The word of each official was sufficient, and there were never any disappointments.”

What, then, does this matter to the rest of us? Bankers have been gathering confidentially since money was first invented. Central bankers like to view themselves as the high priests of finance, as technocrats overseeing arcane monetary rituals and a financial liturgy understood only by a small, self-selecting elite.

But the governors who meet in Basel every other month are public servants. Their salaries, airplane tickets, hotel bills, and lucrative pensions when they retire are paid out of the public purse. The national reserves held by central banks are public money, the wealth of nations. The central bankers’ discussions at the BIS, the information that they share, the policies that are evaluated, the opinions that are exchanged, and the subsequent decisions that are taken, are profoundly political. Central bankers, whose independence is constitutionally protected, control monetary policy in the developed world. They manage the supply of money to national economies. They set interest rates, thus deciding the value of our savings and investments. They decide whether to focus on austerity or growth. Their decisions shape our lives.

The BIS’s tradition of secrecy reaches back through the decades. During the 1960s, for example, the bank hosted the London Gold Pool. Eight countries pledged to manipulate the gold market to keep the price at around thirty-five dollars per ounce, in line with the provisions of the Bretton Woods Accord that governed the post–World War II international financial system. Although the London Gold Pool no longer exists, its successor is the BIS Markets Committee, which meets every other month on the occasion of the governors’ meetings to discuss trends in the financial markets. Officials from twenty-one central banks attend. The committee releases occasional papers, but its agenda and discussions remain secret.

Nowadays the countries represented at the Global Economy Meetings together account for around four-fifths of global gross domestic product (GDP)— most of the produced wealth of the world—according to the BIS’s own statistics. Central bankers now “seem more powerful than politicians,” wrote The Economist newspaper, “holding the destiny of the global economy in their hands.” How did this happen? The BIS, the world’s most secretive global financial institution, can claim much of the credit. From its first day of existence, the BIS has dedicated itself to furthering the interests of central banks and building the new architecture of transnational finance. In doing so, it has spawned a new class of close-knit global technocrats whose members glide between highly-paid positions at the BIS, the IMF, and central and commercial banks.

The founder of the technocrats’ cabal was Per Jacobssen, the Swedish economist who served as the BIS’s economic adviser from 1931 to 1956. The bland title belied his power and reach. Enormously influential, well connected, and highly regarded by his peers, Jacobssen wrote the first BIS annual reports, which were—and remain—essential reading throughout the world’s treasuries. Jacobssen was an early supporter of European federalism. He argued relentlessly against inflation, excessive government spending, and state intervention in the economy. Jacobssen left the BIS in 1956 to take over the IMF. His legacy still shapes our world. The consequences of his mix of economic liberalism, price obsession, and dismantling of national sovereignty play out nightly in the European news bulletins on our television screens.

The BIS’s defenders deny that the organization is secretive. The bank’s archives are open and researchers may consult most documents that are more than thirty years old. The BIS archivists are indeed cordial, helpful, and professional. The bank’s website includes all its annual reports, which are downloadable, as well as numerous policy papers produced by the bank’s highly regarded research department. The BIS publishes detailed accounts of the securities and derivatives markets, and international banking statistics. But these are largely compilations and analyses of information already in the public domain. The details of the bank’s own core activities, including much of its banking operations for its customers, central banks, and international organizations, remain secret. The Global Economy Meetings and the other crucial financial gatherings that take place at Basel, such as the Markets Committee, remain closed to outsiders. Private individuals may not hold an account at BIS, unless they work for the bank. The bank’s opacity, lack of accountability, and ever-increasing influence raises profound questions— not just about monetary policy but transparency, accountability, and how power is exercised in our democracies.

* * *

WHEN I EXPLAINED to friends and acquaintances that I was writing a book about the Bank for International Settlements, the usual response was a puzzled look, followed by a question: “The bank for what?” My interlocutors were intelligent people, who follow current affairs. Many had some interest in and understanding of the global economy and financial crisis. Yet only a handful had heard of the BIS. This was strange, as the BIS is the most important bank in the world and predates both the IMF and the World Bank. For decades it has stood at the center of a global network of money, power, and covert global influence.

The BIS was founded in 1930. It was ostensibly set up as part of the Young Plan to administer German reparations payments for the First World War. The bank’s key architects were Montagu Norman, who was the governor of the Bank of England, and Hjalmar Schacht, the president of the Reichsbank who described the BIS as “my” bank. The BIS’s founding members were the central banks of Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, and a consortium of Japanese banks. Shares were also offered to the Federal Reserve, but the United States, suspicious of anything that might infringe on its national sovereignty, refused its allocation. Instead a consortium of commercial banks took up the shares: J. P. Morgan, the First National Bank of New York, and the First National Bank of Chicago.

The real purpose of the BIS was detailed in its statutes: to “promote the cooperation of central banks and to provide additional facilities for international financial operations.” It was the culmination of the central bankers’ decades-old dream, to have their own bank—powerful, independent, and free from interfering politicians and nosy reporters. Most felicitous of all, the BIS was self-financing and would be in perpetuity. Its clients were its own founders and shareholders— the central banks. During the 1930s, the BIS was the central meeting place for a cabal of central bankers, dominated by Norman and Schacht. This group helped rebuild Germany. The New York Times described Schacht, widely acknowledged as the genius behind the resurgent German economy, as “The Iron-Willed Pilot of Nazi Finance.” During the war, the BIS became a de-facto arm of the Reichsbank, accepting looted Nazi gold and carrying out foreign exchange deals for Nazi Germany.

The bank’s alliance with Berlin was known in Washington, DC, and London. But the need for the BIS to keep functioning, to keep the new channels of transnational finance open, was about the only thing all sides agreed on. Basel was the perfect location, as it is perched on the northern edge of Switzerland and sits al- most on the French and German borders. A few miles away, Nazi and Allied soldiers were fighting and dying. None of that mattered at the BIS. Board meetings were suspended, but relations between the BIS staff of the belligerent nations remained cordial, professional, and productive. Nationalities were irrelevant. The overriding loyalty was to international finance. The president, Thomas McKittrick, was an American. Roger Auboin, the general manager, was French. Paul Hechler, the assistant general manager, was a member of the Nazi party and signed his correspondence “Heil Hitler.” Rafaelle Pilotti, the secretary general, was Italian. Per Jacobssen, the bank’s influential economic adviser, was Swedish. His and Pilotti’s deputies were British.

After 1945, five BIS directors, including Hjalmar Schacht, were charged with war crimes. Germany lost the war but won the economic peace, in large part thanks to the BIS. The international stage, contacts, banking networks, and legitimacy the BIS provided, first to the Reichsbank and then to its successor banks, has helped ensure the continuity of immensely powerful financial and economic interests from the Nazi era to the present day.

* * *

FOR THE FIRST forty-seven years of its existence, from 1930 to 1977, the BIS was based in a former hotel, near the Basel central railway station. The bank’s entrance was tucked away by a chocolate shop, and only a small notice confirmed that the narrow doorway opened into the BIS. The bank’s managers believed that those who needed to know where the BIS was would find it, and the rest of the world certainly did not need to know. The inside of the building changed little over the decades, recalled Charles Coombs. The BIS provided the “the spartan accommodations of a former Victorian-style hotel whose single and double bedrooms had been transformed into offices simply by removing the beds and installing desks.”

The bank moved into its current headquarters, at 2, Centralbahnplatz, in 1977. It did not go far and now overlooks the Basel central station. Nowadays the BIS’s main mission, in its own words, is threefold: “to serve central banks in their pursuit of monetary and financial stability, to foster international cooperation in these areas, and to act as a bank for central banks.” The BIS also hosts much of the practical and technical infrastructure that the global network of central banks and their commercial counterparts need to function smoothly. It has two linked trading rooms: at the Basel headquarters and Hong Kong regional office. The BIS buys and sells gold and foreign exchange for its clients. It provides asset management and arranges short-term credit to central banks when needed.

The BIS is a unique institution: an international organization, an extremely profitable bank and a research institute founded, and protected, by international treaties. The BIS is accountable to its customers and shareholders—the central banks—but also guides their operations. The main tasks of a central bank, the BIS argues, are to control the flow of credit and the volume of currency in circulation, which will ensure a stable business climate, and to keep exchange rates within manageable bands to ensure the value of a currency and so smooth international trade and capital movements. This is crucial, especially in a globalized economy, where markets react in microseconds and perceptions of economic stability and value are almost as important as reality itself.

The BIS also helps to supervise commercial banks, although it has no legal powers over them. The Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, based at the BIS, regulates commercial banks’ capital and liquidity requirements. It requires banks to have a minimum capital of eight percent of risk-weighted assets when lending, meaning that if a bank has risk-weighted assets of $100 million it must maintain at least $8 million capital. The committee has no powers of enforcement, but it does have enormous moral authority. “This regulation is so powerful that the eight percent principle has been set into national laws,” said Peter Akos Bod. “It’s like voltage. Voltage has been set at 220. You may decide on ninety-five volts, but it would not work.” In theory, sensible housekeeping and mutual cooperation, overseen by the BIS, will keep the global financial system functioning smoothly. In theory.

The reality is that we have moved beyond recession into a deep structural crisis, one fueled by the banks’ greed and rapacity, which threatens all of our financial security. Just as in the 1930s, parts of Europe face economic collapse. The Bundesbank and the European Central Bank, two of the most powerful members of the BIS, have driven the mania for austerity that has already forced one European country, Greece, to the edge, aided by the venality and corruption of the country’s ruling class. Others may soon follow. The old order is creaking, its political and financial institutions corroding from within. From Oslo to Athens, the far right is resurgent, fed in part by soaring poverty and unemployment. Anger and cynicism are corroding citizens’ faith in democracy and the rule of law. Once again, the value of property and assets is vaporizing before their owners’ eyes. The European currency is threatened with breakdown, while those with money seek safe haven in Swiss francs or gold. The young, the talented, and the mobile are again fleeing their home countries for new lives abroad. The powerful forces of international capital that brought the BIS into being, and which granted the bank its power and influence, are again triumphant.

The BIS sits at the apex of an international financial system that is falling apart at the seams, but its officials argue that it does not have the power to act as an international financial regulator. Yet the BIS cannot escape its responsibility for the Euro-zone crisis. From the first agreements in the late 1940s on multilateral payments to the establishment of the Europe Central Bank in 1998, the BIS has been at the heart of the European integration project, providing technical expertise and the financial mechanisms for currency harmonization. During the 1950s, it managed the European Payments Union, which internationalized the continent’s payment system. The BIS hosted the Governors’ Committee of European Economic Community central bankers, set up in 1964, which coordinated trans-European monetary policy. During the 1970s, the BIS ran the “Snake,” the mechanism by which European currencies were held in exchange rate bands. During the 1980s the BIS hosted the Delors Committee, whose report in 1988 laid out the path to European Monetary Union and the adoption of a single currency. The BIS midwifed the European Monetary Institute (EMI), the precursor of the European Central Bank. The EMI’s president was Alexandre Lamfalussy, one of the world’s most influential economists, known as the “Father of the euro.” Before joining the EMI in 1994, Lamfalussy had worked at the BIS for seventeen years, first as economic adviser, then as the bank’s general manager.

For a staid, secretive organization, the BIS has proved surprisingly nimble. It survived the first global depression, the end of reparations payments and the gold standard (two of its main reasons for existence), the rise of Nazism, the Second World War, the Bretton Woods Accord, the Cold War, the financial crises of the 1980s and 1990s, the birth of the IMF and World Bank, and the end of Communism. As Malcolm Knight, manager from 2003–2008, noted, “It is encouraging to see that—by remaining small, flexible, and free from political interference—the Bank has, throughout its history, succeeded remarkably well in adapting itself to evolving circumstances.”

The bank has made itself a central pillar of the global financial system. As well as the Global Economy Meetings, the BIS hosts four of the most important international committees dealing with global banking: the Basel Committee on Banking Supervision, the Committee on the Global Financial System, the Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems, and the Irving Fisher Committee, which deals with central banking statistics. The bank also hosts three independent organizations: two groups dealing with insurance and the Financial Stability Board (FSB). The FSB, which coordinates national financial authorities and regulatory policies, is already being spoken of as the fourth pillar of the global financial system, after the BIS, the IMF and the commercial banks.

The BIS is now the world’s thirtieth-largest holder of gold reserves, with 119 metric tons—more than Qatar, Brazil, or Canada. Membership of the BIS remains a privilege rather than a right. The board of directors is responsible for admitting central banks judged to “make a substantial contribution to international monetary cooperation and to the Bank’s activities.” China, India, Russia, and Saudi Arabia joined only in 1996. The bank has opened offices in Mexico City and Hong Kong but remains very Eurocentric. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Slovenia, and Slovakia (total population 16.2 million) have been admitted, while Pakistan (population 169 million) has not. Nor has Kazakhstan, which is a powerhouse of Central Asia. In Africa only Algeria and South Africa are members—Nigeria, which has the continent’s second-largest economy, has not been admitted. (The BIS’s defenders say that it demands high governance standards from new members and when the national banks of countries such as Nigeria and Pakistan reach those standards, they will be considered for membership.)

Considering the BIS’s pivotal role in the transnational economy, its low profile is remarkable. Back in 1930 a New York Times reporter noted that the culture of secrecy at the BIS was so strong that he was not permitted to look inside the boardroom, even after the directors had left. Little has changed.Journalists are not allowed inside the headquarters while the Global Economy Meeting is underway. BIS officials speak rarely on the record, and reluctantly, to members of the press. The strategy seems to work. The Occupy Wall Street movement, the anti-globalizers, the social network protesters have ignored the BIS. Centralbahnplatz 2, Basel, is quiet and tranquil. There are no demonstrators gathered outside the BIS’s headquarters, no protestors camped out in the nearby park, no lively reception committees for the world’s central bankers.

As the world’s economy lurches from crisis to crisis, financial institutions are scrutinized as never before.Legions of reporters, bloggers, and investigative journalists scour the banks’ every move. Yet somehow, apart from brief mentions on the financial pages, the BIS has largely managed to avoid critical scrutiny. Until now.

The US-supported Saudi-led coalition is escalating its nearly three week long air assault against Yemen, worsening an already catastrophic humanitarian situation on the ground, UN officials said over the weekend.

At least eight civilians were killed Sunday by Arab coalition strikes against Yemen’s southern province of Taiz. The attacks destroyed residential areas near a military base, a local government source said.

Arab League planes also bombed targets in the Red Sea port of Hodaida Saturday. Saudi coalition air forces have launched more than 1,200 strikes against Yemen since March 26, leaving hundreds of Yemeni civilians dead and turning tens of thousands more into refugees.

“The intensity of the air strikes has increased considerably. There are still reports about fierce fighting in residential neighborhoods, and military operations are covering entirely new territory,” the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs stated this weekend.

Saudi-led naval forces are imposing a blockade on Yemeni airspace and port facilities, in preparation for a full-scale ground invasion.

“At the appropriate time, we will take action on the ground,” Saudi General Ahmed al-Assiri vowed to reporters on Saturday.

What was already the poorest country in the Arab world faces deepening shortages of medical supplies, electricity, water and basic foodstuffs. Several day-old corpses now litter the streets of Yemen’s southern port city of Aden, along with garbage accumulating amidst the breakdown of basic social functions, according to local officials.

Mass evacuations of hundreds of civilians have continued, with nationals from Sudan, Ethiopia, the United States, South Korea, Nigeria, Syria, Indonesia and a number European countries boarding emergency flights out of the country over the weekend. At least 900 refugees have fled across the strait to Somalia during the past week, according to the UN’s refugee agency.

The multi-sided civil war was unleashed by the overthrow of the US-backed government by tribal-based militant groups, beginning with the seizure of the capital at Sanaa by Houthi fighters in September 2014.

New clashes between militant groups have erupted in 15 of Yemen’s 22 provincial divisions since the Saudi-led air war began late last month, involving Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), southern separatist groups such as the Southern Movement, the Houthis, and a number of other militant factions aligned with former president Ali Abdullah Saleh.

Houthi fighters killed at least three Saudi soldiers along the Saudi-Yemen border Friday. Some 500 Houthis have died in recent weeks as a result of fighting along the border, according to official Saudi claims.

The US government has steadily escalated its support for the Saudi-led forces since the beginning of the war. As even CNN openly acknowledges, the Saudi-led Arab coalition, which includes the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, Jordan, Morocco, Sudan and Egypt, is being freshly supplied with “advanced US-made weaponry.”

US support now includes deployment of US aerial re-fueling platforms, which are enabling Saudi fighters to deliver multiple “payloads” before needing to land.

The US has announced expanded intelligence sharing with the Saudi monarchy, including information tailored to support Arab coalition air strikes. “We have opened up the aperture a bit broader with what we are sharing with our Saudi companions,” a US official said over the weekend.

US and European warships are standing watch over the slaughter from positions in the Indian Ocean, just outside the Gulf of Aden.

In a joint conference with Saudi Prince Saud al-Faisal, French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius declared France’s full support for the war.

France is “naturally on the side of its regional partners for the restoration of stability in Yemen,” Fabius said. Paris is seeking to strengthen cooperation with Saudi Arabia, and has offered to assist the Saudi government with nuclear energy development.

Increasingly bellicose rhetoric from regional leaders has further underscored the deadly severity of the political crisis and the growing possibility that the slaughter in Yemen will detonate a much larger war.

Riyadh demanded that Iran cease backing for Houthis Sunday, accusing Iran of aiding “criminal activities” of Houthis and insisting on a cessation of activities “against the legitimate order of Yemen.” Neither Saudi Arabia nor the US has provided any evidence of Iranian involvement in the Yemeni conflict.

“We came to Yemen to help the legitimate authority,” Saudi Foreign Minister Saud al-Faisal said.

Late last week, Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei accused Riyadh of organizing a “genocide” in Yemen. Pro-Saudi hackers launched cyber-attacks against Iranian TV outlet Al Alam Sunday, posting names and personal information of Iranian journalists who have covered the war.

“Think more if you are going to talk about Saudi Arabia,” the hackers wrote.

The conflict is already sending reverberations beyond the Middle East into Central and South Asia. Pakistan will “have a heavy price to pay for its neutral stand in the conflict in Yemen,” a top UAE minister warned Sunday, implying that Islamabad would face retaliation from the Arab powers for its failure to aid in the war.

The Pakistani parliament has voted unanimously to refrain from participation in the Saudi-led war coalition. The vote came after Saudi representatives sought to secure a commitment of Pakistani war planes and ground forces for operations in Yemen.

“The Pakistani nation has brotherly sentiments for Saudi Arabia and UAE. But the threats by the UAE minister are unfortunate and a matter of concern,” a Pakistani official speaking for the government of Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif said in response to the UAE’s threats.

Saudi official Sheikh Saleh bin Abdulaziz visited Islamabad Sunday for an emergency meeting to discuss Yemen and the regional crisis.

A recent study by Harvard School of Public Health says a widely used chemical used in US food products causes fertility issues, yet it is still allowed to be used. While the US Food and Drug Administration declares this synthetic food additive is “generally recognized as safe, or GRAS,” the European Union’s food regulators outlawed it ever since scientists found it lowered sperm counts in rats.

If lowered sperm count and reduced fertility through hormonal disruption isn’t exactly what you signed up for every time you eat one of 50 different snack foods like Sara Lee cinnamon rolls, Weight Watchers cakes, Cafe Valley muffins, or La Banderita corn tortillas, read on.

This synthetic, estrogen-mimicking additive is already used in cosmetics, but now the Environmental Working Group has found it in over 50 different foods.

Propyl Paraben is one of many common parabens which include methylparaben, ethylparaben, propylparaben and butylparaben. Parabens allow skin care products to survive for months or even years in your medicine cabinet, and now for food to last longer on shelves, and in transit.

Propyl Paraben is in everything from muffins, tortillas, trail mix, pies, sausage rolls, and more. (You can find the complete list of foods found to contain this endocrine disruptor, here.)

Big food manufacturers have been using it for some time. In fact, only under pressure from the EWG did Johnson & Johnson voluntarily pledge to remove this and other members of the paraben family from all its baby products! That’s right, even your little bundle of joy could be exposed to parabens that cause fertility and developmental problems.

Furthermore, research led by Antonia Calafat, Ph.D., a respected chemist at the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, reported that 92.7 percent of Americans tested have had propyl paraben in their urine (Calafat 2010). Cornell University research suggests that exposure to parabens for a lifetime can lead to breast cancer, among other health concerns.

Yet, the US FDA doesn’t seem to care. They aren’t protecting the food supply. They are accomplices to demolishing it.

It is bad enough that parabens were found in thousand of cosmetics products, including soaps, body washes, deodarents, moisturizers, shampoos, and conditioners, but now in our food?

If you want to send a clear message to “the food makers” that you won’t tolerate this endocrine disrupting toxin in your food, you can sign a petition sponsored by the EWG, here.

Follow us: @naturalsociety on Twitter | NaturalSociety on Facebook

Hillary Clinton’s promise to represent “everyday Americans” is completely at odds with her personal lifestyle, obsession with money, and the fact that her 2008 campaign was funded by giant transnational banks.

“To be perceived, propaganda must evoke the interest of an audience and must be transmitted through an attention-getting communications medium.” – Leonard W. Doob, based on Goebbels’ Principles of Propaganda

It is right out of the top drawer of the Reich minister for propaganda and enlightenment, Joseph Goebbels.  The impact of televisual images on potential refugees is designed to improve their wretched lot – through the use of fear that hopefully immobilizes them.  Don’t come to Australia, or you will drown, be abused, or suffer an assortment of various indignities in detention.  Leave the hellhole contrived by circumstance at your peril. Providence knows best.

The move by the Australian government into the world of anti-refugee propaganda is a fitting reminder what sort of regime is in power.  As the presenter for ABC’s Lateline program asked, “How did on-water maters become on-screen matters?  How did the Immigration Department get into the movie business?”[1]

Truth to be told, this industry of loathing has a timeline.  Under the Labor government, Customs commissioned a radio drama series targeting audiences in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  The purpose there was to dissuade potential asylum seekers from getting onto boats destined for Australia.

In 2000, John Howard’s conservative government enlisted Australia’s bestiary of natural freaks in a campaign to convince asylum seekers that they were heading for an ecological nightmare.  A series of videos were produced showing the lethal prowess of crocodiles, sharks and deadly snakes.  Come to Australia, as a summation went, “and you’ll be eaten, bitten or mauled.”[2]

Then immigration minister Philip Ruddock explained that the films, shown on television in Pakistan, Turkey, Jordan, Syria and Iran, used “the most effective messages and images to use overseas while at the same time being sensitive to local cultures and their requirements.”  A true anthropologist.

In the latest production venture, a telemovie, as it is being termed, has been commissioned at the cost of $4 million, ostensibly to target the people smuggling campaign that gets the immigration junta tetchy.  A good portion of those arriving in Australia by boat tend to be products of what Australian officials call a “business model”, enterprising middle men who net the proceeds and pass on the human cargo for unsafe passage.  No reference to international law is ever made in these observations – what matters are the words of repulsion and prevention.

The plot, if the film can be dignified by the use of that term, is bound to consist of the staple terrors.  Asylum seekers will be pictured drowning at sea on route to the land of milk and honey.  The target audiences will be in areas where the choice is between the quick and the dead: Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan.  These are deemed the “source” countries.  Screenings will also be made in transit countries such as Indonesia.

A morally excited producer Trudi-Ann Tierney from Put It Out There Pictures suggested that “the impact this film will have on a person’s decision to attempt a journey by boat to Australia cannot be underestimated”.  It will have such value in that it could help “save people from detention, disappointment and even death.” Such a wonderful, moral mission.

In a statement from Put It Out There Pictures to Lateline, Kierney and her crew insist on excising politics from the equation of human suffering.  “This is about people, not politics.”[3] A prophylactic theme is emphasised, suggesting that the producers are somehow interested in preventing deaths by stifling the exercise of rights to asylum.

As for the use of film, Tierney believes in its force.  “Film educates and engages like no other medium.  It is a powerful and emotional way to explain the complexities of the current policies; the stories it tells moves, connects with its viewers.”  Never mind the quality of what the film conveys – film is the moving reality.

Such institutionally accepted imbecility is the hallmark of many a propaganda unit  – eventually, the producers begin to believe their own faithful messages.  The fiction drugs the maker.  Tierney should know, having herself been behind the Kabul US embassy funded anti-terror program Eagle Four, featuring the fanciful exploits of the Afghan police force.

Basing herself in Afghanistan from 2009, Tierney got into the business of producing that most dreaded of genres, the soapie, with Secrets of this House.[4] Then came her chance in 2010 to air Eagle Four, which sought to deodorise the rather rank police forces of a failed state for a puzzled Afghan populace.  This was a tall order given the common image in circulation of “corrupt, drug-taking thugs.” (Her own words.) In Making Soapies in Kabul(2014), Tierney explained how, “We would be well paid for this particular piece of propaganda.”[5]

The more digging one does behind this venture, and the more fitting the union between Put It Out There Pictures and Canberra seems.  Tierney has no room for politics largely because she is merely an extension of the political establishment that hires her, a fashioned mercenary of the mouthpiece.  As she described her mission in Afghanistan, her production was aimed at, “Influencing (audience)… values and behaviour to suit the objectives of NATO and its allies.”

The ultimate rationale behind this propaganda splurge is self-defeating.  Given a choice between death at the hands of Shia militants, Sunni groups, and stock standard authoritarian regimes, the risk of death at sea shrinks.  The incentive to escape horror is all powerful.  Rather than focusing on efforts at peace building and rehabilitation, the Australian government continues its efforts to win its place in an already crowded moral purgatory.

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

A Russian Su-27 jet intercepted a U.S. RC-135U reconnaissance plane that was closing in on the territory of the Russian Federation. Unable to identify the radar target, the Russian Air Force deployed the interceptor, forcing the U.S.’ plane to change course. Meanwhile, experts stress that the U.S. is acutely aware of Russia’s disadvantage with regards to defending the country against a possible nuclear first strike while both U.S., Russian and NATO nuclear forces remain on hair-trigger alert.

An official spokesman for the Russian Defense Ministry, Gen. Maj. Igor Konashenkov, told the press, on Saturday, that a Russian Su-27 fighter interceptor jet, on April 7,  intercepted the U.S. American RC-135U reconnaissance plane.

The RC-135U was reportedly approaching the territory of the Russian Federation over the Baltic Sea. The Russian Su-27 forced the U.S. plane to change its course.

Gen. Maj. Konashenkov stressed that the American RC-135U, which he described as “spy plane” had shut off its transponder, making it impossible for the Russian radar facilities to identify the plane. Konashenkov would add the reassuring words that “no extraordinary situation occurred” when the Su-27 circled around the RC-135U reconnaissance plane.

He added that it is up to the Russian command to assess the professional qualities of the Russian pilots while the United States’ reconnaissance planes can perform routine flights only along U.S. borders.

The statement came in response to an earlier statement issued by the Pentagon. The U.S. DoD insisted that the RC-135U was performing “a routine flight on April 7″. The Pentagon would also stress that the American plane was “intercepted in an unsafe manner”.

Playing “Chicken” with Nukes on Hair Trigger Alert.

The incident would hardly have been worth mentioning had NATO’s “Partnership for Peace” and NATO’s post cold war assurances not to deploy NATO troops to any of the former Warsaw Pact nations been kept.

Former French Foreign Minister Roland Dumas stressed in an interview with l’Humanité.fr that this understanding was perceived as “the essence of peace”. Dumas’ statement has repeatedly been confirmed and stressed by the last Soviet Head of State Michael Gorbachev. The United States, for its part, insists that this was “only an oral agreement that hadn’t been written down in any treaty”.

If NATO’s eastwards expansion “stressed” relations, the post 2001 change in the United States’ nuclear posture has repeatedly led to situations where relations between the nuclear armed “Partners for Peace”were stressed to the limit.

Thodore Postol, Professor Emeritus of Science, Technology, and National Security Policy, MIT, who has a unique insider perspective into the scientific data that led to the U.S. – Soviet agreement to reduce nuclear weapons during the Reagan Administration warns that the risk of an unwanted nuclear war is today, arguably, greater than it was during the Cuban missile crisis.

Speaking during a symposium on The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction held on February 28 – March 1, 2015 at the New York Academy of Medicine, Dr. Postol stressed that the United States is aware of Russia’s disadvantage with regards to the deployment of satellites which could recognize a possible first strike by the United States or other NATO members. Postol also stressed Russia’s disadvantage with regards to “over the horizon radar” capabilities.

Dr. Postol noted that this situation forces Moscow into a position where it has only minutes to decide whether it is being attacked and whether or not to launch a counter-strike.

He added that the current U.S. policy with regard to Ukraine has led to deteriorating this volatile situation even further.

Postol stressed, unambiguously, that Russia’s disadvantage with regards to a space-based early warning system “is one of the gravest dangers to the United States”.

Other expert speakers at the symposium would stress that the latest climate models clearly show that even a so-called limited nuclear exchange, wanted or unwanted, would have a catastrophic impact on the global climate, leading to the death of billions.

Arguably, on April 7, the Pentagon played “chicken” with Russia, notwithstanding the fact that the immediate result could be “fried chicken” throughout Europe, Russia and the USA; And notwithstanding the fact that a few persons have to make life and death decisions for people throughout the world, within minutes.

CH/L – nsnbc 12.04.2015

Watch the full symposium on “The Dynamics of Possible Nuclear Extinction”, held on February 28 – March 1, 2015 at the New York Academy of Medicine HERE.

Os media financeiros, bem como segmentos dos media alternativos, estão a apontar um possível enfraquecimento do US dólar como divisa do comércio mundial devido à iniciativa dos BRICS (Brasil, Rússia, Índia, China, África do Sul).

Um dos argumentos centrais nestes debate sobre as divisas mundiais em competição repousa na iniciativa dos BRICS de criar um banco de desenvolvimento o qual, segundo analistas, desafia a hegemonia da Wall Street e de Washington baseada nas instituições de Bretton Woods.

O New Development Bank (NDB) do BRICS foi estabelecido para desafiar os dois principais gigantes ocidentais – o Banco Mundial e o Fundo Monetário Internacional. O papel chave do NDB é servir como um fundo (pool) de divisas para projectos de infraestrutura dentro de um grupo de cinco países com grandes economias nacionais a emergirem – Rússia, Brasil, Índia, China e África do Sul. (RT, 09/Outubro/2014, ênfase acrescentada).

Mais recentemente foi enfatizado o papel do novo Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), da China, o qual, segundo informações dos media, ameaça “transferir o controle financeiro global da Wall Street e da City de Londres para os novos bancos e fundos de desenvolvimento de Pequim e Shangai”.

Tem havido um bocado de exagero dos media quanto aos BRICS.

Apesar de a criação do BRICS ter implicações geopolíticas significativas, tanto o AIIB como o proposto banco de desenvolvimento do BRICS (NDB) e seu Esquema de reserva de contingência (Contingency Reserve Arrangement, CRA) são entidades denominadas em dólar. A menos que sejam complementadas por um sistema de comércio e crédito com divisas múltiplas, não ameaçam a hegemonia do dólar. Muito pelo contrário, tendem a apoiar e estender empréstimos denominados em dólar. Além disso, replicam várias características da estrutura de Bretton Woods.

 

Rumo a um esquema de divisas múltiplas? 

Contudo, o que é significativo de um ponto de vista geopolítico é que a China e a Rússia estão a desenvolver um swap rublo-yuan, negociado entre o Banco Central Russo e o Banco Popular da China.

A situação dos outros três estados membros do BRICS (Brasil, Índia, África do Sul) em relação à implementação de swaps de divisas (real, rupia, rand) é bem diferente. Estes três países altamente endividados estão na camisa de força das condicionalidades do FMI-Banco Mundial. Eles não decidem sobre questões fundamentais de política monetária e reforma macroeconómica sem o sinal verde das instituições financeiras internacionais com sede em Washington.

Swaps de divisas dos bancos centrais BRICS foram activados pela Rússia para:

“facilitar o financiamento do comércio e evitar totalmente o dólar. Ao mesmo tempo, o novo sistema actuará também como um substituto de facto do FMI, porque permitirá aos membros da aliança destinarem recursos para financiar os países mais fracos”. (Voice of Russia).

Apesar de a Rússia ter levantado formalmente a questão de um esquema multi-divisas, a estrutura do Banco de Desenvolvimento actualmente não reconhece “oficialmente” uma tal estrutura:

“Estamos a discutir com a China e nossos parceiros BRICS o estabelecimento de um sistema de swaps multilaterais que permitirão transferir recursos para um ou outro país, se necessário. Uma parte das reservas de divisas pode ser destinada a isso [o novo sistema]”. (Governador do Banco Central da Rússia, Junho de 2014, agência de notícias Prime)

A Índia, África do Sul e Brasil decidiram não acompanhar um esquema de múltiplas divisas, o qual teria permitido o desenvolvimento de comércio bilateral e actividades de investimento entre países BRICS, a operarem fora do âmbito do crédito denominado em dólar. De facto eles não têm a opção de adoptar esta decisão em vista das estritas condicionalidades de empréstimos impostas pelo FMI.

Pesadamente endividados e com o fardo dos seus credores externos, todos os três países são pupilos fiéis do FMI-Banco Mundial. Os bancos centrais destes países são controlados pela Wall Street e o FMI. Para eles, entrar num esquema de desenvolvimento bancário “não dólar” ou “anti-dólar”, com múltiplas divisas, exigiria aprovação prévia do FMI.

O Esquema de Reserva de Contingência 

O CRA é definido como uma “estrutura” para proporcionar apoio através de liquidez e instrumentos cautelares em resposta a reais ou potenciais pressões de curto prazo na balança de pagamentos”. ( Russia India Report , 07/Abril/2015). Neste contexto, o fundo CRA não constitui uma “rede de segurança” para países BRICS, ele aceita a hegemonia do US dólar a qual é sustentada por grandes operações especulativas nos mercados de divisas e de commodities. 

No essencial o CRA opera de um modo semelhante a um acordo de empréstimo cautelar do FMI (ex.: Brasil, Novembro de 1998) tendo em vista permitir países altamente endividados manterem a paridade da sua taxa de câmbio com o US dólar, pelo reabastecimento das reservas do banco central através de dinheiro emprestado.

O CRA exclui a opção política do controle cambial por parte dos estados membros do BRICS. No caso da Índia, Brasil e África do Sul, esta opção está em grande medida afastada devido aos seus acordos com o FMI.

O fundo CRA de US$100 mil milhões, denominado em dólares, é uma “bandeja de prata” para “especuladores institucionais” do Ocidente, incluindo o JP Morgan Chase, Deutsche Bank, HSBC, Goldman Sachs et al, os quais estão envolvidos em operações a descoberto (short selling)no mercado Forex. Em última análise, o fundo CRA financiará o ataque especulativo no mercado de divisas.

Neoliberalismo firmemente entrincheirado 

Um esquema que utiliza divisas nacionais ao invés do US dólar exige soberania na política monetária do banco central. Em muitos aspectos, a Índia, Brasil e África do Sul são (do ponto de vista monetário) estados serviçais (proxy) dos EUA, firmemente alinhados com os ditames económicos do FMI-Banco-Mundial-OMC.

Vale a pena recordar que desde 1991 a política macroeconómica da Índia estava sob o controle das instituições de Bretton Woods, com um antigo responsável do Banco Mundial, Dr. Manmohan Singh, a actuar como ministro das Finanças e posteriormente como primeiro-ministro.

Além disso, apesar de a Índia ser um aliado da China e da Rússia no âmbito do BRICS, ela entrou num novo acordo de cooperação com o Pentágono o qual é (não oficialmente) dirigido contra a Rússia e a China. E também está a cooperar com os EUA na tecnologia aeroespacial. A Índia constitui o maior mercado (após a Arábia Saudita) para a venda de sistema de armas estado-unidenses. Todas estas transacções são em dólares.

Analogamente, em 2010 o Brasil assinou com os EUA um acordo de defesa de longo alcance sob o governo de Luís Ignácio da Silva, o qual, nas palavras do antigo administrador-director do FMI, Heinrich Koeller, “É o nosso melhor Presidente”. “…sou entusiasta [da administração Lula]; mas é melhor dizer que estou profundamente impressionado pelo Presidente Lula, realmente, e em particular porque penso que ele tem credibilidade” (IMF Managing Director Heinrich Koeller, Press conference , 10 April 2003 ).

No Brasil, as instituições de Bretton Woods e a Wall Street têm dominado a reforma macroeconómica desde o início do governo de Luís Ignacio da Silva, em 2003. Sob Lula, um executivo da Wall Street foi nomeado governador do Banco Central, o Banco do Brasil estava nas mãos de um antigo executivo do CitiGroup. Se bem que haja divisões dentro do partido dominante, o PT, o neoliberalismo prevalece. A economia e a sociedade no Brasil é em grande parte ditada pelos credores externos do país, incluindo o JPMorgan Chase, Bank America e Citigroup.

Reservas do banco central 

A Índia e o Brasil (juntamente com o México) estão entre os mais endividados países em desenvolvimento do mundo. As reservas cambiais estrangeiras são frágeis. A dívida externa da Índia em 2013 era da ordem de mais de US$427 milhões, a do Brasil era de uns estarrecedores US$482 mil milhões ( World Bank, External Debt Stock, 2013 ). A dívida externa da África do Sul era da ordem dos US$140 mil milhões.

Stock de dívida externa (2013): 

Brasil	US$482 mil milhões
Índia	US$427 mil milhões
África do Sul	US$140 mil milhões

Todos os três países têm reservas nos bancos centrais (incluindo ouro e haveres forexs) que são inferiores às suas dívidas externas. 

Reservas no banco central: 

Brasil	US$359 mil milhões
Índia	US$298 mil milhões
África do Sul	US$50 mil milhões

A situação da África do Sul é particularmente precária, com uma dívida externa quase três vezes superior às reservas do seu banco central.

Isto significa que estes três estados membros dos BRICS estão sob o domínio dos seus credores ocidentais. Suas reservas no banco central são sustentadas por dinheiro emprestado. Suas operações de banco central (ex.: tendo em vista apoiar investimentos internos e programa de desenvolvimento) exigirão tomadas de empréstimos em US dólares. Seus bancos centrais são essencialmente esquemas “currency board”, suas divisas nacionais estão dolarizadas.

O Banco de Desenvolvimento dos BRICS (NDB) 

Em 15 de Julho de 2014 o grupo de cinco países assinou um acordo para criar o Banco de Desenvolvimento BRICS com US$100 mil milhões, juntamente com um fundo em US dólares denominado “reserve currency pool” de US$100 mil milhões. Estes compromissos foram revistos ulteriormente.

Cada um dos cinco países membros “espera-se que atribua uma fatia idêntica de US$50 mil milhões como capital inicial que será expandido para US$100 mil milhões. A Rússia concordou em proporcionar ao banco US$2 mil milhões, a partir do [seu] orçamento federal ao longo dos sete anos seguintes” ( RT , March 9, 2015)

Por sua vez, os compromissos para o Contingency Reserve Arrangement são como se segue:

Brasil	US$18 mil milhões
Rússia	US$18 mil milhões
Índia	US$18 mil milhões
China	US$41 mil milhões
África do Sul	US$5 mil milhões
Total	US$100 mil milhões

Como mencionado anteriormente, Índia, Brasil e África do Sul são países pesadamente endividados com reservas de banco central substancialmente abaixo do nível da sua dívida externa. A sua contribuição para as duas entidades financeiras BRICS pode ser financiada só:

• exaurindo suas reservas do banco central denominadas em dólar e/ou
• financiando suas contribuições para o Banco de Desenvolvimento e o CRA através da contratação de empréstimos, nomeadamente através do agravamento da sua dívida externa denominada em dólar.

Em qualquer dos casos, a hegemonia do dólar prevalece. Por outras palavras, aos credores ocidentais destes países será exigido “contribuírem” directamente ou indirectamente para o financiamento das contribuições denominadas em dólar do Brasil, Índia e África para o banco de desenvolvimento dos BRICS (NDB) e para o CRA.

No caso da África do Sul que tem reservas do Banco Central da ordem dos 50 mil milhões de dólares, a contribuição para o NDB dos BRICS será inevitavelmente financiada por um aumento da dívida externa do país (denominada no US dólar).

Além disso, em relação à Índia, Brasil e África do Sul, sua condição de membros no Banco de Desenvolvimento BRICS foi sem dúvida objecto de negociações a porta fechada com o FMI bem como de garantias de que não se afastariam do “Consenso de Washington” sobre a reforma macroeconómica.

Sob um esquema pelo qual estes países estivessem no pleno controle da política monetária do seus respectivos bancos centrais, as contribuições para o Banco de Desenvolvimento (NDB) seriam atribuídas na divisa nacional, ao invés de em US dólares, sob um sistema multi-divisas. É desnecessário dizer que sob um sistema multi-divisas o fundo de contingência CRA não seria necessário.

As geopolíticas por trás da iniciativa BRICS são cruciais. Se bem que a iniciativa BRICS desde o seu arranque tenha aceite o sistema dólar, isto não exclui a introdução, numa etapa posterior, de um sistema de divisas múltiplas – o que desafiaria a hegemonia do dólar.

Michel Chossudovsky

 

O original encontra-se em www.globalresearch.ca/brics-and-the-fiction-of-de-dollarization/5441301

BRICS and the Fiction of “De-Dollarization”

Traducido por resistir.info

Ver também :

O banco dos BRICS , Prabhat Patnaik, 28/Julho/2014

In this address given on the California Capitol steps in Sacramento Robert Kennedy Jr. provides an inspired and detailed analysis of the extent to which the powerful pharmaceutical cartel has effectively captured the nation’s scientific, regulatory, and law-making processes.

Combined with the corporate news media’s dependence on drug advertising, this has put big pharma in a position where it is running roughshod over informed choice and dictating vaccine policies that have little-if-any basis in scientific research yet will greatly contribute to that industry’s already gargantuan profits.

This is Robert F. Kennedy Jr’s speech at the SB277 rally that took place in Sacramento, California at the State Capitol on April 8, 2015. Cameras and editing by Joshua Coleman. 

Kennedy offers an example of scientist and pediatrician Paul Offit, the developer of the rotavirus vaccine, whose personal stake in vaccine’s development and adoption is emblematic of the monied practices tending to corrupt vaccine science in America today. “In 1999 he sat on the [CDC] committee that added the rotavirus vaccine to the schedule.” Kennedy notes,

At the time he was working on his own rotavirus vaccine. Opening that gateway, by adding that vaccine to the schedule, made his patent extremely valuable. Six years later he sold that patent for $182 million and pocketed about $40 million for himself. So, that kind of financial entanglement by the people to hare deciding what vaccines to add to the schedule makes it difficult, I think, for all of us to think that they only thing they’re thinking of is our children’s health.

He concluded his remarks by emphasizing that legislation such as California’s SB277 takes away the last barrier between the pharmaceutical companies’ bottom line mentality and children’s health–parental discretion itself.

All of the barriers that are meant to protect our children–the government, the lawyers, the regulatory agencies, and the press, the checks and balances in our democratic system that are supposed to stand between corporate power and our little children–have been removed, and there’s only one barrier left, and that’s the parents, and we need to keep that in the equation.

On Saturday, the 7th annual Summit of the Americas concluded in Panama – a longtime US colony. Cuba participated for the first time since the inaugural 1994 event in Miami.

Obama met Cuba’s President Raul Castro – the first meeting between a US president and Cuban leader since the 1950s. More on this below.

Obama wants Washington’s regional imperial grip tightened – unchallenged like since the early 19th century.

Hugo Chavez once said “the American empire is doing all it can to consolidate its system of domination.”

“(W)e cannot allow them to do that. We cannot allow world dictatorship…”

“What type of democracy do you impose with marines and bombs?”

America “doesn’t want peace. It wants to (expand) its system of exploitation, of pillage, of hegemony (worldwide) through war.”

On Friday, thousands of Venezuelans officially presented up to 11 million anti-imperial signatures – collected through a petition denouncing Obama declaring Venezuela an “extraordinary threat (to US) national security and imposing illegal sanctions on its targeted officials.

President Nicolas Maduro called the petition proof of “the history of the people of Simon Bolivar…evoked, and it remains awake and alert.”

“Venezuela is not alone,” he stressed. He presented the petition symbolically to Summit of the America’s participants. He intends sending it to Washington through diplomatic channels.

World leaders cannot “remain silent” about Washington’s treatment of Venezuela, he stressed.

This weekend was the first time all 35 regional presidents attended a Summit of the Americas.

The Havana Times hailed the “historic (Obama/R. Castro) handshake” – explaining profound differences between both countries remain.

Obama insulted Cuba. He met privately with Manuel Cuesta Morua and Laritza Diversen – dissidents Havana calls US-sponsored anti-government “mercenaries.”

A day before Summit of America leaders convened, about 2,000 activists participated in an alternative event in Panama – stressing solidarity against Washington’s longstanding regional imperial grip.

Last December, Obama lied saying Washington “is changing its relationship with the people of Cuba.”

Call it business as usual wrapped in smiles and handshakes. US imperial policy remains unchanged – in Latin America, the Caribbean and worldwide.

Washington alone supports boycotting Cuba. Over half a century of sanctions are illegal.

They have no legitimacy whatever. US policy makers use them with disturbing regularity.

So-called softening US/Cuban relations comes at the same time Congress passed the 2014 Venezuela Defense of Human and Civil Society Act – by voice vote in both houses unanimously.

It imposed illegitimate sanctions on Venezuelan officials. Obama added more unilaterally when he outrageously declared Venezuela a threat to US national security.

It represents the threat of a good example only – one vitally needed worldwide against America’s imperial agenda.

It includes endless wars of conquest and domination, subjugating millions wanting to live free.

In demonizing Venezuela, the world’s leading human rights abuser targeted one of its staunchest defenders.

Longstanding US policy targets all independent nations with regime change.

Thaw in US/Cuban relations appears more mirage than real. Washington wants unchallenged control over its former client state.

Reestablishing diplomatic relations opens Cuba to greater than ever infestation of CIA and other hostile US elements.

The State Department funded National Endowment of Democracy (NED) and other US imperial organizations already support anti-Cuban groups wanting regime change by any means possible.

Obama’s so-called outreach changes nothing. In retirement, 88-year-old Fidel Castro is the world’s preeminent elder statesman.

Last year he said “(g)lobal society has known no peace in recent years.”

Longstanding US imperial policy threatens Cuba “militarily.” It’s brazenly dishonest.

It serves monied interests exclusively. Rule of law principles and democratic rights are verboten.

Obama lied claiming Washington intends “develop(ing) a new relationship” with Cuba.

Why Cuba? Why now? Why at the same time he was caught red-handed plotting coup d’etat in Venezuela?

Why when US/Russian relations are worse than any time during the Cold War – when open conflict between both countries is possible?

Why when America’s homeland police state apparatus targets outspoken anti-war/human rights activists repressively?

Why when Obama is systematically raping Yemen? When he straightaway breached agreed on Iran nuclear program framework terms ahead of a final deal?

Why when nothing indicates a change in longstanding US policy – endless wars for unchallenged global dominance?

Conflicts giving Western corporate predators license to plunder subjugated nations and exploit their people ruthlessly.

A final declaration didn’t follow conclusion of this year’s Summit of the Americas.

Washington and Ottawa opposed including references to strengthening collective rights.

Argentine Foreign Minister Hector Timerman said “no agreement (was reached) on several points, and as a result this summit will not have a final document.”

He called US and Canadian intransigence a “shame.” They opposed inclusion of clauses all other 33 countries supported.

They irresponsibly asserted their imperial arrogance. They demand their rights override all others.

“We oppose the interference of foreign countries in the internal affairs of other countries,” Timerman stressed.

Obama and Maduro met one-on-one at the summit. “We told each other the truth,” Maduro said.

Every regional country opposes US policy toward Venezuela. “We are in an era of new history,” Maduro told summit participants.

US policy is out-of-step, out-of-date and hardline. Nothing indicates positive change.

Longstanding Yankee imperial business as usual continues. Endless wars on humanity remain official US policy.

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. 

Comment: A multicultural city of peace for millennia has been conquered, divided and transformed in the 12 years since US invasion. But Baghdadis are resisting, says Haifa Zangana.

This week we commemorated the massacre of Deir Yassin.

On the anniversary’s eve, I went with a group of Palestinians, Israelis and visitors from abroad to a tour in the village organized by Zochrot, the Israeli group that continues relentlessly to remind Israelis of the crimes committed during the Nakba.

Last year such a visit ended with a violent attack by a local resident of Har Nof — the Jewish ultra-Orthodox neighborhood built on the village’s ruins — so two sulky policemen accompanied us to the site (mainly there to make sure we did not deviate from the path allocated to us). The very hot day probably deterred the usual suspects from a repeat of last year’s aggression.

Three buildings are still standing there: the school, now a yeshiva, and two houses. The rest is covered by ugly cubic buildings, forcing memory and imagination to work hard if you wish to reconstruct the beautiful village standing at the very top of the western slopes of the Jerusalem mountains.

It was one of the first targets of the ethnic cleansing of Palestine that began weeks before the village was attacked.

On 1 April 1948, the Zionist forces that had been given the instruction to cleanse dozens of Palestinian villages from the western side of Jerusalem received a large bundle of orders.

Among them was a directive from the intelligence service of the Hagana depicting every village as an enemy base and anyone above the age of ten as an able fighting male. The villages and the men and children in it were thus considered legitimate military targets to be destroyed and killed.

Dehumanization

In Deir Yassin, women and babies were also not spared. But the importance of the directives lies in the dehumanization of the Palestinians that was integrated into the orders dispatched to troops that in the next ten months or so would massacre thousands of Palestinians and expel almost a million of them (half of the country’s population), demolish their villages and destroy their towns.

This dehumanization also explains why the so-called non-aggression pact the villages signed with their Jewish neighbors and military command in Jerusalem was sinisterly brushed aside once the order to cleanse the region was given to the troops on the ground.

Jews are not different from any other people on this planet. Almost every group of people can be indoctrinated to dehumanize another group of people.

This is how normal Germans were recruited into the death machine of the Nazis, Africans into the genocide in Rwanda and farmers to the killing fields of Cambodia. Even people who claimed to be victims of such dehumanization, as were the Zionist troops of 1948, very keenly engaged in the business of killing babies, as well as old men, in Palestine.

This dehumanization appears now daily in Syria, Iraq, Libya and Yemen.

Journey of Destruction

The world is divided roughly into three responses to the present-day dehumanization. The first is characterized by cynical manipulation of the tragedy by political and economic elites in the West, China and India. There you can find arms traders, financial mavericks and cold-blooded politicians calculating daily how this is going to empower them politically or financially.

The second approach is indifference exercised by the majority of people who could not care less one way or another.

The third approach is genuine human concern and solidarity shown by the conscientious sections of society who wish to do something and get involved.

For all these groups, it is important to stress the link between what happened this week 67 years ago in the village of Deir Yassin and the present day barbarism.

The massacre of Deir Yassin, by no means the worst or the last in the history of Palestine, symbolized what was so unique about the Palestinian plight. Immediately after it occurred, the people who initiated it (the Zionist leadership) blamed their extreme wing for doing it and apologized.

At the same time, they published as widely as possible the news in order to frighten those living at the next locations in their journey of expulsion and destruction. They were about to assault the cities of Palestine and they hoped that the massacre would cause people to flee. It did not work that well; they had to massacre and expel by force the people of the towns throughout the month of April 1948.

Absolving Israel

But the propaganda about the massacre bore success elsewhere. The new state, Israel, was absolved from this and similar massacres — in fact, it has been let off from all the crimes it committed in 1948 and ever since. The immunity granted in April 1948 remains today.

Elsewhere in the Middle East, a different kind of exceptionalism was exercised. Pro-American regimes, unless they went wild, could abuse human and civil rights, while those who were not on the right sight were condemned as rogue states.

Those which had other assets coveted by the US were punished more severely. But even those with an exceptional status in the eyes of Washington were not received as members in the community of civilized nations in the way Israel has been. The exceptionalism there is unique.

It is this exceptionalism that prevents good people in the West to participate in any significant way in the urgent conversation about human and civil rights in the rest of the Middle East.

Everyone should take part in this conversation about barbaric acts committed against the innocent. But everyone who commits such acts should also be targeted in this conversation.

The criminals who have attacked Gaza, the Yarmouk refugee camp, the Yazidi villages in the north of Iraq and the bombardiers of Aleppo and operators of drones in Pakistan should not be exonerated in any way; they should all be brought before the International Criminal Court, or similar tribunals.

Justice should be demanded for all their victims.

When this will happen we could come back to Deir Yassin, knowing that some sort of justice was served to people who have been victims of crimes not yet acknowledged, let alone punished.

The author of numerous books, Ilan Pappe is professor of history and director of the European Centre for Palestine Studies at the University of Exeter.

On Mar. 24, US president Barack Obama announced that all 9,800 US troops currently stationed in Afghanistan will remain until the end of 2015. This generated a fair amount of criticism: it was, after all, Obama’s promise that the last American troop would leave the country in 2014.

How have Obama’s plans for pulling out of Afghanistan fared so far?

http://t.co/avoxwJzzQw pic.twitter.com/3S5FJ3lgho

— FiveThirtyEight (@FiveThirtyEight) March 26, 2015

 

Those expecting the US to leave Afghanistan, however, should take a minute to consider this: the US still hasn’t left Germany. In fact, there are quite a few places the US hasn’t left, and while certainly most of them don’t pose a threat to American soldiers, they reveal a pattern about the US staying, rather than leaving.

According to official information provided by the Department of Defense (DoD) and its Defense Manpower Data Center (DMDC) there are still about 40,000 US troops, and 179 US bases in Germany, over 50,000 troops in Japan (and 109 bases), and tens of thousands of troops, with hundreds of bases, all over Europe. Over 28,000 US troops are present in 85 bases in South Korea, and have been since 1957.

Altogether, based on information contained in the DoD’s latest Base Structure Report (BSR), the US has bases in at least 74 countries and troops practically all over the world, ranging from thousands to just one in some countries (it could be a military attaché, for instance).

By comparison, France has bases in 10 countries, and the UK has bases in seven.

Calculating the extent of the US military presence abroad is not an easy task. The data released by the Department of Defense is incomplete, and inconsistencies are found within documents. Quartz has requested clarification from the Department of Defense, but hasn’t received a response.

In his forthcoming book Base Nation: How US Military Bases Abroad Harm America and the World, David Vine, associate professor of anthropology at American University details the difficulties of assessing the US military presence abroad. He writes:

according to the most recent publicized count, the U.S. military currently still occupies 686 “base sites” outside the fifty states and Washington, DC.

While 686 base sites is quite a figure in its own right, that tally strangely excludes many well-known U.S. bases, like those in Kosovo, Kuwait, and Qatar. Less surprisingly, the Pentagon’s count also excludes secret (or secretive) American bases, like those reported in Israel and Saudi Arabia. There are so many bases, the Pentagon itself doesn’t even know the true total.

That is not the only issue—even a definitive count of bases would include a wide range of facilities. “Base” itself is an umbrella term that includes locations referred to as “post,” “station,” “camp,” or “fort” by different military bodies. Vine explains:

bases come in all sizes and shapes, from massive sites in Germany and Japan to small radar facilities in Peru and Puerto Rico. […] Even military resorts and recreation areas in places like Tuscany and Seoul are bases of a kind; worldwide, the military runs more than 170 golf courses.

The map below represents US military bases abroad, according to the official BSR, and from independent research conducted by Vine (and Quartz) using verified news reports as well as cross-referencing information with Google Maps. This map does not take into account NATO bases, including a rumored base in Turkmenistan and a base in Algeria, reported by Wikileaks to be a suspected US base.

 

Most of the countries appear to have a small concentration of US bases (below 10). That’s compared to Germany’s 179, Puerto Rico’s 37, or Italy’s 58. The largest military footprint remains in countries that the US invaded in WWII, while its presence in areas of more recent contention, such as the Middle East, is somewhat reduced, at least in terms of bases.

It has been noted by commentators before that not all the bases are of significant size. However, given the information available it’s hard to truly gauge the size of the different installation. Vine writes:

The Pentagon says that it has just 64 “active major installations” overseas and that most of its base sites are “small installations or locations.” But it defines “small” as having a reported value of up to $915 million. In other words, small can be not so small.

The information about troops abroad, too, isn’t completely clear, which makes it difficult to know the true extent of the American military footprint. IHS Jane’s armed forces analyst Dylan Lehrke told Quartz that it’s hard to even settle on the definition of military presence—for the government, that means bases or deployed troops, although it would seem acceptable to include other forms of presence:

Surely one could say that the US has a military presence in Syria at the moment. They may not have bases and troops on the ground but we should include the warplanes in the sky. The US military arguably has more presence in Syria than it does in Germany […]. To take this idea further, it would also be rational to say the US has a military presence wherever it uses unmanned aerial vehicles to strike targets.

All the countries that have some sort of American military presence—from one military attaché to the troops involved in Iraq and Afghanistan—essentially results in highlighting pretty much the entire world (Russia included, where the DoD reports having 24 military personnel).

Taking into account a sizable troop presence, existence of bases, and whether the US is conducting drone strikes (Yemen, Syria, Pakistan) in a country results in the geographic representation of US military power abroad as below:

The following text is translated from Russian. It points to the total lack of support for the Kiev regime, as well as the implementation of an all encompassing Neo-Nazi Police State apparatus, based on fear, intimidation and racism, directed not only against the Russian speaking population: Ukrainians who oppose the government and exercise free speech can be arrested,  journalists are arrested and disappeared.  

by Anatoly Karlin

The following leaflets are being spread in Slavyansk, a once focal point of the Donbass resistance that was recaptured by Ukrainian forces in July last year:

Translation:

How to recognize your typical separatist?

• Calls for the entry of Russian troops or suggests surrendering to Russia.
• Propagandizes Russian symbols and spreads the idea of the “Russian world.”
• Denigrates the values of the Ukrainian people, expresses doubts about the fact of the existence of the Ukrainian nation, Ukrainian language, etc.
• Spreads rumors about the non-existent threats to the Russian language or Russian speakers in Ukraine.
• Denigrates Ukrainian state symbols – the flag, national anthem, coat of arms, etc.
• Praises the so-called DNR and LNR.
• Protests against military mobilization.
• Initiates events in which people call for overthrow of the government and mass riots.
• Spreads lies and inflames interethnic hatred (racism, xenophobia, anti-Semitism).
• Promotes fear, panic, and defeatist attitudes.

A SEPARATIST IS EVEN SOMEONE WHO AGITATES AGAINST MOBILIZATION OR AWAITS PUTIN’S ARRIVAL! Punishment: 7-12 years imprisonment (Article 110 of the Ukrainian Criminal Code).

If you have encountered a case of separatism, please call the SBU or the government hotline and record the evidence on your phone, video recorder, photo camera.

0 800 507 309 – Government hotline

0 800 501 482 – SBU hotline

Toll free from landline phones.

Useless to argue the morals of this; it is justified or not depending on your particular partisan sympathies and the consistency of any convictions you might have on free speech, etc. So I won’t bother.

I will however make a few wider points:

1) The utter hypocrisy (and hardheaded practicality) of a regime that came to power through an illegal coup on a wave of mass riots now banning the same thing that got them into power in the first place. And of course the incredibly hardline restrictions on free speech implicit in all this, which are and will continue to be abused (Your neighbor’s dog is too loud? Maybe he’s a separatist!).

Lest one think this all just talk, consider the case of Ruslan Kotsaba, a (West Ukrainian!) journalist arrested for making a video in which he came out against mobilization, which is strictly speaking without legal basis during a time in which war has not been declared, i.e. up till now. He faces up to 15 years in prison. This is just what is probably the most visible case; there have been sackings, denunciations, business shakedowns, arrests, and imprisonments for non violent expressions of different opinion (or allegations of such) on a scale that would have saved Yanukovych’s “bloody regime” had he been even a tenth as ruthless.

2) A corrolary is that the results of opinion polls, which generally show drastic declines in attitudes towards Russia, while certainly real at some level, surely overstate the level of the decline. If you live in Kharkov and some unknown person phoned you and asked you for your opinions on Crimea then you’d have to be fairly brave or at least confident that you are dealing with an ethical pollster before voicing any opinion that goes against the Maidan party line.

3) As the Ukrainian economy plummets into the abyss with a helping hand from the IMF, the incidence of repressions (of which witchhunts for separatists is but a part) is ratcheting up and this process will continue further because after all they will have all been organized by Russia. After all, what possible valid reason could a pensioner with skyrocketing heating bills and devalued savings living on $50 a month have for opposing the oligarchs who rule Ukraine? And with the regime having promoted plenty of Neo-Nazis to positions of power, who’ll be happy enough to crack heads while the money continues flowing.

The fact that the regime is driven to such repressive measures is an indication that it does not enjoy firm and overwhelming support from the population. With things likely to get much worse before they get better, it is only a matter of time before the regime will have to drop what remains of its liberal democracy European values facade.

Copyright Anatoly Karlin the Unz Review, 2015